## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Activities that "give birth to learning"**: Specific instructional strategies that promote active cognitive processing during learning > - **Adjunct questions direct attention**: Strategic questions embedded in instruction guide students to focus on important information > - **Placement and type matter**: Prequestions focus attention on upcoming content whilst postquestions promote review and consolidation ## Definition **Mathemagenic activities**: Instructional activities that promote learning by encouraging active processing, elaboration, and engagement with content during instruction (Rothkopf, 1970). ## Overview The term "mathemagenic" derives from Greek roots meaning "giving birth to learning." Rothkopf (1970) introduced this concept to describe activities that generate learning rather than simply exposing students to information. These activities work by directing attention to important information, encouraging deeper processing, and promoting active engagement with content. Adjunct questions represent the most researched mathemagenic activity, but the concept encompasses any instructional element that prompts students to process information more deeply during learning. ## Connected To [[Formative Assessment]] | [[Check for Understanding]] | [[Retrieval Practice]] | [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Memory]] | [[Explicit Teaching]] | [[Feedback]] --- ## The concept of mathemagenic activities Passive exposure to information produces minimal learning. Simply reading text, listening to explanations, or watching demonstrations does not guarantee knowledge transfer to long-term memory. Students must actively process information for encoding to occur (Craik & Tulving, 1975). Mathemagenic activities create conditions that require this active processing. The activities work by interrupting passive reception of information, requiring students to think about relationships between ideas, promoting elaboration and connection-making to prior knowledge, directing attention to specific content elements, and creating retrieval opportunities that strengthen memory pathways (Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967). These mechanisms align with principles from [[Cognitive Load Theory]] about germane cognitive load and [[Memory]] research on depth of processing. ## Adjunct questions: the primary mathemagenic strategy Adjunct questions are questions inserted into instructional materials or lessons to enhance learning. Research spanning decades demonstrates their effectiveness in improving comprehension and retention (Rothkopf, 1966; Hamaker, 1986). ### Types and placement **Prequestions** appear before content presentation. They direct attention to specific information students will encounter, create expectations about what is important, and prime relevant prior knowledge for integration. Research shows prequestions improve learning of targeted information but may reduce incidental learning of other content (Hamilton, 1985). Students focus on material directly relevant to answering the questions, sometimes at the expense of broader understanding. **Postquestions** appear after content presentation. They promote review and consolidation of material just encountered, encourage deeper processing of information already read or heard, and support retrieval practice that strengthens memory. Postquestions tend to produce broader learning effects than prequestions, enhancing both targeted and incidental learning (Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967). The placement decision depends on instructional goals. Use prequestions when students need guidance about what to focus on in complex material, when prerequisite knowledge needs activation, or when content contains too much information to process equally. Use postquestions when promoting broad understanding across content, when encouraging review and consolidation, or when strengthening retention through retrieval practice. ### Question characteristics that promote learning Not all questions function equally as mathemagenic activities. Effective adjunct questions share several characteristics (Anderson & Biddle, 1975). **Higher-order questions** require deeper processing than simple recall. Questions asking students to explain relationships, apply principles to new situations, analyse causes and effects, or synthesise information from multiple sources promote more active engagement than questions requiring verbatim recall. However, question difficulty must match student knowledge levels. Questions too complex relative to current understanding overwhelm working memory rather than promoting learning (Sweller, 1988). **Questions distributed throughout material** prove more effective than questions massed at the beginning or end. Strategic placement maintains attention and processing throughout the learning experience (Rothkopf, 1966). The spacing of questions also contributes to distributed practice effects that enhance retention. **Questions requiring written or overt responses** produce stronger effects than questions students answer mentally. The act of constructing a response, whether written or spoken, engages deeper processing than silent consideration (Frase, 1968). This aligns with research on the [[Retrieval Practice|testing effect]], where active recall strengthens memory more than passive review. ### Implementation in classroom practice Teachers can embed adjunct questions throughout instruction in several ways. During direct instruction, teachers pause periodically to pose questions that check understanding and promote processing. These questions should require students to explain, connect, or apply rather than simply repeat information. The questions create natural break points where active processing occurs. In reading assignments, teachers can provide questions alongside text that students answer whilst reading. This transforms passive reading into active engagement with content. Questions guide attention to important concepts whilst promoting elaboration and connection-making (Rickards, 1979). During video or multimedia presentations, teachers can pause at strategic points for questions. This interrupts passive viewing and requires active cognitive engagement with material. The pauses provide processing time that continuous presentation does not allow. For homework and independent work, questions embedded throughout practice materials promote engagement and provide formative assessment data. Students who cannot answer questions independently reveal gaps requiring additional instruction. ## Other mathemagenic activities Whilst adjunct questions represent the most researched strategy, other activities function mathemagenically by promoting active processing. **Summarisation tasks** require students to identify main ideas and express them concisely. This demands selection of important information, synthesis of related concepts, and generation of new verbal formulations. However, summarisation proves difficult for many students without explicit instruction in the strategy (Dunlosky et al., 2013). **Elaborative interrogation** involves students generating explanations for facts by asking "why?" questions. This strategy promotes connection-making between new information and prior knowledge. Research shows moderate utility, particularly for factual material with clear causal relationships (Pressley et al., 1987). **Self-explanation** requires students to explain how new information relates to what they already know. This active integration process strengthens encoding and reveals gaps in understanding. The strategy works best when students have sufficient prior knowledge to support meaningful explanations (Chi et al., 1989). **Note-taking** can