Analysis of Wisc Coding: 4. Paired-Associate Learning and Performance Strategies

1973 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 695-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. G. Johnson ◽  
J. G. Lyle
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Training Procedure ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Learning And Performance ◽  
Performance Strategies

A training procedure was used to ensure equal familiarity with the number-symbol pairs of the code of the WISC for both good and poor coders. The former learned more readily than the latter, but subsequent scores on the coding task were equivalent for both groups when account was taken of differences in writing speed. Two possible sources of slower performance were investigated: time taken to refer to the code and time spent scanning completed work. These were not found to be related to poor coding performance. It was concluded that learning of the paired-associates and writing speed discriminated between good and poor coders.

Learning and Performance in a Verbal Paired-Associate Task with Preschool Children

1963 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 847-850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis E. Price
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associate List ◽  
Anticipation Interval ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Preschool Aged Children ◽  
Learning And Performance

The aims of the present investigation were to explore the hypothesis that a short anticipation interval in verbal paired-associate learning affects performance rather than learning and to design a procedure suitable for preschool-aged children. One group of Ss received practice on a paired-associate list with a short anticipation interval while another group learned the same list with a longer anticipation interval. When the interval of the former group was increased, they performed as well as the latter group. The results suggest that the number of trials administered in a verbal paired-associate task is a better measure of learning than S's level of performance.

Reinforcement-Test Sequences in Paired-Associate Learning

1966 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 879-919 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chizuko Izawa
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Optimal Programming ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Fluctuation Model

To obtain evidence as to whether either learning or forgetting occurs on unreinforced trials and to adduce principles of optimal programming of reinforced (R) and test (T) trials, two experiments were planned each having four conditions with different repetitive R-T sequences: RTRT …, RRTRRT …, RTTRTT …, and RRTTRRTT. … 50 college students in each experiment learned 5 paired associates under each condition. Performance on successive Ts without intervening reinforcement suggested that neither learning nor forgetting occurred on Ts per se. However, the occurrence of Ts increased the effectiveness of subsequent Rs. A stimulus fluctuation model accounted for the major acquisition and retention phenomena, including the differential rates of learning under the different R-T sequences.

Perceptual and Linguistic Encoding in Recognition Memory and Paired-Associate Learning

1971 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-806 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edgar A. Chenoweth ◽  
Gerry L. Wilcove
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Memory Task ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Introductory Psychology ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates

A perceptual paired-associates task was presented in which pictures of objects and consonant-vowel-consonant trigrams served as stimulus and response members of the P-A unit, respectively. Introductory psychology students had been classified previously into encoding groups on the basis of their performance on a memory task. The prediction that the linguistic encoders would learn the PA task more slowly than the perceptual encoders was supported by the results.

Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies in Paired-Associate Learning

1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 861-862
Author(s):  
Raymond L. Majeres
Keyword(s):  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Learning Strategy ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Task Demands ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Task Strategy ◽  
Learning Conditions ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Motivation And Learning

Paired-associate learning strategy and performance of Ss ( N = 96) high and low on the Stroop Test color/word ratio under different motivation and learning conditions were studied. There was a significant relationship between task, strategy, and cognitive style ( p < .01), though no relationships with performance were found. Results indicated that strategy may be less dependent on specific task demands than performance.

Temporal Relations and Meaningfulness in Paired-Associate Learning

1965 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Mueller ◽  
Robert M. W. Travers
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Response Side ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Present Procedure ◽  
Response Meaningfulness ◽  
Stimulus Side ◽  
High Stimulus ◽  
Anticipation Method

Each of 34 Ss was presented with a list of 12 paired associates which were arranged according to high-low or low-high stimulus and response meaningfulness and also in a simultaneous or sequential time relationship. Meaningfulness level on the stimulus side of the dyad rather than on the response side was found to be more crucial for learning, and significantly more learning occurred also when the dyads were presented in the simultaneous condition. The findings were discussed in terms of both association theory and the differences between the present procedure and the conventional anticipation method.

Efficiency of the Add-A-Pair Method in Learning Paired-Associates

1972 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 411-414
Author(s):  
Wilton L. Gibson ◽  
Lewis R. Lieberman
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Single Pair ◽  
Digit Number ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Pair Method

An unrecognized implication of Rock's (1957) analysis of paired-associate learning is that a most efficient way of learning a list is to begin with a single pair and add a pair each trial until the whole list is learned. A list of 17 difficult, single-lettered, 2-digit number pairs was used. 18 control Ss received all pairs for 9 trials, while 18 experimental Ss used the add-a-pair method. By the last trial and 153 exposures each, experimental Ss knew 9.72 pairs compared to 6.78 for controls, a significant advantage.

Paired-Associate Learning, Mediation Value and the Drop-Out Method

1968 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 671-674
Author(s):  
Ronald L. Cohen ◽  
Andreas Murray
Keyword(s):  
Incremental Learning ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates

Pools of paired associates (double or single letters paired with one- or two-digit numbers) were constructed so that all pairs within a pool had approximately the same mediation value (MV), this latter value being defined as the ease with which a mediator can be found within a pair. These pools were then used in a drop-out experiment where a list of 8 pairs were learned to a criterion of one correct repetition. The main result was that rate of presentation, mean MV of the pool and drop-out/constant procedure were significant. That the variable drop-out/constant procedure proved significant is contrary to the results obtained by Rock, and this is discussed in relation to the question of one-trial versus incremental learning.

Information Processing by Performers and Observers in a Paired Associate Learning Task

1979 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Eelen ◽  
Géry D'Ydewalle
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Learning Strategy ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Response Alternative ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Recognition Procedure ◽  
Response Alternatives ◽  
And Performance

The effects of two training procedures on learning and performance are compared. Performers select a response alternative for each stimulus on Trial 1 and receive feedback in terms of “Right” or “Wrong”. Observers receive the same information by listening to the experimenter. Experiment I tests the hypothesis that performers and observers are using a different learning strategy when there are only two response alternatives available for each stimulus on Trial 1. A recognition procedure was used on Trial 2; each stimulus was followed by four alternatives, two of them being the same as presented on Trial 1. Subjects have to recognize the two “old” alternatives. Performers are always better at recognizing the chosen alternative, whereas observers are better at recognizing the correct alternative. Experiment II extends the comparison between performers and observers to a task with four response alternatives on Trial 1. There are no longer differences in performance between the two training procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document