- Email: [email protected]
Assessment and selection of paired associate strategies: A developmental study
JOURNAL
OF EXPERIMENTAL
Assessment
CHILD
PSYCHOLOGY
26,257-266
(197%
and Selection of Paired Associate A Developmental Study EILEEN
Strategies:
D. MOYNAHAN
First, third, and fifth graders who had been instructed to use an interaction strategy and a repetition strategy on two separate paired associate tasks were asked on which task they had remembered better and why. Subjects were then given another paired associate task and told they could use any way they wanted to remember. Memory performance was better when the interaction strategy was used than when the repetition strategy was used. A significant majority of third and fifth graders correctly judged which task they had performed better on, and the number of subjects doing so increased with grade. Only among fifth graders, did the majority of subjects explain their judgments by referring to the use of the interaction strategy. Use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 did not increase with grade but was shown by a significant majority of first and fifth graders. Use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 was more frequent among subjects who referred to the use of the interaction strategy in explaining their choice of their more successful task than among those who did not.
It is currently recognized (e.g., Hagen, Jongeward, & Kail, 1975) that the ability to consciously initiate and assess memory activities is a crucial aspect of memory development. One important component of this memory monitoring process, recently under investigation, is the ability to assess how well one has remembered something. Berth and Evans (1973) had first and third graders give confidence ratings to their recognition judgments and found that older subjects were better at judging the correctness of their responses, although both age groups showed considerable accuracy. Similarly, Moynahan (1976) found that while both first and third graders quite accurately estimated how many items they had recalled on free recall trials, the estimates of the third graders were more accurate. Most recently, Kelly, Scholnick, Travers, and Johnson (1976) found that even kindergartners were as accurate as adults in assessing whether they had placed recall stimuli in their correct position or location. In the present study, investigation of memory assessment ability was extended to a situation in which memory performance varied with the use of different memory strategies. In such a situation memory assessment ability would seem essential for optimal performance, since in order Reprint requests should be addressed to the author, Department of Psychology. Trenton State College, Trenton. New Jersey 08625. 257
0022-0965/78/0262-0257$02.00/O Copyright 0 I978 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
258
EILEEN
D. MOYNAHAN
to be able to select the most appropriate strategy, one needs to know how well one has performed while using different strategies. In fact, providing subjects with information on strategy effectiveness has been found to improve strategy use and recall performance (Kennedy & Miller, 1976). In the present study the subject’s own ability to judge memory performance and select an appropriate strategy was investigated. In recent studies, children aged seven and younger have been effectively instructed in the use of imagery (Danner & Taylor, 1973; Yuille & Catchpole, 1973), categorization (Moely & Jeffrey, 1974), sentence (Rohwer & Bean, 1973), and physical interaction (Wolff & Levin, 1972) strategies. However, none of these researchers has studied the child’s ability to assess how well he has performed while using and not using the strategy. It is possible, for instance, that even though the child learns and remembers better while using a strategy, he does not realize that he has done so; such ignorance is implied, in fact, by Kennedy and Miller’s (1976) finding that first graders transferred an effective memory strategy only when they were explicitly informed that they had recalled better when using the strategy, suggesting that they did not realize this themselves. Moreover, even if the child realizes when he has remembered well, he may still fail to attribute his superior performance to the use of the strategy or fail to continue using the strategy when he is no longer instructed to. In the present study, children were given paired associate tasks and were instructed to use either a physical interaction strategy or a repetition strategy. Previous research suggests that these strategies are easily elicited in young children and are differentially effective in paired associate tasks (Wolff & Levin, 1972; Gordon & Baumeister, 1972). After having used both strategies children were asked which time they had been better able to remember the items and why. Finally, to determine if children continued to use the more effective strategy on their own, subjects were given a third paired associate task and were told they could use any way they wanted to remember the items. It was expected that with age children would be more accurate in assessing how well they had performed; moreover, it was expected that the tendency to explain differential performance in terms of the use of different strategies would also increase with age but would lag behind the ability to merely judge relative memory performance. In addition, since young children often fail to continue using an effective strategy when no longer instructed to (Keeney, Cannizzo, & Flavell, 1967; Kennedy & Miller, 1976; Scribner & Cole, 1972), even when no alternative strategy has also been taught, as in the present study, it was expected that with age children would be more likely to use the interaction strategy on their third paired associate task. Finally, it was expected that children who showed an understanding of the effectiveness of the
STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT
AND
SELECTION
259
interaction strategy would be more likely to use it on the third paired associate task than would those who did not show this understanding. METHOD Subjects
The subjects were 24 first, 24 third, and 24 fifth graders randomly selected from a middle class suburban public school. The mean ages of the three groups were 6.43 years, 8.40 years, and 10.78 years (SD = .41, .45, and .44 years, respectively). At each grade half the subjects were male. Stimuli
The stimuli consisted of 60 small objects and toys arranged to form three different sets of 10 pairs of items. The following pairs were used. Set 1: frog-purse, bow-bandaid, snowman-ring, slateboard-tissue, fish-bottle, flag-spool, hairbrush-boat, fork-branch, dish-marble, dinosaurrattle; Set 2: hammer-badge, cup-duck, spoon-checker, baby-telephone, horse-wristwatch, crayon-balloon, hippopotamus-button, watergun-cereal box, paintbrush-banjo, car-rock; Set 3: airplane-couch, lion-mirror, motorcycle-chicken, penny-envelope, pliars-bell, toothbrush-cowboy, ball-ruler, finger puppet-horn, flower-mailbox, camera-string. The objects ranged in size from the marble (!LI in. in diameter) to the flag (5 x 4 in. on a 10 in. pole) and were paired to avoid obvious associations but still suggest possible interactions. In addition, four practice items, a paper hat, record, piece of chalk, and a paper pad were also used. Procedure
