THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ANTICIPATION AND STUDY-TEST METHODS RETENTION INTERVAL HYPOTHESIS VS. SPACED PRACTICE EFFECTS

CHIZUKO IZAWA

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.19.31

THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ANTICIPATION AND STUDY-TEST METHODS

RETENTION INTERVAL HYPOTHESIS VS. SPACED PRACTICE EFFECTS

CHIZUKO IZAWA

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1977 Volume 19 Issue 1 Pages 31-38

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.19.31

Details

Published: July 31, 1977 Received: December 13, 1976 Available on J-STAGE: February 24, 2009 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : BATTIG, W. F. 1973 Evidence that recall-anticipation differences increase with increasing time intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 399-402.
BOWER, G. H. 1967 A multicomponent theory of the memory trace. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol. I. New York: Academic Press, Pp. 299-325.
BRUDER, G. A. 1969 Effects of method of presentation on paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 383-384.
CAVANAGH, J. P., & PARKMAN, J. 1971 A comparison of the study-recall and anticipation methods in steady state paired-associate learning. Psychonomic Science, 22, 361-363.
IZAWA, C. 1968 Effects of reinforcement, neutral and test trials upon paired-associate acquisition and retention. Psychological Reports, 23, 947-959.
IZAWA, C. 1971 a Massed and spaced practice in paired-associate learning: List versus item distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 10-21.
IZAWA, C. 1971 b The test trial potentiating model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 8, 200-224.
IZAWA, C. 1972 Retention interval hypothesis and evidence for its basic assumptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 17-24.
IZAWA, C. 1974 a Retention interval hypothesis and list lengths: Comparison of anticipation and study-test procedures. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 28, 214-224.
IZAWA, C. 1974 b Performance differences and distributed practice between anticipation and reinforcements (study)-test methods. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston, November. (A list of 15 pairs was learned by 20 subjects, with 30 sec intercycle intervals. Differences between the two methods were nonsignificant: F<1.)
KAUSLER, D. H. 1963 Comparison of anticipation and recall methods for geriatric subjects. Psychological Reports, 13, 702.
TULVING, E., & ARBUCKLE, T. Y. 1963 Sources of intratrial interference in immediate recall of paired associates. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 321-334.
WRIGHT, J. H. 1967 Effects of stimulus meaningfulness, method of presentation, and list design on the learning of paired associates. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 72-77.

Right : BATTIG, W. F. 1973 Evidence that recall-anticipation differences increase with increasing time intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 399-402.
BOWER, G. H. 1967 A multicomponent theory of the memory trace. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol.I. New York: Academic Press, Pp.229-325.
BRUDER, G. A. 1969 Effects of method of presentation on paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 383-384.
CAVANAGH, J. P., & PARKMAN, J. 1971 A Comparison of the study-recall and anticipation methods in steady state paired-associate learning. Psychonomic Science, 22, 361-363.
IZAWA, C. 1968 Effects of reinforcement, neutral and test trials upon paired-associate acquisition and retention. Psychological Reports, 23, 947-959.
IZAWA, C. 1971 a Massed and spaced practice in paired-associate learning: List versus item distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 10-21.
IZAWA, C. 1971 b The test trial potentiating model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 8, 200-224.
IZAWA, C. 1972 Retention interval hypothesis and evidence for its basic assumptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 17-24.
IZAWA, C. 1974 a Retention interval hypothesis and list lengths: Comparison of anticipation and study-test procedures. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 28, 214-224.
IZAWA, C. 1974 b Performance differences and distributed practice between anticipation and reinforcement (study)-test methods.
KAUSLER, D. H. 1963 Comparison of anticipation and recall methods for geriatric subjects. Psychological Reports, 13, 702.
TULVING, E., & ARBUCKLE, T. Y. 1963 Sources of intratrial interference in immediate recall of paired associates. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 321-334.
WRIGHT, J. H. 1967 Effects of stimulus meaningfulness, method of presentation, and list design on the learning of paired associates. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 72-77.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : The retention interval has become a critical factor in explaining inconsistent results in relative differences between anticipation and study-test methods. The retention interval in paired-associate (and verbal discrimination) learning consists of two qualitatively different components: Types I (rest, intercycle) and II (work, intervening events) intervals. To determine relative effects of the two components, six sets of comparisons were made of the two methods; massed practice (omitting Type I intervals) was employed with various paired-associate lists and presentation rates, using 140 college students. In the absence of the Type I interval, both significant and nonsignificant performance differences between the two methods occurred. Thus, performance inconsistency seems not easily explained by Type I interval effects, as e.g., done in the spaced practice view. Specifically, the results from five of the six experiments contradicted the spaced practice view. By contrast, the retention interval hypothesis, based on Type II interval effects, is supported more strongly-and therefore suggests developing a better theory.
Right : The retention interval has become a critical factor in explaining inconsistent results in relative differences between anticipation and study-test methods. The retention interval in paired-associate (and verbal discrimination) learning consists of two qualitatively different components: Types I (rest, intercycle) and II (work, intervening events) intervals. To determine relative effects of the two components, six sets of comparisons were made of the two methods; massed practice (omitting Type I intervals) was employed with various paired-associate lists and presentation rates, using 140 college students. In the absence of the Type I interval, both significant and nonsignificant performance differences between the two methods occurred. Thus, performance inconsistency seems not easily explained by Type I interval effects, as e. g., done in the spaced practice view. Specifically, the results from five of the six experiments contradicted the spaced practice view. By contrast, the retention interval hypothesis, based on Type II interval effects, is supported more strongly-and therefore suggests developing a better theory.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : BATTIG, W. F. 1973 Evidence that recall-anticipation differences increase with increasing time intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 399-402.
BOWER, G. H. 1967 A multicomponent theory of the memory trace. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol.I. New York: Academic Press, Pp.229-325.
BRUDER, G. A. 1969 Effects of method of presentation on paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 383-384.
CAVANAGH, J. P., & PARKMAN, J. 1971 A Comparison of the study-recall and anticipation methods in steady state paired-associate learning. Psychonomic Science, 22, 361-363.
IZAWA, C. 1968 Effects of reinforcement, neutral and test trials upon paired-associate acquisition and retention. Psychological Reports, 23, 947-959.
IZAWA, C. 1971 a Massed and spaced practice in paired-associate learning: List versus item distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 10-21.
IZAWA, C. 1971 b The test trial potentiating model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 8, 200-224.
IZAWA, C. 1972 Retention interval hypothesis and evidence for its basic assumptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 17-24.
IZAWA, C. 1974 a Retention interval hypothesis and list lengths: Comparison of anticipation and study-test procedures. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 28, 214-224.
IZAWA, C. 1974 b Performance differences and distributed practice between anticipation and reinforcement (study)-test methods.
KAUSLER, D. H. 1963 Comparison of anticipation and recall methods for geriatric subjects. Psychological Reports, 13, 702.
TULVING, E., & ARBUCKLE, T. Y. 1963 Sources of intratrial interference in immediate recall of paired associates. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 321-334.
WRIGHT, J. H. 1967 Effects of stimulus meaningfulness, method of presentation, and list design on the learning of paired associates. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 72-77.

