Verbal learning in children: Implications for developmental research.

Abstract

Current research in verbal learning is reviewed in terms of its implications for developmental research. Suggestions are provided which relate to the methodology of research incorporating age as a treatment variable in addition to highlighting the analytical utility of verbal learning paradigms in the study of developmental learning processes. The similarities of theory and data relating to nonverbal tasks (e.g., probability-learning, transposition, reversal-shift, and discrimination-learning paradigms) and to theory concerning the interaction of verbal learning and development are also discussed.

Memory Development Between 2 and 20

“…The major issues outlined by Ebbinghaus' classical study (e.g., serial position effects, massed vs. spaced practice, meaningfulness, interference) remained as part of this tradition until weil into the 1950s. The verbal learning theorists were not particularly interested in developmental issues, however, since their primary concern was identification of general laws (see K~ppel, 1964;Goulet, 1968;McGeoch & Irion, 1952;Munn, 1954;Weinert, 1964). In this sense, conclusions by contemporary authors (Brainerd & Pressley, 1985a;Kail & Strauss, 1984) that there was a dearth of research on memory development prior to 1965 applies to American developmental psychology between 1936 and 1965. Developmentallearning research during this period was most often conducted in simple learning paradigms, with studies of classical and instrumental ·conditioning and discrirnination learning.…”

“…Paired-associate learning allowed the possibility of independent manipulation of stimulus and response characteristics. The task was easily adaptable with children, and it was possible to gain insights into the processes that children were using to mediate their paired-associate learning (Goulet, 1968;Spiker, 1960). Unfortunately, however, most of the verballearning studies with children were descriptive, with studies often conducted at a single age Ievel.…”

Children’s paired-associate learning: Response and associative learning as a function of similarity

“…The two-stage analysis seems applicable to children's paired-associate learning (Goulet , 1968) , although it has not always been utilized. For example , Lynch and Rohwer (1972) invoked the distinct ion between response learning and hookup in examining mnemonic elaboration effects, Kellas and Butt erfield (1970) used this analysis to explain the effects of pronunciability and response familiarization, and this distinction has been invoked occasionally to explain paired-associate learning by retardates (e.g., Berry & Baumeister, 1973) .…”

Mediation in young children’s paired-associate learning

“…Relatively few studies have employed the various three-stage mediation paradigms to examine mediation in children (Goulet, 1968). In these paradigms, either all of the associations which form a mediational link can be acquired in the laboratory ,or natural language associations may be used for one or both of the first two stages.…”

“…In these paradigms, either all of the associations which form a mediational link can be acquired in the laboratory ,or natural language associations may be used for one or both of the first two stages. Goulet (1968) indicates that the former paradigm has greater utility for exammmg developmental processes in mediation, in that the latter paradigm involves a confounding of the effects of mediational ability and the strength of the natural language habits, both of which presumably increase with increasing age. Apparently, only six developmental studies have used the former paradigm (Boat & Clifton, 1968;Cook & Smothergill, 1971 ;Davis, 1966;Kausler & Deichmann, 1968;Norcross & Spiker, 1958;Palermo, 1962).…”