23
8.189, p = .005; ηp
Figure 3. Means (SDs) of processing strategy by learning technique.
*p< .05; ** p< .01
The
main

effect

of

the

independent

variable

(SE,

AOQ)

was

significant

in

the
accuracy of paraphrases and elaborations, F(1,75) = 25.928, p <.001; ηp
2
= .257 y F(1,75)
=
16.625,

p

<.001;

ηp
2
=
.181,

respectively.

Moreover,

the

effect

on

the


accuracy

of
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
were

no

significant

differences

in

LearnPost

between

SE

and

AOQ
techniques,
t(75)

=

.52,

p

=

.604.

There

were

also

no

differences

between

learning
techniques in TBLearnPost, t(75) = .40, p = .693, and SMLearnPost, t(75) = .56, p =
.577. However, AOQ students obtained a
LearnPost slightly

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).