Auditory information processing and its method of presentation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19276263 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Chizuko Izawa (Tulane University, New Orleans), Douglas Bell (Tulane University, New Orleans), Douglas E Bell (0000-0002-4319-0380, Tulane University), Robert G Hayden (Tulane University, New Orleans) |
| Year | 1984 |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 12-23 |
| Publication date | 1984-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Japanese Psychological Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0021-5368 • E-ISSN: 1468-5884 |
| Publisher | The Japanese Psychological Association (PUBLISHER • JP) |
| DOI | 10.4992/psycholres1954.26.12 |
| OpenAlex | W596363040 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 5 |
The encoding or learning difficulty variable was found to differentiate two theories concerning the relative efficacy of auditory item information presentation methods, anticipation vs. study-test. Barch and Levine (1967) expect superiority of the anticipation method when stimulus encoding is difficult, but that of the study-test method when it is easy (the encoding position). The retention interval model (Izawa, 1981c), however, predicts that the advantage for the study-test method is likely to be negligible when learning is either extremely difficult or extremely easy, but may be large when learning is intermediately difficult, with some possibility of the advantage being a small one. Data from 78 college students were analysed via group means, with either highest or lowest performers, from various perspectives. No situation, throughout all data analyses on three levels of difficulty, produced a significant superiority for the anticipation method vis-à-vis the study-test method. Overall, support for the encoding position was less than meager. The retention interval model, in contrast, seems to have received substantial support from auditory data on all difficulty levels, be they defined a priori (objectively) by the experimenter, or a posteriori (subjectively), by the individual learner
A priori and a posteriori · Anticipation (artificial intelligence) · Cognitive psychology · Encoding (memory) · Interval (graph theory) · Presentation (obstetrics) · Stimulus (psychology) · Test (biology) · Artificial Intelligence · Communication in Education and Healthcare · Computer Science · Evaluation of Teaching Practices · Mathematics · Psychology · Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |