Qualitative wholes: a revaluation of the whole-part problem.

Abstract

The divergencies in the results of studies of the whole-part problem are briefly indicated, and it is concluded that the confusion is largely attributable to (1) the failure to define "whole" and "part" except in terms of length, (2) the failure of agreement on a measure of the "economy of learning," (3) too great emphasis on the habituation section of the learning curve rather than the earlier perceptual part, (4) lack of proper experimental methods. It is suggested that Gestalt psychology offers a definition of a whole which could be used with profit in studying the whole-part problem.

Whole and part learning as a function of approximation to English.

“…With lists that have some continuity or organization, there has been somewhat greater consensus. Seagoe (1936) concluded on the basis of previous studies that the whole method is more economical with logically related material, and this conclusion has been supported in a contemporary study by Naylor and Briggs (1963) involving multidimensional prediction. These Es found that when task organization was high, the whole method was superior, whereas with low organization, progressive-part learning was superior.…”