Search

A study was conducted to determine the effects of age, verbal ability, education, reading habits, and recall strategies on prose recall among adults. Subjects were 422 adults in three age groups--young (18-28 years), middle (40-54), and older (62-80). They were asked to read and recall in writing two 388-word prose passages and to answer questions about their background reading habits and recall strategies. The results indicated that while increasing age was associated with a decrease in recall, both verbal ability and education were better predictors of recall than was age. In addition, a recall strategy factor representing "paragraph by paragraph" retrieval produced the highest simple correlations with total recall and contributed significantly to the explanation of other recall measures. Reading habit factors associated with recall reflected subjects' self-assessment as good and frequent readers as well as their need to know information. The reading and recall strategy factors proved to be better predictors of recall than the reading habit factors. While the findings confirmed the expectation that more practiced readers will recall more, the results also made it possible to refine understanding of the relationship between recall and reading experience. They also suggested that training in the use of reading and recall strategies may be used to improve recall in all age groups. (Extensive tables of data are appended.) (HTH)

A study examined how the text variables of organizational plan (top-level structure), emphasis plan (implemented through signalling devices), and presence of details influenced the selection of reading strategies by adults. Subjects--149 young, middle aged, and older expert readers--read and recalled in writing two expository prose passages of 388 words each. The results indicated that when the author's emphasis plan corresponded with his or her organizational plan, the readers were more likely to use a "structure strategy" in their processing. This resulted in recalls that were organized in the same manner as the original passage, showed a strong levels effect, and contained many of the logical relationships from the original text. In contrast, when the author's emphasis plan was in conflict with the organization plan (a "differential" emphasis plan), readers tended to use a "default strategy" of simply listing what they could remember or to devise other strategies. These recalls were less likely to be organized by the same plan used by the author, showed little or no levels effect, and contained fewer logical relationships than those from passages with normal emphasis plans. In addition, the presence of specific details was found to affect the processing strategies of readers under certain conditions. No significant differences were found in recall performances among the three age groups. (Passages used in the study are appended.) (Author/FL)

Discourse can be organized in many different ways, two of these being comparison and a collection of descriptions. These two discourse types correspond to schemata that vary in their organizational components, and these differences can be expected to produce differences in the processing of text. For example, research has shown that for young adults of high verbal ability, the more organized discourse type--comparison--yields better recall of information than does the less organized type--collection--for descriptions of a topic. A study was conducted to explore the view that the learning of information from discourse can be enhanced by matching its organization to the learner's prevalent learning strategy. The subjects, 40 young, 38 middle aged, and 40 old adults, completed a demographic survey, health questionnaire, survey of reading habits, and the Quick Word Test. Scores on the word test indicated that approximately half the subjects in each age group were high verbal and half were average verbal. Subjects read especially constructed passages with different discourse structures and responded to recall questions. Results showed that the comparison structure yielded superior recall for all age groups. No interaction was found, however, among discourse type, age, and verbal ability. (Passages used in the study are included in the text.) (FL)