The Effect of Delay in the Application of Specific After-Effects in Human Learning

Citation preview

r

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL

May 15^

19 . A?.

This dissertation prepared under my direction by

E l i z a b e t h . ....................

entitled -^ e E f f e c t o f D e la y i n th e A p p lic a t io n o f S p e c if ic

A fte r-E ffe c ts in

has been accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

Degree of

D o c to r o f P h ilo s o p h y

(F a u lty Adviser)

L

-I

THE EFFECT OF DELAY IN THE APPLICATION OF SPECIFIC AFTER-EFFECTS IN HOMAN LEARNING

BY ELIZABETH MARY COLLINS A*B., Manhattan®!.lie College, *38 M.A., Fordham University, *39

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY AT FORDHAM UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK 1942

ProQuest Number: 10992521

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uest ProQuest 10992521 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

iii

r

“i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

L.

Page

LIST OF TABLES.............................................

iv

LIST OF FIGURES............................................

v

I.

INTRODUCTION...........................................

1

II.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE...................................

4

III.

CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATION........................ Selection of Materials Apparatus Rotation Scheme Procedure Preliminary Experiment Main Experiment

11

IV.

TREATMENT OF DATA FROM MAIN EXPERIMENT.................. Analysis of Results by First Method Analysis of Results by Second Method

26

V.

COMPARISON OF GRADIENTS................................

40

VI.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS...............................

46

VII.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................ Conclusions

49

APPENDIX A .................................... * ........... Scoring Blank

53

APPENDIX B ................................................. Machine Procedures

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................

61

-J

iv

r

-i LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page I.

After-effects in Stephens’ Experiment..................

4

II.

Summary of Zaganczyk’s Study...........................

5

III.

Distribution of Subjects (Forlano).....................

10

IV.

Mean Scores for "Unfilled” Interval....................

27

V.

Mean Scores for "Filled" Interval......................

27

VI.

Standard Deviation of Scores...........................

29

Critical Ratios of Differences of Test Scores and Initial Scores.........................................

29

Critical Ratios of Differences between Total Scores for Various Trials.........................................

30

Critical Ratios of Differences between Scores on Test According to Delay.....................................

33

Differences of Test Scores of "Unfilled" and "Filled Groups ..........................................

33

XI.

Analysis of Variance "Unfilled" Intervals.............

34

XII.

Analysis of Variance "Filled" Intervals...............

34

XIII.

Percentage of Repetition of Responses for "Unfilled" Interval...............................................

38

Percentage of Repetition of Responses for "Filled" Interval...............................................

38

XV.

Serial Position Gradient for "Unfilled" Interval......

41

XVI.

Serial Position Gradient for "Filled" Interval.........

41

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

XIV.

L

—s

V.

r

"»

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.

Series A — Learning Material............................

13

2.

Series B — Learning Material.............................

14

3.

Rotation Scheme................

17

4.

Presentation Order of Delay Intervals..................

18

5.

Average Total Number Correct Preliminary Group.........

23

6.

Average Number Correct for Each Delay Period Preliminary Group.......................................

24

7.

Average Total Number Correct...........................

28

8.

Average Number Correct for Each Delay Period "Unfilled" Interval....................................

31

Average Number Correct for Each Delay Period "Filled" Interval......................................

32

10.

Serial Position for Each Trial.........................

42

11.

Serial Position for CombinedTrials.....................

43

9.

L

Page

“1

r

"I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To Dr. R. T. Rock Jr., who first aroused ray interest in the field of learning and who initiated this research, and to Dr. B. R. Philip, who guided me through the difficulties of completing it, I offer my heartfelt thanks. To each and every one of the many who contributed to the carrying out of this study, I express my sincere appreciation and gratitude.

r

"i

THE EFFECT OF DELAY IN THE APPLICATION OF SPECIFIC AFTER-EFFECTS IN HOMAN LEARNING

L

X

r

n

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The aim of this research was to study the relative effect of immediate and of delayed application of specific after-effects in human learning.

Does a delay introduced between the response and the after­

effect facilitate, hinder or have no effect whatsoever on learning?

