Two-and-a-Half-Year-Olds’ Memory for Sources of Actions: Contextual Support Facilitates Recall

Hala, Suzanne; Brown, Alisha; McKay, Lee-Ann; Juan, Valerie San

doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.664594

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unsurprisingly, children’s age in months was also positively correlated with their memory performance, which is consistent with a wealth of previous findings showing that children’s learning and memory improves with age (see for e.g., Roberts and Blades, 2000; Gathercole et al, 2004; Ofen et al, 2007; Hala et al, 2013). Moreover, school-age children (ages 6 through 8) performed significantly better than preschool age children (ages 4 and 5).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…To examine the effects of interactive media on factual learning in early childhood, children 4 to 8 years of age were tested. A wealth of previous research has demonstrated that children’s learning and memory tends to improve with age (e.g., Gathercole et al, 2004; Hala et al, 2013). Given this, and the fact that this age range includes preschool-age children (ages 4 and 5) who spend most of their time in informal learning contexts (e.g., home, daycare, kindergarten) as well as school-age children (ages 6+) who have been exposed to more formal and structured learning contexts (e.g., classroom settings), we also examined age-related changes in children’s learning across the two conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Children Can Learn New Facts Equally Well From Interactive Media Versus Face to Face Instruction

Kwok

Ghrear

et al. 2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today’s children have more opportunities than ever before to learn from interactive technology, yet experimental research assessing the efficacy of children’s learning from interactive media in comparison to traditional learning approaches is still quite scarce. Moreover, little work has examined the efficacy of using touch-screen devices for research purposes. The current study compared children’s rate of learning factual information about animals during a face-to-face instruction from an adult female researcher versus an analogous instruction from an interactive device. Eighty-six children ages 4 through 8 years (64% male) completed the learning task in either the Face-to-Face condition (n = 43) or the Interactive Media condition (n = 43). In the Learning Phase of the experiment, which was presented as a game, children were taught novel facts about animals without being told that their memory of the facts would be tested. The facts were taught to the children either by an adult female researcher (Face-to-Face condition) or from a pre-recorded female voice represented by a cartoon Llama (Interactive Media condition). In the Testing Phase of the experiment that immediately followed, children’s memory for the taught facts was tested using a 4-option forced-choice paradigm. Children’s rate of learning was significantly above chance in both conditions and a comparison of the rates of learning across the two conditions revealed no significant differences. Learning significantly improved from age 4 to age 8, however, even the preschool-aged children performed significantly above chance, and their performance did not differ between conditions. These results suggest that, interactive media can be equally as effective as one-on-one instruction, at least under certain conditions. Moreover, these results offer support for the validity of using interactive technology to collect data for research purposes. We discuss the implications of these results for children’s learning from interactive media, parental attitudes about interactive technology, and research methods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children Can Learn New Facts Equally Well From Interactive Media Versus Face to Face Instruction

Kwok

Ghrear

et al. 2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in tasks where children are asked to recall individual items and item-background combinations, 4-year-olds are successful at recalling individual items but do not perform as well as 6-yearolds on memory for combinations of items on particular backgrounds (Sluzenski et al, 2006). In addition, although children as young as 2.5 years sometimes show surprising monitoring abilities in source memory tasks (Hala, Brown, McKay & San Juan, 2013), many other studies show substantial change in these abilities across an age range extending into elementary school (e.g. Sluzenski et al, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two rooms, two representations? Episodic‐like memory in toddlers and preschoolers

Newcombe

Balcomb

Ferrara

et al. 2014

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Episodic memory involves binding together what-where-when associations. In three experiments, we tested the development of memory for such contextual associations in a naturalistic setting. Children searched for toys in two rooms with two different experimenters; each room contained two identical sets of four containers, but arranged differently. A distinct toy was hidden in a distinct container in each room. In Experiment 1, which involved children between 15 and 26 months who were prompted with a very explicit cue (a part of the hidden toy), we found a marked shift in performance with age: while 15- to 20-month-olds concentrated their searches on the two containers that sometimes contained toys, they did not distinguish between them according to context, but 21-26-month-olds did. However, surprisingly, without toy cues, even the youngest children showed a fragile ability to disambiguate the two containers by room context. In Experiment 2, we tested 34- to 40-month-olds and 64- to 72-month-olds without toy cues. The 5-year-olds were nearly perfect, and the 3-year-olds showed a significant preference for the correct container given only the context. In Experiment 3, we filled in the age range, and also investigated the effects of the use of labels (i.e. names of experimenters and rooms) and of familiarization time, in groups of 34- to 40-month-olds, 42- to 48-month-olds, and 50- to 56-month-olds. Neither labels nor familiarization time had an effect. Across experiments, there was regular age-related improvement in context-based memory. Overall, the results suggest that children's episodic memory may undergo an early qualitative change, yet to be precisely characterized, and that continuing increments in the use of contextual cues occur throughout the preschool period. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkwEFw0UEz4&list=PLwxXcOKHPC0llAPVcJyW4EtzlA934A2Rz&index=1.

show abstract

“…Colombo & Hayne, , 2013; Hayne, ; Hayne et al, ; Rovee‐Collier et al, ; Suddendorf et al, ; Tulving, , ) and related source monitoring skills (e.g. Earhart & Roberts, ; Gopnik & Graf, ; Hala et al, ; Johnson et al, ; Kondo, ; Kovacs & Newcombe, ; Roberts, ; Robinson, ; Thierry, ). Specifically, we can speak to the observation that the ‘remember‐to‐know shift’ (Conway et al, , p. 408) that is unique to learning events does not occur right away, at least not in the first week of the learning experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kondo, ; Kovacs & Newcombe, ; Robinson, ; Thierry, ). Hala, Brown, McKay, and San Juan () even worked with 2½‐year‐olds and uncovered these very young children's competency in source monitoring using a simple action‐based task, i.e. identifying who put items (apples, flowers, shovel, watering can, etc.)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Young Children's Reports of When Events Occurred: Do Event Type and Assessment Method Matter?

Tang

Dickey

Samuelsen

2016

Infant and Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studying young children's reporting about when various events occurred informs about the development of episodic memory and metacognition. In two experiments, 55 3‐ to 5‐year‐old children participated in two activity sessions, a week apart. During the activity sessions, they learned novel animal facts and body movements, and they coloured animal pictures and posed for body movement photos. Immediately after the second activity session, children were interviewed about when they experienced the various events. Overall, children were as accurate about learning events as physical events, but they were more accurate when asked temporal distance (e.g. ‘Which did you learn a longer time ago, “X” or “Y”?’) than temporal location questions (e.g. ‘Which did you learn before today, “X” or “Y”?’). The results suggest that young children's apparent difficulty recognizing new learning is not due to a rapid ‘remember‐to‐know shift’. Rather, the way we ask young children about when they experienced various events determines their accuracy. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Two-and-a-Half-Year-Olds’ Memory for Sources of Actions: Contextual Support Facilitates Recall

Cited by 9 publications

References 40 publications

Children Can Learn New Facts Equally Well From Interactive Media Versus Face to Face Instruction

Children Can Learn New Facts Equally Well From Interactive Media Versus Face to Face Instruction

Two rooms, two representations? Episodic‐like memory in toddlers and preschoolers

Young Children's Reports of When Events Occurred: Do Event Type and Assessment Method Matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About