Experiment No.

Whole vs. Part Method of Learning

Abstract

The aim of this experiment is to determine which type of learning is more efficient — whole
or part. A within-subject design was used in the experiment. The subjects were given two
poems of similar difficulty, and retention was recorded for both the part and whole method.
The number of lines correctly replicated and the calculated percentage were used to score
both learning methods. The findings show that younger subjects retain information better
than older subjects for both learning modalities, with whole learning outperforming part
learning.

Keywords: Learning, Memory, Whole method of learning, Part method of learning.

Problem Statement:

To determine whether the part or whole method of learning is more effective for the subject.

Introduction

Learning psychologists define learning as measurable changes in behaviour that occur as a

result of practise and the conditions that accompany practise. (1949, Postman and Egan,
Experimental Psychology: An Introduction). APA defines learning as "the acquisition of
novel information, behaviours, or abilities after practise, observation, or other experiences, as
evidenced by change in behaviour, knowledge, or brain function. Learning entails attending
to relevant aspects of incoming information consciously or unconsciously, mentally
organising the information into a coherent cognitive representation, and integrating it with
relevant existing knowledge activated from long-term memory."

By retention we mean the persistence of the measurable changes in behaviour that have been
acquired through practice. In the laboratory distinction between learning and retention refers
to the time at which the measurements are made. If a measurement of performance is made
after the end of learning period, we refer to it as a measure of retention. (Postman & Egan,
Experimental Psychology: An Introduction, 1949)
Retention of learned information is defined as storing the information in long-term memory
in such a way that it can be retrieved quickly, for example, in response to standard prompts.
In simple words, learning retention is all about making new knowledge stick for a long period
of time.

From the moment of birth until the moment of death, everyone is engaged in a continuous
learning process. We are all actively involved in learning activities to strengthen our capacity
for adaptation to the demands of the ever-changing environment. With the construction or
reconstruction of experiences under the influence of emotional and instinctual dispositions, a
person continues to learn throughout all phases of life.

Learning happens for two reasons:

1. The presence of an environmental stimuli and

2. Natural tendencies like emotional and instinctive tendencies.

Psychologists in general define learning as relatively “permanent behavioural modifications

which takes place as result of experience”. This notion of learning places special emphasis on
three crucial components:

1. Learning entails changing one's behaviour, for better or bad.

2. This alteration in behaviour ought to should happen as a result of repetition and
experience. Learning cannot be equated with changes brought on by age or growth.
3. This behavioural change must be largely long-lasting and somewhat permanent.

Types of learning:

1. Motor learning: Our daily activities, such as walking, running, and driving, must be
learned in order to live a happy life. These activities rely heavily on muscular
coordination. For example- learning to play a song on the piano.

2. Verbal learning: it is related to the language we speak and other verbal

communication tools like symbols, words, languages, sounds, figures, and signs. For
example- puns, language based jokes and games like boggle or scrabble.

3. Concept learning: Higher order cognitive processes that we begin to develop as

children, such as intellect, thinking, and reasoning, are linked to this type of learning.
Abstraction and generalisation are two processes that are a part of concept learning
and are extremely helpful for recognising or identifying objects.

4. Discrimination learning: Discrimination stimuli are considered learning that

distinguishes between distinct stimuli with their appropriate and different responses.
Illustrations of discrimination shopping for groceries, distinguishing between different
kinds of bread or fruit, being able to distinguish between stimuli that are similar,
listening to music while distinguishing between different parts, or perhaps
understanding the various notes and chords being played are all examples of
discrimination learning that can be done in daily life.
 5. Learning of principles: Learning based on principles aids in the most effective
management of work. The relationship between various concepts is explained using
principles-based learning. Preparation, exercise, effect, primacy, recency, intensity,
and freedom are all learning principles. Readiness denotes an individual's willingness
and eagerness to learn something new. According to exercise, the things that are
repeated the most are remembered the best.

6. Problem solving: The process of finding solutions to problems encountered in life is

referred to as problem solving in psychology. The solutions to these problems are
usually situational or contextual. The process begins with problem identification and
problem shaping, during which the problem is discovered and simplified. For
example, before submitting a project, students usually brainstorm, develop a thesis or
main topic, research the chosen topic, organise their information into an outline, write
a rough sketch, revise and edit the rough draught, develop a final document, organise
the references list, and proofread their work.