Is

human learning more or less efficient when the after-effect follows the response as closely as possible? Earlier studies of this problem have yielded contradictory results.

A careful scrutiny of these investigations revealed the fact

that there were several defects in the design of the experiments, which might have been responsible for the contradictory conclusions.

The

present study sought to eliminate the more serious errors of these earlier investigations and thus produce more conclusive evidence on this problem. It is not the purpose of this paper to raise controversial issues concerning the concepts employed.

The writer realizes that much

has been said and much still remains to be said concerning the law of effect as formulated by Edward L. Thorndike.

The discussion, while of

great interest, would add little understanding to the solution of the problem under consideration. The following explanations and definitions have been set down to clarify the terms used in the present discussion.

The delay consisted

of an interval interpolated between response and after-effect, varying from zero to thirty seconds, during which the subject looked at a light on the experimenterTs desk.

This has been termed an "unfilled” interval^

2

r “I The term "unfilled” in this study designated the absence of any experi­ mentally interpolated work during the delay interval.

The "filled"

interval consisted of the estimation of the duration of various light exposures interpolated in the delay period.

The light exposures varied

from three seconds to twenty-seven seconds. After-effect as used herein refers to specific knowledge of results.

The learner was informed after each response whether that

response was right or wrong. was measured in two ways.

Learning as produced by the experiment

The first was in terms of the number of

correct responses for each delay interval at each trial.

The second

method defined learning as the non-repetition of an incorrect response as well as the repetition of a correct response. The problem was limited to human learning; no attempt was made to evaluate the numerous studies of delay in the field of animal research. a

Several related studies were found; a discussion of each with

criticism of technique and conclusions is presented in Chapter II. While the experiment conducted by Stephens^ was not directly

concerned with delay, he suggested in the course of his discussion that delay was harmful to learning.

He stated that a delay of approximately

two seconds in informing the subject whether he was right or wrong definitely decreased the efficiency of learning. A study by Zaganczyk^ employed various techniques to produce delay. 1.

2.

L

She performed seven groups of experiments, with line drawing as

J .M. Stephens, The influence of different stimuli upon preceding bonds. Teach. Coll. Contr. Educ. no. 493, New York, Bureau of Publi­ cations, Teachers College, Columbia TJniv., 1931, pp. 83. A. Zaganczyk, "L'effet de la recompense differs© sur l fapprentissage", L ?Annde Psychologique, 1933, XXXIV, pp. 114-158.

3

r

-i

the learning task.

In the first five groups of experiments no differ­

ences were found between immediate and delayed after-effects. sixth and seventh groups she concluded that

In the

delay with interpolated work

seemed to result in a marked superiority in learning. Margaret Elliott technique.

repeated Zaganczyk*s work with a revised

This study was later extended by Robert T. Rock Jr.4

The

results of their experiments indicated that the differences between the efficiency of delayed and immediate after-effects approach zero. Lorge and Thorndike5 attempted to approximate as closely as possible ’’empty” delay.

They reported no difference in learning effi­

ciency for the various periods of delay used. Forlano6 in Part II of his study stated

that there was a

tendency for immediate knowledge of results

to be less efficient for

learning than delayed knowledge of results.

Other studies in which the

time interval was interpolated after each trial or a combination of trials were found but were irrelevant to the problem under discussion. In view of the contradictory results of experiments on this topic it seemed desirable to secure data which would provide more conclusive evidence.

3.

4. 5. 6. L

Margaret M. Elliott, The relative effect upon learning of immediate and delayed knowledge of results, Unpublished Masters thesis, Eordham University, New York, 1937. Robert T. Rock Jr., ’’The relative efficiency of immediate and delayed after-effects in learning” , Psychol. Bull., 1937, XXXIV, pp. 733-734. I. Lorge and E.L. Thorndike, ’’The influence of delay in the after­ effect of a connection", J^. exp. Psychol., 1935, XVIII, pp. 186-194. George Forlano, School learning with various methods of practice and rewards. Teach. Coll. Contr. Educ., no. 688, New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univ., 1936, pp. 114.

r

“>

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Stephens-*- investigated the relative effectiveness of various methods of administering after-effects.

