23
8.189, p = .005; ηp
Figure 3. Means (SDs) of processing strategy by learning technique.
*p< .05; ** p< .01
The
accuracy of paraphrases and elaborations, F(1,75) = 25.928, p <.001; ηp
2
=
2
=
paraphrases (nPar1, nPar0) was significant, F(1,75) = 352.089, p <.001; ηp
2
= .824, as well as the interaction with the independent variable in paraphrases, F(1,75) =
2
= .098, and in elaborations (nElab1, nElab0), F(1,75) = 9.018, p =
.004; ηp
2
= .107. SE students performed significantly more nPar1 y nPar0, t(75) = - 4.27,
p
<.001 y t(72.285) = -3.22, p = .002; while AOQ students performed significantly more
nElab0, t(75) = 4.97, p <.001 (see Table 1).
Table 1. Mean (SDs) of processing strategies by learning technique
Technique
nTotPar
nPar1
nPar0
nTotElab
nElab1
nElab0
RPA
6.91 (2.45)
6.06 (2.71)
0.86 (0.81)
6.71 (1.72)
2.66 (1.71)
4.06 (2.07)
AE
10.26 (3.18)
8.67 (2.64)
1.60 (1.19)
4.10 (3.46)
2.29 (2.11)
1.81 (1.89)
Learning acquired with each learning technique
There
techniques,
techniques in TBLearnPost, t(75) = .40, p = .693, and SMLearnPost, t(75) = .56, p =
.577. However, AOQ students obtained a
higher than SE, investing
significantly less text reading time (tRead), t(61.077) = -6.96, p <.001, and response time
(tResp), t(69.928) = -3.44, p = .001 (see Table 2).