Presentation modality effects in studying passages. Are mental images always effective

The present research has tested the different efficacy of imagery-based and verbally-based strategies in the study of three passages presented orally or in written form. The first passage was a description rich in easily imagined details. The second was an abstract passage, easy to verbalize, but not to imagine. The third was the spatial description of a pathway which could be both imagined and verbalized. Experiment 1 compared participants who were instructed in the use of Imagery or verbal Rehearsal while in Experiment 2 participants had high or low imagery ability. A facilitating effect of oral presentation for Imagery and high-imagery ability groups and of written presentation for Rehearsal and low imagery-ability groups were hypothesized. Data confirmed this facilitating effect and showed that it was more evident for the easier-to-imagine passages. Results are discussed in a selective interference and working memory framework. Future implications and practical suggestions are given. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles , 1988 .

[2]  Rossana De Beni,et al.  Memory for discourse: Loci mnemonics and the oral presentation effect , 1991 .

[3]  Jack J. Kramer,et al.  Naive mnemonics: what the «do-nothing» control group does , 1983 .

[4]  B. Sodian,et al.  Memory strategy development: Lessons from longitudinal research , 1997 .

[5]  R. Beni.  Learning from Texts or Lectures: Loci Mnemonics can Interfere with Reading but not with Listening , 1997 .

[6]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity , 1999 .

[7]  A. Richardson-Klavehn,et al.  Maintenance rehearsal affects knowing, not remembering; elaborative rehearsal affects remembering, not knowing , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[8]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction , 1999 .

[9]  Janet G. van Hell,et al.  Keyword Mnemonics Versus Rote Rehearsal: Learning Concrete and Abstract Foreign Words by Experienced and Inexperienced Learners , 1997 .

[10]  M. Farah.  Is visual imagery really visual? Overlooked evidence from neuropsychology. , 1988, Psychological review.

[11]  Marc Marschark,et al.  Imagery and organization in the recall of prose , 1985 .

[12]  Mark Sadoski,et al.  Effects of Rote, Context, Keyword, and Context/Keyword Methods on Retention of Vocabulary in EFL Classrooms , 2000 .

[13]  R. Logie.  Visuo-Spatial Processing in Working Memory , 1986, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[14]  R. Mayer,et al.  A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in Working Memory , 1998 .

[15]  J. Richardson.  The availability and effectiveness of reported mediators in associative learning: A historical review and an experimental investigation , 1998 .

[16]  L. Brooks.  Spatial and verbal components of the act of recall. , 1968 .

[17]  L. Brooks.  An Extension of the Conflict between Visualization and Reading , 1970 .

[18]  L. Brooks.  The Suppression of Visualization by Reading , 1967, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  J. Cavanaugh,et al.  Metamemories of memory researchers , 1990, Memory & cognition.