In delayed recall, the random procedure reversed the pattern, exceeding the orderly procedure by 16.4% fewer errors¶

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? In delayed recall the random procedure was more efficient than the orderly procedure by 16.4% (104 vs. 145 errors). → 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

Same single-learner study of 104 word groups. In delayed recall without prior study, the random procedure produced 104 errors versus 145 for the orderly procedure, the methods' efficiencies being "reversed" relative to immediate recall, with random "exceeding that of the orderly procedure by 16.4%".

"in the case of delayed recall the efficiencies of the two methods are reversed —the random exceeding that of the orderly procedure by 16.4%."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

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