scholarly journals Transfer effects of mixed and unmixed list designs in paired associate learning of children

1965 ◽  
Vol 2 (1-12) ◽  
pp. 171-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. J. Johnson ◽  
R. K. Penney
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Transfer Effects ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Unmixed List

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.

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.

Role of Rules in Paired-Associate Learning

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 648-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
May F. D'amato ◽  
Mark Diamond
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Unmixed List ◽  
Middle Letter

14 students in each of four groups learned a single unmixed list of 19 CVC pairs for 12 anticipation trials followed by a free recall of the pairs. In three of the four lists a single rule applied to all of the pairs. The rule was that the words in each pair changed first letter (rhymed), changed middle letter, or changed last letter. A fourth list contained only pairs of unrelated words. Mean number of correct anticipations per trial showed rhyming and end-change rules to be equally beneficial, although not as effective as the middle-change rule. Free recall of the pairs showed no differences among lists. Results were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that rules facilitate retrieval by restricting the number of responses to be considered for each stimulus.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document