This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 13 November 2014, At: 10:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and AppliedPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Meaningfulness (m) andTransfer Phenomena in SerialVerbal LearningClyde E. Noble aa Department of Psychology , Montana StateUniversity , USAPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Clyde E. Noble (1961) Meaningfulness (m) and TransferPhenomena in Serial Verbal Learning, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary andApplied, 52:1, 201-210, DOI: 10.1080/00223980.1961.9916520

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1961.9916520

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & 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 & 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.

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 & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Published as a separate and in T h e Journal of Psychology, 1961, 62, 201-210.

MEANINGFULNESS (m) AND TRANSFER PHENOMENA I N SERIAL VERBAL LEARNING*

Department of Prychology, Montana State University

CLYDE E. NOBLE’

A. PROBLEM

This experiment is part of a series designed to identify and quantify the variables influencing performance in verbal learning. One powerful factor in the rote learning of words and paralogs is meaningfulness (m), defined by the operations of the association-frequency method (9, 13). Several studies have shown that manipulation of m facilitates the acquisition of skill in both serial learning (6, 10) and paired-associate learning (4, 12), but the transfer properties of materials varying in m value are unknown. T h e purpose of the present investigation was to determine whether there are any unequal transfer-of-training effects among lists differing widely in difficulty due to meaningfulness. Given equal amounts of practice and train- ing] is inter-list transfer dependent on the levels of meaningfulness used in training?

Phrased in this way, the question becomes part of the more general prob- lem of discovering the task factors which affect transfer between learning situations. According to one of Thorndike’s (14) neglected-but not yet outmoded-principles, amount of transfer will depend on the proportion of common elements shared by the tasks. In the field of motor skill Bilodeau ( 3 ) found that, although the target size of a two-hand coordination appa- ratus influenced difficulty in E-paced following pursuit, there was no differ- ential transfer from large to small targets as compared with changing from small to large targets. O n the other hand, when the number and variety of responses were manipulated in a pair of S-paced recessed-tracking devices,

Received in the Editorial Office on April 18, 1961, and published immediately at Provincetown, Massachusetts. Copyright by The Journal Press. 1 This work was supported in part by a contract between the Office of Naval Re-

search and Montana State University. Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. Assisting in data collection and statistical analyses were Blaine L. Baker, Ridgely W. Chambers, James E. Fuchs, George V. C. Parker, Donald P. Robel, and Richard K. Smith. An abridged report was made to the Midwestern Psychological Association, May 1959.

20 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

202 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

Jones and Bilodeau (7) did obtain differential transfer. T h e positive transfer effect produced by changing from a complex task (clover pattern) to a simple task (circle pattern) was not only greater than that resulting from the reverse order of events, but was as great as the effect of practicing directly on the simple task. Presumably, the efficacy of scheduling the complex task first resulted from the fact that it included the S-R compo- nents of the simple task (e.g., the clover track required three times as many directional shifts as the circle) ; this provided varied practice on a larger proportion of criterion responses. A rotary pursuit study of target-rate variations by Ammons, Ammons, and Morgan (1) showed that transfer effects were non-monotonic functions of the degree of difference between the first and second tasks? This finding underscores the importance of similarity relationships, but since amount of practice co-varied with target speed these data are not as relevant as the two-hand coordination work.

Wha t are the implications of the motor skill experiments for verbal learning? T o answer this question, one must ask another: Does a difficult list of low m value (L) contain the S-R elements of an easy list of high m value (H) ? Assuming Thorndike’s hypothesis is valid, the reader’s answer should probably be in the negative because of the total lack of communality between lists constructed from the extremes of the m scale. An affirmative answer would presuppose some kind of unequal, non-specific learning-to-learn transfer process which operates to facilitate the L+H se- quence more than the H+L sequence. Of course, it is conceivable that different “general principles, modes of attack, and sets to perform” (8, p. 327) might be acquired under L-training and H-training, and that prior experience with such diverse materials could produce significantly different transfer effects. Andreas reminds us that “performance on a second task may be benefited by an earlier activity even when there are no mutual identical elements” (2, pp. 471-472). A third view is often held by educational, industrial, and military consultants who recommend an easy+difficult sequence for nearly every transfer situation they encounter. Perhaps such “experts” are unaware that “simple-easy” and “complex-difficult” are not necessarily synonymous; that the antecedent terms of each pair are i d descriptions while the consequent terms are behaoiorul descriptions (cf. 1 1 ) . The point is that difficulty per se (i.e., low proficiency scores) is an effect, not a cause, even in the more obvious part+whole transfer situations.

