On the Development of Forgetting

Brainerd, Charles J.; Kingma, Johannes; Howe, Mark L.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1985.tb00180.x

Cited by 32 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Intuitively, this is an attractive notion since tests normally afford fewer retrieval cues than additional study opportunities. In addition, it is in the spirit of a multiprocess view of learning in which retrieval is regarded as a rather complex process, involving the transition from the use of a general heuristic, which is fallible, to the use of a specialized algorithm which, at least in principle, is not (e.g., Brainerd et al, 1985;Greeno, 1970;Runquist, 1986).…”

Section: Deficient-processing Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Once some to-be-learned information is stored in memory as indicated by a correct response to a test, further test trials tend to enhance performance more than study trials (Brainerd et al, 1985;Halff, 1977;Nungester and Duchastel, 1982), even when the test questions and review statements contain the same content (Bruning, 1968). One possibility is that acquisition and forgetting obey different laws (Brainerd et al, 1985), and that further study increases the number of immediately assessible items, whereas testing increases their resistance to forgetting (Runquist, 1986). However, for progress to be made relative to this issue, the effects of testing, in particular, need to be depicted in greater detail.…”

Section: Recommendations For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spacing effects and their implications for theory and practice

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE SPACING EFFECTAsk almost any student of learning and memory and he/she will tell you that the spacing effect refers to the finding that for a given amount of study time, spaced presentations yield significantly better learning than do presentations that are massed more closely together in time. The spacing effect is, in fact, one of the most thoroughly studied phenomena in psychology. However, what is not so widely appreciated is just how remarkable the spacing effect is.Consider, for example, its impressive length of service as a subject of scientific inquiry. The earliest documented studies of the spacing effect were recorded by Ebbinghaus in his seminal work on memory, originally published in 1885. With himself as the subject, Ebbinghaus noted that for a single 12-syllable series, 68 immediately successive repetitions had the effect of 1Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154. 309

show abstract

Section: Deficient-processing Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recommendations For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spacing effects and their implications for theory and practice

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…FTT's conception of episodic activation evolved from a series of experiments on reminiscence in children's repeated recall (Brainerd, Kingma, & Howe, 1985;Brainerd & Reyna, 1990a;Brainerd, Reyna, Howe, & Kingma, 1990;Howe, Kelland, Bryant-Brown, & Clark, in press). Reminiscence occurs when children receive a series of recall tests for material that they learned a few days before.…”

Section: Episodic Activationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fuzzy-trace theory and cognitive triage in memory development.

Brainerd¹,

Reyna²,

Howe³

et al. 1991

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When children and adults retrieve words during unconstrained recall, it is commonly supposed that words will present themselves to consciousness in decreasing order of memory strength, which means that their order of readout should be stronger --~ weaker. In contrast, fuzzy-trace theory proposes a counterintuitive nonmonotonic relationship between order of readout and memory strength. This relationship, which we call cognitive triage, arises from the theory's interpretation of recall as a dynamic system in which the influences of three variables (memory strength, episodic activation, and output interference) must be balanced to maximize recall. Because fuzzy-trace theory anticipates ontogenetic variations in cognitive triage, we studied it developmentally. A series of nine experiments produced several findings that were consistent with the theory's assumptions: Children never recalled stronger words before weaker words, doing the reverse instead; the priority of weaker words over stronger words in output queues was observed in the earliest phases of learning in both younger and older children; as learning progressed and children secured more reliable information about the relative memory strengths of words, a weaker--~ stronger --~ weaker ordering emerged, and it emerged more rapidly in older children; at criterion, when all items were recallable, the weaker ~ stronger --~ weaker ordering was present at all age levels, although it was more pronounced in older children. We show how the theory's assumptions also explain some classic findings about the development of recall, especially subjective organization and serial-position effects.

show abstract

“…Recognizing the importance of equating task difficulty across age, previous researchers have used different list lengths for subjects of different ages (e.g., Moely, Olson, Halwes, & Flavell, 1969). Certainly, establishing tasks with equal levels of difficulty across age, or age~uivalent tasks, is a methodological improvement over using nonequivalent tasks in developmental research (see Brainerd, Kingma, & Howe, 1985;Labouvie, 1980;Nunnally, 1973). However, no consistent criteria have been adopted for establishing equivalence, and sometimes researchers have been unclear about their bases for equiValence.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental differences in memory and practice effects in relearning

Livosky

Sugar

1992

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developmental aspects of relearning were examined in 3-year-olds, 5-year-olds, and college students by using Nelson's (1971) revised savings paradigm. A set of picture pairs was learned to a recognition criterion of one error-free trial. After 2 weeks, the subjects returned for tests of retention and relearning. During relearning, the subjects received one study/test trial of a set composed of pairs seen previously ("old pairs") and pairs created by re-pairing pictures seen previously ("new pairs"). Significant savings was found for all age groups on old pairs relative to new pairs. A developmental trend toward decreased savings with age was noted. Results are discussed with respect to the relative contributions of savings and practice to retention.Much of the interest in cognition and cognitive development has been directed at understanding the processes of memory. Typically, memory is studied by asking subjects to learn some information and then by testing their ability to either recognize or recall that information at a later time. Consequently, much is known about changes in recognition and recall with age (e.g., Cole, Frankel, & Sharp, 1971;Flavell, Beach, & Chinsky, 1966). In contrast, Ebbinghaus's (1885/1913) relearning method has been used infrequently by developmentalists, therefore little is known about developmental differences in savings.Relearning assesses the amount of time or effort one "saves" in (re)learning material that was acquired at an earlier time but is presently inaccessible. Although the original procedure suffered from several methodological flaws (see Bunch, 1941;Duncan, 1960;and Luh, 1922, for specific criticisms), a revised version has remedied many of its shortcomings (Nelson, 1971(Nelson, , 1978(Nelson, , 1985. In particular, Nelson has dealt with the criticism that relearning is confounded with learning-to-Iearn, or the "practice effect." Ebbinghaus's (1885/1913) original procedure, which compared the learning of a serial recall list with the relearning of that same list, made practice effects quite probable. In the revised version, pairedassociate tasks are used, and comparisons of original learning and relearning are made within a single session. That is, relearning of pairs acquired _ previously ("old pairs") is compared with learning of pairs that are comparable, but not identical, to old pairs ("new pairs"). This manipulation makes it possible to separate practice effects from savings and, thus, to more clearly distinguish beThis article is based on a doctoral dissertation written by the first author under the direction of the second author. We are grateful to the children, parents, and teachers of the Colorado State University Daycare Center, Daybridge Learning Centers, Jack & Jill Daycare, and United Daycare in Fort Collins, Colorado, for their participation in the study. Requests for reprints should be sent to Marilyn Livosky, Department of Psychology, Behrend College, Penn State Erie, Erie PA 16563-{)500. tween learning and memory. It is this revised version that has bee...

show abstract

On the Development of Forgetting

Cited by 32 publications

References 24 publications

Spacing effects and their implications for theory and practice

Spacing effects and their implications for theory and practice

Fuzzy-trace theory and cognitive triage in memory development.

Developmental differences in memory and practice effects in relearning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About