Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (39)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (39)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal article (34)
- Book (2)
- Book article / Book chapter (2)
- Review (1)
Keywords
- Psychologie (26)
- Kind (4)
- Gedächtnisleistung (3)
- Metagedächtnis (3)
- Entwicklung (2)
- Pädagogische Psychologie (2)
- Alter (1)
- Analyse (1)
- Erwachsener (1)
- Gedächtnisbildung (1)
Institute
- Institut für Psychologie (39) (remove)
No abstract available.
Am Beispiel einer semantischen Kategorisierungsaufgabe (sort-recall task) wurde der Frage nachgegangen, in welchen Bestimmungsgrößen sich die Gedächtnisleistungen von Schulkindern, jüngeren sowie älteren Erwachsenen voneinander unterscheiden. Es wurde angenommen, daß für diese drei Altersgruppen Gedächtnisleistungen bei dieser Aufgabe in unterschiedlicher Weise durch Strategie- und Wissensaspekte bestimmt sind. Die im Vergleich zu Schulkindern und älteren Erwachsenen üblicherweise besseren Leistungen jüngerer Erwachsener sollten demnach im wesentlichen auf die konsequentere Nutzung von Gedächtnisstrategien rückführbar sein. Erwartet wurde weiterhin, daß die bei Schulkindern und älteren Erwachsenen oft vorfindbaren "Produktionsdefizite" in der Strategienutzung unterschiedliche Ursachen haben : fehlt es bei den Schülern am notwendigen Gedächtniswissen (Metagedächtnis), so sind die Defizite der älteren Menschen vorwiegend auf die mangelnde Erfahrung mit der Aufgabe zurückzuführen. Diese Annahmen wurden in einer Studie mit je 24 Probanden aus den drei genannten Altersgruppen überprüft. Während sich das erwartete Produktionsdefizit bei den Kindern auf unzureichendes Metagedächtnis zurückführen ließ, gab es wenig Anhaltspunkte dafür, daß das Strategiedefizit älterer Menschen in wesentlichen auf mangelnde Aufgabenerfahrung rückführbar ist. Leistungsunterschiede zwischen jüngeren und älteren Erwachsenen beruhen nicht auf unterschiedlichem Gedächtniswissen, sondern dürften auf dem kombinierten Einfluß von Strategie- und Kapazitätsdefiziten basieren.
The nature of good information processing is outlined as determined by intact neurology, information stored in long-term memory, and general cognitive tendencies, attitudes, and styles. Educators can promote the development of good information processing by promoting what is in long-term memory. This can be accomplished by teaching important literary, scientific, and cultural knowledge; teaching strategies; motivating the acquisition and use of important conceptual knowledge and strategies; and encouraging the general tendencies supporting good information processing. Good information processing can be produced by years of appropriate educational input. Good information processors cannot be produced by short-term interventions.
Domain-Specific Knowledge and Memory Performance: A Comparison of High- and Low-Aptitude Children
(1989)
Two studies compared memory performance and text comprehension of groups that were equivalent on domain-specific knowledge but differed in overall aptitude, to investigate whether prior knowledge about a particular domain or overall aptitude level was more important when the task was to acquire and use new information in the domain of interest. Both studies dealt with third-, fifth-, and seventh-grade soccer experts' and novices' memory and comprehension of a story dealing with a soccer game. Several measures of memory performance, memory monitoring, and text comprehension were used. Levels of soccer knowledge and of overall aptitude were varied in a factorial design. Neither study detected significant differences between high-aptitude and low-aptitude experts, regardless of their ages. Low aptitude experts outperformed high-aptitude novices on all memory and comprehension measures. The results indicate that domain-specific knowledge can compensate for low overall aptitude on domain-related cognitive tasks.
143 9- and 10-year-oId children were classified into high- and Jow-IQ groups and given 4 different sort/recall lists (baseline, training, near [immediate] extension, far [l-week] extension) to assess training and extension of an organizational memory strategy. All children received categorized items of moderate typicality for Phases 1, 3, and 4. For Phase 2, children were assigned to either a training or control group, with half of the children in each group receiving category typical items and the others category atypical items. Levels of recall, sorting, and clustering were greater in Phase 2 for high-IQ children, for the typical lists, and for trained children. Both the high- and low-IQ children trained with typical items continued to show high levels of recall on the near extension phase. No group of subjects maintained high levels of recall after 1 week, although levels of sorting and/or clustering on the extension trials remained high for all groups of subjects except the low-IQ control children. This latter pattern (elevated sorting/clustering with low levels of recall) is an indication of a utilization deficiency, a phase in strategy development when children use a strategy but gain little or no benefit n performance. The results provide evidence for IQ, training, and material effects in the demonstration of a utilization deficiency.