The subject was required to hit

an unseen rectangular plate with a stylus.

Contact with the plate

completed a circuit and produced various effects as indicated in the following table.

Seven sets of experiments comprised the main experi­

ment. TABLE I AFTER-EFFECTS IN STEPHENS* EXPERIMENT Set

Right

Wrong

1

No Shock

Light Shock on Hand

2

No Shock

Medium Shock on Hand

3

No Shock

Heavy Shock on Hand

4

No Shock

Medium Shock on Neck

5

Light

No Light

6

Strong Light Weak Light (If bell rang signals were reversed so that wrong was followed by a strong light and right by a weak light.)

7

Ball rolls down incline Ball rolls down incline Light No Light (The ball rolling down the incline before the signal produced a delay of approximately two seconds.) The data of the experiment were based on the results of fifty-

six college students each of whom completed the seven sets of the experi­ ment in one sitting. 1.

J.M. Stephens, The influence of different stimuli upon preceding bonds.

As a result of this investigation, Stephens concluded that a

“I

delay of approximately two seconds in informing the subject whether he is right or wrong definitely decreases the efficiency of learning.

He

also held that the evidence seems to point to the fact that the influence of the delay comes only from a delay in the application of the effect rather than from a delay in the opportunity to repeat the response. TABLE II SUMMARY OF ZAGANCZYK’S2 STUDY Group

No.

I

4

II

III

IV

2

2

2

Conditions 1st day, test— no knowledge Next 7 days— right or wrong, some immediate, some delayed 9th day, test— no knowledge As above, but delay now called for stopping at end of line until told of result Immediate— drew line, told result, brought hand up to chest and then returned to starting point Delay— drew line, brought hand to chest, told result, then returned to starting point Drew line, stopped and was told immediately or at end of ten seconds and then returned to starting point

Conclusions No differences

No differences

No differences

No differences

v

2

Delay by having subject add simple numbers before being told result

No differences

VI

8

Delay by having subject multiply a two place number by a one place number

Marked superiority for delayed

VII

2

Delay varied— addition, subtraction multiplication

Definite superior­ ity for delayed

2.

A. Zaganczyk/’L ’effet de la recompense differee sur l'apprentissage".

In Zaganczyk's experiment the subject received immediate knowledge of results for two lengths of lines, 12 centimeters and 18 centimeters, and for two other lengths, 9 centimeters and 15 centimeters, he received delayed knowledge of results. along the long arm of a "T" square.

The subjects drew the line

A line was judged correct if it

came within seven millimeters of the correct length. In each series of lines the two lengths were alternated, each length was given in groups of 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8; the succession of these different groups being determined by chance.

Each series of lines of

one length was followed by a series of lines of the other length.

The

seven groups of experiments are outlined in Table II above. Zaganczyk*s conclusion that learning was superior when the after-effect was delayed by a difficult arithmetical operation was based on the results obtained on eight subjects of the sixth group and two subjects of the seventh.

Of the eight cases in the sixth group, three

had progress limited exclusively to delay, one did well under both conditions but better under delayed. little under either condition.

Four of these subjects learned

In the seventh group of experiments,

one of the subjects did well under both conditions but better with delay and the other subject showed no difference in learning that could be noted with certainty.

Zaganczyk's results ordinarily could be dismissed

on the basis of inadequate numbers of subjects except for the fact that Forlano used her conclusions to support his point of view. A failure to keep the time constant between the drawing of each line and the next under the two conditions introduced the irrele­ vant factor of massed practice under the immediate condition and of glistributed practice under the delayed condition.

This difference of

j

7

r i massed and distributed practice was of particular importance in a motor task such as the one Zaganczyk employed* Elliott3 employed a modification of Zaganczyk's technique. The learning task was the drawing of lines 12 centimeters and 18 centi­ meters in length.

Half of the subjects were given immediate knowledge

of results after the 12 centimeters line and delayed knowledge of results after the 18 centimeters line.

