A Time for Telling


1 A Time for Telling Author(s): Daniel L. Schwartz and John D. Bransford Source: Vol. 16, No. 4 (1998), pp. 475-522 Cognition and Instruction, Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233709 . Accessed: 10/04/2013 15:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] . Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cognition and Instruction. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2 AND 475-522 COGNITION INSTRUCTION, 16(4), Erlbaum Inc. Lawrence Associates, 1998, Copyright ? A for Time Telling L. Daniel D. Bransford John and Schwartz Center Learning Technology Vanderbilt University for text often knowl- understanding prescribe prior improving activating Suggestions that a be if students the relevant do not have may edge, prescription problematic prior In this we with. about to research describe a de- for method article, knowledge begin a that to students text or lecture. We from learn prepares knowledge veloping prior that can cases the differentiated learners analyzing contrasting generate help propose that them structures a text to understand enable dis- the knowledge Noticing deeply. cases a "time between creates tinctions for are learners contrasting telling"; prepared the of the be told distinctions to have discovered. In 3 classroom significance they students that of cases ex- consisted studies, analyzed contrasting college simplified classic from data then re- and designs perimental psychology experiments. They a lecture ceived the or text on the in phenomena psychological highlighted experi- ments. week the students a outcomes for later, 1 Approximately predicted in could be that had of the hypothetical experiment concepts interpreted light they studied. the and then distinctions a cases between text Generating contrasting reading a lecture to more accurate led or the control treatments than of (a) hearing predictions distinctions between the cases the a about and summariz- lecture, (b) reading hearing a text and a and relevant the twice cases lecture, (c) ing analyzing hearing contrasting a lecture. We the without that cases increased argue receiving analyzing contrasting abilities to that students' features of differentiated classes discern specific psycholog- a ical as botanist can much a of flower. This phenomena, distinguish subspecies given differentiated the students to understand an knowledge prepared deeply explanation the of when it was relevant These to them. results principles presented psychological inform models of instruction as constructivist can to classroom activities they apply and In verbal materials. from results indicate that the there is a learning particular, if in lectures have and classroom the students for differen- place readings sufficiently tiated in to use the a domain materials manner. generative knowledge expository for Daniel should be sent to L. Box Schwartz, Center, Requests reprints Technology Learning TN Vanderbilt 37203. E-mail: 45-GPC, [email protected] Nashville, University, This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

3 476 BRANSFORD SCHWARTZ AND a to of when theoretical and is of this The article to begin exploration goal empirical the within use total and of instructional texts, lectures, explanations repertoire when These demonstrate have had an methods. students that, experiments opportu- to about a well-differentiated then domain, knowledge teaching generate nity can or an This be effective form of a lecture text re- instruction. extremely through on because it focuses is search the are to which there degree important explicitly a indicative of that for of or a are "time telling" points knowledge development for told "readiness" something. being in a time for are relevant of context to the Issues important telling especially the active of learn- models construction constructivist that emphasize knowledge by models are often Constructivist to transmission models that ers. assume compared a or it transmitted to a that them teacher students by having knowledge by acquire and at Vanderbilt text 1992; Brown, [CTGV], Group Cognition Technology (e.g., of areas Scardamalia There surround- confusion are & 1996; Bereiter, 1991). many A of for source theories instruction. and constructivist major their ing implications involves constructivist about relations between confusion of theories assumptions confusions and theories for instruction. These the can of those implications knowing be the continuum: clarified considering following by +-4 Total Total Teacher Control Student Control far refer the to that constructivist Some assume primarily approaches people in- to a demand the of left continuum hence, and, "discovery learning" approach Most new which students teacher in domains without struction guidance. explore this view on an that constructivists and, instead, argue reject emphasis explicitly a of theoriz- is not constructivist unconstrained necessary implication discovery and "scaffolded of that A number studies show "guided discovery" inquiry" ing. for than Brown much unconstrained effective more are & (e.g., discovery learning Littlefield et & al., 1961; Brown, CTGV, 1996; 1994; 1988). Gagn6 Campione, view as- than the unaided is the extreme Less more (and discovery prevalent) of that and refer left half to the the continuum models constructivist that sumption a is In our this to too refer models transmission the view, misconception. right. is a one that whether of refers to Constructivism growth knowledge operates theory a or or to a lecture still and whether one is listening sitting reading actively exploring of ac- kinds the on for focuses The constructivists book Cobb, 1994). question (e.g., new themselves. for best construct to tivities needed Often, knowledge people help students to best the or not a text is the a lecture to of act help reading way listening need. what students be At other new this construct times, exactly may knowledge. One there that we are times for Elsewhere 1997), telling. (CTGV, conjectured a with wealth of enter a situation students occurs when background learning Con- solutions. seek for which the a clear and of sense they knowledge problems victorious most the a that coaches. football for clinic for sider, Imagine example, This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4 A TIME TELLING FOR 477 before the and tells his of decade the of secrets coach stands victory. group past We that this of anticonstructivist? make method this is him Does teaching argued level of audience that the to the situa- the brings understanding given appropriate can extensive Because the coaches of rele- their the tion. grasp easily experiences, what be to can The the of has because it vance meaningful speaker say. speech that the of de- situations into the coaches have already problem knowledge maps veloped. of is an there In absence that features educational are however, settings, many not clinic. Students often have at a had the to coaches' opportunity experi- present rendered are teach we the ence the that of solvable knowledge by types problems is these we not the them. that Under to conditions, way optimal telling conjecture occurs without When students new construct readiness, knowledge. telling help for ends students is to treat the new information as recourse to be mem- the primary than tools them think. orized rather to and as perceive help is for them students One acti- common to for telling help preparing procedure a a lecture before vate read relevant text or listen to they prior knowledge (e.g., are numerous There demonstrations 1984; Beck, 1968; Ausubel, 1981). Karplus, of on and effects of and theories about mem- the comprehension knowledge prior Bransford & Britton & & 1972; 1996; Johnson, Graesser, Dooling ory (e.g., Kintsch et & 1971; al., 1993; McNamara, Lachman, Frase, 1975; Kintsch, Songer, & to the 1996; Vesonder, Kintsch, However, Voss, 1980). attempt Spilich, help that have students activate the knowledge presupposes they already prior acquired in if first What have the not? One relevant is prior knowledge place. they approach involves This them tell needed the for a time to procedure knowledge. "creating more doing telling telling." by "more be ineffective is that One reason lec- and texts many may why telling" is not a level differentiated tures that of available to nov- knowledge presuppose Under these can novices in understand think ices. conditions, when, easily they & missed distinctions have Bransford Nitsch, 1978). they reality, (e.g., important "The the consider a statement: dressmaker used the As example, following simple is cut the to for the dress." This statement to understandable cloth scissors most on If asked a an can and to elaborate it, image they easily imagine generate people. to a scissors cut some and can to them- of cloth, pair explain person they using for will what be selves their However, might why dressmaking. cutting important of A will scissors be like? the scissors have dressmaker's a more expert concept differentiated of than casual scissors most finely comprehenders. Experts concept scissors understand different features of for the many possible adapted purposes be for would able de- to to novices, 1). (see Figure example, experts Compared a the the scissors used scribe of would and under- structure dressmaker, they by as the of features such stand a and flat its If edge cutting advantages. significance a someone asked an to new of the would scissors, pair purchase expert expert ask the A novice's knowl- exact needed. of scissors to likely type clarify questions This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

5 B A C D E Structure Function a. Dressmaker's shears Because of use Heavy heavy One hole than other Two or three will fit in larger fingers larger hole-- allows steadiness cuts one as cloth greater surface flat on Blades off-center and Blade can rest on table surface cloth as is aligned with finger-hole steadiness edge greater cut-again, b. Barber's shears To cut thin for Very hair material, sharp example, Pointed Permits blades close to to and to snip scalp small strands of hair very snip Hook on hole for A rest one which allows scissors finger finger, be to when held at various supported angles-hence, greater maneuverability c. Pocket or children's scissors Blunt ends Scissors can be carried in without pocket children can handle cloth; through cutting without themselves or others poking Short blades Allow control the motor greater by gross movements of the child to cut just learning d. Nail scissors Wide and thick at To withstand from thick pivot point pressure cutting and that nails is, materials, rigid curved blades To cut curved nails Slightly slightly e. Cuticle scissors To cut for materials, Very sharp blade semielastic example, of skin cuticles curved blades Small, allow To to cut maneuverability necessary small curved area extension from holes As for short Long neces- blades, finger compensation to for joint holding. sary 1 FIGURE Differentiated structures From "A help knowledge appreciate properties. specific a of Sketch D. to and J. Bransford N. S. in McCarrell, Comprehension," by Approach Cognitive the and edited W. Weimer D. and S. Processes, 1974, Palermo, Cognition Symbolic by NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Inc. 1974 Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- Hillsdale, Associates, by Copyright Inc. with ciates, Adapted permission. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

6 TIME A TELLING FOR 479 less would the novice be be less would however, hence, differentiated; edge, likely to and less and elaborate that to would likely correctly imagine generate questions which semantic in of scissors to (for flexibility clarify purchase examples compre- a R. as hension see & C. of context and function Anderson 1975; expertise, Ortony, & McCarrell, Franks, Bransford, Nitsch, 1974). Barclay, The differentiated of structures can be further illustrated importance knowledge students' understand to the state- by considering psychology attempts following ment: "The showed first fifth and developmental psychologist graders, graders, a of set and students that 30 memories found their the for college pictures pictures were can this statement at some Novices but level, equivalent." comprehend that their chances will are of be In memory relatively understanding imprecise. an will that this assume involved contrast, expert experiment memory recognition rather free cued 30 than or unless the were chosen to ex- recall, pictures map very a into in domain of which the children were plicitly organized knowledge experts in in TV as as In ex- the dinosaurs, shows, Chi, 1976; short, 1980). (e.g., Lindberg, can construct a number of well-differentiated whereas the novice scenarios, pert understands only superficially. Our is rather than more a to create that, hypothesis powerful doing way telling, a time for comes from theories of that differ- telling perceptual learning emphasize entiation & Gar- Arnoult, Bransford, 1953; Franks, Sherwood, 1989; (e.g., Vye, J. J. & J. Gibson These theories E. 1974; ner, 1969; Gibson, Gibson, 1957). that to sets of such as different cases, propose analyze opportunities contrasting of can scissors become sensitive to information (see 1), pairs people Figure help that miss otherwise & Gick Gibson, 1947; Garner, 1974; they might (e.g., Gagn6 & cases and di- notice features Paterson, 1992). help Contrasting people specific make the that mensions distinctive. The cases well-differentiated infor- resulting mation the for bases other as activities such provides guiding creating images, and & in Schwartz, (Bransford elaborating, generating questions, learning press). J. Gibson an Dibble how E. (1969) reported experiment by opportu- illustrating nities to can cases differentiated that contrasting explore develop knowledge sup- further The addressed was whether ports learning. question actively contrasting letters a of novel the would facilitate of for names alphabet subsequent learning In letters. those the names to told for each adults com- letter, preparation being one of three In treatments. the 12 had treatment, pleted reproduction participants to one after In letter the another. cases min treatment, copy contrasting participants had 10 to contrast each letter with each other the In letter. control min treatment, no had to the letters. then a learned name participants prior exposure Everybody each for in and letter. the control treatments the took same People reproduction amount of time to learn the name-letter in whereas the pairings, people contrasting cases learned the treatment associations faster. the let- significantly By analyzing ters as noticed distinctive features of each letter cases, contrasting they (e.g., This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7 AND 480 SCHWARTZ BRANSFORD in as confusion and of which of turn, stroke, curve), they length degree prevented the letters. with names the paired in these The involve materials rather used than studies conceptual perceptual In the cases involve to differentiation. (described later) particular, opportunities and of con- differentiate psychological phenomena actively exemplars among from in that were we The cases psychology cepts. experiments adapted cognitive in In own our students tended to have courses. our experience, previously taught and lim- an of the overly experiments understanding concepts, superficial develop to to transfer their new method These the use situations. experiments ability iting is more that to differentiated students cases of knowledge help develop contrasting in to achieve the we have than able been past. that were the The of the these focus summarizes Table 1 concepts experiments. in actual were students to students were hence, courses; presum- concepts taught was to com- The learn to motivated effectively. experimental general ably design a as a text lecture learn the the students' from abilities or to about concepts pare or of whether function cases, specific by actively contrasting prepared they the about with that did materials more whether telling working prepared they by and cases concepts. work is that the active noted one As our compar- guiding hypothesis previously, cases the cases about ison relevant to told of (as being simply opposed contrasting These activities well-differentiated foster and by helps knowledge. concepts) to induce the are insufficient students for however, themselves, principles usually This is a at a because level. understand to domain deep satisfactorily necessary or a an that them lack framework often novices theory helps develop overriding is This have the distinctions discovered. the to model of they explain significance to abilities effects have on in can which one learn; people's powerful telling place our noticed. have that sense the of distinctions them it can make Thus, they help 1 TABLE Their and Instruction: The of Content The Concepts Operationalizations Target Eight Operationalization Type Concept Schema concepts events of recall remember high stereotypy People Stereotypical own events from remember intrusions falsely script People Script in events remember Ordered recall chronological sequence People to obstacles remember recall Obstacle goal completion People Encoding concepts is if more material remember Total recall meaningful People list of last a stimulus items and first remember and recency People Primacy recall verbatim to leads nonsense leads to and Gist verbatim recall; gist Meaning a while made inferences remember Inference intrusions reading passage People This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8 A TIME TELLING FOR 481 is to that well-differentiated knowl- complete hypothesis develop opportunities set structures the but for do not through learning stage edge telling usually replace it. We across three this different explore hypothesis by experiments providing with students a text of vs. particular groups experiences analyz- (e.g., summarizing and whether and how well then learn a from cases) ing they contrasting assessing lecture text. or subsequent our it means is the Central of what to to notion assess understand- experiments the materials of studied. We do not and our experimental expect being ing compar- in ison to differ their the to statements factual about ability repeat groups concepts learned see et Bransford the return To to al., 1989; Michael, 1989). (e.g., being dressmaker we would and novices that both to remember expect example, experts the dressmaker used cut the assessments to scissors More cloth. subtle needed are in differences the to discriminate of and novices. qualitative understanding experts In the the of case dressmaker students draw one ask to the of example, might pair of In the case used. these scissors on experiments being psychological concepts, use an we that asks make detailed assessment students to new about a predictions The nature of this assessment will become clearer in the of experiment. description 1. Experiment 1 EXPERIMENT The whether first addresses as cases, experiment analyzing contrasting compared to about summaries same of those a for students lecture on cases, reading prepares In a students cognitive undergraduate psychology. design, within-subject analyzed a set one for of cases and read of about another set group target contrasting concepts of a cases for of a second heard lecture that Afterward, they concepts. group target of covered If both for a cases creates time concepts. analyzing groups contrasting then we should the students learn to the more from the lec- of expect telling, portion that the ture cases than the from of the lecture complements they analyzed portion that cases the read that we about. describe our instructional Next, they complements and materials We then more we how manipulations learning explain thoroughly. assessed student learning. The Instructional Manipulations The instruction revolved around the in For shown Table 1. concepts eight target the were into la- two that we experimental separated purposes, concepts groups bel schema and schema The concepts. concepts encoding primarily concepts the concern effects of schemas on the and of retrieval from organization The concern from memory. long-term encoding concepts primarily encoding short-term to memory. long-term This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

