Incidental Learners Research Articles

Incidental and explicit learning of L2 derivational morphology and the nature of acquired knowledge

AbstractThe aim of the current study was to compare both incidental and explicit auditory learning of second language derivational morphology by measuring the accuracy and the reaction time of a grammaticality judgment task. Furthermore, the study was set up to examine the nature of acquired knowledge using subjective measures of awareness during the testing phases and postexperimental verbal reports. The delayed effects of learning were investigated by testing participants immediately after the learning and 1 week later also. The results showed a significant learning effect for the incidental and explicit learners immediately after exposure, but only the explicit learners maintained the learning effects a week later. Both types of learners showed no significant difference in the reaction time. Incidental learners primarily developed implicit knowledge, while explicit learners relied on explicit knowledge to a large extent, part of which became unconscious later. The differences of learning under incidental and explicit learning conditions are discussed in terms of the maintenance of knowledge.

How sequence learning creates explicit knowledge: the role of response–stimulus interval

Destrebecqz and Cleeremans (Psychon bull rev 8:343-350, 2001; Attention and implicit learning. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 181-213, 2003) reported that increasing the response-stimulus interval (RSI) during incidental sequence learning improved participants' ability to discriminate old and new sequences in a recognition test. However, the original experimental design confounded RSI effects during training and test. I therefore repeated the experiment with an improved design in which RSI was varied systematically during the training phase and the recognition task. Participants learned a sequence of response locations either incidentally or intentionally. As a result, sequence recognition was not affected by the RSI manipulations in the group of incidental learners. With intentional learning instructions, recognition was unaffected by training RSI, but a long RSI in the test phase improved recognition performance over a short RSI. Response latencies while executing the test sequences indicated no effect of training RSI on sequence learning. However, sequence knowledge was expressed more readily when the RSI in the test phase matched the RSI in the training phase.

Learning from project monitoring feedback: A case of optimizing behavior of contractors

Abstract Monitoring is an essential part of construction project management and has typically been devised to guard against non-compliance. When contractors are subjected to regular performance feedback, instead of just taking remedial action, they may take the opportunities to enhance their operations in the light of the feedback. Thus, it has been advocated that responding to performance feedback has a learning element. This study takes on this notion and examined the performance change pattern of contractors that have been subjected to regular performance feedback. Longitudinal performance scores were fitted against five well established learning curve models using the Least Square Curve Fitting Analysis (LSCFA). It was found that the 3-parameter hyperbolic model is the ‘best-fit’ model in terms of effectiveness and stability. The LSCFA results also suggested that the contractors in the sample can be arranged in four clusters: Competent Learners, Incidental Learners, Indifferent Learners and Optimizers. The majority of them fall into the optimizing cluster. This suggests that these contractors may adjust their resources to maintain their performance at an acceptable level which do not deprive their future opportunities. With due caveat to the constraints and limitations of working sample, this finding is thought provoking for project managers in exercising project monitoring.

‘Speaking a secret language’: West Coast Swing as a community of practice of informal and incidental learners

This study reports the findings of a qualitative study of competitive West Coast Swing dancers that incorporated both ethnographic and phenomenological techniques. A modern variation of the original Lindy Hop, West Coast Swing is typically learned in dance studios and non‐profit clubs. The West Coast Swing community can be considered a community of practice in which nonformal and incidental learning occurs for participants; this study explores the nature of the learning that occurs within this community. The nonformal nature of learning the dance itself creates the community of practice; in turn, dancers encounter incidental learning, especially regarding interpersonal communication, as they learn the dance.

Differences in incidental and intentional learning of sensorimotor sequences as revealed by event-related brain potentials

The present study investigated differences in sequential learning between subjects who were or were not informed of the presence of a repeating sequence (intentional or incidental group, respectively). Subjects had to learn a 16-letter-long repeating sequence that was irregularly disrupted by deviating stimuli. Reaction times indicated that both groups learned the sequential regularities. Intentional learners showed a larger learning effect. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) recorded during performance of the task showed a reliably enhanced amplitude for the N2b- and P3b-components for deviant letters for intentional learners, but not for incidental learners. These results are discussed in the context of models proposing that different neural structures are involved in implicit and explicit serial learning.

