Ganske, 1981 Note taking 24 1.16 38 Henk & Stahl, 1985a Note taking 25 0.34 13 11 1.56 44 Marzano, & Note taking 3 1.26 40 Jesse, 1990 FIGURE 2.3 Research Results for Summarizing Strategies and Note Taking 1996), making physical models (Corkill, 1992; 1997), generating mental pictures (Muehlherr & Siermann, 1996; Willoughby, Desmarias, Wood, Sims, & Kalra, 1997), drawing pictures and pictographs (Macklin, 1997; Newton, 1995; Pruitt, 1993), and engaging in kinesthetic representations of the content (Aubusson, Foswill, Barr, & Perkovic, 1997; Druyan, 1997). Again, a fair amount of research supports the efficacy of processing information in nonlinguistic ways. Figure 2.4 reports some of this research. One aspect of nonlinguistic processing that is often overlooked is memory devices that employ some type of nonlinguistic representations. Typically, these devices fall under the general category of mnemonic strategies. Mayer (2003) describes mnemonic strategies as follows: Page 37 FIGURE 2.4 Research Results for Nonlinguistic Representation Synthesis Study Focus Number of Effect Average Effect Size Percentile Gain Sizes aMultiple effect are listed because of the manner in which effect sizes are reported. Readers should consult these studies for more details. Powell, 1980a General 13 1.01 34 nonlinguistic 6 1.16 38 techniques 4 0.56 21 & General 2 0.92 32 Fairbanks,1986a nonlinguistic 8 1.23 39 techniques Mayer, 1989a General 6 1.47 43 nonlinguistic 16 1.20 39 techniques Guzzetti et al., 1993 General 3 0.51 20 nonlinguistic techniques Hattie et al., 1996 General 9 0.91 32 nonlinguistic techniques Haas, 2005 General 5 0.38 15 nonlinguistic techniques
Ganske, 1981 Note taking 24 1.16 38 Henk & Stahl, 1985a Note taking 25 11 0.34 1.56 13 44 Marzano, & Jesse, 1990 Note taking 3 1.26 40 FIGURE 2.3 Research Results for Summarizing Strategies and Note Taking 1996), making physical models (Corkill, 1992; 1997), generating mental pictures (Muehlherr & Siermann, 1996; Willoughby, Desmarias, Wood, Sims, & Kalra, 1997), drawing pictures and pictographs (Macklin, 1997; Newton, 1995; Pruitt, 1993), and engaging in kinesthetic representations of the content (Aubusson, Foswill, Barr, & Perkovic, 1997; Druyan, 1997). Again, a fair amount of research supports the efficacy of processing information in nonlinguistic ways. Figure 2.4 reports some of this research. One aspect of nonlinguistic processing that is often overlooked is memory devices that employ some type of nonlinguistic representations. Typically, these devices fall under the general category of mnemonic strategies. Mayer (2003) describes mnemonic strategies as follows: Page 37 FIGURE 2.4 Research Results for Nonlinguistic Representation Synthesis Study Focus Number of Effect Sizes Average Effect Size Percentile Gain aMultiple effect are listed because of the manner in which effect sizes are reported. Readers should consult these studies for more details. Powell, 1980a General nonlinguistic techniques 13 6 4 1.01 1.16 0.56 34 38 21 & Fairbanks,1986a General nonlinguistic techniques 2 8 0.92 1.23 32 39 Mayer, 1989a General nonlinguistic techniques 6 16 1.47 1.20 43 39 Guzzetti et al., 1993 General nonlinguistic techniques 3 0.51 20 Hattie et al., 1996 General nonlinguistic techniques 9 0.91 32 Haas, 2005 General nonlinguistic techniques 5 0.38 15
DQ2_WhatWillIDotoHelpStudentsEffectivelyInteractwithNewKnowledge.docx