7. Attitude learning: According to psychologists, attitudes are ingrained tendencies to

view the world in particular ways. This can involve assessments of individuals,
problems, things, or even occurrences. These assessments are frequently positive or
negative, but they can also sometimes be vague. For instance, many people fear or are
afraid of spiders. Thus it's conceivable that someone will have a bad opinion of
spiders as a result of this negative affective response. When we talk about the
behavioural aspect of attitudes, we mean how an attitude affects how a person acts or
behaves.

Theories of Learning:

Psychologists have tried to explain how people learn and why they learn.

1. Trial and Error Learning Theory: “Trial and error is a fundamental method of problem
solving characterized by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success,
or until the practiser stops trying”. Edward Lee Thorndike (1874-1949) stated the
elements of his theory of learning in 1913. Thorndike has written- “Learning is
connecting. The mind is man’s connection system.” Thorndike asserts that learning
happens through trial and error. Some people refer to this as "learning by selecting the
successful version," and it describes how a student will use trial and error when there
is no ready-made answer to a problem. So, using the trial and error method, the
learner engages in random activities before accidentally achieving the desired
outcome. One thing to keep in mind is that there are frequently systematic and
pertinent reactions even in trial and error. Things don't just happen at random. The
scenario suggests all of these seemingly random actions to him, and the learner moves
forward in that manner. Aim, Block (hindrances’), Random Movements or various
responses, chance success, selection, and fixation are the stages that the learner must
move through.
2. Learning by conditioning: Conditioning is a form of learning in which either (1) A
reaction occurs with increasing regularity in a clearly defined and stable environment,
or (2) a given stimulus (or signal) becomes increasingly effective at evoking the
desired response. The result will depend on the kind of reinforcement applied. One of
the stimuli will eventually cause a reaction similar to the other one when they are
provided at the right time and intensity. The procedure can be categorised as a
stimulus substitution technique.

a. Classical Conditioning: The term "classical" (or "respondent") conditioning refers

to this process. This age-old method, which draws inspiration from the work of
the Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov, involves harnessing a dog and placing it in a
soundproofed space. An air puff of food powder is immediately followed by the
sound of a bell or a metronome on each conditioning trial. Here, the bell's tone is
referred to as the conditioned (or occasionally conditional) stimulus, or CS. The
dog's conditioned response to this sound is salivation (CR). The quantity of saliva
the dog produces during test trials when food powder is excluded after the bell has
rang is used to gauge the degree of conditioning. Salivation was the dog's initial
reaction to the introduction.
b. Operant Conditioning: In contrast to classical conditioning, instrumental or
operant conditioning rewards an organism only when it performs a predetermined
behavioural act. The needed behaviour is termed as an operant when no US
(unconditioned stimulus) is used to trigger the specific act to be conditioned; once
it happens consistently, it is also regarded as a conditioned response (to
correspond to its counterpart in classical conditioning). American psychologist
B.F. Skinner used rewards (reinforcement) or punishment to study irrational (or
operant) behaviour. A hungry animal will, for instance, react to a situation in the
way that comes most naturally to that species. If one of these actions results in a
food reward, it is likely that the particular action that resulted in the food reward
will.

3. Learning by insight: In learning theory, insight refers to quick, precise learning or

understanding that occurs without overt trial-and-error testing. When people identify
connections (or create new correlations between ideas or behaviours) that can assist
them in solving new issues, this is known as insight in human learning. Scientists
have learned a lot about insight thanks to German Gestalt psychologist Wolfgang
Köhler's studies of animal behaviour from the 20th century. In one experiment,
Köhler gave Sultan, a hungry chimpanzee, a banana outside of his cage along with
two sticks that Sultan could link together to produce a single stick that was long
enough to drag in the food. Sultan made futile attempts to use each stick, even using
one to prod the other stick towards the banana. Sultan later linked the sticks
inadvertently after giving up, saw the outcome, and instantly ran with the longer tool
to get the banana. Sultan linked the two sticks when the experiment was repeated and
 found the solution right away. This outcome, however, is murky because it seemed as
though Sultan found the solution accidentally rather than consciously.

