scholarly journals The effects of training procedure, response availability, and response meaningfulness in multiple-choice paired-associate learning

1965 ◽  
Vol 3 (1-12) ◽  
pp. 329-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Hawker
1965 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Mueller ◽  
Robert M. W. Travers

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.


1972 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 387-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Mueller ◽  
Adrian Chan ◽  
James M. Gumina

Design (repeated measures, completely randomized), Presentation Method (paced anticipation, discrete trials), Stimulus Complexity (CVC trigrams, dissyllables), and Stimulus-Response Meaningfulness (high-low, low-high) were varied in 3 experiments. It was shown that repeated measurements design was more directly related to the interaction of meaningfulness level with stimulus-learning than with response-learning in paired-associate learning.


1973 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 695-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. G. Johnson ◽  
J. G. Lyle

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document