A classification of associative strategies in paired-associate learning

Abstract

Abstraet Although verbal reports are highly idiosyncratic, the results of these two studies show that it was possible to categorize them in a reliable and systematic manner . More speCifically, a seven category strategy classifica-tion scheme was developed which permitted the cate-gories to be rank ordered along an apparent continuum of cue complexity. Experiment I revealed a statistically significant increasing monotonic relationship between level of strategy employed and performance on the learning task. Similar findings were obtained in a replication of this experiment. Problem Although the simplest way to find out how a person has learned a task is to ask him, most investigators do not question Ss about such matters, and such questioning is seldom done systematically. The appro-priateness of asking people what they did while attempt-ing to master a task has been discussed by Miller, Galanter, & Pribram (1960). And recently, several studies have shown that a significant portion of the variance in the learning task can be accounted for on the basis of Ss' verbal reports (Farber, 1963; Eagle & Leiter, 1964; Underwood & Schulz, 1960). Experiment I was undertaken to develop a systematic and reliable procedure for analyzing and classifying verbal reports obtained at the conclusion of a paired-associate learning task. It was believed that these reports would provide important data concerning the relationship between types of cues employed during the learning task and rate of acquisition. Experiment II merely served as a replication of experiment I, Method Experiment I Thirty-nine advanced educational psychology students served as Ss in the experiment. They were presented, in a group, a paired-associate learning task consisting of eight pairs of low meaningful (M) paralogs selected from Noble's (1952) list: Meardon-Zumap, Sagrole-Polef, Rennet-Quipson, Volvap-Nares, Neglan-Gokem, Tarop-Gojey, Latuk-Brugen, Bodkin-Nostaw. The items were placed on Thermofax transparencies and presented on an overhead projector in different random orders, for both learning and test trials. Ten learning and 10 test trials were presented at a 3 sec. rate for the learning trials, and at a 4 sec. rate for the test trials. A recognition procedure was employed for the test trials with each stimulus being presented with all eight responses. The responses on the test transparencies were randomized to avoid any serial position effect, and Ss were provided with test booklets