Different effects of instructional strategies on recall and comprehension of terms frequently used in formal analysis of art were examined. The study looked at a synthesis of three theoretical positions: dual-coding theory; schema theory; and elaboration theory. Two-hundred and fifty sixth-grade students were randomly assigned to three groups: control subjects; graphic subjects; and transformational subjects. Instruments consisted of Raven\u27s Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM) and the Art Vocabulary Test (AVT). The program consisted of three phases: (1) a 10-minute study session; (2) an interactive discussion; and (3) a drawing task. The results suggested that imagery strategies help students form and retain associations between verbal and visual information. Graphic organizers may promote more flexible applications of the associations for individuals who have already acquired good problem-solving skills. The concrete associations obtained from transformational imagery strategies improve student recall of specific associations. However; interview data suggested that the approach may constrain the associated meaning. Trends in the data are consistent with elaboration theory and could inform scholars and researchers who wish to analyze effects of visual and verbal associations. (KM

Martin, Anna C.

University of Northern Iowa

University of Northern Iowa UNI ScholarWorks Faculty Publications 1991 Effects of Visual/Verbal Associations Anna C. Martin University of Northern Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits you Copyright ©1991 Anna C. Martin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/facpub  Part of the Educational Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Martin, Anna C., "Effects of Visual/Verbal Associations" (1991). Faculty Publications. 5602. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/facpub/5602 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@uni.edu. Offensive Materials Statement: Materials located in UNI ScholarWorks come from a broad range of sources and time periods. Some of these materials may contain offensive stereotypes, ideas, visuals, or language. ED 335 279AUTHORTITLEPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROMPUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSIDENTIFIERSABSTRACTwawa MIMESO 021 535Martin, Anna C.Effects of Visual/Verbal Associations.Mar 9113p.Anna C. Martin, University of Northern Iowa, KamerickArt Building, Cedar Falls, IA 50614.Speeches/Conference Papers (150)MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDPS.*Associative Learning; *Cognitive Processes;*Communication Skills; *Educational Experiments;Grade 6; Intermediate Grades; *Research Design;*Statistical Analysis; Verbal Learning; Visual Aids;Visualization; Visual PerceptionArt Vocabulary Test; Raven Progressive MatricesDifferent effects of instructional strategies onrecall and comprehension of 'erms frequently used in formal analysisof art were examined. The study looked at a synthesis of threetheoretical positions: dual-coding theory, schema theory, andelaboration theory. Two-hundred and fifty sixth-grade students wererandomly assigned to three gr)ups: control subjects, gnaphicsubjects, and transformational subjects. Instruments consisted ofRaven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM) and the Art VocabularyTest (AVT). The program consisted of three, phases: (1) a 10-minutestudy session; (2) at interactive discussion, and (3) a drawing task.The results suggested that imagery strategies help students form andretain associations between verbal and visual information. Graphicorganizers may promote more flexible applications of the associationsfor individuals who have already acquired good problem-solvingskills. The concrete associations obtained from transformationalimagery strategies improve student recall of specific associations.However, interview data suggested that the approach may constrain theassociated meaning. Trends in the data are consistent witnelaboration theory and could inform scholars and researchers who wishto analyze effects of visual and verbal associations. (KM)**A*************** ***** *********************ax*Itstles*******************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.*X*********************************************************************FEFFECTS OF V1SUAL/VERBAL ASSOCIATIONSAnna C. MartinUniversity of Northern IowaMarch, 1991:4 Paper Presented at the Annual Conferenceof the National Art Education AssociationST COPY AVAIUBLEU I DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATIONCNN, a or docohOna4 Regedm-P. 8nd iftworementEDuCATIONAA. Rf SOURCES INFORMArtONCENTER fowl/tn.' eiko, Ilsa been ,00/001COCI IDSectrred f,oft% ihr penman of 0 0.401.ohOeValllhopr M.not chsrves Nwe Door. maw ç, 4.proor,rpfoclucvon Que101pPCkntS Ot b4.4* oprons st ,rTf4sclocunot necellafily ilpp,0141PM 0'6(4.Of R, pos.T.en Or p0hCir**PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL. IN MICROFICHE ONLYHAS SEEN GRANTED BYNNAAi /era(TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC/2EFFECTS OF VISUAL AND VERBAL ASSOCIATIONSOver the last two decades, researchers in the related fields of art, education andpsychology have contributed substantially to the knowledge base on the effects ofassociations of verbal with visual information. The