4. Learning by imitation: New behaviours are learned by imitation in the social learning
process known as imitation learning. Imitation is "important for appropriate
sensorimotor development and social functioning," and it promotes communication,
social engagement, and the capacity to modify one's emotions to take into
consideration those of others. Both humans and animals have the capacity to mimic
the acts of others; imitation learning is crucial to the development of human culture.
In contrast to observational learning, imitation learning necessitates copying the
behaviour displayed by the model, whereas observational learning can take place
when the learner witnesses an undesirable behaviour and its consequences and, as a
result, learns to avoid that behaviour. Human imitative learning is well known, and
studies of imitative learning in monkeys frequently employ humans as a reference
group. Children over-imitated chimpanzee behaviour, according to a study by Horner
and Whiten that compared their behaviour to that of non-enculturated chimps. [10] In
the experiment, 3–4-year-old children and chimpanzees were presented a sequence of
steps to open an opaque puzzle box containing a reward. Although the individuals
were unaware of this, only two of the acts were required to unlock the box. The
chimps and the kids both tried the task after the demonstration completed all three
steps to open the box. Children and chimps alike imitated all three behaviours in order
to get the prize hidden within the box. The second round of the trial was conducted
using a clear box. The transparent box was used in the following stage of the
investigation in place of the opaque box. This box's transparency made it obvious that
none of the three acts were required in order to earn the reward. The chimpanzees
only carried out the two activities required to accomplish the desired result; they
avoided carrying out the third action that was not necessary. Although they might
have chosen to omit certain extraneous activities, the young toddlers mimicked all
three of the actions.

Factors influencing the learning:

- Factors of the subject:

1. Fatigue and physical health
2. Interest and motivation
3. Success and recognition
4. The learner's previous experience

- Factors of the experimenter:

1. The expectation effect
2. Education standardisation
3. Rate and duration of material presentation

- Environmental, stimulus and other factors:

1. External factors such as noise, lighting, overcrowding, and uncomfortable seating
can all impede learning.

Review of literature

1. Postman, L., & Goggin, J. (1964) in this study, the whole and part techniques of
serial learning are compared. There were four lists, each with ten CVC trigrams,
to cover all potential combinations of the two levels of meaningfulness and the
two levels of intralist similarity. To facilitate part learning, the lists were split in
half. After learning the various components, there was a stage called combination
when the full list was learnt. Learning times varied in direct relation to the degree
of intralist similarity and inverse relation to the level of meaningfulness. This
association persisted during both whole learning and part learning. The length of
the combination stage significantly outweighed the benefit from the reduction in
list length during the procurement of the parts. This study presents a contrast
between the whole and the component. Total learning times, on the other hand,
revealed a marginal but constant benefit of the part technique over the complete
method. All rights reserved. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA)

2. Although divided-mind or dual-process models of self-control predominate in the

literature, they have both conceptual and empirical problems. We suggest a
different strategy, contending that the dynamic of fragmented parts versus
integrated wholes might be used to describe self-control. Responses to events that
come from integrated wholes strengthen self-control while those that come from
fragmented areas of the mind weaken it. We examine the empirical data that this
concept is supported by in psychology and related fields. We also talk about how
this work might be relevant to psychology, neurology, economics, and philosophy.
We specifically point out how this model corrects many conceptual and empirical
flaws in divided-mind models. Furthermore, we contend that fresh insights and
testable new hypotheses can be gained by viewing self-control as the interaction
between dispersed pieces and integrated wholes.

3. Grace O. McGeoch contrasted the learning and retention skills of a group of

talented boys and girls (with a mean I. Q. of 151.2) with a group of boys and girls
of average 4 in an experiment to see if intelligence may have an impact on
learning methods. Intelligence (with a mean I. Q. of 99.4). (Having a mean I. Q. of
99.4). The complete, pure part, and progressive part approaches were used to
teach students short pieces of poetry and vocabulary. Results revealed no
consistent differences in poetry learning or retention. When learning poetry and
vocabulary pairings, it was discovered that talented kids learned and remembered
more information and exhibited less variability than typical boys and girls. At
 least when comparing gifted and typical kids, it was determined that the I. Q. was
a conditioning element in the relative efficacy of the three techniques.