9 482 SCHWARTZ AND BRANSFORD cases. and For the we sets of two Concepts analysis activity, developed one for the schema and one the for cases, contrasting concepts encoding concepts. the schema For the cases drawn were from studies on mental concepts, contrasting For the the cases were Abelson, 1981). scripts (e.g., encoding concepts, contrasting drawn from studies the on effects a of context on distin- To meaningful memory. help the two sets of from cases two the clusters of that the guish contrasting target concepts cases we more labels to the cases. We the label exemplify, specific give contrasting cases for the schema as the doctor visit because the and data concepts experiments sets that create the contrasts were from a set of that studies examined adapted peo- a memories for visit doctor & We label the cases Black, Turner, (Bower, ple's 1979). the for as the balloon because the materials were encoding concepts passage adapted a set from of that studies examined a text that for was memory people's presented a with and without that included balloons & Johnson, (Bransford picture 1972). of cases. One the of studies and data sets included Analyses contrasting in the doctor visit cases in is illustrated 2 Table includes the com- (the Appendix doctor visit and balloon These cases involve ex- plete cases). passage contrasting of data rather than overall summaries of these data. When amples person-by-person students the their task was and to find what were cases, analyzed graph they thought the each for We asked students to the be- revealing patterns study. graph patterns cause we found that have students to look for at contrasts the graphing encourages level of overall rather than at the level of the contrasts" "little one between patterns data and another. point the students should differentiate rel- cases, By analyzing empirical phenomena evant to the For students in the shown concepts. target example, analyzing study 2 Table that should some notice visit doctor events are mentioned more by partici- than others "read vs. This pants nurse"). (e.g., magazine" "following phenomenon is relevant to the of Table addi- The (see target 1). concept stereotypical memory tional visit doctor materials the further contrasts that bear (see Appendix) provide on the The third for shows that re- concepts. target study, example, participants member events a about visit doctor at a low rate, nonstereotypical patient's very one event: The his wallet. Students the notice should contrast except patient forgot between for this and event other the events. Of course, memory nonstereotypical an not have for this brute remember ob- fact; may they explanation namely, people stacles to is This one reason that we believe some form of goal completion. why is the case it that stu- following telling analyses important; provides explanations are dents to on their own. unlikely develop about cases. To the effects of Reading compare analyzing contrasting cases to the effects of about those same we created ver- cases, reading read-only This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

10 A TIME FOR TELLING 483 2 TABLE Doctor-Visit of the That the First The Cases Students Contrasting Analyzed down asked 6 In to write first the the that researchers when occur events experiment, participants doctor. The visit are shown here. Notice that the the been has results reduced they participants' prose if a idea came with. main each each "You For to enter the wrote, example, up participant participant walk doctor's the "You and another the door of doctor's wrote, office," suite," participant through be miss to "Enter this some would office." both subtle simplification may simplified Although in it differences details ideas the makes it much easier to and across protocols, participants' compare different participants. 1: in with Check Name Enter Enter Sit down. Wait. office. called. exam receptionist. Participant Sit Doctor on asks room. Make another examines. Doctor table. questions. Leave office. appointment. in with Read 2: at Look other Check Name on called. Sit receptionist. Participant people. magazine. Leave tests. examines. office. table. Doctor Nurse with in Talk down. Check Read 3: to Sit Nurse nurse. Talk tests. magazine. Participant receptionist. Leave about office. to doctor problem. 4: Sit down. Read Enter office. Enter room. Undress. Sit exam table. on magazine. Participant Nurse Get tests. dressed. Leave office. Doctor examines. in Sit office. with Enter Check 5: Read down. Name called. Participant receptionist. magazine. Enter exam room. Nurse tests. Doctor Follow nurse. enters. examines. Doctor in with Nurse 6: Check Sit down. Read tests. Wait. Doctor Participant receptionist. magazine. Doctor examines. Get medicine. Leave office. greets. a and Students visualization Note. what made data the were the of analyzed they important thought visit doctor cases and balloon in the found be (the may patterns complete passage Appendix). doctor visit and sions of the balloon cases. This the students an- could way, passage one cases and the of set read about doctor other set of cases visit) alyze (e.g., (e.g., the materials were similar The balloon ex- to cases, read-only passage). contrasting that students did the raw the not receive data. the materials Instead, cept read-only and included of the and 3 distinctions. Table descriptions graphs patterns important the shows 2. With Table of these students the read materials, equivalent read-only of about the instead features them. important actively discovering As a Different treatments. homework one half of the students assignment, visit the doctor cases and read about the balloon The cases. other analyzed passage half the of students the balloon and cases the read about doctor analyzed passage visit cases. After the students an an the instructor delivered completed assignments, in-class to both lecture of students The instructor described groups simultaneously. in the a included cases the as as well few showed that others, experiments graphs summarized the relevant data and the of the patterns, explained meaning experi- in their ments in of terms human for behavior various domains implications (e.g., This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

11 AND SCHWARTZ 484 BRANSFORD 3 TABLE in Version The the Shown 2 Table of Case Visit Doctor Read-Only In the the asked researchers when to write down the events occur that 6 first they study, participants a idea The doctor. the visit to each main reduced the came researchers participant prose participant's if enter with. a another and "You For the doctor's office," wrote, participant example, up participant of "Enter the "You walk the doctor's both would be office." to door wrote, suite," simplified through miss in subtle details and differences some the this may Although participants' simplification it much easier are ideas across different it makes The results to protocols, compare participants. here. The were mentioned the italicized were 5 shown by phrases phrases capitalized participants, were 3 mentioned and the text mentioned 1 by by plain phrases participants, participant. Enter office CHECK IN WITH RECEPTIONIST DOWN SIT Wait at Look people READ MAGAZINE called Name nurse Follow exam room Enter Undress on Sit table nurse Talk to NURSE TESTS Wait Doctor enters Doctor greets Talk about doctor to problem Doctor asks questions DOCTOR EXAMINES Get dressed medicine Get Make another appointment LEAVE OFFICE from & Turner Note. Black, Bower, (1979). Adapted a also instructor described for The theories test, etc.). (e.g., studying prejudice, a and short-term schema cabinets, etc.) reg- metaphors (e.g., filing theory, memory, in with the that can for the found ister account seven slots, etc.) patterns experi- ments. Levels of Assessing Understanding wrote their the week after the students To assess lecture, pre- understanding, deep 1 from of a and Bransford the outcomes about dictions adapted study hypothetical This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

12 A TIME FOR 485 TELLING as it to the is The shown in Ta- Johnson task, students, (1972). prediction appeared we constructed this is so reason 4. ble that we One particular hypothetical study that of schema the could and students used to number concepts encoding compare the Table 5 shows how the can be outcomes. eight concepts target help predict ap- The are from the in task. a to prediction quotes participants study. plied pilot to the students understand the lecture cases If actively analyzing prepares there should a crossover interaction on the then be Stu- task. prediction deeply, the doctor should cases dents make visit who about more analyze predictions than students who read visit the A effects about schema doctor studies. prediction 4 TABLE A of Task Given Assess to Student the Prediction Copy Understanding of the Concepts Target Your will task Below the an is to make about the find you description experiment. predictions of in recall condition. You should the also in how each recall patterns patterns predict participants' of will or it conditions be the Make that will be similar. two differ your predictions enough specific or see were it to to an you possible right if clarify your predictions, wrong. If give helps example of what a recall. reasons Make as give your subject possible, If might for many predictions. predictions will think as happen. really you will in the will read five numbered Each people following study. Twenty participate They passages. of on a The is is the interest third about passage passage page. separate experimental passage Here the clothes. is washing passage. PASSAGE 3 all he The items First was collected the into He one quite actually procedure simple. group. might have had to use another the due to lack of But facilities. usual was to be facility place going enough. into one the items different He course have Of been sufficient pile groups. arranged might depending It too to he is better to do had much at how than on In do. too once few the short run things many. not seem but can arise. this are Red the may expensive important easily complications problems combined each He worst. the usual At the with had brand. whole seemed first, group procedure it of had another facet become He life. his cannot foresee the to end However, complicated. any just for in the never task future. But this one can immediate tell. the first After then, necessity procedures the all he usual used the were moved When and he the finished completed, groups arranged setting. he new materials was careful. He into want not to did an extra wrinkle into his He work. put groups, he more later on. have work them into their would Finally, put just appropriate Eventually places. used will once more and the whole then will have to be be that is However, they cycle repeated. part life. of Ten individuals will read of the the it is as shown. is the This condition. no-title The just passage ten individuals will read the same other the with but to the next title, Clothes," passage "Washing number. This title condition. five is the all the read be After will passage they participants passages, can write down asked recall to from 3. they everything Passage Please the You this on the rest back use sheet the your place may of predictions page. of if necessary. the See text how was a of for Note. task administered and scored. description This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

