Acquisition of Morphological Rules: Effects of Frequency of Item-Type and Rehearsal Strategy in Paired-Associate Learning

1982 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 1009-1010
Author(s):  
Harriet M. Braunstein ◽  
Kari S. Peacock ◽  
Joan M. Soloko ◽  
Susan L. Tippit
Keyword(s):  
Correct Response ◽  
Association Rule ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Item Type ◽  
Mixed List ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Response Elements ◽  
Rehearsal Strategy ◽  
Maintenance Rehearsal

Paired-associate items which followed an association rule were presented in a mixed list with a smaller number of irregular items which deviated from the rule but were presented for study more frequently. On test lists new stimulus items were presented for which the correct response followed the rule. In learning the items 30 subjects were instructed to use either maintenance rehearsal or elaborative operations. The prediction that the elaboration strategy would facilitate performance was confirmed. However, the expectation that maintenance rehearsal would produce equal ease of learning on irregular items was not upheld. All subjects performed best on irregular items, probably because they were more frequently presented and contained unusual response elements which may have stood out.

Effects of Non-Anticipation and Anticipation Procedures upon Paired-Associate Learning in Unmixed and Mixed List Designs

1964 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 795-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Mixed List ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Unmixed List ◽  
Anticipation Method

Two experiments compared verbal PA learning by the standard anticipation technique with learning by a non-anticipation method in which immediate confirmation O- correct responding was eliminated. Most previous investigations have found that learning by the latter procedure is superior to learning by the usual anticipation method. In Exp. I, which employed an unmixed list design, no differences in learning were obtained between the two methods at either of two levels of list difficulty. However, Exp. II, using the same materials in a mixed list design, showed superior learning of items presented by the non-anticipation method regardless of the difficulty of the list. The conflicting results of the two experiments suggest that evidence for superior verbal PA learning by the non-anticipation method may depend, at least in part, upon the list design employed.

Paired-associate learning of children with mixed list designs.

1971 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 300-300
Author(s):  
Joseph W. Gallagher ◽  
Donald R. Reid
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Mixed List ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning

Mixed- versus Unmixed-List Designs in Paired-Associate Learning

1967 ◽  
Vol 20 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1191-1200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chizuko Izawa
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Experimental Design ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Mixed List ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
The Other ◽  
Factorial Experimental Design ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Unmixed List ◽  
Fluctuation Model

Investigations of a new experimental variable from the arrangements of reinforcements (R) and tests (T) in paired-associate learning were furthered by a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experimental design: 64 college students learned two lists of 12 pairs, one with unmixed list (Exp. I) and the other with mixed list (Exp. II). Four repetitive experimental sequences in each experiment were RTRT …, RRTRRT. … RTTRTT …, and RRTTRRTT. … No significant differences were found between mixed- and unmixed-list designs for any given statistic examined. The findings indicate that individual pairs in a given condition were learned relatively independently of those in the other conditions within a list. The present results were close replications of the previous study by Izawa (1966a) and support the stimulus fluctuation model.

Phonetic Mediation in A-B, A-B' Transfer with Young Children

1975 ◽  
Vol 37 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1196-1198
Author(s):  
Fred A. Minnigerode
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Age Differences ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Mixed List ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
List Learning

60 4-, 5- and 6-yr.-old children learned two 3-item paired-associate lists. A mixed-list design was used. List 2 contained pairs representing A-B, C-D, A-B, A-B', and A-B, A-C transfer paradigms. Terms B and B' were related via rhyme. In second-list learning, more correct responses in the first two anticipation trials occurred on A-B' pairs than on A-C pairs and more correct responses on C-D pairs than on A-B' pairs. Age differences were nonsignificant. Conditions under which children might successfully utilize mediational rhyme strategies in paired-associate learning were suggested.

Constant vs Varied Serial Order in Paired-Associate Learning

1963 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 695-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Battig ◽  
Sam C. Brown ◽  
Douglas Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Serial Position ◽  
Correct Response ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Serial Order ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Order Conditions ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Stages Of Learning ◽  
Relevant Factors

Typical varied serial-order conditions of paired-associate (PA) learning were compared with a constant serial order on all trials in 5 experiments involving systematic variations in method, kind of material, and other potentially relevant factors. The results showed a small but relatively consistent facilitation by constant serial order limited primarily to later stages of learning. Since a shift following the first correct response to each pair from constant to varied serial order produced as much facilitation as did completely constant-order conditions, it was concluded that complex associations involving serial position are developed during early stages of constant-order PA learning, but that these exercise a facilitating influence primarily through the reduction of inter-pair interference late in learning.

Free-Pairing, Imagery, and Proactive Inhibition in Multilist Paired-Associate Learning

1974 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 267-272
Author(s):  
J. D. Read
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Mixed List ◽  
Proactive Inhibition ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
The Other ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Construction Procedure

Three groups of Ss ( n = 45) learned and recalled five paired-associate lists which differed in terms of the pair construction procedure: one group constructed pairs for learning, another served as a yoked control for the S-generated pairings and, in the other, pairs were randomly constructed by E. The mixed-list design also included two levels of stimulus imagery. All groups demonstrated decreased recall as the number of lists learned increased; however, the magnitude of proactive inhibition observed was significantly less for Ss who generated their own pairings than for Ss in the remaining two groups.

Reactivity of Judgments of Learning in a Levels-of-Processing Paradigm

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (4) ◽  
pp. 278-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eylul Tekin ◽  
Henry L. Roediger
Keyword(s):  
Target Word ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Levels Of Processing ◽  
Pleasantness Rating ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Counting Task ◽  
Reactive Effect ◽  
Target Words

Abstract. Recent studies have shown that judgments of learning (JOLs) are reactive measures in paired-associate learning paradigms. However, evidence is scarce concerning whether JOLs are reactive in other paradigms. In old/new recognition experiments, we investigated the reactivity effects of JOLs in a levels-of-processing (LOP) paradigm. In Experiments 1 and 2, for each word, subjects saw a yes/no orienting question followed by the target word and a response. Then, they either did or did not make a JOL. The yes/no questions were about target words’ appearances, rhyming properties, or category memberships. In Experiment 3, for each word, subjects gave a pleasantness rating or counted the letter “e ”. Our results revealed that JOLs enhanced recognition across all orienting tasks in Experiments 1 and 2, and for the e-counting task in Experiment 3. This reactive effect was salient for shallow tasks, attenuating – but not eliminating – the LOP effect after making JOLs. We conclude that JOLs are reactive in LOP paradigms and subjects encode words more effectively when providing JOLs.

Age, pacing, and imagery in paired-associate learning.

1976 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy J. Treat ◽  
Hayne W. Reese
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document