The subjects were told they were going to play a memory game in which they would be shown two objects at a time. The experimenter presented the record and hat and told the subjects they would have to remember that the two items went together and would later have to select, from a group of objects, which one had gone with the record. One practice recognition trial was given. The subjects were then instructed in either the interaction or repetition strategy. For the interaction strategy, the subjects were told that one way they could help remember that two things went together was to make them do something together or put them together some way. The subjects were asked to make the hat and record do something together and if they could not, they were shown a sample interaction. This instruction procedure was repeated with the chalk and pad. The subjects were then told that they would see a lot of things two at a time and that each time they were presented with two objects they should make them do something together so they could
260
EILEEN
D. MOYNAHAN
remember which things went together when they were later shown all the items. The paired associate task, described below, was then given. When instructed in the repetition strategy the subjects were told that one way to help themselves remember that the two items went together was to say their names together out loud over and over again. The subjects were presented with the record and hat, told to say their names together, and given help if needed. This procedure was repeated with the chalk and pad. The subjects were then told that they were going to see a lot of things two at a time and that each time they did, they should say their names together over and over again so they could remember which things went together when they were later shown all the items. After having been instructed in either the interaction or repetition strategy, the subjects were given a paired associate task. The experimenter placed the first pair of items side by side on the table. If the subjects failed to use the appropriate strategy, they were reminded to do so; such prompting was necessary for only a few subjects and for only the first pair. The pair remained in view for 8 set, and if the subjects were still manipulating the objects after that interval, the objects were gently removed. Subsequent pairs were presented for 8 set each. After all pairs had been presented, all IO response objects were placed on the table. The experimenter held up each stimulus item one at a time and asked which object on the table had gone with it. The subjects either named or pointed to the object. No feedback regarding response correctness was given. Throughout the recognition task, all 10 response items remained on the table, but only one stimulus item was in view at a time. After the subjects completed the recognition test, they. were given instruction in the other strategy and were then given another paired associate task with new objects. After the subjects completed the second recognition test they were shown both complete sets of items and were asked, “Which time were you better able to remember which toys went together-the first time when you remembered these or the second time when you remembered these?” After the subjects made their choice they were asked, “Why were you better at remembering them that time?” After the subjects gave their explanation, the experimenter introduced the third paired associate task by saying, “I’m going to show you some more things two at a time and again you have to remember which things go together. This time you can use any way you want to remember which things go together.” The third paired associate task was then presented. At each grade, each of the three stimulus sets was used equally often in each task position, and each set was used equally often with the interaction and repetition instructions. At each grade, a random half of the subjects of each sex received the interaction instructions first and half received the repetition instructions first. For each stimulus
STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT
AND
SELECTION
261
set the order of pair presentation and the order of stimulus presentation during recognition testing were each constant across subjects, but the two orders bore no relation to each other. RESULTS
The subjects’ recognition scores on the first two tasks were entered into a 3(grade) x 2(sex) x 2(task) analysis of variance with the last factor a within-subject variable. The effects of grade [F(2,66) = 5.00, P < .Ol] and task [F(l,66) = 293.64, p < ,011 were significant. Fifth and third graders correctly recognized more items than first-graders [?(46) = 3.25, p < .Ol; 1(46) = 2.30, p < .05, respectively], but did not differ from each other [1(46) = .76, p > .20]. The respective grade means (x = 8.58, 9.33, and 9.83 for the interaction task and 3.71, 4.83, and 5.00 for the repetition task) indicate that the effect of strategy was very strong; in fact, with the exception of three subjects who showed perfect recognition on both tasks, all subjects remembered more items on the interaction task than on the repetition task. No other effects or interactions were significant. Recognition scores were also analyzed to determine if the order in which the two strategies were taught influenced performance. For instance, if subjects realized how effective the interaction strategy was, they might try to continue to use the strategy covertly, even when they were instructed to use repetition. In this case, one would expect that subjects using the interaction strategy in the first task would show better recognition on the subsequent repetition task than would subjects who performed the repetition task first before they had been shown the interaction strategy. However, at no grade were the scores on either the recognition of interaction task influenced by the order in which the strategies were taught. Thus, there was no evidence that subjects covertly transferred the interaction strategy to the repetition task. When asked which time they had been better able to remember, 17 first graders, 22 third graders, and 23 fifth graders chose the task on which they used the interaction strategy. The number of subjects who chose the interaction, rather than repetition, task increased significantly with grade [x2(2) = 7.20, p < .05], although individual Yates corrected tests indicated that only the difference between first and fifth graders approached significance [x2(l) = 3.75, p < . lo]. Choices of the first graders did not differ significantly from chance [x2( I) = 3.35, .05 < p < . IO, Yates corrected test], although third and fifth graders did choose the interaction task with above chance frequency [x2(l) = 15.04, p -c .OOl; x2(l) = 18.37, p < .OOl, respectively, Yates corrected tests]. Thus, fifth and third graders, but not first graders, were generally aware that they had remembered better on the interaction task.