4. W. Brown (1924). Learning Methods: Whole and Part. The author intends to
assess retention through whole and part learning. He tested 12 English words,
each paired with a two-syllable nonsense word, on college students of both
genders. Each English word and its nonsense mate were read aloud 12 times for
the part method, and the entire list was read aloud 12 times for the whole method.
At the end of each list, the subject was tested by being given an English word and
asked to write its nonsense counterpart. The results show that even when the
material is made up of unrelated elements and the element test is conducted with
elements in a distorted order, the whole method still works well if the number and
rate of presentations are kept constant.

5. Davis, A. J., and M. Meenes (1932). Factors influence the relative efficacy of
whole-person and part-person learning methods. The variables studied in their
experiment are place association, sex, age, capacity, and habitual method of
learning. The subjects were 104 college students who had previously been asked
to identify their preferred method of learning. According to a comparison of
results obtained by a group using the whole method and results obtained using the
part method, the whole method was superior to the part method on the criterion of
the number of errors on the first attempt at reproduction. There were 65 people
who thought the whole method was superior, while only 20 thought the part
method was superior. Even though they used it frequently, only thirty to forty
percent of those who preferred one method thought it was superior. Male and
female subjects learned roughly on par using the part method, but female subjects
performed worse than males using the whole method. The younger people learned
more by using the entire method, though the difference was unreliable.

Method

Objective

1. To measure retention by whole method of learning.

2. To measure retention by part method of learning.
3. To compare retention by whole and part method of learning.

Experimental design:
The 'within-subject design,' also known as repeated treatment design, is used in this
experiment because the same group of subjects is treated differently in different conditions (2
conditions) and then their scores for dependable variables are compared.

This experiment is aimed at studying whether the whole or the part method of learning is
more effective for the subject. The experiment will consist of two parts. In each part the
subject will be required to learn a material by whole and part method of learning. In part
method, poem will be divided into equal parts of two lines each. The subject will be asked to
read the part for 5 times and memorize it. This will be done for all the equally divided parts.
After the subject had read aloud all parts 5 times each and memorized it, a plain sheet will be
given and the subject will be asked to write the poem. The subject’s sheet will then be
compared to the original parts and correct lines will be calculated.
After this, two minutes break will be given to the subject. 
In whole method of learning, the subject will be given a material which has to be read aloud 5
times. The whole poem will be read aloud 5 times and the subject will be asked to memorize
it. After this a plain sheet will be provided to the subject and he/she will be asked to write
down whatever has been memorized. The subject’s sheet will be compared to the original
material and then no. of correct lines will be calculated.

Hypothesis:

1. There will be difference between retention by whole and part method of learning.
2. There will be difference in retention with respect to age.

Apparatus and material:

a. 2 poems of 10 lines each, both having the same difficulty level and general theme.
b. Stop clock
c. Paper and pencil

Variables

Independent variable:

I. Poem
II. Method of learning

Dependant variable:

I. Number of lines recalled

Control variables:
  The difficulty levels of both poems should be equal.
 Break should be given between 2 sessions to counter effect the fatigue effect and
interference of previously learned poem.
 The environmental factors such as light, noise, temperature should be controlled.
 The subject should not be given any feedback to His/her performance.
 At a time only one poem should be shown to the subject.
 While the subject is writing, no poem should be shown to the subject.

Sample: Age (18-30, 38-50)

Subject 01

Age: 27

Gender: Male

Subject 02:

Age: 43

Gender: female

Scoring method

Percentage of correct lines in whole method=

No. Of correct lines in whole method 100

Total no. Of lines in whole method

Percentage of correct lines in part method=

No. Of correct lines in part method 100

Total no. Of lines in part method

Procedure

1. Rapport formation

Subject 01: The subject and the experimenter were familiar to one another; hence rapport
formation wasn’t required during the conduction of this psychological tool with them.

Subject 02: The subject and the experimenter were familiar to one another; hence rapport
formation wasn’t required during the conduction of this psychological tool with them.

2. Instructions
“Please be seated comfortably and listen carefully to what I say. Here you will be provided
with two poems, one of which has been divided into five parts. You have to read aloud each
part 5 times, and then you have to write whatever you have memorized without making any
mistakes. After this, I will give you another poem that you have to read aloud five times and
memorize.