13 BRANSFORD AND SCHWARTZ 486 in covered the the four on of relies one effects on schema based target concepts the balloon who students lecture. and cases visit doctor analyze pas- Reciprocally, than students about effects more make should cases encoding predictions sage studies. read the balloon about who passage the to task is that the outcome a we reason used One predict ability prediction what is of this test valid an is an from knowledge; practic- ecologically experiment of a do. If students research understanding expert-like gain deep, ing psychologists is A reason second make relevant should then the predictions. concepts, they target not that Our claim is and shallow to differentiate it enables us that knowledge. deep of a set first if have from a lecture learn can novices analyzed contrasting they only who novices the students and is a lecture that cases. attentive, complete Assuming is It the about still learn should cases not do concepts. target analyze contrasting that co- differentiation the not have their that expert-like may understanding just & cases from mes Warren, Bransford, Klee, (Michael, contrasting analyzing the we of levels different evaluate To pre- understanding, complemented 1993). answered in Students 6. Table shown verification task with the task diction eight the that covered items true-false concepts. target cases who not the did that students was Our appropriate analyze prediction sufficient be should Their items. verification the answer still could understanding to the features distinctive to do notice need not in which situations for bring they in rationale our we Discussion In the to mind. section, develop concept appropriate a task as verification the view For one detail. more now, methodologi- serving may veri- on well the if the students do a and cal Methodologically, purpose. pragmatic on the weak attribute not should we that this means fication task, performances if stu- lecture. to the attention a lack of to task Pragmatically, general prediction will that it show not the task but the verification do well on dents task, prediction and true-false assess student we of that the some learning (e.g., typically ways In- of levels not understanding. deeper capture questions) may multiple-choice TABLE 5 Task Prediction to the Students of How Concepts Target Apply Examples to Task Prediction as Labels Applied Concepts of Examples Concept Schema concepts clothes" in usual remember title condition best in recall washing steps "Subjects Stereotypical clothes" often do "Titled intrusions washing they Incorrectly things put passage: Script clothes title condition" in of of order in down "Write recall Ordered washing steps clothes" of it the ruins 'cause sentence "Remember 'red' recall Obstacle washing point Encoding concepts be it will because version no-title for recall less Total recall meaningless" "People best" the will remembered be first sentence "The and recency Primacy to word" for write tended word "The no-title verbatim and Gist subjects clothes" like title will with intrusions Inference out, sorting they figured things put "People This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

14 TELLING TIME 487 FOR A TABLE 6 Test the of A Verification Copy a understand do not when than more will remember a understand 1. When text, they they people text. False True one) (circle the text. from sentences exact tend to recall a understand When 2. text, they people False True one) (circle sentence. first the tend to a tested after 3. When forget people reading passage, False True one) (circle their have later trouble what are understand 4. When distinguishing they they reading, people text. actual from inferences the False True one) (circle the remember the to like a familiar about a When 5. doctor, event, people going passage recalling events. most stereotypical False True one) (circle in the the tend to remember will a familiar about a When 6. event, passage people passage recalling the event. of of the order steps False True one) (circle from details their not do add a a about recall When 7. event, usually they typical passage people of event. with that own type experiences False True one) (circle to obstacles at a a a about recall When 8. rate, remember, event, high they typical passage people event successful completion. False True one) (circle evidence their assessments with lectures be because satisfied structors yield may to be not suited use assessments the of However, diagnosing may they learning. understanding. deep Method at course an from students undergraduate Twenty-four Participants. Three stu- to the two conditions. were Vanderbilt assigned University randomly the 10 As a students of the on the were absent dents result, analyzed day posttest. the of None the cases. balloon students and doctor visit 11 cases, passage analyzed these with had worked or had studied students psychology cognitive previously of cases. contrasting types of five were the there To summarize Materials. descriptions, types previous materials: This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

15 488 BRANSFORD AND SCHWARTZ Two 1. cases-the doctor visit and the balloon sets of (see passage contrasting from 2 and Table the cognitive psychology adapted experiments. Appendix)--both data the and conditions of brief included Each descriptions experimental simplified a for the not include did is- rationale or sets. (e.g., experiments They any hypothesis sue at hand). balloon doctor visit and of the cases that cov- versions 2. Read-only passage same the the as the but instead of ered cases, contrasting including experiments that Table results texts raw summarized the and included data, (see 3). graphs they 1-hr A that four both the four the and schema con- lecture covered 3. encoding in of the the cases as It action. from used examples experiments concepts cepts. of A in which students had to transfer their task 4. the target learning prediction of Table to make about the results a 4). (see study hypothetical concepts predictions a each in which students had to about whether A claim task verification 5. judge was Table correct 6). (see concept target fac- A a The crossover within-subject employed design. experiment Design. of A effects tor the cases. the versus reading analyzing between-subjects compared in set the A student factor tested of for ana- of the effects concepts. particular target balloon doctor the the visit cases and read about condition visit doctor lyze analyzed bal- A condition in the the balloon student cases. analyze analyzed passage passage two were There and read about the doctor visit cases. cases loon dependent passage a verifi- and task transfer of a measures: understanding deep prediction measuring task cation recognition memory. measuring corre- the a of end students received At the Procedure. class, packets regular the materials first and their The had the to condition. read-only sponding packets the The told to were second. students materials assign- reading complete analysis the For the cases. ment to they assignment, reading contrasting prior analyzing the the For studies. and understand to read the instructed were assignment, analysis data. the in were to find and the directed students They patterns significant graph their The hand students or allowed draw to were completed by computer. graphs in- the next the At class 5 as a homework later, session, days assignment. packets both all to from students and delivered a lecture homework collected structor the seat start-of-class as Seven conditions later, (two classes) days simultaneously. students the a connection to the of without work and mention lessons, previous any and 15 then task the min) (approximately paper-and-pencil prediction completed 5 verification task the min). (approximately the coders identified on the To score task, prediction performance Coding. a Table in from the the students' use of 5, drawing pilot predictions. concepts target their as a identified of by respec- sample representative predictions provides study, 1 for was an each score is there maximum The tive 8; target point possible concepts. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16 A TIME FOR TELLING 489 a on based in the count To as a con- reflected target prediction concept predictions. are three there cept, requirements: for reason this form. One has an to take A 1. requirement operational prediction that the be states task should about the is that "pat- predictions explicitly prediction if be to see were A or of recall" and terns should right "specific wrong." you enough we have found is that teachers be- the see second reason that, although easily may a the often does not. For student's student of havioral claim, example, implication titled more would the "The student be claim, meaningful," experts passage given "Therefore remember more." would would Our conclude, participants expe- easily that are us such has not shown however, rience, implicit operationalizations always to of not and we have chosen be in conservative the claims students. Consequently, an there human credit unless be- about observable is to prediction assign explicit havior. A to a has to In be 2. assignable concept. particular, unambiguously prediction remembered in insuffi- that are of sentences to be lists work we found pilot likely one in what student have for mind. students For cient pilot example, determining was down six the one of which wrote the first sentence of sentences, pas- simply it is to the first sentence is recalled to be un- likely Although owing sage. primacy, this whether the student included it. is when there is known why Consequently, do a list read "intent" of not into sentences. coders doubt, A has to be a correct In a of 3. target general, prediction concept. application in of few or two students were each there the One very following misapplications. there would a be effect. incorrectly recency thought experiments there were In one to con- this and the blind two coders, experiments, following In in the at least the identification had coders 92% the each dition. of case, overlap in the were settled students' Disagreements predictions. coding target concepts by the with that to the instructional combi- respect leading conservatively hypothesis of nation cases and a verbal would exposition contrasting receiving analyzing the most predictions. yield Results 2 number the of understood as measured the concepts by average Figure displays the of tasks. The left-hand side shows and verification graph prediction perfor- mance on the four shows schema side and the concepts, perfor- possible right-hand on The four that the the mance shows stu- of top concepts. encoding possible figure in able both conditions were dents to of sentences about both sets verify target at near levels one (93% ceiling concepts average Consequently, accuracy). may the that conclude students at one understand the did level. target concepts This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

17 490 AND SCHWARTZ BRANSFORD Doctor-Visit Read (& Analyze Balloon-Passage) Read (& Doctor-Visit) Balloon-Passage Analyze 4 Verification Task o o 3 S C 0 Task Prediction c 2 .) a 1 o Schema Encoding Concept Type FIGURE 2 Evidence of broken out de- and condition, by understanding concept type, concept in measure Students the visit condition doctor the 1). pendent (Experiment analyze analyzed and cases read in doctor the balloon visit about Students cases. the balloon passage analyze pas- the the condition and cases balloon about read doctor visit cases. Students analyzed sage passage in conditions heard same both the lecture that schema and the explained encoding concepts. task The a different to The students make tended presents prediction story. pre- the on dictions in that based the ana- had cases concepts appeared they contrasting the in Students balloon condition made more lyzed. analyze passage predictions based on than did read students who about those cases. Con- encoding concepts in the more students made doctor visit condition based versely, analyze predictions on than schema did students who read about those cases. concepts confirm in 2 To the of the number schema major Figure patterns statistically, and the number of served the for as measures predictions encoding predictions factor of The ana- a student cases that within-subject prediction type. contrasting or doctor visit balloon as served a factor. The lyzed, passage, between-subjects number correct schema of and served as covariates. verifications There encoding was a interaction the cases that a between the student and of strong analyzed types = = he < she or MSE Students made, .01. 18) F(1, 29.3, 0.54, p prediction primarily in that cases the were The had predicted concepts exemplified they analyzed. using verification did not account for a covariates variance of on the significant portion = = the > MSE This .6. stu- indicates that task, F(1, 18) 0.21, 0.54, prediction p This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

18 A TIME FOR 491 TELLING a of not the verification at for set was success dents' questions concepts answering at in those the task. their success of concepts prediction Although using predictive effect a was main of there also not central, prediction theoretically type indicating more made than schema students that overall, predictions predictions encoding = = < on effects the of .01. MSE 17.28, 0.54, F(1, 18) Perhaps p meaningfulness the more subtle are more than effects. understood script easily memory Discussion knew even verification the students to the when had task, they According concepts the no know there was cannot we not Because whether the cases. pretest, analyzed know do we but at learned the time of the students here, that, actually concepts well at near them to levels on the score understood they sufficiently ceiling posttest, more another task-the verification task. Nonetheless, by prediction ecological not unless the students could had task-the they effectively analyzed perform cases. a An one in an have to found that is answer unlikely question, important single on students the the cases is mechanism, why helped predic- analyzing underlying the did 2 about tion cases 3 are not. whereas de- and task, Experiments reading for exclude a on time task as this to answer they example, question; help signed we re- theoretical consider some accounts for the First, possible likely explanation. 1. of sults Experiment An between the cases condition and difference analyze contrasting important on condition the former involved more the that the of is part read-only generation A the learner. of the on of clear comes from benefits the work generativity example If effect" the & word Graf, 1978). (Slamecka generate partial "generation people will in RAPID the remember the word better FAST::R_P_D, they pair, synonym if than the effect read The FAST::RAPID. has been pair they simply generation in domains to more than used explain substantially memory advantages complex and Needham associates. evoked for the (1991), paired Begg generation example, a effect to to as problem through explain why procedure opposed learning solving, the subsequent memorizing improved procedure, problem-solving performance. To claim that condition or the active more was cases more simply contrasting seems There are one different many insufficiently things generative precise. might it is Stein & to worthwhile to hence, Bransford, (cf. 1979); identify try generate what of the led to results. For tra- these as effect, example, generation activity type In the not of and examines Ex- transfer. studied, memory ditionally strengthening in condition the on cases students excelled items 1, periment prediction contrasting from were different that those that the while cases. generated they analyzing on in results those to work the these studied Therefore, beyond typically go appear effect. generation This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

19 492 AND SCHWARTZ BRANSFORD One of the cases Learning doing. by possible aspect generative contrasting have that caused the is results that students an activity may prediction produced overt in their For behaviorist of theories dis- response graphs. example, acquired tinctiveness can that differentiation when occur individuals an argued only produce external behavior Miller idea The & that effective Dollard, 1941). (e.g., generation involves overt a reflects common of in constructivism production interpretation which some form of means hands-on or external by "learning doing" activity. for one that the was Therefore, example, propose "doing" might graphs responsible for the learn more students students who read about the helping deeply. Perhaps of cases had a weaker or reinforced less (instead producing externally) something trace less were able to the exercise relevant and, therefore, memory memory during the more difficult task. prediction If external the active is the of then we cases, production ingredient contrasting should when a do not students from the that, expect produce particular pattern will not be the to learn relevant a lec- cases, they prepared target concept during ture. it even if is feasible a student not does or notice a that, Alternatively, generate the cases could still a halo effect for feature, given analyzing contrasting produce that feature. Much as their bear to differentiated knowl- psychology experts bring to the in understand a who students the article, edge experiments journal analyze cases that is differentiated that it enables may develop knowledge sufficiently them to fill in the with the aid the lecture. of details who Students read missing about the cases learn not to enable distinctions further may enough understanding in distinctions the lecture. presented Another class of constructivist for these Knowledge assembly. explanation results on the idea that draws best when occurs forth the ef- individuals learning put fort and attention to their assemble with ideas connections. This meaningful is in reflected theories of elaboration that de- assembly" "knowledge viewpoint scribe a as of ideas Bradshaw & Anderson, process learning (e.g., connecting the elaboration the cases to students as- account, 1982). By analyzing encouraged semble that relations connected the case information other to of prior pockets this elaboration the of increased re- number Conceivably, knowledge. possible trieval to the The retrieval in- (connections) paths target multiple concepts. paths chances of creased the the relevant the task. recovering prediction concepts during in the As of case account is to by knowledge learning assembly doing, likely for some of the of the effects it but not a com- cases, may contrasting provide If the these of cause resides results in whether students plete explanation. solely elaborate the or assemble then other methods of to students concepts, leading elaborate the lead to should on the target concepts equivalent performance pre- diction task. effect of the the differen- is to cases If, however, develop analyzing tiated then elaboration without the cases knowledge, encouraging contrasting should not be as effective. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