262
EILEEN
D. MOYNAHAN
The subjects’ explanations of why they had remembered better on the task they had chosen are given in Table 1. The number of subjects who could give any explanation increased with grade [x2(2) = 11.42, p < .Ol] with only the difference between first and fifth graders reaching significance [x2(l) = 8.75,~ < .Ol, Yates corrected test]. Of the 17 first graders, 22 third graders and 23 fifth graders who chose the interaction task as their more successful one, 2, 6, and 17 of these respective subjects explained their choice by referring to their having made the items interact (e.g., “Because I made them do things together.“), while 15, 16, and 6 of these subjects failed to refer to the strategy. A 2 x 3 analysis of these frequencies yielded a significant effect of grade [x2(2) = 18.08, p < .Ol]. Subsequent tests indicated that fifth graders were more likely to refer to the use of the interaction strategy than were third graders [x2(l) = 9.79, p < .Ol] or first graders [x2(l) = 12.75, p C .Ol, Yates corrected]. Moreover, as indicated in Table 1, older subjects were more likely to give more complete explanations of the interaction effect and add that since they had put the items together, when they were tested they could remember what the items had done together (e.g., “You could remember what you did like the string hooked on the camera.“), [x2(2) = 12.00, p c .Ol]. Subsequent Yates corrected analyses indicated that fifth graders were more likely to give this type of explanation than were third-graders [x2(l) = 3.99, p < .05] or first graders [x2(l) = 6.48, ,D c .05], Thus, even though most third graders could tell when they had remembered better, it was not until fifth grade that most subjects attributed their superior performance to use of the interaction strategy. TABLE NUMBER
I
OF SUBJECTS GIVING EACH TYPE OF EXPLANATION FOR THEIR CHOICE OF THE EASIER TASK
Grade Type of explanation
1
3
5
Reference to interaction strategy (with specific reference to remembering the pairs by recaiiing what they had done together) Statement that items went together better Statement that items were easier Statement that subject knew items better Reference to size of the items Reference (erroneous) to the number of items Statement that task was easier because it was first Statement that task was easier because it was second Statement that subject had recalled one set faster Don’t know (could not give reason)
2
6
17
m
0)
2 3 2 0 0 6 0 0 9
2 I 0 4 1 0 3 2 5
(9) 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT
AND
SELECTION
263
On the third task when subjects were told they could remember any way they wanted, 18 first graders, 14 third graders, and 17 fifth graders used the interaction strategy. These frequencies did not show the expected age increase [x*(2) = 1.66, p > -2.51. First graders [x2(l) = 7.68, p c .Ol, Yates corrected test] and fifth graders [x2(l) = 8.45, p c .Ol, Yates corrected test], but not third graders [x2(l) = 1.14, p > .20 Yates corrected test], were significantly more likely to use the interaction strategy than not to on the third task. Among subjects not using the interaction strategy, four first graders, eight third graders, and three fifth graders used the repetition strategy. The two first graders, two third graders, and four fifth graders who used no overt strategy were asked whether they had used any particular way to remember the items. One first grader reported saying the names of the items silently, while three individual fifth graders reported thinking of interactions in their head, matching the colors of paired objects, and thinking of the first letters of the pairs together. Thus, only fifth graders reported any strategies that had not been taught during previous tasks. For those subjects who did use either the interaction or repetition strategy on Task 3, whether or not they used the same strategy they had used on the task they thought they had remembered better on was determined. Thirteen first, 12 third, and 17 fifth-graders did use this strategy, but these frequencies did not differ across grade [x*(2) = 4.72, p > .05]. In order to determine the effectiveness of spontaneous use of the interaction strategy on the third task, a 3(grade) x 2(strategy users vs nonusers) analysis of variance was performed on the Task 3 recognition scores. Performance improved with grade [&2,66) = 3.20, p < .05] and strategy users (% = 9.28) performed better than nonusers (3 = 5.17) [F(l,66) = 257.08, p < .OOl]. The interaction of these two variables was not significant. Thus, spontaneous use of the interaction strategy was highly effective. Moreover, subjects’ spontaneous use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 (2 = 9.28) was as effective as their instructed use of the strategy (2 = 9.28). A 3(grade) x 2(task) analysis of the interaction and Task 3 recognition scores for strategy users yielded no significant effects although the grade effect approached significance [F(2,46) = 2.88, p < .lO]. To examine the possibility that subjects who did not use the interaction strategy on Task 3 still used some effective means of remembering on Task 3, a 3(grade) x 3(task) analysis was performed on their Task 3, repetition, and interaction task scores. Only the effect of task was significant [F(2,40) = 54.51, p < .Ol]. Subsequent tests indicated that scores on Task 3 (x = 5.17) were significantly lower than scores on the interaction task (% = 9.17), [f(22) = 8.16, p < .Ol], but significantly higher than those on the repetition task (x = 4.00) [r(22) = 2.25, p < .05]. Thus, although subjects who did not use the interaction strategy on Task 3 did
264
EILEEN
D. MOYNAHAN
perform better than they had on the repetition task, they failed to maintain the high performance they had shown on the interaction task and thereby showed little evidence of using some other highly effective strategy on Task 3. To determine whether subjects who used the interaction strategy on Task 3 differed in recognition performance from those who did not use the interaction strategy, a 3(grade) x 2(strategy users vs nonusers) x 2(task) analysis of variance was performed on recognition scores for the repetition and interaction tasks. Only the effects of grade [F(2,66) = 5.18, p < .Ol] and task [F(l,66) = 255.54, p < .Ol] were significant, showing again, as in the grade x sex x task analysis, that performance improved with grade and was better on the interaction than repetition task. None of the effects involving type of subject (i.e., users vs nonusers of the interaction strategy on Task 3) was significant. Thus, subjects who did and did not use the interaction strategy on Task 3 did not differ in previous recognition performance. Moreover, use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 was no more frequent among subjects who had been instructed to use the interaction strategy on Task 2 than among those who had been instructed to use repetition on Task 2 [x2( 1) = 2.46, p > .lO]; thus, there was no tendency to use the more recently learned strategy. Finally, use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 was not dependent upon realization that one had performed better on the interaction task. Although 67% of the subjects who chose the interaction task as their more successful one used interaction on Task 3, 80% of the subjects who chose the repetition task used interaction on Task 3; this difference was not significant [x2( I) = .26, p > .50]. However, as predicted, explaining one’s choice of the interaction task by referring to use of the interaction strategy was related to use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 [x2(l) = 13.82,~ < .Ol]. While 92% of those who referred to the use of the interaction strategy in their explanations used the interaction strategy on Task 3, only 47% of those who did not make such references to explain their choices of the interaction task used interaction on Task 3. DISCUSSION