The occurrence of holistic categorization

By a current consensus, less deliberate cognition produces holistic perceptual processing. Does it also produce holistic category learning? In three experiments, subjects were given categorization tasks (as in Kemler Nelson, 1984, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23, 734–759) which can be successfully performed using either an analytic, criterial-attribute rule, or a more holistic family-resemblance judgment. Different groups were speeded, given a difficult concurrent task, tricked into learning under incidental conditions, or given no impediment. As in Kemler Nelson, incidental learners used family-resemblance relations more than intentional learners in categorization decisions, and concurrent-task subjects did also. However, speeded subjects were clearly, strongly analytic. The implications of these findings for the link between implicit cognition and holistic processing are discussed. We also consider whether real-world categorization by adults, and category learning by children, are likely biased towards holistic similarity comparisons.

Incidental psychomotor learning: the effects of number of movements, practice, and rehearsal.

Three experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of the number of movements, practice, and rehearsal on incidental and intentional psychomotor learning. incidental learners received no formal instructions to learn the central task to which they were exposed in a choice reaction-time task. The movements to the targets in this task comprised a movement sequence. Intentional learners also performed the choice reaction-time task but were additionally instructed to remember the order of the movements. Intentional learning was superior to incidental learning, unless rehearsal was disrupted; all three independent variables demonstrated similar functional effects under both learning conditions. It was concluded that incidental and intentional learning are not distinct types of learning; and that "intent to learn" per se is a significant factor in psychomotor learning only when it elicits beneficial cognitive processes such as rehearsal.

Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition memory.

These studies ask whether S remembers a picture better the greater the of he allots to it. Depth of processing pictures of faces was varied according to judgments of sex (superficial) or judgments of likableness or honesty of the person pictured. Performance on a later recognition memory test was high for pictures judged for likableness or honesty, and low for pictures judged for sex. This ordering held as'true for intentional learners as for incidental learners. A final experiment showed that face recognition memory was not materially affected by a context manipulation: an old test picture was remembered at a level determined by its original depth of processing and independently of how it was tested—either alone, along side an old picture it had been studied with, or with a new picture. In a recent paper, Craik and Lockhart (1972) argued that of of stimulus material is a direct determinant of how well that material will be remembered. The underlying assumption in their approach is that a stimulus is processed through a series of stages with different kinds of information being extracted from or triggered off by the stimulus at successive stages. Sensory features of the stimulus are presumably extracted first, whereas associative information (such as the name or meaning of a grapheme) becomes available later. In support of their depth of processing hypothesis, Craik and Lockhart review studies showing higher incidental learning for words which 5s had processed for meaning than for items processed for physical attributes. For instance, Hyde and Jenkins (1969) oriented 5s to answer different questions with respect to a word, either counting the number of letters in it or the number of es, or rating it for pleasantness. Those 5s who did the pleasantness judgments recalled the words later much better than did the other 5s. Similarly, Johnston and Jenkins (1971) showed that 5s required to think of an adjective appropriate to a presented

偶然的学習についての研究 VI

The present study was designed to, determine how the magnitude of differences between the recall scores of intentional and incidental learners might be influenced by variations in the rate and number of presentation of stimulus materials.The stimulus list consisted of 12 nonsense syllables which had 30-34 non-association value by Umemoto and his co-worker's norms. The Ss were 120 college students randomly divided into two groups (intentional and incidental) of 60 each. Each group was further divided into three subgroups of 20 Ss each. In each learning group, the list was presented only once at a rate of one item every 4 sec. to one Subgroup, and 12 sec. to another. And to the third subgroup, the list was presented three times, with a 10-sec. interval between successive presentations, at a rate of one item every 4 sec. An electrically operated memory drum was used to present the list. The Ss of the incidental learning group, as soon as a stimulus item appeared, were asked to record that item in any of the four, blanks on a sheet of paper on hand. This ‘orienting’ task was given as a kind of personality-test. Immediately after the presentation of the list, the Ss were requested to write down as many syllables as they could recall in accordance with the original order of presentation of the items. The Ss of the intentional learning group, on the other hand were asked tc, perform the same task with the Ss of the incidental learning group, and were also instructed to memorize as many syllables as possible in the serial order of items. The method of the recall test for this group was identical with that for the incidental learning group.As the results, it was known that the differences between the recall scores of stimulus items of intentional and incidental learners depend on the rate and number of stimulus presentations: when the list was presented only once at rate of one item every 4 sec., no difference between the scores was found. In the case of slow rate or many presentations, however, the scores of intentional learning was reliably higher than those of incidental learning, as a result of the improvement in the scores of the former in spite of no improvement in the scores of the latter. The improvement in the scores of intentional learners on the present occation is mostly attributed to the increase of rehearsing-effect of stimulus materials.This result confirms the findings by Saltzman and co-worker's experiments in which the recognition- test was used, and suggests obviously that it does not necessarily make learning beneficial to have the intention to learn the stimulus materials.