Summing up the evidence on the transfer-difficulty issue, Deese says

A summary by the same authors appears in Percept. Mot. Skills, 1956, 6, 43.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

CLYDE E. NOBLE 203

that “in cases in which difficult problems involve stimulus-response com- ponents identical to those in easier tasks (but also additional stimulus-re- sponse components) there will be more transfer from the difficult problem than from the easier one. I n those cases in which the problems involve the isolation of relevant stimulus dimensions and the association of certain stimuli with reward or solution of a problem, training on easy problems will transfer more than training on difficult problems” ( 5 , p, 231). Since the present experiment seems to fit neither of Deese’s examples, the Thorn- dikean theory disinclined us toward predicting any differential transfer effects. This presents a familiar statistical dilemma. As McGeoch and Irion put it, “to demonstrate the occurrence of zero transfer would require proof of the null hypothesis, a feat which experiment cannot accomplish” (8, p. 299). They add, however, that if theoretical analysis predicts no transfer, then “practically one may infer that none exists when every reason- able effort has been made to demonstrate transfer without result” (p. ,300). Although the present experiment may be regarded as a “reasonable effort” in this direction, the major purpose of its design was to determine what transfer phenomena attend variation of the meaningfulness factor, and to measure their effects in serial learning. Knowledge of the transfer properties of different verbal materials is important for the proper design of future experiments in this program.

B. METHOD 1. Apparatus

T h e learning device was a Staelting memory drum which presented the items serially, the inter-stimulus and inter-trial periods being 2 and 4 sec., respectively. There were five serial lists of eight pronounceable two-syl- lable items each. A Practice list was selected from the central portion of the m scale ( 9 ) such that the average meaningfulness (GM) was 3.52. This list, being of median m value, was designated by the symbol M. Two lists of low meaningfulness (ZL = 0.31) labeled L1 and L2, and two.lists of high meaningfulness (ZH = 7.22) labeled H1 and H2 were prepared for the Training and Transfer phases, respectively. List M and the matched pairs of Lists L and H are reproduced in Table 1, with k values listed for. both the 1950 military (9) and the 1960 college (13) norms.

2. Subjects and Instructions

T h e Ss were 120 undergraduates obtained from psychology courses at:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

204 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 1 SERIAL LISS FOR THE THREE PHASES OF THE EXPERIMENT WITH MEAN

MEANINGFULNESS (z) CALCULATED FROM MILITARY (9) AND COLLEGE (13) NORMS

Practice Training Transfer M Ll Hl LZ HZ

Mallet Quota Yeoman Zenith Pigment Jitney Rampart Argon

me = 3.52

m13 = 6.32

- -

Tarop Xylem Bodkin Nares Volvap Ulna Rennet Kupod

0.31

3.70

Army Jewel Office Village Garment Dinner Heaven Uncle

7.19

9.64

Delpin Latuk Gokem Tumbril Icon Sagrole Polef Balap

0.31

3.36

Region Insect Wagon Money Jelly Captain Zebra Kitchen

7.25

9.59

Montana State University in 1958. There were 36 women and 84 men, whose ages ranged from 17 to 34 (mean = 20.6 years). All were naive to verbal learning. They were instructed as follows:

“This is a test of your ability to learn a list of two-syllable words. Shortly after the apparatus starts, you will see an asterisk, then a word will appear in the window. You are to pronounce each word aloud as you see it. After you have seen the list once, your job will be to antic- ipate each word in the series. In other words, as you see one item you are to pronounce the one that comes next before it appears. The asterisk will warn you that the list is about to begin again.

“Whenever you fail to anticipate a word, say it aloud when it appears anyway. If you think you know what the next item is, but are not sure, make a guess. It will not hurt your score, and if you get it right it counts as a success. If your guess is wrong, correct yourself aloud as soon as the word appears. Always pronounce the word distinctly. Do not try to use any special system in your learning. Simply associate each item with the next one as the series moves along. Any questions?

