Techniques for Studying Textual Material

Fram (1975) found evidence of the benefit of elaborative processing with text material. He compared how participants in two groups remembered text: One group was given what are called “advance organizers” (Ausubel, 1968), ques- tions to think about before reading the text. They were asked to find answers to the advance questions as they read the text. Answering the questions should have forced them to process the text more carefully and to think about its im- plications. The group was compared to a control group that simply read the text in preparation for the subsequent test. The advance-organizer group answered 64% of the questions correctly, whereas the control group answered only 57% correctly. The questions in the test were either relevant or irrelevant to the ad- vance organizers. For instance, a test question about an event that precipitated America’s entry into World War II would be considered relevant if the ad- vance questions directed participants to learn why America entered the war. A test question would be considered irrelevant if the advance questions directed participants to learn about the economic consequences of World War II. The advance-organizer group correctly answered 76% percent of the relevant ques- tions and 52% of the irrelevant ones. Thus, they did only slightly worse than the control group on topics for which they had been given only irrelevant advance questions but did much better on topics for which they had been given relevant advance questions.
Many college study-skills departments, as well as private firms, offer courses designed to improve students’ memory for text material. These courses teach study techniques mainly for texts such as those used in the social sciences, not for the denser texts used in the physical sciences and mathematics or for literary materials such as novels. The study techniques from different programs are rather similar, and their success has been fairly well documented. One ex- ample of such a study technique is the PQ4R method (Thomas & Robinson,
1972).
The PQ4R  method derives its name from the six phases it advocates for studying a chapter in a textbook:
1. Preview: Survey the chapter to determine the general topics being dis- cussed. Identify the sections to be read as units. Apply the next four steps to each section.
2. Questions: Make up questions about each section. Often, simply trans- forming section headings results in adequate questions.
3. Read: Read each section carefully, trying to answer the questions you have made up about it.
4. Reflect: Reflect on the text as you are reading it. Try to understand it, to think of examples, and to relate the material to your prior knowledge.
5. Recite: After finishing a section, try to recall the information contained in it. Try to answer the questions you made up for the section. If you cannot recall enough, reread the portions you had trouble remembering.
6. Review: After you have finished the chapter, go through it mentally, recalling its main points. Again try to answer the questions you made up.
The central features of the PQ4R technique are the generation and answering of questions. There is reason to think that the most important aspect of these features is that they encourage deeper and more elaborative processing of the text material. At the beginning of this section, we reviewed the Frase (1975) ex- periment that demonstrated the benefit of reading a text with a set of advance questions in mind. It seems that the benefit was specific to test items related to the questions.
An important aspect of such techniques is testing ones memory rather than simply studying the material. As Marsh and Butler (2013) review, memory researchers have documented the special benefits of testing for over a century, but only recently has their educational im- portance been emphasized. In one demonstration, Roediger and Karpicke (2006) had participants study prose pages from the reading comprehension section of a test-preparation book for the Test of English as a For- eign Language. After studying the passage a first time, participants were either given an opportunity to study the passage again for 7 minutes or given an equal 7 minutes to recall the passage. Then a retention test was given after various delays. Figure 6.16 shows that there was little difference in when the test was given after a delay of just 5 minutes but that, as the delay increased, there was an increasing advantage for the group that was given the additional test opportunity. If you are like many students (Karpicke, Butler, & Roediger, 2009) you will study for a test by rereading the material. However, results like these suggest that you should consider inserting a self-test into your study regimen.
■ Study techniques that involve generating and answering questions lead to better memory for text material.