The second poem is not divided into parts, you have to memorize the whole poem and write.
After you have memorized it, you have to write it down without making any mistakes on a
plain sheet. If you have understood, we will now begin.”

3. Actual procedure

The experiment was conducted in a secluded room to ensure absence of distractions. Subjects
were welcomed to an adequately lit room, greeted and once they were comfortable the
experimenter explained what has to be done in the test. The sheet containing poem was
placed in front of the subject, who was then instructed to learn it aloud 5 times each in part
and whole simultaneously. During each poem subject was given a 5min break to counter
effect the fatigue and interference of previously learned poem.

4. Introspective report

Subject 01: “while I was reading I was not able to memorise the poem as for anything to
memorise you need to understand that thing. Altogether it was a good experience but I
couldn’t memorise the poem”.

Subject 02: “it was fun experiment I was out of practice since very long time and that is why
I was not able to memorise the poem”.

Results

Subject 01:

Qualitative result

It is concluded from the introspective report that the subject was not able to memorise the
poem as according to the subject for learning you need to understand the poem. However, the
subjects experience was good.

Quantitative result

Percentage of correct lines in part method = No. of correct lines in part method 100

Total no. of lines in part method

Percentage of correct lines in part method = 20%

Percentage of correct lines in whole method = No. of correct lines in whole method 100

Total no. of lines in whole method

Percentage of correct lines in whole method = 40%

Table no.1 to show comparison between both methods.

Method of learning Total no. Of correct lines Percentage of correct lines

Whole method 2 20%
Part method 4 40%

Subject 02:

Qualitative result

It is concluded from the introspective report that the subject enjoyed the test but being out of
practice for learning from a very long time it was quiet difficult for the subject to memorise
the poem.

Quantitative result

Percentage of correct lines in part method = No. of correct lines in part method 100

Total no. of lines in part method

Percentage of correct lines in part method = 0%

Percentage of correct lines in whole method = No. of correct lines in whole method 100

Total no. of lines in whole method

Percentage of correct lines in whole method = 40%

Table no.1 to show comparison between both methods.

Method of learning Total no. Of correct lines Percentage of correct lines

Part method 0 0%
Whole method 4 40%

 Correlation Coefficient Calculation

Where,
X= Age Raw data
Y= No. of correct lines in part method
M = Mean of X 
x

M = Mean of Y
y

      = Coefficient constant

Table no 3. Correlation Data between Subject age 18-30 and no. of correct lines in part
learning method
Age(X) No. of X-M x Y-M y (X-M )( Y-
x (X-M ) x
2
(Y-M )
y
2

correct M)y

lines(Y)
- -
3.7857142 1.8928571 14.331632
23 0 0.5 86 43 0.25 65
- -
3.2142857 1.7857142 5.7397959 10.331632 3.1887755
18 2 14 86 18 65 1
- -
3.2142857 1.7857142 5.7397959 10.331632 3.1887755
18 2 14 86 18 65 1
- -
0.7857142 0.7857142 0.6173469 0.6173469 0.6173469
22 3 86 86 39 39 39
- -
0.2142857 1.7857142 0.3826530 0.0459183 3.1887755
21 2 14 86 61 67 1
- -
1.7857142 2.7857142 4.9744897 3.1887755 7.7602040
23 1 86 86 96 1 82
- -
3.2142857 1.7857142 5.7397959 10.331632 3.1887755
18 2 14 86 18 65 1
 - -
1.2142857 6.2142857 7.5459183 1.4744897 38.617346
20 10 14 14 67 96 94
- -
2.2142857 5.2142857 11.545918 4.9030612 27.188775
19 9 14 14 37 24 51
- -
5.7857142 1.7857142 10.331632 33.474489 3.1887755
27 2 86 86 65 8 1
1.7857142 1.2142857 2.1683673 3.1887755 1.4744897
23 5 86 14 47 1 96
3.7857142 2.2142857 8.3826530 14.331632 4.9030612
25 6 86 14 61 65 24
0.7857142 1.2142857 0.9540816 0.6173469 1.4744897
22 5 86 14 33 39 96
- -
3.2142857 0.2142857 0.6887755 10.331632 0.0459183
18 4 14 14 1 65 67
Ʃ(X-M ) x Ʃ(Y-M ) y
2