The present results replicate Wolff and Levin’s (1972) finding that use of a physical interaction strategy greatly improves paired associate recognition performance and shows that with age children have increasing understanding of this effect. As in Moynahan’s (1976) study, the ability to assess memory performance increased significantly with age, although the present results differ from previous findings (Berth & Evans, 1973; Kelly er ul. 1976; Moynahan, 1976) that first graders and kindergartners can assess their memory performance with significant accuracy. Perhaps the assessment task used in the present study was more difficult because the
STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT
AND
SELECTION
265
subject had to compare two performances and thus make a delayed judgment, or because the immediate presence of the 40 objects distracted the subject and decreased the chances that he would think back to his memory performance when making his judgment. In the present study, the tendency to explain memory performance by referring to the use of the interaction strategy also increased with age; very few first graders, but most fifth graders, said they could remember the items better because they had made them do something together. When justifying their choices most first graders seemed oblivious to the fact they had used different strategies on the two trials and referred to stimulus features or nonexistent order effects, if they gave any explanation at all. The tendency for judgment ability to surpass explanation ability is reminiscent of Moynahan’s (1973) finding that many subjects, particularly first graders, could tell which of two sets of items was easier to remember but were unable to identify the categorized nature of these items as the crucial determinant of task ease. Contrary to prediction, use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 did not increase with grade; in fact, slightly more first than third graders used the strategy. It seemed to the experimenter that first and third graders differed in their approach to this task. Third graders appeared to make a more deliberate, albeit, more often erroneous, choice and did whatever they thought would help them remember. On both the interaction and third task, however, first graders gave the impression of wanting to show that they could make the items interact, as if they thought the task was a test of their ability to devise and execute interactions as much as a test of their memory. Thus, first graders may have failed to differentiate between the means and ends in this task, a failure previously noted by Kobasigawa (1974) with respect to the use of retrieval cues to aid recall. In the present study, use of the interaction strategy was not related to the ability to assess relative memory performance but it was related to the ability to explain differential performance, which did not appear in the majority of subjects until the fifth grade. Thus, use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 appeared to be more deliberate among the older subjects. The present results establish, then, that from first to fifth grade children progress from only marginal ability to judge their relative memory performance to an understanding of, and deliberate choice of, the strategy that enhanced their performance. The extent of the fifth graders understanding and application of the facilitative effect of interaction is noteworthy in view of the fact that psychologists apparently have only recently (e.g., Wolff & Levin, 1972) become aware of this effect themselves. Only in their failure to benefit on the repetition task from prior instruction in the interaction strategy did fifth graders show less than optimum performance or strategy use. In future research, the tasks used in this study will be given to older subjects to see if they show any evidence of covertly “transferring” the interaction strategy to trials on which they are instructed to use the less effective repetition strategy and to
EILEEN
266
D. MOYNAHAN
younger subjects to tap the emergence of this very important accurately assessing one’s memory performance.
skill of
REFERENCES Berth,
D. B., & Evans, R. C. Decision processes in children’s Journal
of Experimental
Child
Psychology,
1973,
recognition
memory.
16, 148-164.
Danner, F. W., & Taylor, A. M. Integrated pictures and relational imagery training in children’s learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psycho/ogy. 1973, 16, 47-54. Gordon, D. A., & Baumeister. A. A. The effect of rehearsal instructions upon the paired associate learning of normal and retarded subjects. Journa/ of Genetic Psychology, 1972, 121, 31-39. Hagen, .I. W., Jongeward, R. H., & Kail, R. V. Cognitive perspectives on the development of memory. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior, Vol. IO. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Keeney, T. J., Cannizzo. S. R., & Flavell, J. H. Spontaneous and induced verbal rehearsal in a recall task. Child Development, 1%7. 38, 953-966. Kelly, M., Scholnick, E. K., Travers, S. H., & Johnson, J. W. Relations among memory. memory appraisal, and memory strategies. Child Development, 1976. 47, 648-659. Kennedy, B. A., & Miller, D. J. Persistent use of verbal rehearsal as a function of information about its value. Child Development, 1976, 47, 566-569. Kobasigawa, A. Utilization of retrieval cues by children in recall. Child DetBelopment. 1974, 45, 127-134. Moety, B. E., & Jeffrey, W. E. The effect of organization training on children’s free recall of category items. Child Development, 1974, 45, l35- 143. Moynahan, E. D. The development of knowledge concerning the effect of categorization upon free recall. Child Development. 1973, 44, 238-246. Moynahan, E. D. The development of the ability to assess recall performance. Journa/ of Experimental Child Psychology, 1976, 21, 94-97. Rohwer, W. D., & Bean, J. P. Sentence effects and noun-pair learning: A developmental interaction during adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1973, 15, 521-533. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. Effects of constrained recall training on children’s performance in a verbal memory task. Child Development, 1972, 43, 845-857. Wolff, P., & Levin, J. R. The role of overt activity in children’s imagery production. Child Development, 1972, 43, 537-547. Yuille, J. C., & Catchpole, M. J. Associative learning and imagery training in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1973, 16, 403-412. RECEIVED: March 15, 1977;
REVISED:
October 3, 1977.