Response activities and the mechanism of selectivity in incidental learning

Incidental and intentional learners were compared as a function of the incidental orienting task. They were contrasted both when the orienting task facilitated pronouncing responses ( HP ), and when it did not ( LP ). Comparisons were made with regard to: (a) total immediate recall, and (b) the “selectivity” for the higher-meaningful items in a mixed list of trigrams. Incidental learning was equal to intentional learning when the HP task was used, despite the fact that the intentional Ss were unencumbered by an orienting task. This finding was replicated, independently, for 2, 4, and 8 presentations of the list. However, when the LP task was used, the same materials and conditions of presentation yielded well over twice as much intentional as incidental learning. When equivalence was obtained between incidental and unencumbered intentional learning, it resulted from the pronouncing responses elicited by the HP task. With the LP task, incidental learners demonstrated their usual greater selectivity than intentional learners. But in accordance with the pronouncing-response hypothesis, the two kinds of learners did not differ in selectivity when the HP task was used.

The interaction of syntactical structure and learning instructions

The interaction of syntactical structure and learning instructions was investigated. When the method of complete presentation was used the superiority of syntactical over unsyntactical material was greater for intentional as compared with incidental learners.

Long-term retention for intentionally and incidentally learned words

Summary This experiment compared the retention of words of high and low frequency by intentional and incidental learners. It also compared the word association of Int. and Inc. S s with respect to conventionality, frequency of usage and trial-to-trial change. If the items learned by Int. and Inc. S s are acquired through the mediation of the same types of differential response, the rate of forgetting should be equal under the two conditions if level of mastery was equal. Forgetting over 48 hours was the same for Int. and Inc. S s. Number of overt errors was also the same in the two conditions of learning. Word frequency, however, was found to be positively related to the increase in overt errors over 48 hours. The majority of these errors came from the S s' previous associations to the items. Conditions of learning did not interact with word frequency for either the recall or the error measures. The associations given by Int. S s were less conventional and less common words than those of Inc. S s, but only in the High-F condition. Apparently Int. S s adopted a strategy of giving distinctive associations that could lead them back to the stimulus items. But those Int. S s who gave the least conventional associations recalled the fewest words immediately after learning, which indicates that selecting distinctive associates was an unsuccessful strategy. No correlation was found between recall and associative conventionality for Inc. S s, but there was a direct correlation between recall and associative change for these S s. Correlations between association measures and recall dissipated after 48 hours. Positive correlations were found between number of association errors after 48 hours and associative conventionality for the High-F case, while negative correlations were found in the Low-F case. This was the only evidence of facilitation due to giving distinctive associations.

The responses involved in the rote learning of verbal materials

It is hypothesized that rote learning, both intentional and incidental, takes place as a result of “pronouncing” responses made by S to the stimulus items. In this view, instructions to learn facilitate learning because they serve to increase the frequency of critical pronouncing responses made by S . This implies that, if incidental learners can be induced to make pronouncing responses at a high enough rate, they should learn as efficiently as intentional learners. Two orienting tasks were designed to produce pronouncing responses to different degrees: (a) pronouncing each item over and over ( HP ); and (b) guessing a number presumably associated with each item ( LP ). Two groups of 20 S s each, one intentional and one incidental, were tested with each task. It was predicted that: (a) intentional learning would show considerable superiority over incidental learning when the orienting task does not require a high rate of pronouncing responses ( LP ); and (b) there would be no significant difference when the orienting task requires both kinds of learners to make pronouncing responses at a very high rate of frequency ( HP ). That is, a significant interaction between instructions (intentional or incidental) and orienting task ( LP or HP ) was predicted. Instructions and orienting task were varied in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Both independent variables produced significant variation in the learning scores. In accordance with the critical theoretical prediction, the interaction between the main variables was also significant. These findings support a pronouncing-response hypothesis and appear to be independent of whether recall is measured immediately or after a 6-min retention interval.

