Degree of learning and the measurement of forgetting

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(64)80028-1Get rights and content

Summary

This paper was directed toward problems involved in the measurement of forgetting uncontaminated by differences in degree of learning. More particularly, it was concerned with these measurements when some variable, such as a characteristic of the task, is being manipulated and when such a variable produces differences in rate of learning. If we are to assess properly the influences of these variables on retention, degree of learning must be equated, since degree of learning and retention are directly related.

The two basic situations considered were those in which a constant number of learning trials was given and those in which learning was carried to a specified criterion of performance.

The single-entry technique is appropriate only when a constant number of learning trials is used. When a criterion of performance is set for learning another procedure (multiple-entry projection) may be used. Although the mean predictions are fairly accurate by this method, predictions for individual Ss are not. In most studies of retention it seems most efficient to use a constant-trials procedure for learning.

Finally, it was pointed out that some studies of short-term retention of single items have probably confounded effects of degree of learning on retention with the effects of variables producing differences in rate of learning the items.

References (17)

  • MeltonA.W.

    Implications of short-term memory for a general theory of memory

    J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav.

    (1963)
  • AusubelD.P.

    The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material

    J. educ. Psychol.

    (1960)
  • KothurkarV.K.

    Effect of stimulus-response meaningfulness on paired-associate learning and retention

    J. exp. Psychol.

    (1963)
  • MurdockB.B.

    The retention of individual items

    J. exp. Psychol.

    (1961)
  • PetersonL.R. et al.

    Short-term retention of individual verbal items

    J. exp. Psychol.

    (1959)
  • PostmanL.

    Retention as a function of degree of overlearning

    Science

    (1962)
  • RichardsonJ. et al.

    Comparing retention of verbal lists after different rates of acquisition

    J. gen. Psychol.

    (1957)
  • RunquistW.N.

    Retention of verbal associates as a function of strength

    J. exp. Psychol.

    (1957)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (98)

  • Retrieval-Based Learning: A Decade of Progress

    2017, Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference
  • Ontogeny of memory: An update on 40 years of work on infantile amnesia

    2016, Behavioural Brain Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    Perhaps memories formed in infancy are not encoded as successfully or completely as later memories. Rate of acquisition is one index of the strength of original learning; the final degree of learning will usually be lower following slower rates of attaining a criterion [67]. However, in a number of experiments it was found that infant rats exhibited higher rates of forgetting compared to adults despite equivalent rates of acquisition and initial memory expression [35,68,69].

  • Emotion and autobiographical memory

    2010, Physics of Life Reviews
    Citation Excerpt :

    A large proportion of memory research has followed the “verbal learning tradition” (e.g., [408,409]), assessing the number of unrelated words that individuals can learn and the period of time over which they can retain the information.

  • Forgetting

    2007, Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference
View all citing articles on Scopus
1

The present paper is an outgrowth of many discussions and many analyses over the past 10 years. Involved in these discussions have been E. J. Archer, Jack Richardson, R. W. Schulz, W. N. Runquist, Geoffrey Keppel, and Bruce Ekstrand. The latter two have critically read the manuscript and have contributed to the particular analyses presented.

2

This work was supported by Contract Nor-1228 (15), Project NR 154-057, between Northwestern University and the Office of Naval Research.

View full text