24
Table 2. Mean (SDs) of off-line and on-line measures by learning technique
Off-line measures
On-line measures
Tecnique
TotAp
TotApBT
TotApMS
tLect
tResp
RPA
6.00 (2.76)
3.46 (1.89)
2.54 (1.34)
440.84 (334.81)
681.95 (225.93)
AE
5.66 (3.01)
3.29 (1.89)
2.37 (1.37)
914.63 (245.25)
914.75 (361.39)
Relation between processing and learning strategies
These
learning
(LearnPost).
learning
technique,
LearnPost (r = .47, p = .004) and with TBLearnPost (r = .56, p <.001). In SE technique,
the paraphrase strategy (nTotPar, nPar1 y nPar0) did not correlate significantly with any
learning measures. On the other hand, nTotElab only showed positive correlations in SE,
especially in SMLearnPost (r = .40, p = .009). Correlations were positive and significant
between nElab1 and learning measures (LearnPost, TBLearnPost, SMLearnPost) in SE
and
nElab0 correlated negatively and significantly with LearnPost (r = -
.38, p = .024) and with TBLearnPost (r = -.53, p = .001) in AOQ technique.
Table 3. Correlations of processing strategies by learning technique
TotAp
TotApBT
TotApMS
RPA
.478**
.605**
.131
nTotPar
AE
.140
.159
.087
RPA
.472**
.564**
.177
nPar1
AE
.143
.132
.133
RPA
- .132
- .052
- .197
nPar0
AE
.055
.134
- .063
RPA
- .043
- .203
.196
nTotElab
AE
.316*
.214
.400**
nElab1
RPA
.417*
.432**
.250