The Effect upon Incidental Learning of Varying the Information about the Irrelevant Material

When incidental learning has been demonstrated experimentally, it has often been presumed to be due to a set to learn which has transferred from previous learning-situations in which instructions to learn have been made explicit1 or to a set which generalizes from the specific instructions related to the relevant material.2 Such a set to learn incidental material as well as instructed material probably varies greatly with different Ss. The set may be one of which S is aware; noticing the irrelevant material, S may from time to time direct his attention toward it, possibly as a diversion from the instructed task; or even naive Ss, knowing that they are participating in an experiment, may be on the alert for a 'trick' and be aware of the possibility that they may be tested for knowledge of the irrelevant material. In fact, reports from Ss participating in incidental learning experiments indicate awareness varying from no notion at all that such learning might be tested to certainty that some such 'trick' is in the offing. Uncontrolled variation in the strength of the set to learn incidental material might be a serious source of error in experiments on incidental learning. Jenkins, in an analysis of his Ss' introspective reports, showed that variations in the set to learn on the part of incidental learners will greatly affect the amount of incidental learning which takes place.3 In his experiment, the Ss in the incidental learning group were told to read aloud words for other Ss to learn, then were themselves tested on the material. This is an experimental set-up which is probably highly conducive to the occurrence of a great 'deal of learning, since no other learning activity occurs simultaneously as the S reads out the material. In many experiments in this field, the learning in question is incidental to the learning of other material that S is instructed to accomplish. Although S may be aware of the irrelevant material, he has been clearly directed to learn other material. Under such circumstances, can there be a variation in the amount of incidental learning produced by different sets?

Recognition as a Function of Meaningfulness and Intention to Learn

In a recent experiment by Postman, Adams, and Phillips, the recall of intentional learners exceeded that of incidental learners for materials of low but not for high associative value.' The recall of both groups increased with associative value. When learning was tested by the method of recognition, however, no such relationships appeared. The experiment to be reported was designed to provide further data on recognition as a function of meaningfulness of material and intention to learn.

Comparisons of Incidental and Intentional Learning after Different Numbers of Stimulus Presentations

In a recent paper by Neimark and Saltzman it was found that the difference between the scores of incidental and intentional learning depends on the rate of presentation of the learning material.1 After four presentations of a list of 14 numbers where each number appeared for 2 sec., no difference was found between the scores of incidental and intentional learning. When, however, the numbers were presented at a slower rate of 6 sec. per number, the scores of intentional learning were significantly higher than those of incidental learning. While the scores of the incidental learners did not change significantly from the fast rate to the slow rate, the scores of the intentional learners, on the other hand, increased significantly. A similar relationship might be expected when the length of the time of exposure is held constant, but the number of exposures per item is increased. Specifically, one might expect that after only a few presentations of a list of numbers, no difference would be found between the scores of intentional and incidental learning, but that after many presentations of the list, a difference would be found. The present study was designed to investigate this relationship between the number of trials, on the one hand, and the difference between incidental and intentional learning scores, on the other. Procedure. The Ss were 160 Indiana University undergraduate students randomly divided into two groups of 80 each-an incidental learning group and an intentional learning group. Each group was further divided into four subgroups of 20 Ss each. The learning material was a list of 14 two-digit numbers selected from a table of random numbers. A different number of presentations of the list was given each of the subgroups. The subgroups in each group received either 2, 6, 8, or 16 presentations of the list. The rate of presentation of the list of numbers was the same for all subgroups: each number appeared for 3 sec. and then was replaced by the next number. The numbers were presented by means of an electrically operated memorydrum. A 10-sec. period intervened between successive presentations of the list. Four different random orders of the 14 numbers were used. The Ss in the incidental learning group were read the following instructions.