Skip to main content

Superiority of variable to repeated practice in transfer on anagram solution

Abstract

Previous research in motor learning shows that practicing variations of a task (variable practice) leads to better transfer than does repeatedly practicing the exact same task (repeated practice). In contrast, research on priming using verbal materials shows that performance on a test improves to the extent that the material at learning and test overlap. We tested whether variability in practice conditions can lead to improved performance with the verbal priming task of anagram solution. Participants practiced solving anagrams, either repeatedly solving the same anagram that was later tested, repeatedly solving a different anagram from the one that was later tested, or solving different variations of the anagram that was later tested. We found that this last condition—variable practice on different versions of an anagram—led to improved test performance in relation to repeated practice, even when the test anagram was the one that had been repeatedly practiced. This finding aligns results from the motor learning literature with a higher level cognitive task: anagram solution. Shea and Kohl’s (1991) hypothesis, arguing that varied practice may lead to greater elaborative processing than does repeated practice, provides one account of the results.

References

  1. Battig, W. F. (1979). The flexibility of human memory. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 23–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blaxton, T. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 657–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carlson, R. A., & Yaure, R. G. (1990). Practice schedules and the use of component skills in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 484–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Geraci, L., & Rajaram, S. (2004). The distinctiveness effect in the absence of conscious recollection: Evidence from conceptual priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 51, 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hiew, C. C. (1977). Sequence effects in rule learning and conceptual generation. American Journal of Psychology, 90, 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kerr, R., & Booth, B. (1978). Specific and varied practice of motor skill. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 46, 395–401.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Killeen, P. R. (2005). An alternative to null-hypothesis significance tests. Psychological Science, 16, 345–353.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kolers, P. A., & Roediger, H. L., III (1984). Procedures of mind. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23, 425–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lauer, P. A., Streby, W. J., & Battig, W. F. (1976). The effects of alphabetic organization on the acquisition and delayed retention of semantically similar words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 2, 182–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee, T. D., Magill, R. A., & Weeks, D. J. (1985). Influence of practice schedule on testing schema theory predictions in adults. Journal of Motor Behavior, 17, 283–299.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: II. The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242–1255.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McAndrews, M. P., & Moscovitch, M. (1990). Transfer effects in implicit tests of memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 772–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer-appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1993). Implicit memory in normal human subjects. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Series Eds.) and H. Spinnler & F. Boller (Section Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology: Vol. 8. Section 11: Memory, dementia, perception of time, music, and faces (pp. 63–131). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Roediger, H. L., III, & Srinivas, K. (1993). Specificity of operations in perceptual priming. In P. Graf & M. E. J. Masson (Eds.), Implicit memory: New directions in cognition, development, and neuropsychology (pp. 17–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Roediger, H. L., III, Weldon, M. S., & Challis, B. H. (1989). Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account. In H. L. Roediger III & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 3–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Roller, C. A., Cohen, H. S., Kimball, K. T., & Bloomberg, J. J. (2001). Variable practice with lenses improves visuo-motor plasticity. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 341–352.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schacter, D. L., Dobbins, I. G., & Schnyer, D. M. (2004). Specificity of priming: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 853–862.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shea, C. H., & Kohl, R. (1990). Specificity and variability of practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 61, 169–177.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shea, C. H., & Kohl, R. (1991). Composition of practice: Influence on the retention of motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 62, 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shea, C. H., Kohl, R., & Indermill, C. (1990). Contextual interference: Contributions of practice. Acta Psychologica, 73, 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wulf, G., & Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Variability in practice: Facilitation in retention and transfer through schema formation or context effects? Journal of Motor Behavior, 20, 133–149.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry L. Roediger.

Additional information

This research was supported by a James S. McDonnell Collaborative Activity Grant.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goode, M.K., Geraci, L. & Roediger, H.L. Superiority of variable to repeated practice in transfer on anagram solution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 662–666 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.662

Download citation

Keywords

  • Motor Learning
  • Practice Session
  • Practice Condition
  • Variable Practice
  • Test Delay