THIS STUDY SOUGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER SERIAL LEARNING EFFICIENCY DEPENDS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PART SIZE AND THE EMPIRICALLY DETERMINED MEMORY SPAN OF THE LEARNERS. ISSUES EXPLORED WERE THE TRADE-OFF BETWEEN REHEARSABILITY AND EFFORT IN OPTIMIZING THIS RELATIONSHIP, AND FEASIBILITY OF A FLEXIBLE PART SIZE. A MEASURE OF MEMORY SPAN WAS COMPUTED, AND THEN 65 GRADE 6 STUDENTS WERE RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO 3 TREATMENT GROUPS, 2 VARYING PART SIZE AND 1 A SELF-DIRECTED (COMPLETE FREEDOM IN METHOD OF STUDY) GROUP. A LIST OF LAST NAMES OF THE FIRST 30 U.S. PRESIDENTS WERE PRESENTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART ON 6 TRIALS. SCORES AT 3 MEMORY SPAN LEVELS SHOW A GREATER EFFECTIVENESS OF A PART SIZE SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER THAN MEMORY SPAN, SUGGESTING THAT EFFORT INDUCED BY STRETCHING THE LEARNER'S MEMORY SPAN MAY BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN GUARANTEE OF IMMEDIATE REHEARSAL. BUT OTHER DATA PRESENTED CONTRADICT THIS AND SUGGEST AN ALTERNATE, UNKNOWN EXPLANATION. (LH)
Authors
- Authorizing Institution
- American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, CA.
- Peer Reviewed
- F
- Published in
- United States of America
Table of Contents
- MF-0.26 1
- The experiment described herein was conducted under Grant No. 4
- Introduction 5
- It has been shown that as the length of a serial list increases 5
- Since recitation and rehearsal are effective techniques in learning 5
- The tradeoff between rehearsability and effort in determining the optimal 5
- An additional feature of the study was the provision in 5
- The memory 5
- Method 6
- For purposes of initial memory span evaluation all Ss were seated 6
- The experimenter E presented 6
- The Ss were asked to help E by following 6
- The individual names were automatically projected at four second 6
- After each sequence Ss were asked to 6
- Four 6
- Maximum memory 6
- Experimental Learning Task and Procedures 7
- On the fifth and sixth On each of the first four parts and the written were the same 7
- Ss were randomly assigned which differed only list was divided The groups did with respect to mean All groups were given a brief general orientation and then treated 7
- Group 2 n the mean memory the third and fourth was doubled to ten names per 7
- 1 and 2 was five 7
- Group 3 n This was the self-directed addition to a general 7
- When your time is up Ill say turn all you might want to try you could 8
- You might even pick man- 8
- For all three groups the fifth and sixth 8
- Number 8
- Results 8
- Table 1 shows the part size and 8
- The mean part sizes for Group 3 do 8
- Trial 8
- Table 1 8
- Part Size and Mean Number of Names Correct 8
- Group 1 8
- Recalled 8
- Group 2 8
- Part 8
- Names Size 8
- Recalled 8
- Part 8
- Recalled 8
- 24.48 8
- 18.76 8
- 21.55 8
- Trial 6 scores were subjected to an analysis of covariance 9
- The difference between 9
- Groups 1 and 3 was not significant. 9
- The correlations were .50 .39 9
- Table 2 9
- Mean Number of Correct Names RecLIed 9
- Memorj 9
- Span 9
- Group 1 9
- Group 2 9
- Low 9
- Medium 9
- 13.6 9
- 12.6 9
- 13.1 9
- 17.1 9
- 11.4 9
- 15.8 9
- 5.41 or 5.17 if the 9
- These Ss appeared 10
- If further experimentation shwld confirm the effectiveness of a 10
- Summary 11
- Two issues explored in this study of serial part learning were the 11
- American 12
- Institute for Research Palo Alto 1963a. Technical Report No. 12
- AIR-D10-1163-TRb. 12
- Campbell V. 12
- Palo Alto 1963b. 12
- Paper read at meeting of Western Psychological 12
- Houghton Mifflin 1953. 12
- Margolius G. and Sheffield 12
- Ed. Student response in programmed instruction. 12
- - National Research Council Publ. 943 12
- The relative efficiency of whole and part methods of learning 12
- Method and theory in experimental 12
- Oxford 12
- Pp. 540-542. 12
- Length of series and the learning 12
- Army Air Defense Human Research 12