“First we will have a practice list to acquaint you with the procedure; however, I will record your scores.” (E gave 10 trials of List M.) “Now we’ll have a short rest period.” (E talked to S for 2 minutes, then gave 10 trials on the Training List: H, or Ll.) “We’ll now have an- other short rest period.” (E talked to S for 2 minutes, then either:) “NOW let’s continue with the same list” (followed by 20 more trials for Groups Hl-Hl and L,-L,) or “Now let’s learn a different list” (followed by 20 more trials for the four switched groups). “Please do not discuss the experiment with anyone. Thank you.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

CLYDE E. NOBLE 205

3. Procedure

T h e experiment was divided into three phases : Practice, Training, and Transfer. All Ss began the Practice phase by receiving 10 trials on List M using the anticipation-correction procedure. After a 2-minute rest, the sample was divided into two matched groups of 60 Ss each for the Training phase. They were trained on either List HI or List L1 for 10 more trials. Following another 2-minute rest, the t w o Training groups were further divided into three matched subgroups of 20 Ss each for the Transfer phase. T w o subgroups from each Training condition were then transferred to a different list of either the same or opposite m value, while the remaining subgroup resumed practice as a control. All Ss received 20 trials during the Transfer phase.

O n the first presentation of each list (Trial 1) S merely read the item (word or paralog) aloud and standard pronunciations were established. Attempted anticipation of the correct responses ( R f ) began on the second presentation (Trial 2) of each phase, except for continuation Groups LI-Ll and HI-FI1 during Transfer which E scored from Tr ia l 1.

C. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION General results of the experiment are shown in Figure 1. T h e data are

expressed in terms of the mean percentage of correct responses ( R per cen t ) as functions of the number of trials ( N ) for the various experimental groups during the Practice, Training, and Transfer periods. It will be convenient to discuss the results for each phase separately.

1. Practice Phase

Frequency scores of correct responses (R+) recorded from the 120 Ss during the Practice period were arranged in a 9 x 6 mixed-factorial analysis-of-variance design to test for trend and level differences among the six subgroups ( n = 20) in learning List M. T h e main effect of Trials was significant ( F = 150.48; df = 8/912; P < .001), but there were no differ- ences among Groups ( F < 1.00; df = 5/114) and no Trials x Groups interaction ( F < 1.00; df = 40/912). T h e latter two non-significant ratios indicate that the six subgroups to be formed in the Transfer period were quite comparable in ability and achievement before entering the Training phase.

2. Training Phase

Acquisition scores (R+) of the two matched groups learning Lists H,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

v) w

80

v) z 7

0

0

v) K

I- 4

0

0

K =

20

0

8

60

so

w

30

I0

0

- c - c - -

11

11

11

11

11

24

68

10

PR

AC

TIC

E

- (n

=6

OE

AC

H)

80

- - - k W

a-

$-

64

- 20

- - * 8 8

0 -b

' f

/

24

68

10

TR

AIN

ING

oc

BO

k w a $ (u

20

0

'I

- I I

I I

II

I I

I I

11

I I

I I

II

I I

J

2 4

6

8 10

12

14

16 18 m'

TRA

NSF

ER

OR

DIN

AL

NUM

BER

OF

TRIA

L (N

) F

IGU

RE

1

Acq

uisi

tion

cur

ves

for

the

thre

e ph

ases

of

the

expe

rim

ent.

Th

e sy

mbo

ls L, M

, an

d H

de

note

Low,

Med

ium

, an

d H

igh

mea

n-

ingf

ulne

ss (m) va

lues

. E

ach

seri

al

list

cont

aine

d 8

diss

ylla

bles

, an

d th

e fu

ncti

ons

are

base

d on

120

, 60

, an

d 20

Ss

in t

he P

ract

ice,

T

rain

ing,

and

Tra

nsfe

r ph

ases

, re

spec

tive

ly.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

CLYDE E. NOBLE 207

arid L1 during Training were analyzed in a 9 x 2 design similar to the one above ( n = 60). As expected, the main effect of Trials ( F = 187.62; df = 8/944; P < .OOl), the main effect of Meaningfulness ( F = 162.42 ; df = 1/118; P < .OOl), and the Trials X Meaningfulness interaction ( F = 4.00 ; df = 8/944 ; P < .001) were all significant. This analysis con- firms the meaning-learning relationships reported earlier by Noble ( 10) and by Powling and Braun (6) . By Tr ia l 10 of the Training period, Group H1 earned an average R per cent score of 88.5 per cent while Group L1 made only 59.8 per cent correct responses. Facilitation due to learning- to-learn is also evident in comparing the acquisition rate on List L1 with the earlier performance on List M. Since the curves are very similar in slope, a substantial amount of positive transfer must have carried over from the Practice to the Training periods.

