A sixteen-day wigwag-code learning task yields reliable learning curves with wide individual differences, with negro girls as a group inferior to white girls (Baldwin)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1911 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Learning of a wigwag code over sixteen consecutive days furnished a very reliable means of evaluating learning capacity irrespective of school standing, showing wide individual differences, significant acceleration and retrogression, and lower performance for negro girls than white girls as groups. → Baldwin 1911

Evidence¶

Baldwin 1911¶

Baldwin, B. T. (1911). Educational Psychology at the Cleveland Meeting of the American Psychological Association. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://psycnet.apa.org

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Summary of Baldwin's comparative learning study of adolescent delinquent white and negro girls using a wigwag code for "sixteen consecutive days"; the "76 practice curves show a wide range of individual differences and significant periods of acceleration and retrogression," and the negro girls as a group accomplished less work and were less accurate. No effect size is printed.

"B. T. Baldwin's paper is a comparative study of The progress of learning of adolescent delinquent white and negro girls as shown by a wigwag code adapted for this purpose and applied for sixteen consecutive days. He finds this type of material furnishes a very reliable means for evaluating learning capacity."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• Individual learning curves rise by irregular increments with occasional losses, with plateau-like periods attributed to changes in method and waning interest — related
• The associative learning task revealed large individual differences, with d' ranging from −0.09 to 2.32 and 19 of 38 participants not reaching the learning criterion — related