Memory & Cognition

, Volume 35, Issue 8, pp 2106–2117 | Cite as

Strategy transitions during cognitive skill learning in younger and older adults: Effects of interitem confusability

  • Andrea S. White
  • John Cerella
  • William J. Hoyer
Article
  • 211 Downloads

Abstract

Groups of young and old adults were trained for four sessions on a set of 24 alphabet-arithmetic problems. Problem sets were either highly confusable or highly distinct. Power-function and mixture-model fits to the means and standard deviations of the acquisition data, resolved at the participant problem level, were compared. “Shallow” power functions signaled that a problem was computed throughout training; “humped” mixture functions signaled a shift from slow computed solutions to fast retrieved solutions. Not surprisingly, shifts to retrieval occurred later for confusable problems, but there were also fewer shifts in that condition. Failures to shift, even after extended practice, suggest that retrieving problem solutions is an elective strategy, and not an automatic concomitant of skill training. Participants can be viewed as choosing between strategies that trade off benefits in speed against costs in accuracy. Older adults showed few retrieval solutions in either condition, perhaps because of their emphasis on accuracy.

Keywords

List Type Distinct Item Instance Theory Hard Item Hard Skill 

References

  1. Ackerman, P. L., &Woltz, D. J. (1994). Determinants of learning and performance in an associative memory/substitution task: Task constraints, individual differences, volition, and motivation.Journal of Educational Psychology,86, 487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. B. (2001). The power law as an emergent property.Memory & Cognition,29, 1061–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, R. C., Bower, G. H., &Crothers, E. J. (1965).Introduction to mathematical learning theory. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Cerella, J., & Hoyer, W. J. (2001), November).Cognitive skill learning: Races, mixtures, and humps in the power law. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  5. Cerella, J., Onyper, S. V., &Hoyer, W. J. (2006). The associative-memory basis of cognitive skill learning: Adult age differences.Psychology & Aging,21, 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delaney, P. F., Reder, L. M., Staszewski, J. J., &Ritter, F. E. (1998). The strategy-specific nature of improvement: The power law applies by strategy within task.Psychological Science,9, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., &Dermen, D. (1976).Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  8. Haider, H., &Frensch, P. A. (2002). Why aggregated learning follows the power law of practice when individual learning does not.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 392–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haider, H., Frensch, P. A., &Joram, D. (2005). Are strategy shifts caused by data-driven processes or by voluntary processes?Consciousness & Cognition,14, 495–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heathcote, A., Brown, S., &Mewhort, D. J. K. (2000). The power law repealed: The case for an exponential law of practice.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoyer, W. J., Cerella, J., &Onyper, S. V. (2003). Item learning in cognitive skill training: Effects of item difficulty.Memory & Cognition,31, 1260–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kirk, E. P., &Ashcraft, M. H. (2001). Telling stories: The perils and promise of using verbal reports to study math strategies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lemaire, P., Arnaud, L., &Lecacheur, M. (2004). Adults’ age-related differences in adaptivity of strategy choices: Evidence from computational estimation.Psychology & Aging,19, 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization.Psychological Review,95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Logan, G. D., &Klapp, S. T. (1991). Automatizing alphabet arithmetic: I. Is extended practice necessary to produce automaticity?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lovett, M. C., &Anderson, J. R. (1996). History of success and current context in problem solving: Combined influences on operator selection.Cognitive Psychology,31, 168–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Myung, I. J., Kim, C., &Pitt, M. A. (2000). Toward an explanation of the power law artifact: Insights from response surface analysis.Memory & Cognition,28, 832–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2000). Adult age differences in memory performance: Tests of an associative deficit hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1170–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Palmeri, T. J. (1997). Exemplar similarity and the development of automaticity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 324–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Palmeri, T. J. (1999). Theories of automaticity and the power law of practice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 543–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rickard, T. C. (1997). Bending the power law: A CMPL theory of strategy shifts and the automatization of cognitive skills.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 288–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rickard, T. C. (2004). Strategy execution in cognitive skill learning: An item-level test of candidate models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rogers, W. A., &Gilbert, D. K. (1997). Do performance strategies mediate age-related differences in associative learning?Psychology & Aging,12, 620–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rogers, W. A., Hertzog, C., &Fisk, A. D. (2000). An individual differences analysis of ability and strategy influences: Age-related differences in associative learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 359–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schunn, C. D., Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Richards, D. R., &Stroffolino, P. J. (1997). To calculate or not to calculate: A source activation confusion model of problem familiarity’s role in strategy selection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Siegler, R. S., &Lemaire, P. (1997). Older and younger adults’ strategy choices in multiplication: Testing predictions of ASCM using the choice/no-choice method.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith-Chant, B. L., &LeFevre, J. (2003). Doing as they are told and telling it like it is: Self-reports in mental arithmetic.Memory & Cognition,31, 516–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thurstone, L. L., &Thurstone, T. G. (1949).Examiner manual for the SRA Primary Mental Abilities Test (Form 10–14). Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Touron, D. R., &Hertzog, C. (2004a). Distinguishing age differences in knowledge, strategy use, and confidence during strategic skill acquisition.Psychology & Aging,19, 452–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Touron, D. R., &Hertzog, C. (2004b). Strategy shift affordance and strategy choice in young and older adults.Memory & Cognition,32, 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Touron, D. R., Hoyer, W. J., &Cerella, J. (2004). Cognitive skill learning: Age-related differences in strategy shifts and speed of component operations.Psychology & Aging,19, 565–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wechsler, D. (1981).Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  33. Zbrodoff, N. J. (1995). Why is 9 + 7 harder than 2 + 3? Strength and interference as explanations of the problem-size effect.Memory & Cognition,23, 689–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zbrodoff, N. J. (1999). Effects of counting in alphabet arithmetic: Opportunistic stopping and priming of intermediate steps.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea S. White
    • 1
  • John Cerella
    • 2
  • William J. Hoyer
    • 2
  1. 1.Kenyon CollegeGambier
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySyracuse UniversitySyracuse

Personalised recommendations