3. Transfer Phase O n the first post-rest trial of the transition to the Transfer period,

Subgroups HI-Hl and L1-L1 both “forget” about 1.35 correct responses. These 1 7 per cent average losses are attributable to warm-up requirements and proactive interference from the two preceding lists. It is interesting that the amount of decrement Is unrelated to the final proficiency level on Trial 10 of Training. Relearning during the next 20 Transfer trials continues at significantly different rates for the two subgroups, as found in Training, and the inter-trial kariability is greater for the list of lower m value. Main effects of Trials ( F = 22.44; df = 19/722), Meaningfulness ( F = 30.71 ; df = 1/38), and their interaction ( F = 4.97 ; df = 19/722) were all sig- nificant (P < .001) .

Considering next the Ss who transferred to List H2, Subgroups Ll-Hz and H1-H2 drop to zero on Tr ia l 1 due to having new material. Thereafter they acquire proficiency at about the same rate as was true of List HI during the Training phase. This suggestion of non-diff erential transfer to lists of high m value is supported by a 19 x 2 analysis of variance which revealed significant main effects of Trials ( F = 100.60 ; df = 18/684; P < . O O l ) , but no differences due to Groups ( F < 1.00; df = 1/38) or the Trials X Groups interaction ( F < 1.00; df = 18/684). T h e similarity of the HI and the H2 curves in Training and Transfer means that learning- to-learn is either complete by the third list, or counteracted by proactive interference. Both H2 curves are merging with the H1-H1 curve by the end of the Transfer period, being generally above the L1-L1 curve after Tr ia l 8.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

208 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

Finally, there are the Ss who transferred to the L2 list. Subgroups H1-L2 and L1-Lz fall to zero on Tr ia l 1 for the same reason that the HZ 8 s did, and they also improve a t about the same rate that held for List L1 in Training. It appears that Subgroup H1-LZ gains at a somewhat faster rate, but only the main effects of Trials are significant ( F = 99.85; df = 18/684 ; P < .001) . Neither the .difference due to Groups ( F < 1.00 ; df = 1/38) nor the Trials x Groups interaction ( F < 1.00; df q 18/684) approaches significance. Although this 19 x 2 two-factor analysis failed to reveal any differential transfer to lists of low m value, a 19 x 2 X 2 three-factor Trials x Training x Transfer analysis was performed in an effort to detect possible higher-order interactions. Recalling the quotation from McGeoch and Irion (8) cited earlier, this test may be regarded as one which gives the null hypothesis another opportunity to be overthrown. If there really is greater positive transfer from high to low m value than from low to low, and if the gain is a function of Trials (as Figure 1 suggests), then such phenomena should at least be revealed as significant two-factor (Training x Transfer) and three-factor (Trials x Training x Transfer) inter- actions.

T h e summary in Table 2 indicates significant main effects of Trials and

TABLE 2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF CORREC~ RESPONSES (R+) MADE BY SUBGROUPS L,-L,,

A - . . H,-L,, L,-H,, AND H,-H, DURING TRIALS 2-20 OF THE TRANSFER PHASE

Source df MS F

Between Ss Transfer Meaningfulness ( B ) Training Meaningfulness ( C ) B x C Interaction Error ( b )

Trials ( A ) A x B Interaction A x C Interaction A x B X C Interaction Error ( w )

Within Ss

Total

79 1 1 1 76

1440 18 18 18 18

1368 1519

2273.61 65.860 9.01 <l.OO 33.79 <l.OO 34.52

264.16 194.24. 6.84 5.03. 1.08 <l.OO .65 < L O O 1.36

*P <.OOl

of Transfer Meaningfulness, but the only significant interaction is the familiar non-parallelism caused by differential m value when the pooled Ha and L2 curves are plotted against Trials. This interaction echoes the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

C L M E E. NOBLE 209

behavioral comparisons of the H1 vs. L1 curves in Training, and the Hl-Hl vs. Ll-L1 curves in Transfer. A multiplicative learning x meaningfulness relationship appears so consistently throughout experiments in this field that it is definitely attaining the status of an empirical law. It is concluded, therefore, that the operation of increasing m value is a temporary per- formance factor which powerfulIy facilitates rate of acquisition. T h a t meaningfulness produces no permanent learning changes is implied by the absence of significant differential transfer-of-training eff ccts.

