When can a lack of structure facilitate strategic processing of information?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Researchers examining the effectiveness of an elaboration strategy (answering 'why') for learning new information have been concerned with the familiarity of the materials and how that affects learning. It may be, however, that both how information is organised and familiarity impact on the potency of the strategy. AIMS: We examined the influence of presentation structures (i.e., organisation of information) on the effectiveness of an elaboration strategy. SAMPLES: All participants were undergraduates (78 females, 67 males) enrolled in a first-year psychology course. Fifteen students participated in Experiment One, 42 students in Experiment Two, and 88 students in Experiment Three. METHODS: In Experiment One, preference for conceptual organisation was assessed. In Experiments Two and Three, students answered 'why' questions when different presentation structures were used. RESULTS: Students' preferred method of organisation did not match the imposed structure found in past research, suggesting that students may have been restricted in their ability to process the information distinctively. Students who were presented with the information in a random order achieved the largest memory scores. CONCLUSIONS: When students have to reconstruct as well as encode the information, these added task demands provide an added benefit for learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".