OF EXPERIMENTAL
Assessment
CHILD
PSYCHOLOGY
26,257-266
(197%
and Selection of Paired Associate A Developmental Study EILEEN
Strategies:
D. MOYNAHAN
First, third, and fifth graders who had been instructed to use an interaction strategy and a repetition strategy on two separate paired associate tasks were asked on which task they had remembered better and why. Subjects were then given another paired associate task and told they could use any way they wanted to remember. Memory performance was better when the interaction strategy was used than when the repetition strategy was used. A significant majority of third and fifth graders correctly judged which task they had performed better on, and the number of subjects doing so increased with grade. Only among fifth graders, did the majority of subjects explain their judgments by referring to the use of the interaction strategy. Use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 did not increase with grade but was shown by a significant majority of first and fifth graders. Use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 was more frequent among subjects who referred to the use of the interaction strategy in explaining their choice of their more successful task than among those who did not.
It is currently recognized (e.g., Hagen, Jongeward, & Kail, 1975) that the ability to consciously initiate and assess memory activities is a crucial aspect of memory development. One important component of this memory monitoring process, recently under investigation, is the ability to assess how well one has remembered something. Berth and Evans (1973) had first and third graders give confidence ratings to their recognition judgments and found that older subjects were better at judging the correctness of their responses, although both age groups showed considerable accuracy. Similarly, Moynahan (1976) found that while both first and third graders quite accurately estimated how many items they had recalled on free recall trials, the estimates of the third graders were more accurate. Most recently, Kelly, Scholnick, Travers, and Johnson (1976) found that even kindergartners were as accurate as adults in assessing whether they had placed recall stimuli in their correct position or location. In the present study, investigation of memory assessment ability was extended to a situation in which memory performance varied with the use of different memory strategies. In such a situation memory assessment ability would seem essential for optimal performance, since in order Reprint requests should be addressed to the author, Department of Psychology. Trenton State College, Trenton. New Jersey 08625. 257
0022-0965/78/0262-0257$02.00/O Copyright 0 I978 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
258
EILEEN
D. MOYNAHAN
to be able to select the most appropriate strategy, one needs to know how well one has performed while using different strategies. In fact, providing subjects with information on strategy effectiveness has been found to improve strategy use and recall performance (Kennedy & Miller, 1976). In the present study the subject’s own ability to judge memory performance and select an appropriate strategy was investigated. In recent studies, children aged seven and younger have been effectively instructed in the use of imagery (Danner & Taylor, 1973; Yuille & Catchpole, 1973), categorization (Moely & Jeffrey, 1974), sentence (Rohwer & Bean, 1973), and physical interaction (Wolff & Levin, 1972) strategies. However, none of these researchers has studied the child’s ability to assess how well he has performed while using and not using the strategy. It is possible, for instance, that even though the child learns and remembers better while using a strategy, he does not realize that he has done so; such ignorance is implied, in fact, by Kennedy and Miller’s (1976) finding that first graders transferred an effective memory strategy only when they were explicitly informed that they had recalled better when using the strategy, suggesting that they did not realize this themselves. Moreover, even if the child realizes when he has remembered well, he may still fail to attribute his superior performance to the use of the strategy or fail to continue using the strategy when he is no longer instructed to. In the present study, children were given paired associate tasks and were instructed to use either a physical interaction strategy or a repetition strategy. Previous research suggests that these strategies are easily elicited in young children and are differentially effective in paired associate tasks (Wolff & Levin, 1972; Gordon & Baumeister, 1972). After having used both strategies children were asked which time they had been better able to remember the items and why. Finally, to determine if children continued to use the more effective strategy on their own, subjects were given a third paired associate task and were told they could use any way they wanted to remember the items. It was expected that with age children would be more accurate in assessing how well they had performed; moreover, it was expected that the tendency to explain differential performance in terms of the use of different strategies would also increase with age but would lag behind the ability to merely judge relative memory performance. In addition, since young children often fail to continue using an effective strategy when no longer instructed to (Keeney, Cannizzo, & Flavell, 1967; Kennedy & Miller, 1976; Scribner & Cole, 1972), even when no alternative strategy has also been taught, as in the present study, it was expected that with age children would be more likely to use the interaction strategy on their third paired associate task. Finally, it was expected that children who showed an understanding of the effectiveness of the
STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT
AND
SELECTION
259
interaction strategy would be more likely to use it on the third paired associate task than would those who did not show this understanding. METHOD Subjects
The subjects were 24 first, 24 third, and 24 fifth graders randomly selected from a middle class suburban public school. The mean ages of the three groups were 6.43 years, 8.40 years, and 10.78 years (SD = .41, .45, and .44 years, respectively). At each grade half the subjects were male. Stimuli
The stimuli consisted of 60 small objects and toys arranged to form three different sets of 10 pairs of items. The following pairs were used. Set 1: frog-purse, bow-bandaid, snowman-ring, slateboard-tissue, fish-bottle, flag-spool, hairbrush-boat, fork-branch, dish-marble, dinosaurrattle; Set 2: hammer-badge, cup-duck, spoon-checker, baby-telephone, horse-wristwatch, crayon-balloon, hippopotamus-button, watergun-cereal box, paintbrush-banjo, car-rock; Set 3: airplane-couch, lion-mirror, motorcycle-chicken, penny-envelope, pliars-bell, toothbrush-cowboy, ball-ruler, finger puppet-horn, flower-mailbox, camera-string. The objects ranged in size from the marble (!LI in. in diameter) to the flag (5 x 4 in. on a 10 in. pole) and were paired to avoid obvious associations but still suggest possible interactions. In addition, four practice items, a paper hat, record, piece of chalk, and a paper pad were also used. Procedure