The remaining half of the subjects

were given delayed knowledge of results after the 12 centimeters line and immediate after the 18 centimeters line.

If the line came within seven

millimeters of the required length it was designated correct. For immediate knowledge of results the subject drew the line, was informed 1right* or twrongf by the experimenter, then performed a simple multiplication example.

After this the next line was presented.

Under the delayed knowledge of results condition the subject drew the line, performed the multiplication, was told that the line was correct or incorrect and then went on to the next line. Twenty-four adults were employed as subjects.

Each subject

drew 100 lines of each length, every day for five days.

The sessions

of the first and fifth days were tests with no knowledge of results given; the second, third and fourth days were learning periods with specific knowledge of results. On the basis of the data obtained, Elliott concluded that delaying the interval between the response and the after-effect by a simple multiplication apparently weakened slightly the influence of the after-effect on the preceding connection. 3. L

M.M. Elliott, The relative effect upon learning of immediate and delayed knowledge of results. . -----------------------

J

8

r

i Rock4 extended the study by Elliott and employed forty cases.

An analysis of the data obtained led him to the conclusion that learning was slightly superior when the after-effects were applied immediately following the performance of the required task.

Both of these studies

may be criticized on the basis of inadequate numbers to produce conclusive results. In a study by Lorge and Thorndike^, forty-eight adults were employed as subjects.

The subjects were instructed to toss balls back

over their heads at an unseen target.

All attempts were made to approx­

imate as closely as possible "empty” delay.

As the time of the throw

averaged about 1 1/4 seconds, the delays ranged from about 1 1/4 seconds to about 7 1/4 seconds.

As a result of the data thus obtained they

concluded that there were no significant differences in learning effi­ ciency under delayed and under immediate conditions of the application of after-effects. The Lorge-Thorndike study failed principally because of its faulty rotation scheme.

By the administration of series of learning

tasks with increasing and decreasing delay intervals they tried to rotate out the effect of practice.

Their procedure did not take into

account a large practice effect from one group fo throws to another. An entirely inadequate number of rotations was performed so that the "gains" obtained to represent the relative influence of the various periods of delay were not meaningful. 4. 5.

L

R.T. Rock Jr., "The relative efficiency of immediate and delayed after-effects in learning"• I. Lorge and E.L. Thorndike, "The influence of delay in the after­ effect of a connection."

Part II of Forlanots^ study was pertinent to the problem under discussion.

He stated that there was a tendency for immediate knowledge

of results to be less efficient in learning than delayed knowledge of results. The performances required of the individual for delayed and for immediate knowledge of results, respectively, were by no means comparable.

Forlano states:7

It is important to point out clearly in what manner immediate or delayed knowledge of results was effected. It will be re­ called that in Method A the child studied all the words in the first column until he thought he knew them. Then he covered the words in the study text and attempted to write the correct spelling of the words in the next column. When he had written the words as best he could he next proceeded to correct them. There was then a period of delay from the time the child first looked at the word to the point where he checked the spelling of the words. This period of delay varied, since the children tested and corrected themselves whenever they felt ready. Therefore, the period of delayed knowledge of results was longer with some children than was the case with other pupils. This procedure of studying with delayed correcting continued until time was called. In Method B the learner studied one word, wrote it, then covered it and tested his ability to spell it. As soon as the child finished writing the word from memory he compared his spelling with that in the study text and so checked his spelling. The learner therefore received immediate knowledge of results. If the spelling was not correct he continued studying and checking his spelling of that one word until it was correctly spelled; if, however, the spelling was correct after the first *self-test1 he proceeded to study the next word in a similar fashion. This procedure of studying with immediate correcting continued until time was called. From the above quotation it was apparent that the delayed knowledge of results learning task necessitated a more or less remote memory of the list plus spelling ability.

However, under the condition

described as immediate knowledge of results a stress on immediate 6., G. Forlano, School learning with various methods of practice and rewards. " %% Ibid., p. 74.

1U

r memory was the chief learning factor.