20 A TIME FOR 493 TELLING A third of constructivist for as class explanation Discovery discernment. idea of involves the as used of the results here, 1 discovery. Discovery, Experiment an than rather in- of as a as intended is description growth knowledge psychological as The discernment" is that individu- structional position "discovery prescription. that and structures have features discerned when learn well als generatively they of the world. We believe that the of distinc- relevant differentiate discovery aspects in 1. better did the cases who students features tive is Experiment why analyzed and about the as cases the discernment account, reading discovery hearing By and undifferentiated. This students' the left overly knowledge general general verification the for item verification task because each was sufficient knowledge would match the that statement a presumably provided general concepts general learned. were the items had effective retrieval cues for this students the Therefore, knowl- the the for more task, However, understanding. prediction general general in notice the not embedded students features the did specific hypotheti- help edge cue cal could that their is This knowledge. study-features why analyzing concept on the an it the cases the stu- task; yielded prediction advantage helped contrasting the of a As stu- discover the characteristic features dents result, phenomena. target in the the features could could notice features and those dents task, prediction the of a students of the that reminded cues set serve as Ross, (cf. concepts target 1989). in all three the learner of To accounts, summarize, plays generativity preceding an role. accounts with These constructivist to differ, however, respect important in make about the what was the that conditions that claims analyze generated they In led to the of version these results. constructivism, doing by generating learning In an the the external was version, ingredient. assembly key product knowledge In the the was as dis- ideas and key discovery connecting ingredient. elaborating the was relevant distinctive cernment features version, key differentiating ingredi- in ent. The examines the role of these possibilities experiment preparing following learn told. to students by being 2 EXPERIMENT 2 a than learn from text students' to abilities a lecture) (rather Experiment compared when the text either read the text after summarized or actively they analyz- simply The the the text involved two "book schema cases. chapters," chap- contrasting ing ter the which written and were the for encoding chapter, especially experiment The from the their are cover and authors). (available chapters concepts respective of but more similar the lecture cases extensive and Ex- combined to, than, read-only 1. Each in an about be would aver- eight periment figures, chapter, pages including could textbook. one were written that so read them or They age separately together in either order. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

21 AND 494 BRANSFORD SCHWARTZ or the doctor either balloon students Af- As visit cases. before, analyzed passage received The the two first the students book read that terward, they chapters. chapter the to had relevant cases doctor schema was for visit they analyzed (e.g., chapter that the the relevant to the read cases not students had was Then, cases). they chapter a in two- to students and the doc- wrote Thus, summary. analyze analyzed three-page the schema visit the read condition doctor tor read the visit cases, analyzed chapter, a in wrote of the then and Students the summary chapter, encoding chapter. encoding balloon the balloon read the en- condition cases, analyzed analyze passage passage a read wrote the then schema and the of schema chapter, chapter, coding summary After a 1-week the task. everyone prediction completed chapter. delay, can it a that to write is for students One reason address summary asking chapter a the concern: school and of Does summa- reading typical pragmatic assignment the a and then a match cases text benefits text? of reading rizing analyzing simply it A for the evalu- can is that condition second reason help summarizing including an are ate account There the effect of elaboration as cases. for many contrasting elaborate a Conse- text on of different to personal examples). (e.g., ways thinking other not be summarization of elaboration. of representative quently, may styles which and then that to summarize Nonetheless, assembling choosing knowledge a a and evaluation of different construction into requires pos- knowledge summary sible ideas. connections among If a of the elaboration con- for the effects is sufficient analyzing explanation we that the should then on and cases, summarizing expect impor- trasting deciding a text the for in some would task. tant benefit If, provide prediction concepts that differentiated the comes however, requires deep knowledge understanding the the from then text should cases, provide summarizing contrasting analyzing the task. We for that minimal benefits only hypothesize summarizing prediction the will not match the the of Before benefits cases. contrasting chapter analyzing on need of discern can to the features elaborate world, they people productively This cases. the the of is discernment contribution features. those unique analyzing an effects as This overt also of evaluate account for the production helps study The when cases. students documents the analyzing produce graphical contrasting and textual when documents cases, they By produce summarizing. contrasting we can the end of determine extent to at these doing, looking learning by products the which on rele- the students' whether produce predictions they actually depend the If in of features or the benefits vant con- their concepts analyzing assignments. the extend then students ideas the those cases produce, beyond actually trasting the relation cases and successful cannot between contrasting analyzing prediction an- of to external We that the be attributed benefits solely production. hypothesize the cases the extends individ- those somewhat features alyzing beyond contrasting uals features discover and document. of a subset distinctive actually Discovering with a sufficient critical to differentiated students mass of provide may knowledge them to in a related distinctions text. enable understand presented This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22 A TIME FOR TELLING 495 Method in an students Participants. Eighteen graduate introductory cognitive psy- were two divided course conditions. The into had students chology randomly previ- two relevant to cases re- This completed ously packets contrasting perception. a as task moved for effects. novelty likely explanation positive any The Materials. cases task were and same the in Ex- as contrasting prediction A an 1. schema and were written for the the of periment chapter encoding purposes Each the theoretical and models and experiment. chapter develops target concepts uses the to those experiments concepts. exemplify A factor contrasted the of effects the cases Design. within-subject analyzing a relevant with and the of effects and a reading chapter reading summarizing chap- A ter. factor which a determined and student between-subjects topics analyzed summarized. in Students the doctor visit condition the doctor visit analyze analyzed read the on then read and wrote a and of the en- schemas, cases, chapter summary in Students the balloon the condition followed chapter. coding analyze passage same with the alternative but The materials. measure was the protocol dependent task. To examine whether time on task influenced the students results, prediction how estimated each of the spent long they portion completing experiment. The Procedure. students received their cases to ana- respective contrasting a homework as at the a of end After in class. their lyze assignment regular turning and 5 time-on-task estimates the students received both later, graphs days chapters on The students were that the told were be- (ordered condition). depending chapters evaluated for in a new inclusion textbook. to were told read the initial first ing They and a note make how of this took. were to read also told the sec- chapter long They ond and a to write two- to the of in chapter three-page summary important concepts that note to the time on The in summaries were turned at 7 class (and task). chapter later. Five students the in class task as before. later, days days completed prediction The homework was coded to determine which or Coding. concepts concept the relevant noted in students their documents. The maximum patterns possible score a for is there for each was the For 4; 1 assignment single point target concept. a was if considered noted the student the relevant analyses, concept graphed empir- ical or a included note the relevant feature. For exam- pattern marginal indicating a doctor visit false rates counted as the ple, graph showing recognition noting pat- This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

23 BRANSFORD AND 496 SCHWARTZ the a intrusions. For to the of relevant was tern summaries, script concept concept if to described or referred noted the student or the its considered empirical concept don't that remember their from for schemas things example, "People implications, Two had five which were coders, disagreements, independently, working happen." resolved through negotiation. Results the on the examined we Before task, prediction frequency performances comparing in the The their homework students noted with which assignments. target concepts each 3 of rates at which the noted of shows students the target Figure scatterplot who the of The dimension students horizontal sum- indicates percentage concepts. The vertical a marized a dimension indicates the from given concept per- chapter. in If noted the who their case of students analyses. pattern concept-relevant centage in the and treat- had summarize at identical rates noted students analyze concepts the cor- the a between make and the would ments, right origin upper points diagonal 100% Total FIecall Recall Stereotypical Script Intiusions 80% < Primacy/Recency GistNerbatim 60% "o Recall Obstacle z 0 2 40% Recall . ,Ordered o 3 20% 0 Intrusions Inference OR/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% Noted Ideas Who Students % of Summary in in and noticed homework were ideas that of the rate 3 FIGURE summary target Comparison the notices. For The axes of homework 2). percentage possible (Experiment represent analysis inferential documented cases balloon the who students the 12% of passage analyzed example, in- the 22% who summarized documented students whereas the of intrusions, encoding chapter The between is intrusions. ferential subjects. necessarily comparison This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

24 A TIME FOR 497 TELLING Summarize Doctor-Visit Analyze Chp.) (& Encoding Schema Summarize (& Chp.) Analyze Balloon-Passage 4 3 u) ? o 1 0 Schema Encoding Concept Type 4 FIGURE of Evidence on the task broken out understanding concept prediction by concept and condition 2). (Experiment type that 3 shows the this idealized is a This ner. Figure approximate points diagonal. It means treatment outcome. fortuitous that the effects on task cannot be prediction to students attributed the in one treatment more than overlooking target concepts other. the students For the who summarized the schema an of 3.0 chapter, average = of the four ideas were noted. the For students who ana- (SD 1.3) possible target = the visit an doctor of 2.8 were found. For cases, (SD 1.1) lyzed average patterns = the the of 2.9 (SD 0.3) chapter, yielded encoding summarizing target concepts, = and of the balloon cases 2.7 There 0.9) analysis (SD yielded passage patterns. were no all Fs < differences or 1. interactions, significant Even the students the noted in their homework at the same rate though concepts across treatments and 4 for sets both shows of an- that, materials, Figure concepts, led to more cases the than the The num- alyzing predictions summarizing chapter. of schema ber and served as predictions predictions encoding within-subject measures. The that a student cases served as a factor. analyzed between-subjects There was a interaction who students the doctor visit strong whereby analyzed cases made schema more than and students who predictions predictions, encoding the balloon made cases more than schema analyzed passage encoding predictions = = MSE There < a .01. was main ef- 16) F(1, predictions, 17.73, 1.41, p marginal fect of as were more that, before, prediction type indicating encoding predictions = = MSE < . .07 overall, 16) F(1, 3.86, 1.41, frequent p This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

25 498 AND SCHWARTZ BRANSFORD benefits of The the extended cases those that stu- analyzing beyond concepts in dents noted their Table 7 homework. shows the a that probability given concept would a be used for on it was whether or in noted missed the prediction depending We the results for the schema and homework. be- collapsed concepts encoding cause there were no differences. It is even if a that, appreciable noteworthy given was missed when the the students still had a cases, concept analyzing contrasting .44 of that to the task. This is well above probability applying concept prediction the conditional found for the summarizations. sum- to .11 probability Compared the beneficial effects of not were confined to those that marizing, analysis concepts were in homework. the overtly produced An is issue whether time on task a in the role students' important played predic- tion students a deal of time and performance. Perhaps spent great analyzing graph- the and cases led to their this and ing superior learning prediction performance. the of results cases time the to on task would superior Attributing analyzing require a difference the in time amount students of the tasks on of and spent analyzing time evidence that on task covaries with on the plus summarizing performance There was task. no evidence either Students' prediction supporting point. of time task on that indicated about amount the same time of self-reports spent they = and read M and 89 summarize, (schema min, analyzing summarizing concepts: = = = SD and M 113 SD read and read, 64; min, 61; analyze encoding concepts: = = = = M 122 SD and M 118 SD summarize, min, 83; read, min, 83). analyze = = There were no differences MSE treatment, 0.19, 16) F(1, significant by = = > MSE > or 9,458.7, .6; cluster, .15; 16) 1.84, p by F(1, 1,690.3, concept p by = = their The > .4. MSE indicate also interaction, 16) F(1, 0.5, 1,690.3, p reports task time that not have on a did effect measurable on The prediction performance. number of schema and served as predictions predictions encoding within-subject measures. The a student that cases a as served factor. analyzed between-subjects individual's Each two estimates time-on-task served as covariates. The do a time-on-task not covariates of the task explain portion significant prediction = = MSE > The .34. benefits of over variance, 15) F(1, 0.96, 1.41, p analyzing = = remains MSE < .01. reliable, 15) F(1, 15.76, 1.41, summarizing p TABLE 7 That Students a Make Would as Prediction on Conditionalized Whether Probability They or in a Noted Missed Homework Their Concept (Experiment 2) a Prediction Based on of Probability Concept Homework Noted in Homework Missed in Homework of Type cases .74 .44 Analyzing .26 .11 Summarizing chapter This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

