Group Pre-Training for Serial Rote Learning by Means of a Moving Picture Technique

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 06:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK</p><p>The Journal of GeneralPsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:</p><p>Group Pre-Training for SerialRote Learning by Means of aMoving Picture TechniqueDavid A. Grant a , Dorothy E. Schneider a &amp; John C.Goodale aa Department of Psychology , University ofWisconsin , USAPublished online: 06 Jul 2010.</p><p>To cite this article: David A. Grant , Dorothy E. Schneider &amp; John C. Goodale (1949)Group Pre-Training for Serial Rote Learning by Means of a Moving Picture Technique,The Journal of General Psychology, 40:1, 89-94, DOI: 10.1080/00221309.1949.9918239</p><p>To link to this article:</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor &amp; Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.</p><p></p></li><li><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms &amp; Conditions of access and use can be found at</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 06:</p><p>49 0</p><p>8 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p><p></p></li><li><p>The Journal o f General Psychology, 1949, 40, 89-94. </p><p>G R O U P PRE-TRAINING F O R SERIAL R O T E L E A R N I N G BY MEANS OF A M O V I N G P I C T U R E TECHNIQUE* </p><p>Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin </p><p>DAVID A. GRANT, DOROTHY E. SCHNEIDER, AND JOHN C. GOODALE] </p><p>A. INTRODUCTION T h e present investigation was conducted to test the practicability of pre- </p><p>training subjects in groups for r6te-learning experiments by means of a film- projection technique. </p><p>As Melton points out in his excellent paper on methodology in studies of human learning (5) a number of experimenters have found it desirable to pre-train their Ss in r6te learning so that variability introduced by learn- ing to learn nonsense material does not inflate the error variance of the ex- periment and obscure the effects of the experimental variable. Pre-training in the case of nonsense syllables usually has consisted of requiring that each S learn five or six preliminary lists before going to the experiment proper (4, 8, 1). Data of Luh (4) and Ward (8 ) indicate that five or six preliminary lists would be a minimum required to compensate for the sharp initial drop in to ta l errors and trials t o a criterion which takes place in the learning of the first few lists of syllables. In some instances even further pre-training would be necessary (4, 6). </p><p>T h e task of pre-training 30 to 100 Ss is extremely time-consuming if done individual by individual. Group pre-training would involve a great economy of time and would permit experimenters to use statistically adequate groups of SS. </p><p>T h e obvious technique for group experiments would involve the use of motion pictures or film-strips and some sort of projecting device. This has been done for classroom demonstration experiments (3) , but apparently not for group research work or for pre-training. In the present study, moving pictures were selected as the group pre-training device, and an attempt was made to demonstrate whether or not the moving picture technique would yield results comparable to individual pre-training using the memory drum. </p><p>*Received in the Editorial Office on January 10, 1948. This research was supported by the Research Committee of the Graduate School </p><p>of the University of Wisconsin from special funds voted by the State Legislature for 1946-47. The writers wish to thank Miss Billie Tallantis who aided by conducting some of the experiments. </p><p>89 </p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 06:</p><p>49 0</p><p>8 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>90 JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY </p><p>B. APPARATUS AND GENERAL PROCEDURE 1. Materials </p><p>Nine serial lists of 12 three-letter nonsense syllables were used. Six of these were pre-training lists and three were test lists. All lists were balanced for association value according to Kreugers list (Z), and the test lists were constructed carefully according to the conventional rules (4, 8) . All were printed in India ink with a Leroy lettering set on White Vellum. T h e lists were exposed by means of a Hull-type memory drum adjusted to give a two- second exposure for each syllable with six seconds between repetitions of the lists. </p><p>T h e six pre-training lists were photographed from the drum and later pro- jected at sound-speed on 16 mm. film. T h e film for each list was cemented to form a continuous loop2 which could be threaded into the projector and projected continuously, repeating the list as many times as desired. </p><p>2. General Procedure </p><p>In general, Ss of the experimental groups learned three pre-training lists the first day in a 50-minute group film session. T w o days later they learned the second three pre-training lists in the same manner. On the third day, which was scheduled from one day to one week later, each S learned the three test-lists from the