Delayed-recall errors greatly exceeded immediate-recall errors, more so under the orderly procedure (4.33 times) than the random procedure (2.6 times)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 1917 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Errors in delayed recall were 4.33 times immediate-recall errors under the orderly procedure and 2.6 times under the random procedure, giving the random method a relative advantage of 1.73. → Arps 1917

Evidence¶

Arps 1917¶

Arps, G. P. (1917). Attitude as a determinant in spelling efficiency in immediate and delayed recall. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Arps+attitude+spelling+efficiency

q1 · i? · causal · r1

Comparison of immediate versus delayed error totals in the same 104-group study: orderly procedure errors rose 4.33 times, random procedure 2.6 times, and the "Relative advantage of the random method times that of the orderly method" was 1.73. Average words wrong were 0.1 (P.E. .07) immediate and 0.31 (P.E. .11) delayed.

"Errors in delayed recall times greater than in immediate recall (orderly procedure) 4.33"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• In delayed recall, the random procedure reversed the pattern, exceeding the orderly procedure by 16.4% fewer errors — related
• In immediate recall, an orderly (fixed spatial-temporal) procedure for spelling word groups produced fewer errors than a random procedure, by 9.4% — related
• Practice gains are greater for nonsense material (average final gain 28%) than for sense-material (average final gain 10%). — related