Experimental Analysis of Learning To Learn

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses the experimental analysis of learning to learn. In experimental studies of human learning it is conventional to divide sources of transfer into two major classes: specific and nonspecific. Specific transfer effects depend on manipulated similarity relations between the components of successive tasks, as in the acquisition of new responses to old stimuli. Nonspecific transfer effects are assumed to be independent of such similarity relations and hence are attributed to the development of higher-order habits or learning skills. The classification of transfer as nonspecific constitutes, however, a definition by default. While the changes in performance subsumed under this heading may not represent the carrying over of specific discriminations or responses from one task to the next, they must, nevertheless, reflect circumscribed habits and skills which are subject to experimental manipulation and analysis. The usual point of departure in the analysis of nonspecific transfer has been the distinction between warm-up and learning to learn, both of which are assumed to contribute to the improvement in performance as the learner moves from one task to the next.

[1]  Geoffrey Keppel,et al.  Studies of learning to learn: III. Conditions of improvement in successive transfer tasks , 1966 .

[2]  L. Postman,et al.  WHOLE VERSUS PART LEARNING OF SERIAL LISTS AS A FUNCTION OF MEANINGFULNESS AND INTRALIST SIMILARITY. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  L. Postman,et al.  Studies of learning to learn , 1967 .

[4]  B. Underwood,et al.  Retention as a function of stage of practice. , 1950, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  L. Thune.  Warm-up effect as a function of level of practice in verbal learning. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  E. Tulving,et al.  Vividness of words and learning to learn in free-recall learning. , 1965, Canadian journal of psychology.

[7]  L. Postman,et al.  Whole versus part learning of paired-associate lists. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  L. Postman,et al.  Retroactive inhibition as a function of set during the interpolated task , 1963 .

[9]  B. Murdock.  The criterion problem in short-term memory. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  B. Underwood,et al.  An analysis of some shortcomings in the interference theory of forgetting. , 1966, Psychological review.

[11]  D. Wickens,et al.  Retroactive inhibition as a function of the temporal position of the interpolated learning. , 1956, Journal of Experimental Psychology.

[12]  C. P. Duncan,et al.  Pre-recall warming-up in verbal retention. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  R. Ditrichs,et al.  Verbal paired-associate transfer as a function of practice and paradigm shift , 1966 .

[14]  L. Postman.  Studies of learning to learn: VI. General transfer effects in three-stage mediation , 1968 .

[15]  L. Postman.  Differences between unmixed and mixed transfer designs as a function of paradigm , 1966 .

[16]  B. Underwood.  Interference and forgetting. , 1957, Psychological review.

[17]  L. Postman.  Does interference theory predict too much forgetting , 1963 .

[18]  L. Thune.  The effect of different types of preliminary activities on subsequent learning of paired-associate material. , 1950, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  G. Lazar.  Warm-up before recall of paired adjectives , 1967 .

[20]  C. P. Duncan.  Description of learning to learn in human subjects. , 1960, The American journal of psychology.

[21]  B. Underwood.  Studies of distributed practice. VI. The influence of rest-interval activity in serial learning. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  A. Irion,et al.  The relation of set to retention. , 1948, Psychological review.

[23]  B. Underwood,et al.  Mixed vs. unmixed lists in transfer studies. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[24]  C. P. Duncan,et al.  Warm-up in retention as a function of degree of verbal learning. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[25]  L. Postman,et al.  Temporal changes in interference. , 1968 .

[26]  L. Postman.  Studies of learning to learn II. Changes in transfer as a function of practice , 1964 .

[27]  J. Houston,et al.  First-list retention and time and method of recall. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[28]  A. Irion.  Retention and warming-up effects in paired-associate learning. , 1949, Journal of experimental psychology.

[29]  W. C. F. Krueger.  The relative difficulty of nonsense syllables. , 1934 .

[30]  E. Tulving.  Subjective organization and effects of repetition in multi-trial free-recall learning , 1966 .

[31]  Geoffrey Keppel,et al.  Studies of learning to learn: VIII: The influence of massive amounts of training upon the learning and retention of paired-associate lists , 1968 .

[32]  Whole-part problem. , 1931 .

[33]  L. Postman,et al.  Studies of learning to learn: VIII , 1968 .

[34]  R. Ammons,et al.  Acquisition of motor skill: quantitative analysis and theoretical formulation. , 1947, Psychological review.

[35]  B. Underwood,et al.  Studies of distributed practice. XXIV. Differentiation and proactive inhibition. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[36]  E H Cooper,et al.  The total-time hypothesis in verbal learning. , 1967, Psychological bulletin.

[37]  Leo Postman,et al.  Studies of learning to learn. I. Transfer as a function of method of practice and class of verbal materials , 1964 .

[38]  L. Postman,et al.  Response availability in free and modified free recall for two transfer paradigms , 1967 .