Paired-associate learning adaptive environment I
Morton P. Friedman, Michal C. Clark · 1967
An analysis of paired-associates learning by individual subjects in a state training situation is presented. The main results concern response correctness and response latency during acquisition and 24 hr. recall as a function of controlled practice. This research dealt with the effects of controlled practice of individual paired-associate items on re sponse correctness and latency during acquisition and recall. A continuous learning task was employed which was designed to (1) allow the examination of the learning process in single Ss over extended periods and (2) to study the learning process in a statistically steady state. In our control procedure, each item was removed from the practice set and replaced by a new, unlearned item when it reached a certain performance criterion. The number of items which was being prac ticed was always the same, but there were always items in different stages of learning which provided a state background against which learning on individual items occurred. This experimental situation is of interest for several reasons. First, it is more phenotypical of many every day learning situations than is the usual list learning procedure. Second, the state learning situa tion would appear to be more appropriate for testing most current models of paired-associate learning than the usual list learning technique in which the learning of items occurs in a systematically changing context. Third, the experimental situation is an example of an adaptive learning environment (Groen & Atkinson,1966) which is convenient for studying optimization of the learning process within an individual. Method Both the stimuli and responses were high frequency nouns. Each word appeared in only one S-R pair. Over 3000 S-R pairs were used. The stimuli were presented on 3 x 5 in. white index cards. The anticipation method was employed with the correct response always given orally by E after S responded or after 10 sec. if S did not respond. The items were presented in practice sets of 16 S-R pairs. After each presentation of the practice set, the order of the items was changed hap hazardly. The interval between successive presentations of the set was 25 sec. Ss were required to read numbers aloud rapidly between presentations to prevent re hearsal. As learned items met predetermined performance criteria, they were removed from the practice set and replaced with new items. The practice set was thus