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
processing

strategies

presented

different

correlations

with
learning
(LearnPost).
nTotPar

correlated

positively

and

significantly

with

performance

in

the
learning
task

(LearnPost)

and

with

text-based

questions

(TBLearnPost)

in

AOQ
technique,
but

not

in

SE technique

(see

Table

3).

nPar1

correlated only

in

AOQ

with
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
AOQ, except SMLearnPost

in AOQ (r = .25, p

= .148). It was also

observed

that
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