memory drum in an individual session. </p><p>All groups were warned before pre-training that their purpose was to acquire facility in memorizing the lists and that they would be tested later. T h e method of anticipation was used throughout, and the Ss pronounced the syllables, aloud or subvocally, depending on the specific procedure used. </p><p>3. Specific Procedure Three experimental and one control procedures were used. These are </p><p>outlined in Table 1. T h e three experimental or motion picture groups differed in that each pre-training list was exposed 10 times to Ss of Group 10M whereas each pre-training list was presented 25 times to Groups 25M and 25Y. Ss of Groups l O M and 2 5 M were instructed to try to anticipate each syllable by pronouncing it subvocallq. during the pre-training trials. 8s of Group 25Y, however, were instructed to anticipate aloud or vocally. (They were in- </p><p>T h e ideal procedure might be to use a special full reel of syllables, but a loop is less expensive and permits great flexibility in number of exposures per list. Practical problems arise in keeping the long loop of film clean. In this experiment the projected film was permitted to fall loosely into a large clean cardboard box from which it continually reissued for further projection. </p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 06:</p><p>49 0</p><p>8 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>P ? T</p><p>AB</p><p>LE</p><p> 1 </p><p>OU</p><p>TL</p><p>INE</p><p> OF T</p><p>HE</p><p> EX</p><p>PER</p><p>IMEN</p><p>TAL PR</p><p>OC</p><p>EDU</p><p>RE </p><p>Exp</p><p>erim</p><p>enta</p><p>l (M</p><p>otio</p><p>n pi</p><p>ctur</p><p>e) </p><p>. G</p><p>roup</p><p>s C</p><p>ontr</p><p>ol </p><p>(Dru</p><p>m) </p><p>10M </p><p>25M </p><p>25V </p><p>grou</p><p>p Pr</p><p>oced</p><p>ure </p><p>(N = 36</p><p>) (N = 24) </p><p>(N = 36</p><p>) (N = 30) </p><p>.Da</p><p>y 1. </p><p>Thr</p><p>ee </p><p>pre-</p><p> 10</p><p> pr</p><p>esen</p><p>tatio</p><p>ns </p><p>per </p><p>25 </p><p>pres</p><p>enta</p><p>tions</p><p> pe</p><p>r 25</p><p> pr</p><p>esen</p><p>tatio</p><p>ns </p><p>per </p><p>25 p</p><p>rese</p><p>ntat</p><p>ions</p><p> per</p><p> tr</p><p>aini</p><p>ng </p><p>lists</p><p>, A</p><p>, B,</p><p> lis</p><p>t - sub</p><p>-voc</p><p>al </p><p>an- </p><p>list-s</p><p>ub-v</p><p>ocal</p><p> an</p><p>ti- </p><p>list </p><p>voca</p><p>l an</p><p>ticip</p><p>a- </p><p>list-v</p><p>ocal</p><p> an</p><p>ticip</p><p>a- </p><p>and </p><p>C, </p><p>lear</p><p>ned </p><p>ticip</p><p>atio</p><p>n ci</p><p>patio</p><p>n tio</p><p>n tio</p><p>n </p><p>Duy</p><p> 2.</p><p> Thr</p><p>ee </p><p>pre-</p><p> Sa</p><p>me </p><p>as a</p><p>bove</p><p> Sa</p><p>me </p><p>as a</p><p>bove</p><p> Sa</p><p>me </p><p>as a</p><p>bove</p><p> Sa</p><p>me </p><p>as a</p><p>bove</p><p> tr</p><p>aini</p><p>ng </p><p>lists</p><p>, D</p><p>, E, </p><p>and </p><p>F, l</p><p>earn</p><p>ed </p><p>Day</p><p> 3.</p><p> T</p><p>hree</p><p> te</p><p>st </p><p>lists</p><p> le</p><p>arne</p><p>d w</p><p>ith </p><p>All</p><p> ies</p><p>f pr</p><p>oced</p><p>ures</p><p> ide</p><p>ntic</p><p>al. Drum p</p><p>rese</p><p>ntat</p><p>ion.</p><p> fir</p><p>st </p><p>test</p><p> lis</p><p>t re</p><p>- V</p><p>ocal</p><p> ant</p><p>icip</p><p>atio</p><p>n to</p><p> a c</p><p>rite</p><p>rion</p><p> of </p><p>two </p><p>succ</p><p>essi</p><p>ve </p><p>lear</p><p>ned,</p><p> I, </p><p>11, 1</p><p>11, </p><p>I, or</p><p>der </p><p>perf</p><p>ect </p><p>repe</p><p>titio</p><p>ns o</p><p>f ea</p><p>ch li</p><p>st. </p><p>a Z r3 c P PI ? P </p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 06:</p><p>49 0</p><p>8 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>92 JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY </p><p>structed to vie with each other in speed and loudness of response.) After each pre-training list had been presented for the last time, each 8 of the experi- mental groups was given a slip of paper on which he was asked to try to write the list in the correct order. This procedure was instituted chiefly to detect 8s who were not working. (None were detected.) </p><p>For members of the experimental groups the pre-training lists were ex- posed by projection, but the same six lists were learned by 8s of the Control Group from the memory drum in two individual sessions. Each pre-training list was exposed 25 times to 8s of the Control Group. </p><p>On the third experimental day, which was scheduled one day to one week later, all groups were treated exactly alike. They learned the three test lists and then relearned the first test list. All test sessions were individual, and exposure was by means of the drum. Lists were learned by anticipation to a criterion of two successive perfect repetitions. Differences in difficulty of the test lists were balanced out, in each group, by means of permuted orders of presentation. </p><p>All 8s were men and women students who volunteered from elementary classes in psychology. T h e 8s had never before served in rBte learning ex- periments. T h e number in each group is given in Table I. </p><p>C. RESULTS T h e results of the experiment are summarized in