2013
DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2013.807841
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Enhancing the learning of new words using an errorless learning procedure: Evidence from typical adults

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
30
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 109 publications
5
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, the early part of the workshop focused on simple coding tasks working up to more difficult tasks in an attempt to approach 'errorless learning' as this has been shown to be effective in learning new terms. 98 Each workshop was delivered by two experienced BCT coders (BCTTv1 project team members). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the early part of the workshop focused on simple coding tasks working up to more difficult tasks in an attempt to approach 'errorless learning' as this has been shown to be effective in learning new terms. 98 Each workshop was delivered by two experienced BCT coders (BCTTv1 project team members). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This enabled participants to integrate insights from trials that required complementary inferencesfor example, participants were directly informed about what makes a creature a POKMAG, and also directly about what is sufficient for a creature not to be a POKMAG, in both CL conditions. In standard OCL procedures, participants are introduced only to correct stimulus-labels associations, and thus learning is errorless (Middleton & Schwartz, 2012;Warmington & Hitch, 2014;Warmington, Hitch & Gathercole, 2013). On the other hand, in standard FBCL tasks learning is error driven, where participants are presented with both correct and incorrect stimulus-label associations, and by using trial and error the participant identifies false associations (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;Levering & Kurtz, 2014;Ramscar, Dye & McCauley, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in L1 studies conducted with memory impaired (see Clare & Jones, 2008;Middleton & Schwartz, 2012 for critical reviews) and unimpaired participants, children (Warmington & Hitch, 2014) and adults (Bridger & Mecklinger, 2014;Warmington, Hitch & Gathercole, 2013), results are not clear-cut. Middleton and Schwartz (2012) point out that assumptions of errorless learning (EL) frameworks in cognitive rehabilitation are at odds with testing studies (of non-clinical populations) that show learning benefits associated with retrieval of information from long-term memory and a positive relationship between retrieval difficulty and learning (e.g., Karpicke & Roediger, 2007.…”
Section: The Effect Of Presence or Absence Of Errors During Vocabularmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Warmington and Hitch (2014) reported some advantages for EL over EF in two deliberate word learning experiments with adult L1 participants. The first experiment involved learning novel word forms (i.e., non-words) for familiar concepts in a word-picture learning paradigm.…”
Section: The Effect Of Presence or Absence Of Errors During Vocabularmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation