Experimental studies in rote-learning theory. IV. Comparison of reminiscence in serial and paired-associate learning.

1939 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 466-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. I. Hovland
Keyword(s):  
Learning Theory ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Rote Learning ◽  
Associate Learning

Methodological Studies in Paired-Associate Learning: II. Design, Test for Learning, and Meaningfulness

1972 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Mueller ◽  
James M. Gumina ◽  
Adrian Chan
Keyword(s):  
Learning Theory ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Response Learning ◽  
Strategy Selection ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Choice Strategy ◽  
Methodological Studies

Design (repeated measures and completely randomized) and Test (SR-recall and SR-recognition) were varied in two paired-associate experiments to explore the effects of Meaningfulness Level on stimulus and response learning. Contemporary associative learning theory was rejected in favor of a “multiple-choice strategy-selection” model in the interpretation of the results which showed that level of meaningfulness interacted more with stimulus than response learning for repeated measures design.

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