Studies of Adaptive and Fixed Schedules in Factual and Perceptual Learning

What conditions make learning efficient? Do adaptive methods m that use learner performance to arrange learning events m offer ways of improving learning? In this dissertation, I address these questions experimentally in human subjects across domains of factual and perceptual learning. Six experiments focus on methods of scheduling the order of presentation of items during a learning session with the goal of improving long-term retention. We introduce a method of determining spacing schedules using an adaptive, computer-based algorithm. Space between presentations is dynamically calculated as a function of a learner's response history and reaction time. This work is based on the spacing effect in memory: when learning a set of facts, scheduling time between repeated presentations or practice has been shown to improve learning. Larger gaps between presentations of an item contribute to increases in the strength of that item in memory. The primary experimental manipulation in these studies is a comparison between fixed schedules of practice and adaptive schedules of practice. Three crucial issues are tested. First, the effects of spacing in adaptive, computer-based schedules are compared to predetermined schedules that have fixed intervals of spacing. Second, adaptive schedules are compared to schedules that are completely randomized, and the difference between schedules with and without dropout is compared. Finally, the benefits of adaptive scheduling are assessed using perceptual category learning. Results of the first set of experiments showed that an adaptive scheduling algorithm produced greater learning gains than fixed schedules, when the total number of presentations was limited. These gains were measurable after a one-week delay. Further, when fixed condition schedules were closely matched to adaptive scheduling in overall item spacing characteristics, adaptive schedules still outperformed them in terms of learning gains at immediate and delayed tests. Results of the second set of experiments, where learning was allowed to continue until learners met learning criteria, showed adaptive scheduling comparing favorably with random presentation schedules. Adaptive schedules where items were dropped after learning criteria were met produced greater learning efficiency (learning gains per trials invested), better than random presentation schedules with or without dropout These efficiency gains were maintained at a delayed test. In a final set of experiments, adaptive schedules increased learning efficiency during perceptual category learning reliably more than random schedules as well as schedules that were adaptive but included some initial blocking or massing of category exemplars. Adaptive scheduling also improved the fluency gains of students learning 3D chemical structure in an introductory community college chemistry course. The results in this thesis relate to state-of-the-art computer adaptive methods of teaching, as well as contemporary models of learning, memory, perception, categorization and human performance. These studies contribute to research in learning and memory, are of broad interest to educators who are concerned about student learning, and inform attempts to connect models of cognition with technology-based tools.

[1]  E. Gorzelańczyk,et al.  Optimization of repetition spacing in the practice of learning. , 1994, Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis.

[2]  Katherine A Rawson,et al.  Diagnosing Criterion-Level Effects on Memory , 2011, Psychological science.

[3]  H. Roediger Relativity of remembering: why the laws of memory vanished. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[4]  M. Engelmann The Philosophical Investigations , 2013 .

[5]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  The promise and perils of self-regulated study , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  Richard M. Shiffrin,et al.  Models of Memory , 2002 .

[7]  H. Pashler,et al.  Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  James G. Holland,et al.  The Analysis of Behavior: A Program for Self-Instruction , 1961 .

[9]  Wayne A. Wickelgren,et al.  Trace resistance and the decay of long-term memory. , 1972 .

[10]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: how much is enough? , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  Shana K. Carpenter,et al.  The effects of tests on learning and forgetting , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[12]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Spaced retrieval: absolute spacing enhances learning regardless of relative spacing. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  A. P. Craig,et al.  Time and Learning , 2000, On Learning.

[15]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  Optimum rehearsal patterns and name learning , 1978 .

[16]  John W. Brelsford,et al.  Spacing repetitions in paired-associate learning: Experimenter versus subject control. , 1976 .

[17]  T. Landauer Memory without organization: Properties of a model with random storage and undirected retrieval , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  B. Underwood Degree of learning and the measurement of forgetting. , 1964 .

[19]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  Star Muir,et al.  The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching , 2015 .

[21]  Jeroen G. W. Raaijmakers,et al.  Spacing and repetition effects in human memory: application of the SAM model , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  E. Thorndike “Animal Intelligence” , 1898, Nature.

[23]  Christopher C. Pack,et al.  The Rates of Protein Synthesis and Degradation Account for the Differential Response of Neurons to Spaced and Massed Training Protocols , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[24]  Janet Metcalfe,et al.  A composite holographic associative recall model , 1982 .

[25]  Eric R Kandel,et al.  Whereas short-term facilitation is presynaptic, intermediate-term facilitation involves both presynaptic and postsynaptic protein kinases and protein synthesis. , 2011, Learning & memory.

[26]  E. Gibson Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development , 1969 .

[27]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[28]  John R Anderson,et al.  Using a model to compute the optimal schedule of practice. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[29]  Teal S Eich,et al.  Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. , 2010, Psychology and aging.

[30]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  A theory of the learnable , 1984, STOC '84.

[31]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  Optimizing retrieval as a learning event: When and why expanding retrieval practice enhances long-term retention , 2010, Memory & cognition.

[32]  Christopher N. Wahlheim,et al.  Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: an investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging , 2011, Memory & cognition.

[33]  Learner judgment in instructional decisions for learning meaningful paired associates. , 1974 .

[34]  William L. Cull,et al.  Expanding understanding of the expanding-pattern-of-retrieval mnemonic: Toward confidence in applicability , 1996 .

[35]  R. Bjork,et al.  Retrieval Fluency as a Metacognitive Index , 2014 .

[36]  Dirk Ifenthaler,et al.  Stochastic Models of Learning , 2012 .

[37]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  A Quantitative Theory of Neural Computation , 2006, Biological Cybernetics.

[38]  Dagmar Zeithamova,et al.  Learning mode and exemplar sequencing in unsupervised category learning. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[39]  James W. Stigler,et al.  An Analysis of Addition and Subtraction Word Problems in American and Soviet Elementary Mathematics Textbooks , 1986 .

[40]  Paul Smolen,et al.  Computational Design of Enhanced Learning Protocols , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[41]  D. Rohrer The effects of spacing and mixing practice problems , 2009 .

[42]  D. Miller Mathematico-Deductive Theory of Rote Learning. A Study in Scientific Methodology. , 1941 .

[43]  P. Kellman,et al.  Perceptual Learning, Cognition, and Expertise , 2013 .

[44]  H. Simon,et al.  A note on Jost's law and exponential forgetting , 1966, Psychometrika.

[45]  Jan-Arjen Mondria,et al.  Efficiently memorizing words with the help of word cards and “hand computer”: Theory and applications , 1994 .

[46]  R. Schmidt,et al.  New Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principles in Three Paradigms Suggest New Concepts for Training , 1992 .

[47]  D. Scott Perceptual learning. , 1974, Queen's nursing journal.

[48]  Katherine A. Rawson,et al.  Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? , 2009 .

[49]  Katherine A. Rawson,et al.  Repeated retrieval practice and item difficulty: Does criterion learning eliminate item difficulty effects? , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[50]  P. R. D’Agostino,et al.  Effects of repetition as a function of study-phase retrieval , 1976 .

[51]  C. Lebiere,et al.  The Atomic Components of Thought , 1998 .

[52]  L. S. Tsai The relation of retention to the distribution of relearning. , 1927 .

[53]  Sean H. K. Kang,et al.  Learning Painting Styles: Spacing is Advantageous when it Promotes Discriminative Contrast , 2012 .

[54]  C. Myers Educational Psychology , 1904, Nature.

[55]  R. Atkinson Optimizing the Learning of a Second-Language Vocabulary. , 1972 .

[56]  J. Shea,et al.  Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. , 1979 .