| Chapter 1: | Study One: Introduction / Overview of Study Goals |
Elaboration also has been found to interact with motivation to predict knowledge structure density (KSD), (Eveland, Cortese, Park, & Dunwoody, 2004). In this particular instance, motivation was manipulated as either learning or browsing while using a web site. When browsing, elaboration was negatively related to KSD; however, when attempting to learn information elaboration was positively related to density.
Elaboration is considered to be important in improving memory (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Research has backed up this claim (Seifert, 1993); however, findings are still tenuous when moving beyond simple recall and recognition and applying elaboration to knowledge structure (Eveland, Cortese, et al., 2004).
Measuring Learning
There are three basic ways to measure learning: recall, recognition, and structural knowledge assessment. Recall can be measured using either cued or free recall. Cued recall utilizes prompts to assess recall of specific information, whereas free recall requires non-specific, non-cued information retrieval about a given topic. In an empirical examination of cued recall and recognition as learning outcomes, results indicated that the two methods of retrieval were equally effective as outcome assessments (Clariana & Lee, 2001).
Structural Knowledge.
Jonassen, et al. (1993) proposed many ways of analyzing structural knowledge. They divided these methods into two overall categories, representing / assessing structural knowledge and conveying structural knowledge. The authors suggested that there are two ways to examine structural knowledge in terms of representation / assessment: Eliciting knowledge and representing structural knowledge. These concepts suggest that knowledge is first elicited by accessing stored knowledge, and then the underlying structure for that knowledge can be represented.