Practice in substituting digits for letters transferred positively to writing symbols for digits but interfered with writing digits for symbols¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1909 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Transfer from digit-for-letter practice was regularly positive to the symbols-for-digits task but frequently negative to the digits-for-symbols task. → Linus W. Kline 1909 q2 i? With intervening practice, gains were 23.7 per cent in writing symbols for digits but only 7.7 per cent in writing digits for symbols, versus 15.2 and 21.9 per cent for an unpracticed group. → Linus W. Kline 1909 (2)

Evidence¶

Linus W. Kline 1909¶

Linus W. Kline, Ph.D. (1909). Some Experimental Evidence in Regard to Formal Discipline. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Some+experimental+evidence+in+regard+to+formal+discipline%22+Kline

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Second study, data from Professor Dearborn's classes at Chicago, Harvard, Wisconsin and Radcliffe; Table 2 shows transfer in two test forms after digit-for-letter practice. Transfer was "regularly positive" one way and "frequently negative" the other.

"The transference of this practice-effect in the two test forms is found to be regularly positive when the second task is writ- ing symbols for digits (Table 2, 4th column), but frequently negative when the second task is writing digits for symbols"

Linus W. Kline 1909 (2)¶

Linus W. Kline, Ph.D. (1909). Some Experimental Evidence in Regard to Formal Discipline. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Some+experimental+evidence+in+regard+to+formal+discipline%22+Kline

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Comparison with an unpracticed group that gained 15.2 per cent in writing symbols and 21.9 per cent in writing digits on mere repetition. The practiced group's gains were 23.7 per cent and 7.7 per cent respectively.

"the group that had had intervening practice in writ- ing-digits for letters gained 23.7 per cent, in writing symbols for digits, but only 7.7 per cent, in writing digits for symbols."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The more the substitution practice was distributed over days, the larger the practice gains and the more pronounced the negative transfer effects — related
• Practice produced large within-task speed gains: averaging 89 per cent for letter cancellation and over 200 per cent for digit-for-letter substitution — related
• Letter-cancellation practice produced only small gains and some losses in parts-of-speech cancellation, while the unpracticed control group gained on all parts of speech — related
• The practiced group exceeded the control group on three of five tests (complex dotting, number code, letter code translation) by 5, 9, and 15 percent respectively, but did no better on digit-symbol substitution and slightly worse on digit-letter substitution. — related
• Practice in writing code produced practically no transfer to digit-letter substitution: the practiced group gained 12%, two percent less than the unpracticed control group. — related
• Twenty-two trials of practice translating English into code raised average output from 43 to a highest-record average of 239 code symbols per five-minute period, a 537% gain. — related
• Practice with one eye in controlling reversible perspective transfers to the unpracticed eye (cross-education) — related
• Typewriting skill showed an average daily gain of eighty-five strokes on memory tests taken after a year and a half without practice, attributed to the disappearance of interfering associations rather than neural growth — related
• Individual differences in substitution-test learning are large, ranging from 8 to 44 substitutions on the first day and reaching 214 for the best performer by trial sixteen — related