Browsing by Author "Thomas, Diane"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Schema utilization in readers of varying abilities(1980) Thomas, Diane; Malin, Jane T.; Cofer, Charles N.; Doughtie, Eugene B.; Foorman, Barbara R.An attempt was made to replicate and extend Mandler and Johnson's (1977) study in which simple stories were parsed according to a model story grammar system and the recall protocols obtained from subjects were analyzed for omissions and errors. Mandler and Johnson reported that the pattern of omissions and errors obtained during recall could be predicted on the basis of story grammar considerations. The results of the present study indicated that processing variables such as the mode in which the story is presented to subjects as well as subjects' level of reading comprehension ability can affect the pattern of omissions and errors obtained from subjects during recall. These results are not well accounted for by models that stress the importance of story structure as a prime determinant of recall. A more specific scoring system than that presented by Mandler and Johnson was developed for this study, and this system made it possible to examine the nature of the observed processing differences more closely. Subjects who listened to a taped version of the story before recall had a difficult time recalling the story. They tended to add material that acted as "filler" at places where their memory for the actual story was weak. There was a slight tendency to add or replace propositions to make the story more meaningful at times during recall. Subjects who read a printed version of the story did not have as much difficulty recalling the story and tended to condense individual story propositions into summary statements during recall. When propositions were added or changed, the better readers tended to make changes that added to the cohesion or meaningfulness of the story more often than did readers of lesser ability. Better readers were hypothesized to have more sensitivity to both grammatical structure and content of story material and to be superior at implementing inferential processes to organize recall than readers of less ability.Item Structure, process, and individual differences in the comprehension and recall of prose(1981) Thomas, Diane; Malin, Jane T.; Cofer, Charles N.; Doughtie, Eugene B.; Foorman, Barbara R.; Vroulis, GeorgeThe issue of how individuals understand and remember information from prose passages has been a topic of interest in psychology since Bartlett's pioneering work. Remembering, was published in 1932. The concept of remembering as an active, constructive process that is guided by abstract, organizational frameworks or "schemata" has become familiar now, and many psychologists are interested in investigating the nature of these schemata and in specifying how they are implemented during retrieval. Handler and Johnson (1977, 79) have proposed that retrieval schemata for prose are based on subjects' shared knowledge about the well-formedness of stories, and on ideal, rule-governed relations existing between individual story propositions. They propose that these syntactic schemata are major determinants of a subject's recall output. They report that subjects make predictable omissions and errors in recall when the actual text does not conform to the specifications of the ideal story grammar. The present study was designed to test this model further and to explore the effect of two processing variables, the mode of presentation of the story material (ORAL and WRITTEN) and subjects' reading ability level, on memory for prose passages. Two types of stories, a simple, relatively well-formed work and a longer, ambiguous passage were used as stimulus materials. An analysis of the recall protocols was was made with respect to the frequency of errors and omissions made by subjects in recalling both story types. The results were considered in the light of Handler and Johnson's pre dictions about recall. An expanded and more rigorous recall scoring system than that utilized by Handler and Johnson (1977) was developed for this purpose. This system allows for scoring categories that include attempts by the recaller to increase the coherence and meaningfulness of the story during recall as well as scoring for categories of omissions and errors. Data on inter and intra-rater reliability using this system are also reported. The results of the present study did not support the predictions made by Handler and Johnson (1977, 79) concerning subjects' recall performance. Recall performance was affected by the mode in which the prose materials were presented and by individual competencies in processing information in a given mode. These results are not wel1-accounted for by syntactic structural models such as the one proposed by Handler and Johnson (1977, 79), and other models that do consider task demands, processing capacity, and individual abilities to organize information were found to be better predictors of recall performance. The present system of scoring recall protocols was also used to explore the nature of the processing differences across modes of presentation and within groups who differ in their ability to comprehend material in the written mode. A model of the way in which readers and listeners attempt to meet processing demands was proposed based on the characteristic omissions and errors made by each group during recall. The differences noted between readers of varying skill levels was explored in a similar way. These differences seemed to involve the ability of better readers to hierarchically organize the story propositions and to construct coherent macrostructures even in the absence of coherence in the text base. Poor readers were less skilled at using information in the text to "fill in the gaps" in text structure and did not appear to be able to organize important elements of the text to facilitate recall. Educational procedures to enhance these skills in poor readers were suggested. The usefulness of employing the present scoring system to discriminate cognitive processing differences in clinical subject populations was also considered.