Thanks for this suggestion, Mike. I don't think this is the paper I had in mind, but it is certainly relevant. The result showing that students who read paraphrased versions of the paragraphs in massed repetitions did as well as those who read the (paraphrased?) paragraphs in the spaced condition strikes me as supporting a levels of processing approach, for one would always expect the massed condition to result in worse performance. I will need to read the actual paper. Thanks again!
Miguel ________________________________________ From: Mike Palij [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 6:45 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Michael Palij Subject: re: [tips] Is memory better when message is conveyed with different words the second time around? On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:48:02 -0700, Miguel Roig wrote: >Hi everyone, in my work on plagiarism I have come across >the claim that a reader will have better memory/understanding >of a message if on subsequent trials that message is conveyed >in different words. Miguel, are you asking for something like the following: Influence of paraphrased repetitions on the spacing effect. Glover, John A.; Corkill, Alice J. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 79(2), Jun 1987, 198-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.2.198 In two experiments, we examined the "spacing" effect in students' memory for paragraphs and brief lectures. In the first experiment, students who read massed verbatim repetitions of paragraphs recalled less of the content than did students who read verbatim repetitions spaced across time. In addition, students who read paraphrased versions of the paragraphs in massed repetitions recalled as much as did students who read the paragraphs in the spaced conditions. For Experiment 2, we used a brief lecture as the to-be-learned material and replicated the results of Experiment 1. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) I don't think that level of processing theory explains results like this, rather, massed verbatim repetition probably gives rise to proactive interference (PI) and reducing memory performance while massed paraphrase (which has the original followed by the paraphrase) would have less PI, at least at the surface or "verbatim" level. Glover & Corkill give a somewhat different explanation based on Cuddy & Jacoby (1982). Also, the Glover & Corkill article is a replication of Dellarosa & Bourne (1985) -- refs follow: Cuddy, L. J., & Jacoby, L. L. (1982). When forgetting helps memory: An analysis of repetition effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 451-467. Dellarosa, D., & Bourne, L. E. (1985). Surface form and the spacing effect. Memory and Cognition, 13. 529-537. HTH -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=1632838.7e62b84813297f170a6fc240dab8c12d&n=T&l=tips&o=49524 or send a blank email to leave-49524-1632838.7e62b84813297f170a6fc240dab8c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=49525 or send a blank email to leave-49525-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