research has supported theories toexplain processes that may underlie these effects (Kosslyn, 1980, Paivio, 1971, 1986;Rowher, 1980, Rumelhart, 1980). This theoretical base provided a framework forpredicting specific effects of combinations of visual and verbal :nformation. Scholars,researchers, and teachers could benefit from research-based information concerning thecognitive effects of different types of verbal and imaginal combinations.This paper reports partial results from a larger experiment concerned with effects ofinstructional strategies using visual and verbal associations. The controlled, quasi-experiment examined differential effects of two such strategies on recall and comprehensionof terms often useki in formal analysis of art.Theoretical BaseContemporary learning theory (Shuell, 1986) encompassed many informaltheoretical positions that explained specific phenomena or processes. Several of thesetheories proposed to explain observed effects of pictores and visual materials. One of theearliest and most prominent of these was dual doding theory (Paivio, 1971, 1986). Dualcoding theory evolved from early paired-associate learning research (Paivio, 1963) and wasfrequently modified, clarified, or refined in response to new research findings (Paivio,1986; Paivio, Clark, & Khan, 1988). Dual coding theory suggested that language andvisual perception were served by separate, parallel symbolic systems, with each systemdifferentially specialized. Paivio's theory was frequently cited in research, particularlystudies examining the effects of context and related pictures on verbal learning.33Kosslyn (1980) described dual coding theory as simplistic, amd argued thatspecialized neuron groups probably served the language and visual perceptual systems.Day and Bellezza (1983) argued that schema theory (Rumelhart, 1980) was moreconsistent with data on imagery in associate learning than dual coding theory. Schematafor thematic associations, according to Day and 13ellezza (1983), explained subjects'differential recall for abstract versus concrete nouns. Paivio (1986) argued that dual codingtheory offered a parsimonious explanation for differences in recall without the necessity forhypotheticol structures proposed by schema theory. Elaboration theory (Rowher, 1980)offered yet another cogent explanation for the documented effects of visual/verbalassociations. Mayer (1989) suggested that spatial qualities of graphics could promotesystematic thinking in novices, resulting in improved conceptual understanding of complexrelationships. Each theory offered a useful, but incomplete, explanation for observedeffects of visual and verbal associations. The present study contributes toward thecontinuing synthesis of these theoretical positions.MethodologyThe results reported here were obtained as part of a larger study conducted in aclassroom environment in a large urban school district in the southwest. The researchdesign consisted of a multi-method single factor quasi-experiment (Campbell and Stanley,1963). Participating teachers were selected from the pool of middle school art teacherswho had volunteered in order to provide a sample of sixth grade art students similar to thepopulation in the school district as a whole. Over the course of the study, the initial sampleof 250 sixth grade students was reduced to 190 students due to attrition. At the beginningof the study, participating students at each school were randomly assigned to three groups.4At the end of the study, groups consisted of 66 control subjects, 62 graphic subjects, and62 transformatio; ial subjects.Instruments consisted of the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM)(Raven, Court, & Raven, 1983) and the Art Vocabulary Test (AVT). The RSPM wasused to predict general problem-solving abilities. The Art Vocabulary Test was a treatmentspecific test developed for the present study. Both tests were for. ,d to be highly reliableand internally consistent. The sample distribution for the RSPM was similar to thedistribution for similar samples (Raven, 1986). The Correlation of the RSPM and the AVTwas .56 for the pretest and .46 for the posttest.Treatment consisted of three phases: (a) a ten-minute study session, (b) interactivediscussion, and (c) a drawing task. Treatments varied only in the type of assigned visualstudy strategies. Graphic students received definitions illustrated by severalrepresentations, varying in content and level of abstraction. The theoretical basis forgraphic organizers was proposed by Mayer (1989). Transformational students received thesame definitions, accompanied by illustrations conforming to guidelines for associativelearning proposed by Levin (Levin. Anglin, & Carney, 1987). ). A two (ability) by three(treatment) analysis of covariance was conducted to compare treatment-group means forhigh-ability and low-ability students on the Art Vocabulary Test posttest, statisticallycontrolling for the pretest.The analysis of covariance tested two null hypotheses:(1) : X1 X2 = X3and the interaction,(2) Ho : X(I,3) * Ab = (1 3)* Ab25The alpha for the design was set at .05. The rationale for this selection was that this alphawas sufficiently liberal to identify actual differences in the sample, and still allowconservative post hoc analyses of differences among treatments and ability