The subjects were told they were going to play a memory game in which they would be shown two objects at a time. The experimenter presented the record and hat and told the subjects they would have to remember that the two items went together and would later have to select, from a group of objects, which one had gone with the record. One practice recognition trial was given. The subjects were then instructed in either the interaction or repetition strategy. For the interaction strategy, the subjects were told that one way they could help remember that two things went together was to make them do something together or put them together some way. The subjects were asked to make the hat and record do something together and if they could not, they were shown a sample interaction. This instruction procedure was repeated with the chalk and pad. The subjects were then told that they would see a lot of things two at a time and that each time they were presented with two objects they should make them do something together so they could
260
EILEEN
D. MOYNAHAN
remember which things went together when they were later shown all the items. The paired associate task, described below, was then given. When instructed in the repetition strategy the subjects were told that one way to help themselves remember that the two items went together was to say their names together out loud over and over again. The subjects were presented with the record and hat, told to say their names together, and given help if needed. This procedure was repeated with the chalk and pad. The subjects were then told that they were going to see a lot of things two at a time and that each time they did, they should say their names together over and over again so they could remember which things went together when they were later shown all the items. After having been instructed in either the interaction or repetition strategy, the subjects were given a paired associate task. The experimenter placed the first pair of items side by side on the table. If the subjects failed to use the appropriate strategy, they were reminded to do so; such prompting was necessary for only a few subjects and for only the first pair. The pair remained in view for 8 set, and if the subjects were still manipulating the objects after that interval, the objects were gently removed. Subsequent pairs were presented for 8 set each. After all pairs had been presented, all IO response objects were placed on the table. The experimenter held up each stimulus item one at a time and asked which object on the table had gone with it. The subjects either named or pointed to the object. No feedback regarding response correctness was given. Throughout the recognition task, all 10 response items remained on the table, but only one stimulus item was in view at a time. After the subjects completed the recognition test, they. were given instruction in the other strategy and were then given another paired associate task with new objects. After the subjects completed the second recognition test they were shown both complete sets of items and were asked, “Which time were you better able to remember which toys went together-the first time when you remembered these or the second time when you remembered these?” After the subjects made their choice they were asked, “Why were you better at remembering them that time?” After the subjects gave their explanation, the experimenter introduced the third paired associate task by saying, “I’m going to show you some more things two at a time and again you have to remember which things go together. This time you can use any way you want to remember which things go together.” The third paired associate task was then presented. At each grade, each of the three stimulus sets was used equally often in each task position, and each set was used equally often with the interaction and repetition instructions. At each grade, a random half of the subjects of each sex received the interaction instructions first and half received the repetition instructions first. For each stimulus
STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT
AND
SELECTION
261
set the order of pair presentation and the order of stimulus presentation during recognition testing were each constant across subjects, but the two orders bore no relation to each other. RESULTS
The subjects’ recognition scores on the first two tasks were entered into a 3(grade) x 2(sex) x 2(task) analysis of variance with the last factor a within-subject variable. The effects of grade [F(2,66) = 5.00, P < .Ol] and task [F(l,66) = 293.64, p < ,011 were significant. Fifth and third graders correctly recognized more items than first-graders [?(46) = 3.25, p < .Ol; 1(46) = 2.30, p < .05, respectively], but did not differ from each other [1(46) = .76, p > .20]. The respective grade means (x = 8.58, 9.33, and 9.83 for the interaction task and 3.71, 4.83, and 5.00 for the repetition task) indicate that the effect of strategy was very strong; in fact, with the exception of three subjects who showed perfect recognition on both tasks, all subjects remembered more items on the interaction task than on the repetition task. No other effects or interactions were significant. Recognition scores were also analyzed to determine if the order in which the two strategies were taught influenced performance. For instance, if subjects realized how effective the interaction strategy was, they might try to continue to use the strategy covertly, even when they were instructed to use repetition. In this case, one would expect that subjects using the interaction strategy in the first task would show better recognition on the subsequent repetition task than would subjects who performed the repetition task first before they had been shown the interaction strategy. However, at no grade were the scores on either the recognition of interaction task influenced by the order in which the strategies were taught. Thus, there was no evidence that subjects covertly transferred the interaction strategy to the repetition task. When asked which time they had been better able to remember, 17 first graders, 22 third graders, and 23 fifth graders chose the task on which they used the interaction strategy. The number of subjects who chose the interaction, rather than repetition, task increased significantly with grade [x2(2) = 7.20, p < .05], although individual Yates corrected tests indicated that only the difference between first and fifth graders approached significance [x2(l) = 3.75, p < . lo]. Choices of the first graders did not differ significantly from chance [x2( I) = 3.35, .05 < p < . IO, Yates corrected test], although third and fifth graders did choose the interaction task with above chance frequency [x2(l) = 15.04, p -c .OOl; x2(l) = 18.37, p < .OOl, respectively, Yates corrected tests]. Thus, fifth and third graders, but not first graders, were generally aware that they had remembered better on the interaction task.