function mathemagenically when it requires selection and transformation of information rather than verbatim transcription. Generative note-taking strategies that promote reorganisation and connection-making enhance learning more than passive recording (Peper & Mayer, 1978). ## Theoretical foundation Mathemagenic activities work by optimising cognitive processes during learning. The depth of processing framework explains their effectiveness: information processed semantically (for meaning) produces stronger memory traces than information processed superficially (Craik & Tulving, 1975). Mathemagenic activities force semantic processing by requiring students to think about meaning, relationships, and connections. The activities also align with [[Cognitive Load Theory]] principles. Well-designed mathemagenic activities increase germane cognitive load (productive mental effort devoted to schema construction) whilst minimising extraneous load (wasted effort from poor design). Questions must be carefully calibrated to challenge without overwhelming working memory capacity (Sweller et al., 2019). From a memory perspective, mathemagenic activities promote encoding through elaboration and organisation. Questions encourage students to connect new information to existing knowledge structures, creating multiple retrieval pathways. The activities also provide retrieval practice opportunities that strengthen memory traces (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). ## Key considerations and warnings **Cognitive load management**: Questions must match student knowledge levels. Questions too difficult relative to current understanding create frustration and cognitive overload rather than promoting learning. Start with simpler questions during initial learning, then increase complexity as knowledge develops (Kalyuga et al., 2003). **Question quality matters**: Not all questions promote learning equally. Questions requiring simple recall may check attention but promote minimal processing. Questions should require explanation, connection-making, or application for maximum effect. However, avoid questions so open-ended that students lack direction for responding. **Frequency balance**: Too many questions interrupt flow and fragment learning. Too few questions allow passive processing without engagement. Research suggests questions every few minutes during instruction or every few paragraphs during reading provide appropriate frequency without excessive interruption (Anderson & Biddle, 1975). **Response opportunity required**: Questions function mathemagenically only when students actually attempt to answer them. Questions students skip or ignore provide no learning benefit. Implementation must ensure students engage with questions through accountability structures, immediate feedback, or integration with assessment. **Individual differences**: Students with strong prior knowledge benefit less from highly structured adjunct questions than novices. Experts can direct their own attention and generate their own questions. The [[Expertise Reversal Effect]] suggests that scaffolding beneficial for novices may become redundant or even detrimental for more knowledgeable students (Kalyuga et al., 2003). ## Practical implementation **During lessons**: Pause every 5-7 minutes during instruction to pose questions requiring explanation or connection-making. Use [[Mini-Whiteboards]] or similar strategies ensuring all students respond rather than calling on volunteers. This creates universal engagement with mathemagenic processing. **In reading materials**: Provide questions alongside text that students answer whilst reading. Place questions after paragraphs or sections addressing the content just read. Questions should require synthesis and explanation rather than location of specific sentences. **With videos or demonstrations**: Pause presentations at strategic points for questions. The pause provides processing time whilst questions direct attention to important concepts. Resume presentation after students have considered and responded to questions. **For homework**: Embed questions throughout practice materials rather than placing all questions at the end. This maintains engagement throughout the assignment whilst providing distributed retrieval practice opportunities. **Follow-up required**: Always review question responses to provide [[Feedback]], correct misconceptions revealed by answers, reteach content where responses indicate confusion, and reinforce correct thinking demonstrated by student answers. Questions that generate responses but receive no follow-up waste the mathemagenic opportunity. > [!tip] Implications for Teaching > > - Embed questions throughout instruction rather than only at the end of lessons or units > - Use questions requiring explanation and connection-making rather than simple recall > - Ensure all students respond to questions through universal participation strategies > - Calibrate question difficulty to student knowledge levels to avoid cognitive overload > - Provide feedback on responses to correct errors and reinforce accurate thinking ## References Anderson, R. C., & Biddle, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), *The psychology of learning and motivation* (Vol. 9, pp. 89-132). Academic Press. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. *Cognitive Science*, 13(2), 145-182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 104(3), 268-294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268 Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*, 14(1), 4-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 Frase, L. T. (1968). Questions as aids to reading: Some research and theory. *American Educational Research Journal*, 5(3), 319-332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312005003319 Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. *Review of Educational Research*, 56(2), 212-242. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543056002212 Hamilton, R. J. (1985). A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions and objectives. *Review of Educational Research*, 55(1), 47-85. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543055001047 Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. *Educational Psychologist*, 38(1), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 70(4), 514-522. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.70.4.514 Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition*, 13(2), 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.291 Rickards, J. P. (1979). Adjunct postquestions in text: A critical review of methods and processes. *Review of Educational Research*, 49(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002181 Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. *Psychological Science*, 17(3), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x Rothkopf, E. Z. (1966). Learning from written instructive materials: An exploration of the control of inspection behavior by test-like events. *American Educational Research Journal*, 3(4), 241-249. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312003004241 Rothkopf, E. Z. (1970). The concept of mathemagenic activities. *Review of Educational Research*, 40(3), 325-336. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543040003325 Rothkopf, E. Z., & Bisbicos, E. E. (1967). Selective facilitative effects of interspersed questions on learning from written materials. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 58(1), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024220 Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. *Cognitive Science*, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. *Educational Psychology Review*, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5