levels. Randomstudent interviews, conducted two to four weeks following treatment, investigatedstudents' understanding of the concepts presented during treatment.ResultsThe results of the analysis of covariance indicated that the means for the threegroups differed, F (2, 183) = 7.51, p < .001, leading to rejection of the null hypothesisof no difference among treatment groups on the Art Vocabulary posttest, statisticallycontrolling for the pretest. The interaction of treatment and ability was ilot statisticallysignificant. Since the interaction was not significant, no post hoc tests were Nrformed forthe interaction. Observed means and standard deviations, and adjusted means are reportedin Table 1.Table 1Observed AVT Pretest anOosttest Means by Treattpent_AKLErS AVT PostTreatmentControlGraphicTransAllIn order to identify the source of the difference among the three means, adjustedposttest means were compared using a Sheffe test. The Sheffe procedure was selectedN Mean SD Mean SD66 6.06 5.94 12.41 7.7562 6.31 5.66 16.42 9.3762 6.34 6.78 17.50 9.81190 6.23 6.11 15.38 9.2266because it is a conservative test that allowed comparisons of all possible combinations ofmeans and because it is robust to deviations from a normal distribution (McNemar, 1969).The Sheffe method requires computation of a value, K. to determine the critical value ofthe F ratio for the level of significance and 6 I), (N j - I) degrees of freedom. The Fvalue for each comparison must exceed this critical value, K. in order to reject the nullhypothesis of no difference in group means. In this formula, N is the total sample size andj is the number of groups in the analysis. With df = 2, 186, a = .05, a table F value of3.00 is found.For the present analysis:K = (2 * 3.00)) = 2.45The adjusted within groups mean squares was computed using the MANOVA programfrom the SPSS-X statistical package (SPSS, 1985). The adjusted mean squares (within)for the total sample in the comparison was found to equal 53.42. The adjusted meansquares (within groups) is used to compute the sampling error variance. The Sheffeprocedure then compares variances of the difference between groups to the variance withingroups for each possible combination of adjusted treatment group means:X1 - X2F =M.Sw 2 [(I /Ni ) (1/N2)]1. Adjusted transformational group mean with adjusted control group mean:F = (17.43 12.53 ) /153.42 * (1/62+ I/66)1 = 2.952. Adjusted treatment group mean with adjusted control group mean:F = (16.37 12.53) /153.42 * (1/62 + I/66)1= 2.453. Combined treatment grov mean with control group mean:F = (17.43 - 16.37) /153.42 * (1/62 + 1/62)I = .6277For the comparison of transformational group students' adjusted mean AVT posttest scorewith control students' adjusted mean AVT posttest score, the F statistic exceeded the criticalK value of 2.45, (F 2, 186 = 2.95). Because the value of F for this contrast exceeded thecritical value, the hypothesis of no difference between the two means was rejected at the.05 level of significance. For the comparison of graphic group students' adjusted meanAVT posttest score with control students' adjusted mean AVT posttest score, the F statisticwas equal to or greater than the control group students' adjusted mean AVT posttest score,leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis of no difference in means at the .05 level ofsignificance. The difference in adjusted means for the two groups was not statisticallysignificant. Since the analysis of covariance failed to identify a significant interaction oftreatment and ability, no tests were conducted to compare differences in means by treatmentand ability.Table 2 reports observed and adjusted posttest means for high-ability and low-ability students in the three treatment groups.Table 2.Adjusted AVT Posttest Means for High-Ability and Low-Ability Students by TvatmentLow High TotalControl 10.30 13.10 12.53Graphic 12.74 18.14 16 37Trans 15.95 17.70 17.438ffect SizeEffect sizes were computed to allow comparison of effects of treatment withpercentile differences of the expected scores for students in the three treatment groups.Effect size (A) allows comparison of effects of different treatments and provides a means toestimate the differences in percentile rank that may be attributed to treatment. Effect sizeswere computed by dividing the difference between adjusted treatment and control means bythe square root of the within group mean sum of squares. Since effect size is a descriptivestatistic, reports are not limited to significant differences alone. Relative differences can becompared by subtracting effect size for different cells in the analysis.The effect size for the graphic treatment was:A = (16.37 - 12.53 ) / 53.42 = .53In terms of percentage scores, the mean score for students in the graphic treatment groupwas at the 70th percentile score for control group students.The effect size for the. transformational treatment was:A = (17.41 -12.53) / 53.42 = .65In terms of percentage scores, the mean score for students in the transformanonal treatmentgroup was at the 74th percentile score for coma)] group students.The effect size between treatments was:A = (17.41-16.36) / 53.42 = .14The mean score for transformational group students was at the 56th percentile score forgraphic group students.Anatysis of Art Vocabulau Test ScaleThe Art Vocabulary Test