Response latency was studied as a measure of associative strength or degree of learning and as a possible basis for instructional decision making in computer-assisted instruction. Latency was investigated in a paired-associate task as a function of training procedure (a comparison of the anticipation and recall paradigms) and information transmission requirements (a comparison of two, four, and eight response alternatives to an eight-item stimulus list) during both acquisition and overlearning. The magnitude and variability of latency measurements were independent of training method during acquisition, but both were reduced by the recall paradigm during overlearning. Latency was an increasing function of the number of response alternatives during both acquisition and overlearning. During acquisition, prior to the trial of last error (TLE) for each item, latency remained relatively constant and did not differ between correct and incorrect responses. There was a substantial drop in latency following the TLE. Pre-TLE latencies were independent of S learning rate, while post-TLE latencies were an increasing function of learning rate. The latency of the first correct response to an item was found to be shorter if there were no subsequent errors on that item. In general, the study suggests that latency, at least in a rote verbal task, may be a sensitive measure of strength of learning during the overlearning phase, but not during initial learning.The development of instructional strat-With the availability of computer-based egies is currently an area of considerable instructional systems, the educator now interest to educators and psychologists, has the potential ability to construct instructional sequences which will adapt 1 The research reported herein was performed to the particular requirements of individual pursuant to Contract Nonr-624(l8) between the students. Such a sequence would vary the Personnel and Training Branch, Psychological Sci-POn t Pn i. flT ,H nrHor nf tho instructional ma ences Division, Office of Naval Research and the Content and order Ol the instructional ma-Learning Research and Development Center, Uni-temls Presented to the student as a funcversity of Pittsburgh. Additional support was tion of the student's responses. The major provided under Contract OE-4-10-158 with the problem facing the psychologist interested u of Education, United States Department of in thig area j,, that the nature of the fun(J .
S^^i^f^LT^r^to "I*** the student's responses to structive criticism offered by William W. Cooley, optimal presentation schemes is not well Paul M. Kjeldergaard, J. Trevor Peirce, and James known. The computer engineer has pro-F -Jo* 38 -. . , ,,, , vided the educator with the ability to "Request for reprints should be sent to: Robert ","!,« pvtrpmplv fast rplntivolv snnViioti Glaaer, Learning Research and Development Cen-mJ T? extremely last, relatively SOpnistlter, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-cated decisions concerning individual stuvania 15213.dents, and the psychologist ...