26 A TIME FOR TELLING 499 Discussion a cases on and students the helped chapter reading simply contrasting Analyzing a the same and of than It task more the chapter. summary writing prediction reading in a students this who summarized the that note to is informative chapter graduate of who the did not simply undergraduates Experiment outperform experiment 1 a lecture. stu- then heard the cases and lead read about may summarizing Although within a it and assemble the does not to elaborate dents text, key guarantee concepts needed will have the differentiation for the that application. knowledge resulting A in their this a is that missed who students of outcome concept study revealing a a on chance based of had summaries (. 11) making prediction negligible chapter their missed a in that students who However, pattern concept-relevant concept. relevant the In still chance had a decent of case (.44) prediction. analyses making in missed the the stu- the about activity, analysis patterns follow-up questioning the that not had not noticed stated to dents (as patterns opposed they generally the because These results stu- are to them). interesting graph analyzing bothering the with a were in the data missed who on dents pattern footing summarizing equal in the relevant the about neither had when read students concept chapter; they pre- even when the as it turned relevant the seen However, out, pattern. analyz- viously the of a a had still missed students they probability higher making pattern, ing the than did the summarized who relevant students relevant explicitly prediction summaries in vs. their .26). (.44 chapter concept the effects is that the this of One of analyzing implication finding contrasting the be to a effect. cases credited cannot cases Analyzing yielded simply generation if even the a was never benefits for concept, concept-relevant pattern given gener- the extension One the for both ated beyond explanation, possible analysis. during the sum- of the for aforementioned effect and over analysis advantage generation a were of what the students anal- in their consideration from comes learning mary, cases. were the of our account, By they discerning important contrasting yses the have students the distinctions distinctive may provided Discovering patterns. that could understand the with they sufficiently precise subsequently knowledge research the had overlooked. Previous on of they patterns description chapter's if shown has discern distinctions for that, people perceptual example, learning, distinctions these within can facilitate a domain, (Arnoult, learning subsequent a can one E. J. At & Baker, 1950; Gibson, level, 1953; 1940). conceptual Gagn6 this distinctions new understand can who experts phenomenon among recognize raw in an article have never even the stu- data. The described analyzed they though cases dents the differentia- who some developed expert-like contrasting analyzed that the whereas tion students could told, being support by learning summarizing had the chance. did s never not understand the they chapter' descrip- Consequently, at level. Future will a needed and to research tions be deep explanations explore this further. interpretation This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

27 AND SCHWARTZ BRANSFORD 500 In an the is whether once distinctions, meantime, question important remaining In sufficient for are we the section, discovered, introductory understanding. deep to further cases can set the but claimed that for analyze opportunities stage learning an lack sufficient framework that because not are students often helps overriding a the have model to them discovered. distinctions or they theory explain develop this us test claim. 2 not did allow and to 1 Experiments a this fol- whether issue without 3 addresses analysis examining by Experiment We task. the on to leads lecture prediction hypothesize performance strong lowing will them that to will the framework it not not. that Students helps develop general- the new to ize situations differentiated their (i.e., task). prediction knowledge control to over variables of more 3 is also allow precise designed Experiment maintain In and eco- we the to theoretical 1 2, attempted importance. Experiments The the results. for of the students, assign- validity completed example, logical the an as This extension of for ments homework. allows experimental easy inter- educational but it leaves alternative into many practice, open manipulations their the on One alternative was that students time more results. of pretations spent of their time-on-task the the summaries. than analyses reports Although analyses inaccu- were the that this students' it is did not alternative, reports possible support this in worthwhile is environment controlled more A rate. regard. experimental had ex- the two When students are other also There concerns. cases, analyzed they then and the cases over several to the they analyzed spread days; concepts posures In summa- the rehashed the cases that had examined. a read contrast, they chapter Another information. a relevant the to task exposure only provided single rizing in which came this second the summarization is that concern study, always chapter a con- uses a The more it at strictly following disadvantage. experiment put might alternative other to defuse these and balanced trolled and explanations. design 3 EXPERIMENT a into main the This experi- single hypotheses experimental pulls study together more a time for that the it tests ment. First, by telling doing hypothesis "creating of on demonstration the be This not improves study optimal. always may telling" rele- a summarize in both condition + lecture a students summarize 2; Experiment the tests hear a lecture. the and vant text Second, hy- experiment subsequent chapter learn- sufficient for is not cases alone these that deep contrasting analyzing pothesis in + which an students includes condition The analyze analyze analyze study ing. a hear We text. read never a lecture or cases but twice same the set of contrasting tell- "double "double and the a how for no basis have discovery" predicting priori the tests the fare relative to one another. should conditions Finally, experiment ing" to learn cases students the that by being prepares analyzing hypothesis contrasting a lec- and hear the cases + lecture students this told. For condition, analyze analyze This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

28 A TIME TELLING FOR 501 and this are If the ture. condition should correct, "discovery telling" hypotheses to on the lead task. best the prediction performance Unlike the this does not counterbalance the use of study experiments, previous schema materials All treatment. instructional the the students be- and by encoding lecture and balloon on the the encoding by hearing concepts. passage gin analyzing their afterward that treat- It is complete they respective only between-subjects in the three described ments one of the schema concepts ways previ- by learning in for same the One the learn reason concepts everyone ously. encoding having and it as the is that to way simplifies procedures compared experimental design combinations. At the and the treatment same possible concept counterbalancing the measures for it that baseline are time, experimental provides ensuring groups all should the conditions apply comparable. Presumably, concepts encoding to the well task. equally prediction Method in no had courses who prior sophomores Thirty-six psychology college partici- The a the as task mixed the pated. prediction using design experiment employed The all measure. the students elements of the within completed dependent study a Students served classroom their as controls own en- the setting. completing by As an the lesson in-class first. the students balloon analyzed coding assignment, cases 80 students lec- the Two heard for the min. later, collectively passage days on the ture For the schema lesson 5 the students later, concepts. encoding days were three the into In conditions. separated between-subjects randomly analyze + + students and a lecture received with the conditions, analyze analyze packet visit cases with In and them for doctor summa- worked the 80 min. contrasting + lecture rize the received a with schema students and condition, packet chapter and read summarized for 80 the This work was seat collected at the min. chapter of class. in students end the the two lecture Two conditions heard a later, days the + schema in the The on lecture students 30-min concepts. analyze analyze this condition doctor visit in for more an- 30-min spent period looking patterns other Seven the the students room. task as be- later, days completed prediction fore. the was student as work before. of There was 92% Coding completed the and for 86% initial task for the and prediction agreement agreement graphs summaries. of the in-class time students' sum- and (Because pressures, graphs maries were as well as not before.) composed Results The on the that task indicate neither the double performances prediction discovery nor the double were sufficient as for to the combina- deep learning telling compared of and tion 5 shows that the in students the + lec- discovery telling. Figure analyze This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

29 502 SCHWARTZ AND BRANSFORD Schema For For Concepts Encoding Concepts Analyze+Lecture 4 conditions) (all Analyze+Lecture Analyze+Analyze Summarize+Lecture 3 U) 2 *cr 0. o 0 1 0 Schema Encoding Concept Type FIGURE 5 Evidence of the on task out broken concept understanding prediction by concept and All condition students the balloon cases and heard 3). type (Experiment analyzed passage the For lecture. schema the the + lecture condition doc- the encoding concepts, analyze analyzed tor visit and heard the schema cases + the condition the doctor lecture, analyze analyze analyzed visit the cases + and summarize lecture condition summarized the schema and twice, chapter the heard schema lecture. ture made treatment the most In schema in students the sum- contrast, predictions. + marize and lecture + treatments fewer made schema analyze analyze predictions the and were same about as one another. the students in the summa- Furthermore, + rize + and lecture made treatments fewer on based analyze analyze predictions schema than in This makes that sense had the encoding concepts concepts. they op- to learn the and portunity encoding concepts through discovery telling. To + test of the the lecture the number treatment, statistically advantage analyze schema of and the number of as served predictions encoding predictions The measures. three treatments the for schema as a served within-subject concepts A variable. x interaction of Treatment Prediction between-subjects significant = = and < MSE shows the that 0.03, 5.49, .01, (schema F(2, 33) Type p encoding), + lecture condition the same number of schema as en- analyze yielded predictions in whereas students other the two treatments made fewer coding predictions, than schema neither the predictions predictions. Evidently, encoding contrasting nor a verbal cases were sufficient in their own for under- exposition right deep both these and novices needed the the standing; discovery telling. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

30 A TIME FOR TELLING 503 the to discussion schema the lessons are in fo- (which experimental Confining the who summarized the students 66.7% of the noted in ideas cus), chapter target 58.3% their students the + in of noted ideas the their summaries, analyze analyze + in and the the of noted lecture their students ideas 52.1% analyze graphs, graphs. students the in to two the due did conditions not limit, 80-min analyze (Perhaps in ideas as note as + Even the lecture students 2.) many analyze though Experiment in their fewest noted the the best on the they concepts performed assignments, pre- 8 task. Table the diction a of schema shows making probabilities prediction whether conditionalized noted on the the was in As lesson. concept during Experi- + the lecture ment treatment the of a 2, yielded analyze highest probability making whether the in of students noted or missed the prediction, target regardless concept their analyses. Discussion In this the double students who the summarized a on study, telling chapter target heard and lecture then did a further on those not well on concepts concepts perform the task. the double students who looked for prediction Similarly, analyze patterns in the cases did without not well. This latter any following exposition perform of students showed those for even group performance poor concept-relevant pat- terns discovered in their that In had students who contrast, they analyses. analyzed the and cases a lecture did well on the heard In task. addition to quite prediction beneficial of a the effects time for rule these results demonstrating creating telling, out time on task as an variable because all students in treatments all explanatory worked for the amount time. It is same of to when even note com- that, interesting of the made the + stu- bined, possible percentage by analyze predictions analyze dents and the + students lecture summarize does add not to the (16.7%) (14.6%) up + of lecture made students This (43.8%). analyze percentage by predictions sug- a between the to one's differentiate of the gests synergy opportunity knowledge and the at hand to hear a framework that artic- phenomenon opportunity conceptual ulates the of those significance phenomena. TABLE 8 That a Would Make Students Schema Prediction as on Conditionalized Whether Probability Noted Missed a in or Their or Summaries Concept They (Experiment Analyses 3) Prediction Based on a Schema Probability of Concept Condition Noted in in Work Work Missed Study Study + .60 lecture .26 Analyze + .18 .15 Analyze analyze + Summarize lecture .23 .06 This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

31 AND BRANSFORD SCHWARTZ 504 DISCUSSION GENERAL to cases that In students three analyzed light brought contrasting experiments, text a lecture received or on Afterward, memory. Ap- they phenomena. memory a for outcomes week later 1 hypothetical experiment they predicted proximately The studied. the had students in of could be that they concepts light interpreted to the control treatments of more accurate made (a) reading compared predictions text a a relevant in features cases and the the about lecture, (b) hearing summarizing a lecture. twice cases without the and a and lecture, (c) receiving analyzing hearing students that extended of the cases to benefits the concepts analyzing Interestingly, when in This their discover not did however, occurred, they only analyses. actually indicate the results In that a received combination, teaching exposition. subsequent stu- if the students' in a can role understanding deepening significant by telling play In these to a chance had dents have studies, knowledge. prior acquire appropriate Our this the students cases knowledge. prior interpreta- generate helped contrasting the that con- these results is behind mechanism the of tion analyzing psychological nec- structures the differentiated with students cases knowledge trasting provided a level. at a understand to explanation deep subsequent essary Instruction of Common Methods Other to Comparisons about there are a of new instructional with As questions proliferation approach, any ef- the For would the instruction work. that make the active example, ingredients im- the How first cases? then the text and if students read fects as be analyzed strong nonvisual would and the of the results to the instruction was analyses, graph portant stu- lead cases the of the initial well? as Does work contrasting analysis production a others of at the to some attend to dents subsequent telling? during expense topics is be- outcomes and all the The effort to ingredients possible decompose empirical our of force the maintain to article. this of the Moreover, practical scope yond it which in controlled to moved we not have claims, settings laboratory tightly out be more feasible to would processes. underlying single psychological methods cannot isolate instructional of Whole-scale easily underly- comparisons instruc- new that evidence causes. however, do, provide They ing psychological to con- a chance In can are worth tional addition, they provide pursuing. approaches an when to theories different effectiveness of the trast applied psychological context. authentic learning under- basic claim that our we these three In deep implemented experiments, dis- when structure a differentiated both (as develops knowledge requires standing structure and an contrasts the (as cases) knowledge among explanatory cerning alternative several us to The studies allowed comes often explore telling). through ac- to enhance how for understanding through generative proposals psychological This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

32 A TIME FOR 505 TELLING elaboration and overt tivity, assembly) including (knowledge production (learning Other instructional of theories elaboration and exter- by doing). implementations nal make would for as would production comparisons, fitting prescriptive peda- as case-based such and (Williams, 1992) gogical proposals learning project-based et We consider four frame to our al., (Barron 1998). learning possibilities help in instructional main the Our intent is not to points. following comparisons suggest cases are the that a time to create for our in- Rather, way only contrasting telling. is tent our claims about this to intervention worked well so clarify why by placing in a falsifiable context. claims those in One used classrooms is to have students read a text approach frequently and think of Another is think students to have of personal examples. approach the about activities are text. These of both forms students elaboration; questions make a to a connection or between the connection information missing try spot text their in the and Would forms these elaboration of work better knowledge. than cases the We not. Elaborative as- contrasting approach? suspect approaches that students sume have the differentiated that enable would already knowledge them assemble to In or cases, however, questions. many appropriate examples the or novices that for a examples personal questions generate given concept have a relation to distinctive the of the As a may only vague properties concept. there is little in the elaborations or can that the nov- consequence, questions help ices ascertain distinctive in the features future This situations. truly example the first claims. of our is ideas for understand- highlights Assembling important but it is also that discern the distinctive features of the ing, important people ideas are they assembling. A second common in instructional at stu- is to have least, approach, psychology dents in classic The is will that students idea be active participate experiments. par- in the will be worthwhile, phenomena; ticipants they by doing. learning Although there that we two are do not reasons this embrace a as to specific way approach teach even if it is with a lecture or text. The first is concepts, coupled subsequent in is cumbersome and becomes an occa- pragmatic-participating experiments sional than a event rather of The method of cases, staple pedagogy. contrasting scales to a homework be that can however, easily up weekly assignment completed in to attendance lecture a The second hall. concern is that does not prior large doing in with result necessarily "doing understanding." Experimental participation puts the in student the of rather role than The for no- subject psychologist. opportunities features a as are different from when the cases. For ticing subject quite analyzing students on focus the than rather on example, may completing experiment noticing in their distinctions own and If the behavior. is to have students think thoughts goal a like then should like they psychologist, participate psychologists learning during & This our second Morris, Bransford, Franks, (cf. 1977). example highlights Generative is central to but the must be point. activity understanding, things right generated. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

33 BRANSFORD SCHWARTZ AND 506 A use third is of to case." method for instruction a Students, "telling example, in a of a or action, may explore they videotape may psychological phenomenon detailed This case-based read a otherwise ab- overly grounds learning example. a with this stract instruction can be Coupled principled knowledge. explanation, A effective risk with this White, 1994; 1993). (Hmelo, potential very approach, that students will notice the is that it assumes of the case features relevant however, if or suffi- this have students occur Without contrasts, only may explicit example. the An to discover cient features of the ex- case. knowledge important background for a of an classroom teacher, viewing elementary pert videotape example, may A the chairs are too close to the door and could cause chaos at the that bell. notice is this classroom feature. to observe novice, however, unlikely is out One around to Ex- limited features. way prior knowledge important point 2 make for students showed that and could 3, predictions periments example, These features were that them their to not noticed on on own. told based but predic- when students differentiated occurred had some of tions, however, already only distinctive the domain's features. stu- showed that 1 Moreover, telling Experiment dents students as as features effective not was discover about actively helping Further the for of novices them. helping generate important support importance that neither and Brown came instruction found features from (1961). They Gagn6 on unscaffolded from an nor instruction a relying discovery using example single instruction and are as effective as rule that takes the an form explanatory example think these one of the cases In of may guided experiments, discovery. contrasting the as students' to of our a features, way highlighting guide discovery significant students third cases a differentiate to way help provide Contrasting powerful point. their of a domain. knowledge their A students asks to instructional and conduct own fourth design approach students are en- In of both this form by project-based learning doing, experiments. their to inherent own contrasts the and and they explore gaged experi- generative, receive that novices mental can so Assuming they support appropriate designs. vehicle this can be a revealing experiments, powerful approach learning design the in- in the is event The often et however, al., 1998). (Barron culminating project, An further a rather for structional than learning. opportunity preparation sequence is missed when a for do time create take but activities not telling advantage project of it. 3 demonstrated that without discovery explanation Experiment subsequent This our not lead to fourth does always highlights point. understanding. deep Deep about differentiated an and both phenomena knowledge requires understanding differences. the those of of understanding significance of Cases Features Good Contrasting Our tests elements formal of of the a no experiments provided optimal contrasting a few The can the but nonetheless move con- discussion forward. case, examples This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

34 A TIME 507 FOR TELLING included con- and balloon visit the doctor used trasts cases, here, passage multiple students The were able handle variable data. to the noise of trasts and background had domain and sufficient in because this they knowledge psy- complexity, part, contrasts. In domains in which students worthwhile to recognize insight chological more be cases less have less may contrasting appropriate complex prior experience, asked have we For contrasts. little in the lest lost students prealgebra example, get of classes rate-time-distance that can solve tools choose to students help among 6 shows the of tools some et in al., (Bransford contrasting press). Figure problems "clut- less are the The contrasts between tools choose. students the which from may it so students makes This studies. these of the cases to tered" contrasting compared still the contrasts. can locate Students limited with important algebra knowledge discussed the of these for who worked with cases, meaning contrasting example, a with students who worked correct their whereas and the axes scales, single graph case The former an on the to tended graph. represents interpret points plotted single the because children considered for instruction increased algebra preparedness than arithmetic instance. rather a relations single, general in include are contrasts for there to reasons Sometimes, noisy settings, multiple and features to the students to ability recognize important develop help example, In and limited in cases of embedded data future 1992). (CTGV, complexity settings For relief. into contrasts the intended some can example, bring framing knowledge, for water an video we about have used (CTGV, story monitoring pollution anchoring the in "order" The the 7. with shown students in 1997) Figure catalog conjunction the out students in func- a river. anchor The for tests best that tool helps pick pollution students items the whereas contrasts tional issues, catalog develop ques- help among test total should the for differentiate alternatives tions that they (e.g., specific et of of number the number or of al., 1998). Vye organisms organisms; types are is that cases of set feature the to a they contrasting aligned good key Perhaps if a lecture on For to the psychological principles, giving learning example, goals. features the that the differentiate contrasts should principles empirical exemplify limited are It is that to cases not in to action. note, however, contrasting important learn If is have to the dif- about discriminating people phenomena. goal empirical on their distinctive one theories ferent and contributions, rely contrasting might re- in this case be effective can on a very single perspectives Multiple viewpoints. in For we & recorded Bransford, Lin, (Schwartz, example, Brophy, press). gard were a who shown the of of observations brief faculty psychology videotape eight with with encounter a voice-activated mobile. an first different infant's Faculty For one wondered noticed different things. example, specialties naturally person the whether the has learned that her voice activates child how to determine mobile, a third of and and on commented the another voice instrumentality language, multi- these When trust of issues and consistency. response juxtaposed, up brought ex- notice different learn to how theories and students ple prepared perspectives of different elements situation. the same plain This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

35 I IN I I !!II i! I ii I xI AM X L.E i 1 F l V 0 e.u"sl (sLl?w) c o 00 0 _0 ___ Q -o 0 L I I 0 Q! F0 r r 0 n~ =I 0 O ng (s.I~~~w) s9usG(si)sugj- 1 I f I tI co C ca 0 ,, 508 This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

36 4- 0J 0 0 7 o 0 owm o 0 0 L: 0 C~ 4J =3 00 =3 3. 4J o =o3 - .. t-~W • u U, 4 t3l C 0 E 0 0n , U' ca.._ 4A 0 0 0 - 2 ~c -V- i0o ~ ~ 2 ciE - -Ne u m *~0~~C0..C. 9, o ' " o ,.- "5> •o• 4A O U U SO2 0 E -vo o.= "u >U. "o u" o U r~O 0 ~ U 3.> j w 0 0)0 E . ,. o•. •= .••Q.- 00•- 0 tj ? -"-•. -_=U -C 4.. _z Z::._ .-:=-8 • =• a) ca a. 0-o • 6 oc•-= S• " l C -C I- coE .. 4J"4J 4J • .- ='-• O~o• "r•e• =45 o •a. •,.••,•>-- • _ ~ -u _C, ••" :•-o ~ ~ 0"4 L- u u 0 E,, .•. ,,v • ,',-,u ,= q~l••m•/pe'•~q.•pu•A,(po~ed/:-C 4J E ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 :]•~ (DO 0o lao •~pa• ~uJo • ...,... ,,._ ~ ~ .,o/ olnuuJ qaM•ap!M oH oH.uo PI•Oe al-o-dn 4'J 509 This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

37 AND 510 BRANSFORD SCHWARTZ for Roles Telling cases are effective at the differ- of contrasting Although scaffolding development entiated is a limit there can to what we to dis- knowledge, reasonably expect people A cover. contrast one the distinction discover between a help simple may primacy and seems it but that one would a discover effect, recency unlikely spontaneously of that where effect. this could direct This is teach- theory working memory explain a can valuable role. It can offer a level would be that ing play higher explanation time A difficult or to discover. level is consuming quite higher explanation impor- a because tant that it extend can framework one's understand- generative provides the cases that have been and beyond ing specific experienced analyzed (e.g., & Schwartz Schwartz & for the Black, 1996; Moore, Consider, 1998). example, in visit third the doctor students cases that the the (see analyzed study Appendix). the All in that the remembered case the his wallet. patient participants forgot Many students in our of noted and the the re- excellent graphed experiment participants' call had but few of the an for this event wallet, forgotten developed explanation why remembered. in was were a students not re- to position Consequently, recognize a A lecture level. surface differed at that lated text on this reme- or examples topic this have a died that out struc- pointing by problem scripts goal-driven, sequential and a events that with the successful ture of are interfering completion script's goal remembered. Given this well the students could the same information, recognize in the and red white clothes would task; prediction namely, mixing phenomenon a of successful clothes stu- the washing completion prevent script. Consequently, infer that this dents of the could machine is that passage washing part something should remember. participants a and A other forms of direct be should not dismissed as text, lecture, teaching on the a learner of & Vinski, Frankovich, passive reception part requiring (Begg, A an or text be ineffective effective to en- 1991). simply may Holgate, given way the construct which Read- people generative by courage understanding. processes a a seem like a text lecture novices because or ing activity hearing may passive have often sufficient the not to do text background knowledge genera- approach In the same whereas ex- novices article, little, reading generate tively. may very construct The can alternatives. plausible interpretive important perts many hand when be a at readers a rel- is how on read to text generative help they question a create to as we have asked how novel time for or here, telling. topic, atively has been a make One the structure of text to to for it easier improve approach A & to T. readers Anderson H. text considerate Armbruster, 1984). (e.g., process frees for the resources understand- construct to generative up processes required role such chal- The the as of Other ours, knowledge. ing. approaches, emphasize in a for these is to the that lenge knowledge present approaches way expert's When can is be- other use. the novices for not so challenge writing great experts, This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