"i

No information was given as to how many subjects completed the entire list of spelling words in the designated ten minute learning time. This would be an important factor since results were based on the score made in an immediate retention test.

It was almost certain that under

the delay condition each subject completed the list at least once. However, no report was made on this point.

We were not informed as to

what happened to those learning under the immediate knowledge of results condition.

Did any of these complete the list; if so, how many? TABLE III DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS (FORLANO)

First group

N

N

Second group

N

Third group

35

5B^ normal

35

6A^ bright

33

6A2 dull

38

6Al bright

30

6B3 normal

38

5A-*- bright

33

6B2 dull

29

6A2 dull

33

6A3 normal

38

6B^ normal

37

6B-*- bright

28

6B2 dull

As a further point of criticism we have the fact that Forlano utilized groups of widely differing initial ability and of unequal numbers.

For example, in the first experiment of Part II he employed

three groups of four classes each as given in Table III above.

Despite

these noticeable differences in ability each subject apparently was given the same learning task and the same test upon which results were calculated.

L.

CHAPTER III CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATION

In an effort to control as many variables as possible in this experiment, the learning material was selected so that previous knowledge would in no way influence the efficiency of the experimental learning. Homogeneous material of the meaningless variety which could be adapted to multiple choice response was thought suitable, so various lists of nonsense syllables were examined. A nonsense syllable in this experiment was limited to those included in the definition by Glazel: ...a non-sense syllable being defined as a vowel between two consonants. The letter y was used as a vowel and as a consonant. The initial and final letters of a syllable were never the same. All English words, so far as it is possible to distinguish words, were eliminated. Among those providing the largest selections of syllables were the lists of Glaze and of Krueger2 .

However, Tilton?5 remarks:

Eor a sample of two hundred fifty syllables, the Pearson product moment r between Glaze association values and Krueger association values is +.87. On the strength of this correlation one may claim that there is little basis of choice between the lists, but he may not claim that the Glaze lists are highly unreliable. Selection of Materials. On the basis of Tilton’s findings, the experimenter decided to use the more widely known Glaze syllables.

A learning task which would

not be too difficult was desired; for this reason syllables of about 1.

J.A. Glaze, tfThe associative value of non-sense syllables", J. genet. Psychol., XXXV, 1928, p. 256. 2. W.C.F. Krueger, "The relative difficulty of nonsense syllables", £. exp. Psychol., XVII, 1934, pp. 145-153. 3. J.W. Tilton, "The effect of ’right* and ’wrong* upon the learning of nonsense syllables in multiple choice arrangement", J_. educ. Psychol., l_ XXX, 1939, p. 100. _i

12

r 60% association value were thought to be most useful.

n A syllable of

60% association value is one which has had meaning for 60% of the subjects in Glaze*s experiment. Those syllables having 53.33%, 60% or 66.67% association value were selected.

Before any items were assembled the lists were checked

for real three letter words and these were eliminated.

Other syllables

were eliminated at random so that each association value list contained one hundred hnd ten items. According to a technique advocated by Hull4 , the stimulus and response pairs of the items were arranged so that the sum of the association frequencies of each pair was equal.

The 60% syllables were

selected in random order and paired with 60% syllables also chosen by chance.

In similar manner, the 53.33% syllables were coupled with those

of the 66.67% type. Selections were made by picking syllables from the appropriate association frequency group. syllable more than once.

However, care was taken not to use any one

For each item the stimulus syllable and the

four response syllables were of different initial letters. From the fifty-four items thus established, forty-eight were chosen at random to constitute the twenty-four items of the foreexercise, Series A, and the twenty-four items of the learning material, Series B.

Both series have the syllables arranged so that the first item

is a 60%-60% combination, the second 66.67%-53.33%, the third 53.33%66.67% and the fourth is again 60%-60%, etc.

Every third item was

composed of similar association frequency pairs. 4. L

C.L. Hull, ftThe influence of caffeine and other factorw o phenomena of rote learning” , J_. gen. Psychol.. XIII, l^S^VSpp. Zl. 273.

V YtK* * ^

Figure 1

- < 1 * 0 0

o

o

o

w

o

o

)