Objects: The aim of this experiment is to compare which is the more effective method, that of presenting English sentence only, or the English sentences followed by the Japanese sentence and also to compare which number of trials are more effective, five times or ten times. This was said to be a comparative experiment between me and significant learning on point of audio visual chanical area. Procedure: The subjects for this experiment were about 386 boys and girls in senior high school. The material which was used for this experiment was a series of English sentences and English Japanese sentences based on sentence patterns by Hornby and Fries. English sentences based on Hornby's sentences 9 sentences out of 25 sentences were selected for stimulus omitting complex sentences such as numbers 11, 12, 15, 16. Each sentence for a stimulus was composed of 7 syllables and 5 to 7 words. The sentences were divided into 3 high, 3 middle and 3 low depending on how difficult they were based on the result of a preexperiment. English sentences based on Fries sentences-9 sentences were selected based on Fries English sentence patterns including 12, 3b, 14, 16, 14, 3a, 12, 2a, 15, 1a, 11, 2a, 15, 1b. The sentences were divided into 3 classes: high, middle and low depending on how difficult they were on the basis of a pre-experiment. The stimilus sentences were presented to the subjects of both groups by the control method. English and Japanese sentences were presented to the B group. Both groups for the experiment had no significant difference in their T score and English achievement, and are said to be of the same quality. Each sentence was presented in 10 seconds on 10×30 cards and tape recorder and in 5 or 10 trials in succession. The subjects produced the sentences they had learned by memory. After 10 trials presentation the subjects were asked to produce each sentence in 45 to 60 seconds. The order of presentation in experiment were the following. (1) Hornby1-Fries1 consists of 10 trials of Hornby and Fries sentence patterns in English and Japanese. (2) Hornby2-Fries2 consists of 10 trials of Hornby and Fries sentence patterns in English. (3) Hornby3-Fries3 consists of 5 trials of Hornby and Fries sentence patterns in English and Japanese. (4) Hornby4-Fries4 consists of 5 trials of Hornby and Fries sentence patterns in English. The subjects for this experiment are assigned equally to experimental conditions with no significant difference on the basis of the result of value analysis. Results: In presentation English Japanese sentence group is more effective than English sentence group on a 1% level of significance on the basis of the result of value analysis. In trial and interaction, significant difference is observed at a 1% level in English Japanese sentences compared with English sentence group. Error analysis: English sentence group had more errors than English Japanese sentence group, there were 298 in spelling, 95 in phrases, 37 were ungramatical. As for the difference in difficulties, English Japanese sentences are superior to English sentences on a 0, 1%, 5% level of significance on high and middle.
The aims of this study, suggested by the hypothesis of acquired distinctiveness of cues and by the method of Spiker's experiment, are to clarify that the everyday language is the most effective ADC for delayed discrimination learning (Exp. I), and that the more familiar, the more frequent in usage, the language gets the more effective ADC function (Exp. II). Exp. I Procedures: The Ss receive one of the following six types of stimulus pretraining. As stimulus, pairs of a triangle and a square figure are used. Each figure has four variations about color and size. After that, Ss are asked to discriminate that either triangle or square is baited, in the delayed reaction experiment. Number of correct responses are counted. Ss: The Ss are 90 three-year olds and 90 five-year olds children. They are divided evenly into six groups at each age level, according to the six types of pretraining. Types of stimulus pretraining: 1) Relevant word group (to learn relevant form names) 2) Meaningless word group (to learn to associate nonsense syllables with the figures) 3) Motor cue group (to learn to associate raising right or left hand with one of two figures) 4) Perceptual cue group (to learn to associate white or black card with one of two figures) 5) To see and discriminate group (to learn to say “same” or “different” with a pair of figures) 6) Showing group (to watch two figures for five seconds) Exp. II Procedure: Except that pairs of a square and a pentagon figure are used as stimulus, other procedures are all the same in Exp. I. Ss: The Ss are 72 three-year-olds children and they are divided evenly into the the following six stimulus pretraining groups. Types of stimulus pretraining: 1) Relevant word group 2) Overlearning meaningless word grop (to perform the 100% overlearning to associate nonsense syllables with figures) 3) Meaningless word group 4) Motor cue group 5) Perceptual cue group 6) Showing group The results are as followings: Exp. I:(1) In younger children, relevant word group, motor cue group, perceptual cue group, each shows more superior performance than any other control group, and relevant word group is the best among them. So, it is supported that the everyday language, relevant names of objects is the most effective as discrimination cues.(2) In younger children, perceptual cue and motor cue groups show superior performances than either to see and discriminate or showing group. Then, if provided any concrete cues, the task becomes easier for Ss than without cues.(3) In older children, there are not any significant differences among six groups and each group shows very high performances. It is probable that the older children would have already developed the ability to use internal speech as a substitute for external ADC. Exp. II,(4) Relevant word group shows superior performance over overlearning meaningless word group, which is superior to meaningless word group. So, our major hypothesis is supported.(5) Motor and perceptual cue groups show superior performances to showing group. It is demonstrated that perceptual or motor cues other than language are able to be effective as ADC or mediator in younger children.
Kendler and D'Amato applied a mediational theory to predict that reversal shift would yield positive transfer for college students, and found, as predicted, that theyd behaved in a manner opposite to the albino-rats on which they had studied before, i. e. reversal shift was faster than nonreversal. Then, H. H. Kendler and T. S. Kendler used the same technique to study concept learning in lindergarten children. Its purpose was again to see whether the behavior of the children would be consistent with the single-unit or the mediational type of S-R theory. However, the results were that the group, as a whole, showed neither positive nor negative transfer in the test situation. Slow learners performed according to the single-unit theory: like the albinorats, they showed negative transfer for reversal shift. Only fast learners performed in accordance with the mediational theory; like the college students, they showed positive transfer for reversal shift. Therefore, Kendler's mediational theory which implies that the mediation is verbal process, was not fully confirmed yet. This was why we planned a series of experiments on kindergarten children and tried to make sure directly how the verbal or symbolic clue mediated between the external stimuus and the overt response. Method: Subjects-The Ss were kindergarten children (ages 3 to 6yrs. old). They were divided into two groups on the basis of their speech levels. Screening test trials were given to 243 children, and those who were able to express their choice verbally were put in the H-group. Those who were unable were put in the L-group. Then, each group was divided into two again, one for reversal shift (R-group) and another for nonreversal shift (NR-group). Then, half of each group was instructed to tell E. their choice before they actually pointed it with a finger, i. e. they were expected to use words, e. g.“little,” “big,” or “green.” Those groups were called “overt verbalization groups”(OV-groups). So our experimental groups numbered 8 in all and 8 children in each group. We predicted the results as follows: 1) When the Ss were not given any instruction to tell E. their choice, R-shift would be faster than NR-shift in the H-group, and NR-shift would be faster than R-shift in the L-group. 2) When the Ss were on a high level in their speech, R-shift would be faster than NR-shift, and OV would have little or no effect on R-shift, but it would interfere with NR-shift. 3) When the Ss were on a low level in their speech, OV would reinforce completing R-shift, but would have little effect on NR-shift, or impair it a bit. When the correct verbal clue was given, R-shift would be faster than NR-shift. When they were not given, NR-shift would be completed more quickly than R-shift. Differing from our predictions, the results of our experiments showed that R-shift was always faster than NR-shift not only in the H-group but in the L-group. The OV seemed to yield positive transfer for R-shift, but it was not statistically reliable. Discussion: As all the Ss. we used had already experienced an amount of test trials for screening, we found it possible to think that a. categorization set had been formed by it and it played the role of covert responses that were assumed to mediate between external stimuli and overt responses.