38 A TIME FOR TELLING 511 audience cause one the has that differentiated knowl- may presume sufficiently the to take of When written for novices, edge advantage expertise. writing measures and cautions to be taken to need a create time tell- for however, special thus "the seem Distinctions can obvious to who, ing, expert avoiding trap." experts bother to illuminate do not the them. to dis- therefore, Moreover, expert's ability is cern a As often tacit neither instructor nor hence, result, and, goes unrecognized. have that students students missed distinctions. recognize may important is an there Even to when students can the be dif- task differentiate, attempt help ficult when are It about novices told make. should is rela- distinctions simply they a if distinction that to tell same set to the shares of someone, tively easy person with the of to content shared However, instruction, experiences. respect experi- are ences what and novices are we for have So, missing. experts exactly example, found as even describe a cued-recall mea- we, that, instructors, though carefully sure use the the students and are often term with cued-recall, thinking they really the less differentiated test. notion, memory a the relation text and between the it relies we can on, By considering examples different describe to two be novices knowledge-based help approaches generative a One be "For the called Ex- during might telling. approach Example" approach. devices as and such novices use their examples pository analogies help knowledge of the or to make sense new of the ideas. this model, analogy By example expert's the and the illuminate The ideas. analogies examples expert's generative activity of in the to find reader the between their similarities occurs trying prior knowledge the of and the explanations. expert's example A different tact be called "Detective the In this may Story" approach. approach, view their like the a to as detective solution explanations something experts good an treat as to be rather than as the story. example They explained something thing The that of the the reader in theories. occurs explains experts' generativity seeing how the illuminate the The text becomes the solu- explanations experts' examples. to a tion Of for a text to the solution to a readers course, puzzle. provide puzzle, must the If know at a level. have a readers puzzle pieces fairly precise only general of of the them then method will seem ade- any pieces, knowledge together fitting be will and there little dedicated to whether quate, generative determining activity the If the are the details known, however, expert's explanations join snugly. pieces can readers determine whether the the of the actively explanation joins edges We a believe do can cases of such pieces adequately. contrasting good job creating a time for because novices to discern the of the features distinctive they telling help This differentiated makes the done puzzle pieces. together" "fitting by knowledge the all the more detective and it the for expert background provides compelling, because the distinctions have been made the deeply understanding appropriate by a learners. As learners are better able to the of consequence, grasp significance what the has to expert say. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

39 512 AND SCHWARTZ BRANSFORD ACKNOWLEDGMENTS work was This a from Research Grant Vanderbilt Univer- supported by University the and of Education Grant R305F60090. Foundation, sity, by Lilly by Department We the Mina comments of an appreciate thoughtful Johnson-Glenberg, anony- mous Walter Leona and Isabel Beck. The reviewer, Kintsch, Schauble, opinions our and are own not do the reflect of the necessarily opinions granting agencies. REFERENCES P. R. The status of the American Abelson, (1981). 36, psychological concept. script Psychologist, 715-729. & R. A. On into bottles-A of Anderson, C., (1975). Ortony, putting apples problem polysemy. Cogni- tive 167-180. 7, Psychology, & T. B. B. Content area R. textbooks. C. In J. & Anderson, H., Armbruster, (1984). Anderson, Osborn, R. J. to in read American schools NJ: Lawrence (Eds.), Hillsdale, 195-226). Tierney Learning (pp. Erlbaum Inc. Associates, M. of D. Transfer and discrimination. Arnoult, (1953). predifferentiation simple training shape multiple Journal 401-409. 45, of Experimental Psychology, P. D. Educational A view. New Rinehart York: & Ausubel, (1968). Holt, psychology: cognitive Winston. J. J. & N. J. E. K. R., Bransford, J., D., Franks, S., McCarrell, Nitsch, (1974). Barclay, Comprehension semantic and Journal Verbal and Verbal 471-481. Behavior, 13, flexibility. Learning of B. D. N. J. & The Schwartz, Barron, J., L., Moore, J., A., Petrosino, A., Bransford, D., L., Zech, Vye, and at Vanderbilt. with Lessons from (1998). Cognition Technology Group Doing understanding: research and on The Journal the Sciences, 7, problem- project-based learning. of Learning 271-311. the of The directed In lesson. R. Ander- C. I. Beck, (1984). comprehension: Developing reading impact J. & J. R. to in read schools American son, Osborn, (Eds.), Hillsdale, 3-20). Tierney Learning (pp. Lawrence NJ: Inc. Erlbaum Associates, & B. words makes so but Vinski, L., I., L., Frankovich, (1991). memorable, Begg, Holgate, Generating does effective & 487-497. 19, Memory reading. Cognition, G. & J. in J. T. for text. Black, H., Bower, B., Turner, (1979). 11, memory Scripts Cognitive Psychology, 177-220. & R. G. J. Elaborative an of levels as of L., Bradshaw, Anderson, (1982). explanation encoding process- Journal Verbal and Verbal 165-74. Behavior, 21, ing. of Learning J. J. & R. N. New D. to Be- instruction: D., Bransford, J., Franks, J., Sherwood, (1989). Vye, approaches cause wisdom In be told. can't S. Vosniadou & A. and reason- (Eds.), Ortony Similarity analogical New York: Press. 470-497). ing (pp. University Cambridge & J. M. K. Contextual for Some Bransford, D., Johnson, (1972). prerequisites understanding: investiga- of recall. and tions Journal Verbal and 717-726. VerbalBehavior, 11, comprehension Learning of & a N. A J. sketch of W. to In Bransford, D., S. McCarrell, (1974). cognitive comprehension. approach Weimer & D. S. Palermo and the NJ: (Eds.), Hillsdale, 189-229). Cognition processes symbolic (pp. Lawrence Erlbaum Inc. Associates, J. & E. K. we understand to could under- not Bransford, Nitsch, D., (1978). Coming things previously In F. stand. J. & W. the in and and school (Eds.), Kavanagh Speech Strange language laboratory, clinic MA: MIT Press. 267-307). (pp. Cambridge, This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

40 A TIME FOR TELLING 513 D. L. & J. A transfer: with educational Schwartz, Bransford, D., (in press). Rethinking proposal simple A. & P. In D. Pearson research in Review education (Eds.), (Vol. 24). implications. Iran-Nejad of DC: American Educational Association. Research Washington, D. J. B. N. & The and L., Schwartz, D., L., Zech, Barron, Bransford, J., J., Vye, Cognition Technology at for Vanderbilt. invite environments and that sustain mathematical (in press). Group Designs P. In E. & K. McClain and mathemat- Cobb, Yackel, (Eds.), thinking. Symbolizing, communicating, on ics: and instructional NJ: Lawrence discourse, tools, Erlbaum Mahwah, Perspectives design. Inc. Associates, B. & A. C. Models NJ: Lawrence Graesser, Britton, text. K., Mahwah, (Eds.). (1996). of understanding Erlbaum Inc. Associates, L. A. in and Theoretical com- Brown, (1992). experiments: Design methodological challenges creating in interventions Journal classroom the The 141-178. Sciences, 2, plex settings. Learning of & A. J. C. in a Guided of learners. In K. L., Brown, (1994). discovery Campione, community McGilly Classroom lessons: classroom and Cam- (Ed.), Integrating 229-272). cognitive theory practice (pp. MA: MIT Press. bridge, M. H. T. in Short-term limitation children: or Mem- deficits? Chi, (1976). memory Capacity processing & 559-572. 4, Cognition, ory Where is the P. and mind? Constructivist sociocultural on mathematical de- Cobb, (1994). perspectives Educational 13-20. Researcher, 23(7), velopment. and at Vanderbilt. The as an series in- of anchored (1992). Technology Cognition Group Jasper example and struction: assessment data. Educational 27, Theory, program description Psychologist, 291-315. at and Vanderbilt. in A at frame- context: (1996). Technology Cognition Group technology Looking work for and education research. In D. Berliner & R. C. C. Calfee (Eds.), technology understanding educational New Handbook York: MacMillan. 807-840). of psychology (pp. at and Vanderbilt. The NJ: Lawrence Mahwah, (1997). Technology Cognition Group Jasper project. Inc. Erlbaum Associates, D. & R. Effects of on retention of Ex- Journal J., Lachman, (1971). Dooling, comprehension prose. of 216-222. 88, perimental Psychology, L. T. In G. Prose Bower H. The motivation and Frase, (1975). (Ed.), processing. psychology of learning New York: Academic. 9, (Vol. 1-47). pp. R. & K. E. a Transfer of discrimination to motor task. Journal M., Baker, (1950). Gagne, training ofEx- 314-328. 40, perimental Psychology, & L. T. factors in R. Some the of Journal Brown, M., (1961). Gagn6, programming conceptual learning. 313-321. 62, of Experimental Psychology, & R. J. J. Research on In the of J. J. Gibson aircraft. Mo- Gibson, M., (1947). (Ed.), Gagne, recognition tion and research DC: Government U.S. Of- 113-168). training picture (pp. Washington, Printing fice. R. The W. MD: and structure. Erlbaum Lawrence Garner, Potomac, (1974). processing of information Inc. Associates, A J. of E. of the and differentiation to Gibson, (1940). systematic generalization concepts application verbal 196-229. Review, 47, Psychological learning. E. J. New and York: Meredith. Gibson, (1969). of Principles learning perceptual development. E. J. & J. or enrichment. Differentiation J., Gibson, Gibson, (1957). Perceptual learning: Psychological 32-51. Review, 62, M. & K. schema Do and facilitate L., Gick, Paterson, (1992). contrasting examples acquisition analogi- cal transfer? Canadian Journal 539-550. 46, Psychology, of C. and A medical Hmelo, (1994). Development of independent thinking: learning of prob- study Vanderbilt doctoral dissertation, andproblem-based lem-solving University, learning. Unpublished TN. Nashville, This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

41 AND BRANSFORD 514 SCHWARTZ In A M. formal modest E. and D. Education R. I. (1981). Brodzinsky, thought: proposal. Siegel, Karplus, New & in and R. directions Golinkoff M. Hillsdale, 285-314). (Eds.), practice (pp. theory Piagetian NJ: Inc. Erlbaum Lawrence Associates, & A B. com- C. S. M. J. Fletcher, M., R., Nathan, Kintsch, E., Mannes, Kintsch, W., Britton, K., (1993). In and to The D. L. Medin (Ed.), of understanding. psychology learning prehension-based approach New York: Academic. motivation and 30, 165-214). (Vol. pp. learning in of of Journal structures the role The M. (1980). ontogeny learning. knowledge of Lindberg, Experi- 401-410. mental Child 30, Psychology, & LOGO: J. Franks, Bransford, J., K., Lever, Delclos, S., Littlefield, (1988). J., V., Clayton, Learning R. school E. and attitudes toward of and In of Method transfer skills, computers. teaching, general Law- NJ: and Hillsdale, 111-135). (Ed.), (pp. computer learning programming Mayer Teaching rence Erlbaum Inc. Associates, W. better? texts Text & Are N. D. E., Kintsch, Kintsch, B., McNamara, S., (1996). always good Songer, in levels of and from text. and coherence, learning understanding Cognition knowledge background 1-43. 14, Instruction, meth- instructional two to Test transition The A. L. Michael, (1989). therapy: from of theory language TN. Vanderbilt doctoral ods. Nashville, dissertation, University, Unpublished from The to & transition A. J. Warren, D., Bransford, S. T., Klee, Michael, L., (1993). theory therapy: of two methods. Test instructional 139-154. 7, Applied Cognitive Psychology, Yale CT: New J. & Social imitation. and N. Haven, Dollard, E., Miller, (1941). University learning Press. versus Levels of J. transfer & J. J. C. Franks, D., D., Bransford, Morris, (1977). appropriate processing 519-533. Verbal Verbal and 16, Behavior, Journal of Learning processing. Problem-oriented D. & M. R., I. Needham, (1991). training promotes analogical Begg, spontaneous & for transfer: 19, training. Memory Cognition, memory training promotes Memory-oriented 543-557. & A. in Simi- and In Vosniadou S. B. instruction. H. Ross, (Eds.), (1989). Ortony learning Remindings Press. York: New and 438-469). Cambridge University reasoning larity (pp. analogical A in for children of levels C. & M., Scardamalia, Bereiter, (1991). knowledge building: agency Higher the Journal of new The 37-68. media. for the Sciences, 1, Learning of knowledge design challenge Induction rules: & abstract models D. and J. B. between Black, L., Schwartz, (1996). Shuttling depictive fallback. and 457-497. 20, Science, Cognitive X. & for D. J. D. Software S., Schwartz, Lin, L., D., Bransford, (in press). managing complex Brophy, An course. from an Research educational Educational Technology psychology learning: example and Development. in world: material Men- the L. The of mathematics D. role J. & L., Schwartz, Moore, (1998). explaining models for 471-516. tal 22, Science, Cognitive reasoning. proportional a of The & Journal Delineation effect: N. P. J., Slamecka, Graf, (1978). ofEx- generation phenomenon. Human & 592-604. 4, Memory, Learning Psychology: perimental and of B. D. & Effects Constraints on effective elaboration: J. Bransford, Stein, S., (1979). precision 769-777. Journal Verbal Verbal and Behavior, 18, Learning generation. subject of and recall J. G. and & Text G. J. T., Vesonder, F., Voss, (1980). by high knowledge generation Spilich, 651-667. Verbal Journal individuals. Verbal and low Behavior, 19, Learning of knowledge at & and J. D. N. Zech, B., Barron, L., D., Bransford, L., J., Schwartz, Technology Cognition Vye, Group J. and revision. In D. SMART that environments Vanderbilt. reflection, (1998). monitoring, support and & A. Graessar in J. educational Hacker, (Eds.), theory practice Metacognition Dunlosky, (pp. Inc. Lawrence Erlbaum NJ: Associates, Hillsdale, 305-346). education. science and Causal ThinkerTools: B. models, White, (1993). Cognition change, conceptual and 1-100. Instruction, 10, This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