Table 2. T h e mean </p><p>number of trials to (and including) the criterion of two perfect recitations is given for each group. T h e successive columns refer, respectively, to the first, second, third, and first-relearned lists. T h e control group, pre-trained in the traditional manner, was markedly superior on the first list, and was superior to the 10-trial movie group and the 25-trial-vocal group on the sec- ond list. But on the third list, all groups performed very much alike. </p><p>TABLE 2 MEAN NUMBER OF TRIALS TO LEARN SUCCESSIVE LISTS FROM THE MEMORY DRUM ON DAY 3 </p><p>Group Order of learning lists Relearn </p><p>First Second Third first list </p><p>10 M 32.83 23.44 20.96 13.09 25 M 25.19 18.47 19.14 9.55 25 V 25.72 22.52 21.38 12.43 </p><p>Control 23.94 18.45 21.45 11.02 </p><p>Between Groups Mean Square </p><p>Error Variance (34.02) </p><p>F = 12.59* 6.26* 1/1.10 </p><p>*Significant at 0.1% confidence level. </p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 06:</p><p>49 0</p><p>8 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>D. A. GRANT, D. E. SCHNEIDBR, AND J. C. GOODALE 93 </p><p>T h e data were analyzed by means of analysis of variance. T h e analysis took into account a latin-square feature (7) of the experimental design which permitted complete elimination of systematic variation in list difficulty and systematic variation in subject performance from the error variance. T h e overall mean square for error, computed from 236 degrees of freedom, was 34.02. When this was divided into the between-group mean-squares for the successive lists on Day 3, the Fs given in the last line of Table 2 were ob- tained. T h e Fs for the first and second lists were highly significant, but the F for the third list was not significant. In effect, this means that the clear-cut differences beween groups on the first and second lists stand-up statistically, but that the negligible differences on the third list do not. T h e four groups gradually became homogeneous so that by the third list a fairly sensitive sta- tistical test could not discriminate between them. This would imply that the experimental groups were learning to learn nonsense syllables faster than was the control group. T h e analysis of variance showed that the practice effect in all four experimental groups was highly significant, but the trend in the control group was least striking. </p><p>It may be added, incidentally, that differences in list difficulty were statis- tically significant only in the 10M group, but that systematic differences between 8s were highly significant for all groups. </p><p>All groups relearned the first list after learning the first, second, and third in order to indicate whether the movie technique had any effect upon more complicated variables such as interference. T h e savings score of initial trials to learn minus trials to relearn is, however, a complex measure of both nega- tive interference and positive transfer effects. T h e savings scores averaged 12.92, 16.29, 18.64, and 19.74 for the control, 25Y, 25M, and 1OM groups respectively. T h e analysis of variance of the savings scores yielded an error variance of 327.02 based upon 114 degrees of freedom. On the basis of this error variance the Fs for group differences, list differences, and group-list in- teraction, were all less than 1.00. </p><p>D. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY O n the whole, there is little doubt that the motion picture technique will </p><p>be feasible in the pre-training of 8s for serial rBte learning experiments. There would appear to be little choice among the three experimental methods, but the present findings suggest that the procedure of the 25M group is slightly superi- or to the other procedures. In short, 25 trials per list with sub-vocal response on the part of S may be the best procedure to use during the six pre-training lists. In practice the six pre-training lists may be learned in two one-hour </p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 06:</p><p>49 0</p><p>8 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>94 JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY </p><p>movie sessions. Checking, after each list, by having S write the retained syllables is probably to be recommended to catch loafers in spite of the fact that the 8s of the present study appeared to quite conscientious. </p><p>T h e present data show clearly that one or two lists should be learned from the drum by the movie pre-trained S to make him comparable to the drum- pre-trained S. This is obviously desirable from many standpoints; e.g., S must learn to beat the drum with his report and adapt to the E and the new experimental situation. H e then will be equivalent to a drum-trained S trained with eight lists experience! </p><p>T h e great saving of time permitted by this pre-training method should make it extremely helpful to the researcher in serial learning. T h e reduc- tion of time required to pre-train 100 8s amounts to about 200 hours which should encourage the use of statistically adequate groups for such experiments. </p><p>T h e possibi...</p></li></ul>