D. SUMMARY A verbal learning experiment was conducted to discover transfer-of-train-

ing effects among 8-item serial lists differing in meaningfulness (m). For Practice, 120 Ss received 10 trials on a list of average m value. T h e sample was then divided into two matched groups of 60 Ss for Training on a list of either high (H1) or low (L,) m value for another 10 trials. Finally, six matched subgroups of 20 Ss were formed for the Transfer phase of 20 trials. T w o subgroups from each Training condition were changed to a different list of either the same or opposite m value, while the remaining subgroups resumed learning as controls.

T h e Training phase produced significant differences due to Trials, Meaningfulness, and their interaction, with List H1 superior to List L1. In Transfer, Subgroups Hl-H1 and Ll-L1 suffered equal decrements on the first post-rest trial, then continued relearning at significantly different rates consistent with the Training data. Subgroups L1-HZ and HI-H2 performed at the same rate as Group H1 during Training, with no inter-group differ- ences. Subgroups H1-LZ and L1-L2 resembled Group L1 earlier, and like- wise failed to show significant Transfer differences.

Given equal amounts of practice and training, inter-list transfer effects are independent of original m value. Our hypothesis .that lists of high and low m value share no common elements was sustained by the absence of differential transfer. T h e data thus suggest a new principle of verbal learning and performance: meaningfulness facilitates rate of acquisition but has no influence upon transfer of training.

REFERENCES 1. AMMONS, R. B., AMMONS, C. H., & MORGAN, R. L. Transfer of training in a

simple motor skill along the speed dimension. USAF, Wright Air Deoel- opment Center, Tech. Rep., 1954, No. 53-498.

2. ANDREAS, B. G. Experimental Psychology. New York: Wiley, 1960.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

210 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

3. BILODEAU, E. A. A preliminary study of the effects of reporting goals as a function of different degrees of response accuracy. USAF, Human Resources Research Center, Rer. Bull., 1952, No. 52-4.

CIEUTAT, V. J., STOCKWELL, F. E., & NOBLE, C. E. The interaction of ability and amount of practice with stimulus and response meaningfulness ( m , m’) in paired-associate learning. J . Exp. Prychol., 1958, 66, 193-202.

DEESE, J. The Psychology of Learning. (2nd Ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958.

4.

5.

6 .

7.

8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13.

14.

DOWLING, R. M., & BRAWN, H. W. Retention and meaningfulness of material. J . Exp. Psychol., 1957, 64, 213-217.

JONES, E. I., & BILODEAU, E. A. Differential transfer of training between motor tasks of different difficulty. USAF, Human Resources Research Center, Rer.

MCGEOCH, J. A,, & IRXON, A. L. T h e Psychology of Human Learning. (2nd

NOBLE, C. E. An analysis of meaning. Psycho/. Rev., 1952, 69, 421-430.

Bull., 1952, NO. 52-35.

Ed.), New York: Longmans, 1952.

. T h e role of stimulus meaning ( m ) in serial verbal learning.

. Human trial-and-error learning. Psychof. Rep., 1957, 3, 377-398. J . ExP. Prychol., 1952, 4S, 437-446; 1952, 44, 465.

NOBLE, C. E., & MCNEELY, D. A. The role of meaningfulness ( m ) in paired- associate verbal learning. J . Exp. PJychol., 1957, 69, 16-22.

NOBLE, C. E., & PARKER, G. V. C. The Montana scale of meaningfulness ( m ) . Prychol. Rep., 1960, 7, 325-331.

THORNDIKE, E. L. The Psychology of Learning. New York: Teachers College, Columbia Univ., 1914.

Department of Psychology Montana State University Missoula, Montana

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014