Right : BATTIG, W. F. 1973 Evidence that recall-anticipation differences increase with increasing time intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 399-402.
BOWER, G. H. 1967 A multicomponent theory of the memory trace. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol.I. New York: Academic Press, Pp.229-325.
BRUDER, G. A. 1969 Effects of method of presentation on paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 383-384.
CAVANAGH, J. P., & PARKMAN, J. 1971 A Comparison of the study-recall and anticipation methods in steady state paired-associate learning. Psychonomic Science, 22, 361-363.
IZAWA, C. 1968 Effects of reinforcement, neutral and test trials upon paired-associate acquisition and retention. Psychological Reports, 23, 947-959.
IZAWA, C. 1971a Massed and spaced practice in paired-associate learning: List versus item distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 10-21.
IZAWA, C. 1971b The test trial potentiating model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 8, 200-224.
IZAWA, C. 1972 Retention interval hypothesis and evidence for its basic assumptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 17-24.
IZAWA, C. 1974a Retention interval hypothesis and list lengths: Comparison of anticipation and study-test procedures. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 28, 214-224.
IZAWA, C. 1974b Performance differences and distributed practice between anticipation and reinforcement (study)-test methods. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston, November.(A list of 15 pairs was learned by 20 subjects, with 30 sec intercycle intervals. Differences between the two methods were nonsignificant: F<1.)
KAUSLER, D. H. 1963 Comparison of anticipation and recall methods for geriatric subjects. Psychological Reports, 13, 702.
TULVING, E., & ARBUCKLE, T. Y. 1963 Sources of intratrial interference in immediate recall of paired associates. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 321-334.
WRIGHT, J. H. 1967 Effects of stimulus meaningfulness, method of presentation, and list design on the learning of paired associates. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 72-77.

Abstract

The retention interval has become a critical factor in explaining inconsistent results in relative differences between anticipation and study-test methods. The retention interval in paired-associate (and verbal discrimination) learning consists of two qualitatively different components: Types I (rest, intercycle) and II (work, intervening events) intervals. To determine relative effects of the two components, six sets of comparisons were made of the two methods; massed practice (omitting Type I intervals) was employed with various paired-associate lists and presentation rates, using 140 college students. In the absence of the Type I interval, both significant and nonsignificant performance differences between the two methods occurred. Thus, performance inconsistency seems not easily explained by Type I interval effects, as e. g., done in the spaced practice view. Specifically, the results from five of the six experiments contradicted the spaced practice view. By contrast, the retention interval hypothesis, based on Type II interval effects, is supported more strongly-and therefore suggests developing a better theory.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!