262
EILEEN
D. MOYNAHAN
The subjects’ explanations of why they had remembered better on the task they had chosen are given in Table 1. The number of subjects who could give any explanation increased with grade [x2(2) = 11.42, p < .Ol] with only the difference between first and fifth graders reaching significance [x2(l) = 8.75,~ < .Ol, Yates corrected test]. Of the 17 first graders, 22 third graders and 23 fifth graders who chose the interaction task as their more successful one, 2, 6, and 17 of these respective subjects explained their choice by referring to their having made the items interact (e.g., “Because I made them do things together.“), while 15, 16, and 6 of these subjects failed to refer to the strategy. A 2 x 3 analysis of these frequencies yielded a significant effect of grade [x2(2) = 18.08, p < .Ol]. Subsequent tests indicated that fifth graders were more likely to refer to the use of the interaction strategy than were third graders [x2(l) = 9.79, p < .Ol] or first graders [x2(l) = 12.75, p C .Ol, Yates corrected]. Moreover, as indicated in Table 1, older subjects were more likely to give more complete explanations of the interaction effect and add that since they had put the items together, when they were tested they could remember what the items had done together (e.g., “You could remember what you did like the string hooked on the camera.“), [x2(2) = 12.00, p c .Ol]. Subsequent Yates corrected analyses indicated that fifth graders were more likely to give this type of explanation than were third-graders [x2(l) = 3.99, p < .05] or first graders [x2(l) = 6.48, ,D c .05], Thus, even though most third graders could tell when they had remembered better, it was not until fifth grade that most subjects attributed their superior performance to use of the interaction strategy. TABLE NUMBER
I
OF SUBJECTS GIVING EACH TYPE OF EXPLANATION FOR THEIR CHOICE OF THE EASIER TASK
Grade Type of explanation
1
3
5
Reference to interaction strategy (with specific reference to remembering the pairs by recaiiing what they had done together) Statement that items went together better Statement that items were easier Statement that subject knew items better Reference to size of the items Reference (erroneous) to the number of items Statement that task was easier because it was first Statement that task was easier because it was second Statement that subject had recalled one set faster Don’t know (could not give reason)
2
6
17
m
0)
2 3 2 0 0 6 0 0 9
2 I 0 4 1 0 3 2 5
(9) 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT
AND
SELECTION
263
On the third task when subjects were told they could remember any way they wanted, 18 first graders, 14 third graders, and 17 fifth graders used the interaction strategy. These frequencies did not show the expected age increase [x*(2) = 1.66, p > -2.51. First graders [x2(l) = 7.68, p c .Ol, Yates corrected test] and fifth graders [x2(l) = 8.45, p c .Ol, Yates corrected test], but not third graders [x2(l) = 1.14, p > .20 Yates corrected test], were significantly more likely to use the interaction strategy than not to on the third task. Among subjects not using the interaction strategy, four first graders, eight third graders, and three fifth graders used the repetition strategy. The two first graders, two third graders, and four fifth graders who used no overt strategy were asked whether they had used any particular way to remember the items. One first grader reported saying the names of the items silently, while three individual fifth graders reported thinking of interactions in their head, matching the colors of paired objects, and thinking of the first letters of the pairs together. Thus, only fifth graders reported any strategies that had not been taught during previous tasks. For those subjects who did use either the interaction or repetition strategy on Task 3, whether or not they used the same strategy they had used on the task they thought they had remembered better on was determined. Thirteen first, 12 third, and 17 fifth-graders did use this strategy, but these frequencies did not differ across grade [x*(2) = 4.72, p > .05]. In order to determine the effectiveness of spontaneous use of the interaction strategy on the third task, a 3(grade) x 2(strategy users vs nonusers) analysis of variance was performed on the Task 3 recognition scores. Performance improved with grade [&2,66) = 3.20, p < .05] and strategy users (% = 9.28) performed better than nonusers (3 = 5.17) [F(l,66) = 257.08, p < .OOl]. The interaction of these two variables was not significant. Thus, spontaneous use of the interaction strategy was highly effective. Moreover, subjects’ spontaneous use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 (2 = 9.28) was as effective as their instructed use of the strategy (2 = 9.28). A 3(grade) x 2(task) analysis of the interaction and Task 3 recognition scores for strategy users yielded no significant effects although the grade effect approached significance [F(2,46) = 2.88, p < .lO]. To examine the possibility that subjects who did not use the interaction strategy on Task 3 still used some effective means of remembering on Task 3, a 3(grade) x 3(task) analysis was performed on their Task 3, repetition, and interaction task scores. Only the effect of task was significant [F(2,40) = 54.51, p < .Ol]. Subsequent tests indicated that scores on Task 3 (x = 5.17) were significantly lower than scores on the interaction task (% = 9.17), [f(22) = 8.16, p < .Ol], but significantly higher than those on the repetition task (x = 4.00) [r(22) = 2.25, p < .05]. Thus, although subjects who did not use the interaction strategy on Task 3 did
264
EILEEN
D. MOYNAHAN
perform better than they had on the repetition task, they failed to maintain the high performance they had shown on the interaction task and thereby showed little evidence of using some other highly effective strategy on Task 3. To determine whether subjects who used the interaction strategy on Task 3 differed in recognition performance from those who did not use the interaction strategy, a 3(grade) x 2(strategy users vs nonusers) x 2(task) analysis of variance was performed on recognition scores for the repetition and interaction tasks. Only the effects of grade [F(2,66) = 5.18, p < .Ol] and task [F(l,66) = 255.54, p < .Ol] were significant, showing again, as in the grade x sex x task analysis, that performance improved with grade and was better on the interaction than repetition task. None of the effects involving type of subject (i.e., users vs nonusers of the interaction strategy on Task 3) was significant. Thus, subjects who did and did not use the interaction strategy on Task 3 did not differ in previous recognition performance. Moreover, use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 was no more frequent among subjects who had been instructed to use the interaction strategy on Task 2 than among those who had been instructed to use repetition on Task 2 [x2( 1) = 2.46, p > .lO]; thus, there was no tendency to use the more recently learned strategy. Finally, use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 was not dependent upon realization that one had performed better on the interaction task. Although 67% of the subjects who chose the interaction task as their more successful one used interaction on Task 3, 80% of the subjects who chose the repetition task used interaction on Task 3; this difference was not significant [x2( I) = .26, p > .50]. However, as predicted, explaining one’s choice of the interaction task by referring to use of the interaction strategy was related to use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 [x2(l) = 13.82,~ < .Ol]. While 92% of those who referred to the use of the interaction strategy in their explanations used the interaction strategy on Task 3, only 47% of those who did not make such references to explain their choices of the interaction task used interaction on Task 3. DISCUSSION
