The effects of levels of processing on retention of word meaning

Levels of Processing 2 The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of the three encoding techniques of rote memory, semantic, and self-reference, on short-term and long-term retention levels of unfamiliar vocabulary words and their meanings. Seventy-two college students participated in the experiment, with 24 students in each encoding group. All participants viewed 20 target words and their definitions, and were exposed to each word for 30 seconds. Each group was given instructions designed to promote a type of encoding specific to their group. After a five-minute distractor task, subjects were given a list of the target words and were tested on the recall of the definitions of those words. A retest was administered after one week. As hypothesized, encoding by self-reference produced significantly higher scores than encoding by semantic strategies or by rote memory. It was concluded that encoding by self-reference may lead to higher short-term and long-term retention levels of the meanings of unfamiliar nouns and adjectives. Levels of Processing 3 The Effect of Levels of Processing on Retention of Word Meanings Much contemporary research has been concerned with exploring the idea that the cognitions of an individual, and the manner in which they are organized, are important determinants of information processing. Beginning with Kelly's (1955) ideas concerning personal constructs, researchers have studied the individual's cognitive network and its effect on analysis and memory of information. Broadbent (1958) was one of the first to view humans as processors of information. The essential concept of his multistore model is that information is transformed from one store to another. Supporters of the multistore model (Waugh & Norman, 1965; Murdock, 1967; Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Shulman, 1971) are in agreement concerning the existence of three separate stages of verbal memory and the relative capacity and features of each. The proponents of the multistore model also agree that information must pass through sensory registers to short-term storage (STS) in order to reach long-term storage (LTS). On the other hand, Craik and Lockhart (1972) stated that while the multistore methods that explain information processing are specific and concrete, there Levels of Processing 4 are weaknesses in the models. Tulving and Patterson (1968) argued against the idea that information passes from one store to another, and Shallice and Warrington (1970) presented evidence against the idea that information must always pass through STS to enter LTS. Craik and Lockhart (1972) rejected the multistore model as the explanation for information processing, arguing that aspects not recognized by the multistore model are important in attaining retention in LTS. While proponents of the multistore model state that the amount and mode of information presented, as well as the time given to study it are important variables in effecting LTS, they hypothesized that familiarity, compatibility, and meaningfulness of material presented to an individual were also important determinants of information processing and retention. More specifically, they suggest that memory trace persistence is a function of depth of analysis, with deeper levels of processing resulting in stronger and longer-lasting traces. Craik and Lockhart's (1972) framework for levels of processing is strengthened by prior research results. Tresselt and Mayzner (1960) used three different encoding strategies in order to induce incidental learning; they found that subjects who were Levels of Processing 5 induced to use semantic encoding by categorizing words recalled four times as many words as those who were given the structural encoding task of crossing out all vowels in the presented words and twice as many words as did subjects who were instructed to copy the words. Results of experiments by Hyde and Jenkins (1969) and Johnston and Jenkins (1971) showed that incidental free recall and organization of lists of highly associated word pairs which were semantically encoded by subjects was equivalent to the rate of recall of a control group, who had been instructed to learn the word pairs. The rate of recall of both of these groups was found to be much higher than that of an incidental group which had been given a structural encoding task. Mandler (1967) found that the amount of incidental learning obtained by categorizing words, a semantic encoding task, was similar to the amount of intentional learning (subjects were told that their recall of the words would be tested) by subjects who performed the same encoding task. Bobrow and Bower (1969) studied levels of processing as related to encoding of sentences, and found that tasks that induced semantic processing of sentences yielded a higher level of recall of words than did tasks including shallower levels of processing. Research by Schulman (1971) confirmed Levels of Processing 6 previous findings; he instructed subjects to scan a list for target words described either by physical characteristics, such as containing a specific letter, or by category, such as the word representing a living thing. Scanning time for words was not significantly different between groups, but recall of words was much higher for the semantic-oriented group than for the group who had engaged in structural orienting tasks. Craik and Tulving (1975) designed ten experiments to explore the levels of processing framework proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972). Words were encoded by methods designed to obtain three levels of processing. Shallow levels of processing were obtained by asking questions about the physical characteristics of the words, such as "is the word typed in capital letters? " or "write the consonant/vowel combination of the word. ". Intermediate levels of processing were obtained by asking about the rhyming characteristics of target words, such as, "does this word rhyme with ~~~~~~~ ? ". Deeper levels of processing were achieved by asking if a word would fit into a particular category or sentence frame, such as "does this word represent a living thing? ". Since intention and effort to learn, task difficulty, and amount of rehearsal time were held constant, the results of these Levels of Processing 7 experiments confirmed previous findings by Craik and Lockhart (1972) and Craik and Watkins (1973) that the elaborateness of encoding improves retention. That is, if encoding is more elaborate, the information should be processed more deeply, thus yielding better memory performance. While the majority of research concerned with levels of processing has been conducted using college students as subjects and has been short-term in duration, the research that has been concerned with finding successful strategies for learning the meaning of vocabulary words has been long-term and has used, for the most part, elementary school children as subjects. A long-term study by Gipe (1978) attempted to teach word meanings to 113 third-graders and 108 fifth-graders. The control group used the method of looking in the dictionary in order to find the meaning of the target words. The association group paired the unknown (target) words with a familiar synonym or brief definition, such as "colossal (target word) = large". The category group added the target word to a list of three familiar words, for example, "huge, large, gigantic, colossal". The context group utilized the target word in meaningful sentences. The target word was used in a three-sentence passage where each Levels of Processing 8 sentence used the target word in a defining context. Evaluation tasks were given at the end of each of the eight weeks of the study. The context method was consistently found to be the most effective method in every analysis made, regardless of age, sex, or reading proficiency (all subjects were categorized as a good or poor reader prior to the experiment) of the subject. Beck, Perfetti and McKeown (1982) conducted a five-month research project, using forth-grade students as subjects, designed to study the relationship between knowledge of word meanings and semantic processes. Experimental subjects were exposed to various semantic encoding methods, such as being presented with target words both within categories and in the context of sentences. Post-tests compared performances of the experimental subjects and control subjects who had been matched with the experimental subjects in pre-instruction vocabulary knowledge and comprehension, and the results indicated that experimental subjects had made significant gains in both areas. These results led Beck et al. (1982) to conclude that processing vocabulary words and their definitions at a semantic level leads to an easier understanding of word meanings that can improve reading comprehension. Levels of Processing 9 A study by Rash, Johnson and Gleadow (1984) provided evidence to support previous findings concerning the effectiveness of semantic processing. They presented eight target words to two groups of kindergarten children, where one group was shown each target word alone and the other group was shown each target word in the context of two meaningful sentences. While both groups learned the words and their meanings, the group that had been presented with the words in context learned in significantly less time. Results of these studies imply that deeper levels of processing are effective in promoting better short-term and long-term vocabulary knowledge as well as improving reading comprehension. The previous findings have stimulated further research concerning levels of processing. Rogers, Kuiper and Kirker (1977) investigated the role of self-reference in encoding hypothesizing that while past studies had found that semantic encoding did lead to deeper processing and to a higher level of retention of information, self-reference would lead to even deeper processing. Citing previous research by Cantor and Mischel (1977), who fou