Previous studies have shown that while multiple hue color cues can have a facilitative effect on initial learning, they can produce negative effects on a non-cued criterion task. The present study was designed to determine if single hue color cues could facilitate initial learning without being disruptive at transfer. Manipulations involved condition of availability of these cues. 102 S's, in three treatment groups were presented with a learning sequence. Availability was varied in no color, maximum color, and vanished color conditions. Achievement was measured on three tasks, visual memory, visual discrimination, and a paried-associate task. Results indicated that vanished single hue color cues can facilitate learning without interference.
References
1.
ArcherE. J.Re-evaluation of the meaningfulness of all possible CVC trigrams. Psychological Monographs1960, 74, Whole No. 497, 1–2.
2.
AssoD.WykeM.Discrimination of spatially confusable letters by young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology1971, 11, 11–20.
3.
CohenS. A.Studies in visual perception and reading in disadvantaged children. Journal of Learning Disabilities1969, 2, 498–507.
4.
CohenS. A.Cause vs. treatment in reading achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities1970, 3, 163–166.
5.
DavidsonH. P.A study of the confusing letters, b, d, p, q. Journal of Genetic Psychology1935, 47, 458–468.
6.
GibsonE. J.Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.
7.
GibsonE. J.GibsonJ.PickA.OsserH.A developmental study of the discrimination of letter-like forms. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology1962, 55, 897–906.
8.
HymanJ.CohenS.A.The effect of verticality as a stimulus property on the letter discrimination of young children. Journal of Learning Disabilities1975, 8, 98–107.
9.
KarrakerR. J.Teaching beginning readers to distinguish between similar letters of the alphabet. Unpublished paper from University of Missouri at Kansas City, 1968, ERIC ED020860.
10.
OttoW.AskovE.The role of color in learning and instructionJournal of Special Education1968, 2, 155–165.
11.
PoppH.Visual discrimination of alphabet letters. Reading Teacher1964, 17, 221–226.
12.
RichardsonJ.Cue effectiveness and abstraction in paired-associate learning. Psychological Bulletin1971, 75, 73–91.
13.
SamuelsS. J.Formal intralist similarity and the von Restorff effect. Journal of Educational Psychology1968, 54, 432–37.
14.
SamuelsS. J.Effect of simultaneous versus successive discrimination training on paired-associate learning. Journal of Educational Psychology1969, 60, 46–48.
15.
SchutzR. E.Acquisition of alphabet discrimination with and without errors. Paper read at the American Psychological Association meeting, 1964, Los Angeles.
16.
SmithD. E. P.On discrimination programming, 1967. Unpublished paper from the Center for Research on Language and Language Behavior, University of Michigan.
17.
SmithN. B.Matching as a factor in first grade reading. Journal of Educational Psychology1928, 19, 560–571.
18.
StrotherC. R.Psychological aspects of learning disabilities. In KirkS. A.McCarthyJ. M. (eds.) Learning Disabilities: selected ACLD papers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975.
19.
SundlandD. N.WickensD. D.Context factors in paired-associate learning and recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology1962, 63, 302–306.
20.
WashingtonE. D.Matching and naming letters of the alphabet with and without redundant color cues. Unpublished doctoral dissertation from the University of Illinois, 1968.
21.
WilliamsJ. P.Training kindergarten children to discriminate letterlike forms. American Educational Research Journal1969, 6, 501–513.
22.
WilliamsJ.P.AckermanM. D.Simultaneous and successive discrimination of similar letters. Journal of Educational Psychology1971, 62, 132–137.
23.
ZeamanD.HouseB. J.The role of attention in retardate discrimination learning in EllisN. R. (ed.) Handbook of Mental Deficiency. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