was comprised of four scales, with each scale requiring adifferent type of application. This difference in the scales suggested the possibility that the99three treatments would have differential effects for results on the four scales. Table 3reports adjusted means for the three treatment groups on each of the scales.Table 3Adjusted AVT Scale Means for High-Ability and Low-Ability Studentsly_TreatmentProd Low 2.69 3.64 4.67High 4.01 5.2y2 5.27Recall Low 2.27 2.89 3.68High 2.85 4_04 3.74Match Low 2.72 3.30 3.94High 3.15 4.37 4.41Draw Low 2.61 2.90 3.65High 3.08 4.50 4,28The adjusted scale means suggested possible differential effects of treatment for high-abilityand low-ability students.Random followup interviews were conducted two to four weeks following theconclusion of treatment. The descriptive analysis of interview cases indicated that, of thestudents who were interviewed, students in the graphic group experienced more success inconcept definition and use than did control or transformational students. Although graphicstudents were more often successful, they reported using imaging strategies less often thandid tran-rormational students. These students more often reported that they recalledinformation from sourc:::; independent of the study. Math or science classes, music and1 0television were cited most frequently. Transformational students recalled specific imagesfrom the study materials more often than either graphic or control students. In theinterviews, which were conducted several weeks subsequent to treatment, subjects oftenmade reference to the specific images that had been presented: "motion....like a car, goingfast"; but these same subjects failed to recall when or how they had encoded the image.ConclusionsImagery effects have interested scholars in the arts and sciences since the time ofSt. Augustine. However, controlled, experimental emprical research in this area isrelatively recent. The present study contributes information about differential effects ofspecific types of imagery. Results reported here suggest that imagery strategies helpstudents form and retain associations between verbal and visual information. Graphicorganizers may promote more flexible applications of the associations for individuals whohave already acquired good problem-solving skills. The concrete associations obtainedfrom transformational imagery strategies i.nprove student recall of specific associations.However, interview data suggested that the approach may constrain the associatedmeaning. Trends in the data are consistent with elaboration theory (Rowher, 1980) andcould inform scholars and researchers who wish to analyze effects visual and verbalassociations. Further research is needed to examine the effects of visa:II/verbalassociations in various environmental contexts.1 11 1ReferencesCampbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs forresearch on teaching. In N. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on leaching (pp. 171-247). Chicago: Rand McNally.Day, J., & Be Hem, F. (1983). The relation between visual imagery mediators and recall.Memoty and Cognition, 11, 251-257.Kosslyn, S. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ rsity Press.Levin, J., Anglin, G, & Carney, R. (1987). On empirically validating functions ofpictures in prose. In D. Willows & H. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology Qfillugration (pp. 51-87). New York: Springer-Verlag.Mayer, R. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journalof Educatio.nal Psychology, 131, 240-246.McNemar, Q. (1962). Psychological statistics (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley.Miller, P. (1989). Theolies of cletelopmental p.YchoJogy (2nd ed.). New York:Freeman.Paivio, A. (1965). Abstractness, imagery, and meaningfulness in paired-associatelearning. Journal of Verbid Learning lnd Verbal Ikliavior, 4., 32-3S.Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processo, New York: Holt. Rinehart &Winston.Paiyio, A. (1986). Menial rcresentatians, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Paiyio, A., Clark, J., & Khan, M. (1988). Effects of coilcizteness and semanticrelatedness on cornPosite imagery ratings and cued recall. Memou and Cognition. 16.422-430.2Raven, J. (1986). Manual. for Raven's Provessive Matrices and Vocabulary Sc3les:Research suolgment No: 3, London: Lewis.Raven, J., Court, H., & Raven, J. (1983). Manualgi_RaygVocabulmr Scales: Standard Progretsive Matrices, London: Lewis & Co.Rohwer, W. (:980). An elaborative conception of learner differences. In R. Snow, P-A.Federico, & W. Montague (Eds.),1it 1..11 I 4! ' (Vol 2, pp 23-46). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.Rumelhart, D. (1980). IhtgrraigaLiau_s_in_jradjugsvinpichengsa. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.Shuell, T. (1989). Cognitive science and art education: Contrary strangers or naturalallies? In Getty Center for Education in the Arts (Ed.), Inberiting the them: Iskwvoices and multiple perspectives on PBAE (pp. 11-12). Los Angeles, CA: Author.SPSS (1988). SPSS-Xtiser's guide (3rd ed.). Chicago: Author.f 31 2

Effects of Visual/Verbal Associations

https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6587&context=facpub

Effects of Visual/Verbal Associations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Northern Iowa