The present results replicate Wolff and Levin’s (1972) finding that use of a physical interaction strategy greatly improves paired associate recognition performance and shows that with age children have increasing understanding of this effect. As in Moynahan’s (1976) study, the ability to assess memory performance increased significantly with age, although the present results differ from previous findings (Berth & Evans, 1973; Kelly er ul. 1976; Moynahan, 1976) that first graders and kindergartners can assess their memory performance with significant accuracy. Perhaps the assessment task used in the present study was more difficult because the
STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT
AND
SELECTION
265
subject had to compare two performances and thus make a delayed judgment, or because the immediate presence of the 40 objects distracted the subject and decreased the chances that he would think back to his memory performance when making his judgment. In the present study, the tendency to explain memory performance by referring to the use of the interaction strategy also increased with age; very few first graders, but most fifth graders, said they could remember the items better because they had made them do something together. When justifying their choices most first graders seemed oblivious to the fact they had used different strategies on the two trials and referred to stimulus features or nonexistent order effects, if they gave any explanation at all. The tendency for judgment ability to surpass explanation ability is reminiscent of Moynahan’s (1973) finding that many subjects, particularly first graders, could tell which of two sets of items was easier to remember but were unable to identify the categorized nature of these items as the crucial determinant of task ease. Contrary to prediction, use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 did not increase with grade; in fact, slightly more first than third graders used the strategy. It seemed to the experimenter that first and third graders differed in their approach to this task. Third graders appeared to make a more deliberate, albeit, more often erroneous, choice and did whatever they thought would help them remember. On both the interaction and third task, however, first graders gave the impression of wanting to show that they could make the items interact, as if they thought the task was a test of their ability to devise and execute interactions as much as a test of their memory. Thus, first graders may have failed to differentiate between the means and ends in this task, a failure previously noted by Kobasigawa (1974) with respect to the use of retrieval cues to aid recall. In the present study, use of the interaction strategy was not related to the ability to assess relative memory performance but it was related to the ability to explain differential performance, which did not appear in the majority of subjects until the fifth grade. Thus, use of the interaction strategy on Task 3 appeared to be more deliberate among the older subjects. The present results establish, then, that from first to fifth grade children progress from only marginal ability to judge their relative memory performance to an understanding of, and deliberate choice of, the strategy that enhanced their performance. The extent of the fifth graders understanding and application of the facilitative effect of interaction is noteworthy in view of the fact that psychologists apparently have only recently (e.g., Wolff & Levin, 1972) become aware of this effect themselves. Only in their failure to benefit on the repetition task from prior instruction in the interaction strategy did fifth graders show less than optimum performance or strategy use. In future research, the tasks used in this study will be given to older subjects to see if they show any evidence of covertly “transferring” the interaction strategy to trials on which they are instructed to use the less effective repetition strategy and to
EILEEN
266
D. MOYNAHAN
younger subjects to tap the emergence of this very important accurately assessing one’s memory performance.
skill of
REFERENCES Berth,
D. B., & Evans, R. C. Decision processes in children’s Journal
of Experimental
Child
Psychology,
1973,
recognition
memory.
16, 148-164.
Danner, F. W., & Taylor, A. M. Integrated pictures and relational imagery training in children’s learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psycho/ogy. 1973, 16, 47-54. Gordon, D. A., & Baumeister. A. A. The effect of rehearsal instructions upon the paired associate learning of normal and retarded subjects. Journa/ of Genetic Psychology, 1972, 121, 31-39. Hagen, .I. W., Jongeward, R. H., & Kail, R. V. Cognitive perspectives on the development of memory. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior, Vol. IO. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Keeney, T. J., Cannizzo. S. R., & Flavell, J. H. Spontaneous and induced verbal rehearsal in a recall task. Child Development, 1%7. 38, 953-966. Kelly, M., Scholnick, E. K., Travers, S. H., & Johnson, J. W. Relations among memory. memory appraisal, and memory strategies. Child Development, 1976. 47, 648-659. Kennedy, B. A., & Miller, D. J. Persistent use of verbal rehearsal as a function of information about its value. Child Development, 1976, 47, 566-569. Kobasigawa, A. Utilization of retrieval cues by children in recall. Child DetBelopment. 1974, 45, 127-134. Moety, B. E., & Jeffrey, W. E. The effect of organization training on children’s free recall of category items. Child Development, 1974, 45, l35- 143. Moynahan, E. D. The development of knowledge concerning the effect of categorization upon free recall. Child Development. 1973, 44, 238-246. Moynahan, E. D. The development of the ability to assess recall performance. Journa/ of Experimental Child Psychology, 1976, 21, 94-97. Rohwer, W. D., & Bean, J. P. Sentence effects and noun-pair learning: A developmental interaction during adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1973, 15, 521-533. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. Effects of constrained recall training on children’s performance in a verbal memory task. Child Development, 1972, 43, 845-857. Wolff, P., & Levin, J. R. The role of overt activity in children’s imagery production. Child Development, 1972, 43, 537-547. Yuille, J. C., & Catchpole, M. J. Associative learning and imagery training in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1973, 16, 403-412. RECEIVED: March 15, 1977;
REVISED:
October 3, 1977.