For rats, whole and part maze learning show no difference in trials, but the whole method saves time and errors¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1917 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Rats showed neither advantage nor disadvantage for number of trials under the whole method, but a decided advantage of 13 and 44% respectively for time and errors. → Pechstein 1917

Evidence¶

Pechstein 1917¶

Pechstein, L. A. (1917). Alleged Elements of Waste in Learning a Motor Problem by the "Part" Method. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071944

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Rat maze experiment, two trials per day, with learning data secured as in the human case. The article reports "neither advantage nor disadvantage for the number of trials, but there is decided advantage of 13 and 44% respectively, for time and errors."

"In the case of the rats, there is neither advantage nor disadvantage for the number of trials, but there is decided advantage of 13 and 44% respectively, for time and errors."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• For short maze problems, massed learning effort is more economical than distributed effort in trials, time and errors, for both rats and human adults — related
• Short maze units learned under massed conditions connect into a serial whole with great economy, whereas units learned under distributed conditions connect only with extreme difficulty — related
• The longer and more difficult the motor problem, the more advisable it is to break it into units and learn both the units and their connections under massed conditions — related
• The massed-versus-distributed question is tied to the whole-versus-part question: the hard problem remains hard unless learned in parts under massed conditions — related
• Maze units retain near-complete control when run in changed combinations, so contiguity of functioning does not cause the waste — related