Strategy selection and use during classification skill acquisition.

Abstract

Two experiments examined 3 variables affecting accuracy, response time, and reports of strategy use in a binary classification skill task. In Experiment 1, higher rule cue salience, allowing faster rule application, produced higher aggregate rule use than lower rule cue salience. After participants were pretrained on the relevant classification rule, rule reports were high but generally declined across training trials; after participants were pretrained on an irrelevant rule, reports of the relevant rule increased across training trials. In Experiment 2, no rule pretraining produced a pattern of results like that obtained with irrelevant rule pretraining in Experiment 1. Presenting novel stimuli during training in Experiment 2 elevated aggregate rule reports relative to conditions where they were absent. Two participant subgroups were identified: those persisting in rule reports and those transitioning from rule to memory reports during training. The proportion of persistent rule users was higher after rule discovery than after relevant rule pretraining. Overall, the results indicate that differences among prior experiments can be reconciled. Further, they raise questions about the inevitability of memory-based automaticity in binary classification, favoring instead strategy choice based on the costs and benefits of a particular strategy and of a shift from one strategy to another.

Controlling retrieval during practice: Implications for memory-based theories of automaticity

“…Bourne et al also manipulated the presence of novel items during training, and reported retrieval use for repeated items was lower for participants who were also presented with novel items than for participants who were not presented with novel items. Bourne et al (2010) offered an interesting explanation for their results that contrasts sharply with current instance-based theories of automaticity. According to Bourne et al, learners compare the costs and benefits of both the algorithmic process and the retrieval process.…”

“…Although Bourne et al (2010) attributed their results to controlled use of retrieval based on cost-benefit comparisons, instance-based theories of automaticity may still account for their results without the assumption of control. To revisit, instance-based theories of automaticity state that the likelihood of retrieval depends on the relative speed at which retrieval versus the algorithm can be completed.…”

“…Results from a few existing studies suggest that participants may have at least partial control over the involvement of retrieval during skill acquisition (Bourne, Raymond, & Healy, 2010;Touron & Hertzog, 2004Touron et al, 2007). For example, Bourne et al (2010) had participants repeatedly practice classifying letter strings based on whether a target letter within the string was a vowel or a consonant.…”

“…For example, Bourne et al (2010) had participants repeatedly practice classifying letter strings based on whether a target letter within the string was a vowel or a consonant. In addition, on each trial, participants reported whether they used an algorithmic process or a retrieval process to answer.…”

Toward a generalized theory of the shift to retrieval in cognitive skill learning

“…Multiple laboratory studies have confirmed this shift over a variety of arithmetic and nonarithmetic tasks (Delaney, Reder, Staszewski & Ritter, 1998;Hertzog, Touron & Hines, 2007;Jenkins & Hoyer, 2000;Logan, 1988Logan, , 1992Onyper, Hoyer & Cerella, 2006;Palmeri, 1997;Rawson, 2004;Reder & Ritter, 1992;Rickard, 1997Rickard, , 1999Rickard, , 2004Rickard & Bajic, 2003Rogers, Hertzog & Fisk, 2000;Schunn, Reder, Nhouyvanisvong, Richards & Stroffolino, 1997;Touron, Hoyer & Cerella, 2001). An understanding of the temporal dynamics of strategy execution in these tasks is integral to the broader goal of modeling the underlying learning processes and performance mechanisms, as well as the factors that may modulate the rate of the strategy shift (e.g., Bourne, Raymond & Healy, 2010;Onyper et al, 2006;Salvucci & Taatgen, 2008;Touron & Hertzog, 2009).…”