42 A TIME 515 FOR TELLING instruction into context: case-based from medical M. and S. Williams, (1992). Examples legal Putting the 367-427. education. The Journal 2, Sciences, of Learning APPENDIX that students doctor visit The cases are the the materials first contrasting analyzed, are the balloon The and the students' cases. second materials contrasting passage the and the what to data data were task was thought they graph important analyze for each experiment. patterns Visit the Students Materials Doctor The Analyzed by 1 Experiment In down write asked 6 to the researchers the first participants experiment, are The the here. visit events results when shown doctor. Notice occur that they to each has the reduced that each main idea been prose participant participants' if For the a enter "You with. came doctor's wrote, office," participant example, up the "You walk door of the another and doctor's wrote, suite," participant through be "Enter office." to both would miss this simplification may Although simplified in it the and differences it much details makes some subtle participants' protocols, across different to ideas easier compare participants. 1: in Check Wait. with Enter Sit down. office. Name receptionist. Participant exam called. Sit on Enter table. examines. Doc- room. Doctor tor another Make asks office. Leave appointment. questions. in with other Look 2: Check at Read magazine. peo- receptionist. Participant Name called. on table. Sit Nurse tests. Doctor examines. ple. Leave office. in down. Sit with 3: Check Read Talk to magazine. Participant receptionist. Talk doctor Leave nurse. to Nurse about office. tests. problem. office. Sit down. Read 4: Enter exam Un- room. Enter Participant magazine. dress. on table. Nurse tests. Doctor Get examines. dressed. Sit office. Leave in Enter office. Check 5: with Sit down. Read receptionist. maga- Participant Enter room. called. Follow nurse. zine. exam Name Nurse tests. Doctor Doctor examines. enters. in 6: with Sit down. Read Check Nurse Participant magazine. receptionist. Wait. Get Doctor medicine. Doctor examines. tests. greets. Leave office. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

43 BRANSFORD AND SCHWARTZ 516 2 Experiment read 12 about different 8 new second the In participants passages experiment, visit to the doctor. John's of interest was the one The describing paragraph topics. Visit The Doctor While he waited he read the doctor's in with John checked mag- receptionist. nurse. John talked to the John nurse called his name. The undressed. azines. doctor was The room. examination to the in The came doctor friendly. very doctor's the some John. John doctor The left office. for pills prescribed a were the all the minutes after participants given reading paragraphs, Twenty from 1 to a scale 12 sentences on 7 rate Their was to task test. (low) recognition the fol- The sentence. read that had were sure to as how actually they they (high) in Table shown are results 12 to the and had sentences the are rate, they lowing Al. in the doctor's with John checked A) receptionist. John sat down. B) waited he read While he C) magazines. followed the nurse. John D) undressed. John E) nurse. the talked to John F) room. in John examination the The nurse tested G) John. The doctor H) greeted John. examined doctor The I) John. for some The doctor J) pills prescribed made another John K) appointment. office. left the doctor's John L) TABLE Al 12 of the Sentences Participants' Ratings L K I H F J E D C B A G 7 2 4 1 7 4 6 3 3 7 7 6 7 Participant 1 7 3 3 4 1 7 5 5 5 7 6 8 Participant 6 3 4 5 4 3 7 5 5 3 7 6 9 Participant 4 2 7 4 4 3 7 3 6 7 6 7 10 Participant 4 6 6 2 4 5 3 3 5 7 7 6 11 Participant 7 3 2 2 3 6 5 7 4 7 6 5 12 Participant 1 7 7 5 3 5 5 2 3 7 7 7 13 Participant 4 7 3 4 2 4 4 5 7 5 5 5 14 Participant This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

44 A TIME TELLING FOR 517 3 Experiment third the In 7 new 12 read the experiment, participants Again passages. para- involved of interest The to the doctor. was a bit different from graph passage going the passage. previous The Visit Doctor in with doctor's checked John the There were chairs in the receptionist. four While he read room. waited he nurse The his called waiting magazines. John John clothes on his name. a coat John talked to undressed. put hanger. in the nurse. The came to the doctor examination room. The doctor was very The doctor some John John. had his prescribed friendly. pills for forgotten John the doctor's wallet. office. left minutes after the the were told that Twenty passages, finishing participants they were to write down could remember the from doctor visit everything they para- This the is what wrote down: graph. participants in John checked with 15: the He sat down. He read Participant receptionist. while The he nurse called his waited. John name. magazines to the talked nurse. The doctor examined John. The doctor John a John his gave prescription. forgot money. John 16: to the While he he read waited, Participant receptionist. spoke maga- zines. The doctor examined him. John his left at wallet home. left the John office. doctor's John in 17: entered the He checked with the office. He Participant secretary. followed the nurse. sat the examination He on nurse The table. John did tested have his him. not wallet. 18: John went to the sat down in He the room. Participant receptionist. waiting The nurse name. John called his John was undressed. tested got the nurse. John was examined the John doctor. for- had by by his wallet. John left. gotten John went to the 19: doctor. He read nurse The called Participant magazines. John. The John some nurse The tests. came in. doctor gave not John his did have John left the wallet. office. doctor's 20: entered the John office. John checked with the Participant receptionist. in four one of the John in sat chairs the office. He read periodi- cals. nurse The him into exam room. called the doctor The into came examination the room. The doctor examined John. John did not have his wallet. John 21: He to the doctor. his went wallet. He left doc- the Participant forgot tor's. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

45 518 AND SCHWARTZ BRANSFORD the Students Balloon Materials The Passage by Analyzed the three then In read the each of and following passage experiments, participants well the to as were as could. remember asked they passage would to the sound the not be balloons able carry. popped, If Everything A closed too also the correct would window would be away floor. from far sound. This is because most to tend the be well insulated. buildings prevent in the on a A break whole The electricity. of steady depends flow operation the the wire would also cause could middle course, of problems. Of fellow that is not loud to additional An shout. voice But the human far. carry enough be the could could there on is instrument. Then the break that problem string It is in- the no that to the best situation would clear accompaniment message. less distance. Then there would volve With problems. potential befewer face to the least number could contact, things go wrong. of face 1 Experiment the with students 8 sentences. In read the 13 first passage experiment, college be were told that what would These tested for their of memory they participants in condition. recall Four of the immediate were Im- the had read. participants they to after the the were told ev- write down passage, mediately participants reading 4 in from The the remember other could were participants passage. they erything count to had back read After recall condition. the the they delayed passage, they 4 these were this After ... 94 from 100 3s 97, 100, ). delay, participants (e.g., by to write down Here recall could instructed from the also passage. everything they is what remembered. they Immediate recall condition. 1: With face to face could the least number of contact, things go Participant If there be fewer Then would the potential problems. wrong. The the sound would not be able to hu- balloons carry. popped, A loud man to would is not closed voice window carry. enough also the sound from prevent carrying. could With face to face of the least number 2: contact, go things Participant dis- is clear the less situation would involve best It wrong. If would balloons tance. to sound the not be able the popped, a of flow on The whole steady depended operation carry. electricity. could 3: With face to face of the least number contact, go things Participant If the balloons to able the sound would not be popped, wrong. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

46 A TIME TELLING FOR 519 A break on the instrument. could Most string carry. buildings to tend well-insulated. be Then 4: fewer be would there With face to Participant problems. potential the least of number could If face the contact, things go wrong. the sound balloons not Then would there could popped, carry. to A in no the be break the wire accompaniment message. would cause problems. recall condition. Delayed If the 5: not balloons would the sound be able to Participant carry. popped, be too far would from the correct floor. It de- Everything away on a of flow steady electricity. pends If 6: the would not balloons the to be sound able Of popped, Participant carry. fellow could shout. the course, A 7: closed would window the sound If from prevent Participant carrying. sound the the would balloon With face to not popped, carry. number the least face of could The contact, things wrong. go human is loud to not voice that far. carry enough If 8: the balloons be the sound would not to able Participant popped, carry. would be too far from the correct floor. There Everything would be no to the accompaniment message. 2 Experiment In the second new 8 read the same students There experiment, college passages. also two was were Four a bit different from before. one of the conditions, although the is once as before. read This called the no-context condi- passage participants 4 other the tion. also The read once. read after However, participants passage they 4 in the saw these shown the Al. This passage, participants picture Figure picture the a context. is This the called condition because gives passage context-after they the saw after the After their tasks, picture reading completing passage. participants in both conditions tried to solve a in division their head 2,961 (i.e., 9). problem + to were the write told as much of down as could remem- Then, they passage they is the what ber. Here remembered. participants condition. No-context If 9: the balloons the sound be would not to able popped, Participant carry. too be would far from the correct floor. Everything away A 10: window would also closed the sound. With face to Participant prevent face the least number of could If the contact, things wrong. go balloons the not sound would to be able popped, carry. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

47 520 SCHWARTZ BRANSFORD AND Al The seen FIGURE picture by in context-after and the participants conditions. context-before (From & Bransford 1972. Johnson, Copy- Academic 1972 Press.) right by If instrument. could break 11: the balloons The the on string Participant the sound would be It all de- from carrying. popped, prevented a the middle in A break on flow of of electricity. steady pends could cause the wire problems. 12: The least number of be could would There wrong. Participant things go is The fewer voice not loud human potential problems. enough. Context-after condition. If The cause also it would balloon 13: the breaks, problems. string Participant the His voice could not fellow could shout. up building. carry correct fellow is electric- needed from The He floor. the 14: far too Participant The wire could not break. ity. be The would there If the balloons 15: popped, problems. guitar Participant break. strings might The less would face to If he could be 16: face, go things wrong. Participant have He could The balloons might pop. might stop. electricity to shout. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

48 A TIME FOR TELLING 521 3 Experiment the In final another of 8 students read the experiment, group college passage. 4 This the of read the twice without ever the time, participants passage seeing pic- This is ture. called the double encode condition the because were able participants to encode the twice. The 4 other looked at the (study) passage participants picture before read the is This called the condition. After the they passage. context-before finished the counted backwards from 100 participants reading passages, they by 3s. were instructed to write down as of much the as could Then, they passage they remember. Here is what recalled. they Double encode condition. If the 17: balloons the sound would not be to able Participant popped, carry. be would far too from the correct floor. A Everything away closed window also would the sound. prevent 18: If the balloons the sound would not be able to Of Participant popped, carry. the fellow could shout. But the human is voice not loud course, to It is that far. clear that the best situation would enough carry involve less distance. 19: With face to face the fewest number of could contact, Participant things go The whole on a flow of elec- wrong. operation depends steady If the balloons the sound not would tricity. popped, carry. 20: would too far be from the correct floor. If the bal- Participant Everything loons the sound would not be able to The popped, carry. string break could the on instrument. Most tend to be well buildings insulated. Context-before condition. If 21: the balloons the sound won't reach the window. It Participant pop, would be too far from her floor. she a have Also, away might closed window. He also needs a of flow to the good electricity If the wire will there be If his breaks, speaker. problems. guitar he will also have It would be much break, strings problems. if he better could be closer. to Face face contact would reduce the of number that could things go wrong. 22: It is clear that it would be better if he could closer to her. If Participant get the balloons the sound be won't to reach able from the pop, It would too be from far the correct window. Even if ground. This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

49 AND BRANSFORD SCHWARTZ 522 the And her be closed. window don't balloons the might pop, shout. the fellow could Of wire break. electrical course, might And far. to that voice is not loud human the But carry enough breaks. if his what instrument's string to lift able he the be his won't on If balloons the 23: there, way pop Participant be It would much far too would he be Then away. speaker. shout. He could to distance. at a closer if could be safer he try If he the window. to reach his won't be loud voice But enough his like her less could to face, breaking wrong go things sing guitar. to sound he couldn't the then and balloons His 24: might pop get Participant The break. wire to the the her window. Or, might speaker up of a flow on whole Maybe electricity. steady thing depends sound the This would window. a closed have she'll prevent not could Then he be insulated. tend to most since buildings If he loud voice won't be his shout, anyway. enough although addi- an could But less next to be could her, wrong. go things a will his break instrument is whether tional string. problem voice. his for no Then there would be accompaniment This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:17:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Related documents