( Y-M )
y Ʃ(X-M ) =  =
x
2

M= x M= y =- 103.41836 112.35714
21.214285 3.7857142 8.4897959 73 29
71 86 18
= -0.122188377

Table no. 4. Correlation Data between Subject age 18-30 and no. of correct lines in
whole learning method
Age(X) No. of X-M x Y-M y (X-M ) x (X-M ) x
2
(Y-M )
y
2

correct ( Y-M ) y

lines(Y)
- -
1.78571428 1.571428 2.806122 3.1887 2.46938775
23 4 6 6 4 8 5
- -
3.21428571 2.571428 8.265306 10.331 6.61224489
18 3 4 6 1 6 8
- -
3.21428571 2.571428 8.265306 10.331 6.61224489
18 3 4 6 1 6 8
0.78571428 0.428571 0.336734 0.6173 0.18367346
22 6 6 4 7 5 9
- -
0.21428571 1.571428 0.336734 0.0459 2.46938775
21 4 4 6 7 2 5
1.78571428 0.428571 0.765306 3.1887 0.18367346
23 6 6 4 1 8 9
- -
3.21428571 0.571428 1.836734 10.331 0.32653061
18 5 4 6 7 6 2
 - -
1.21428571 0.428571 0.520408 1.4744 0.18367346
20 6 4 4 2 9 9
- -
2.21428571 0.428571 0.948979 4.9030 0.18367346
19 6 4 4 6 6 9
- -
5.78571428 1.571428 9.091836 33.474 2.46938775
27 4 6 6 7 5 5
1.78571428 3.428571 3.1887 11.7551020
23 9 6 4 6.122449 8 4
- -
3.78571428 0.571428 2.163265 14.331 0.32653061
25 5 6 6 3 6 2
0.78571428 3.428571 2.693877 0.6173 11.7551020
22 9 6 4 6 5 4
- -
3.21428571 2.428571 7.806122 10.331 5.89795918
18 8 4 4 4 6 4
Ʃ(X-M ) x

( Y-M )
y Ʃ(X- Ʃ(Y-M ) y
2

M= x M =  y = M ) = 
x
2
= 
21.2142857 5.57142857 5.285714 106.35 51.4285714
1 1 3 7 3
= 0.071469069

Table no. 5. Correlation Data between Subject age 38-50 and no. of correct lines in part
learning method
Age(X) No. of correct X- Y-M y (X-M )( Y-M ) (X-M )
x y x
2
(Y-M )
y
2

lines(Y) M x

-
48 0 4 3.714285714 -14.85714286 16 13.79591837
45 7 1 3.285714286 3.285714286 1 10.79591837
41 4 -3 0.285714286 -0.857142857 9 0.081632653
-
42 3 -2 0.714285714 1.428571429 4 0.510204082
-
40 1 -4 2.714285714 10.85714286 16 7.367346939
-
48 0 4 3.714285714 -14.85714286 16 13.79591837
-
44 0 0 3.714285714 0 0 13.79591837
46 9 2 5.285714286 10.57142857 4 27.93877551
44 8 0 4.285714286 0 0 18.36734694
-
42 0 -2 3.714285714 7.428571429 4 13.79591837
45 6 1 2.285714286 2.285714286 1 5.224489796
43 7 -1 3.285714286 -3.285714286 1 10.79591837
42 4 -2 0.285714286 -0.571428571 4 0.081632653
 -
46 3 2 0.714285714 -1.428571429 4 0.510204082
Ʃ(X-M )( Y-
x

M)y Ʃ(X-
=47.71428571 M) x
2
Ʃ(Y-M ) y
2

M =44 M =3.71428571
x y =80 =136.8571429
= -1.69766E-17

Table no. 6. Correlation Data between Subject age 38-50 and no. of correct lines in
whole learning method
Age(X) No. of correct X- Y-M y (X-M )( Y-
x (X-M ) x
2
(Y-M )
y
2

lines(Y) M x M)y

-
48 1 4 3.7857143 -15.142857 16 14.33163265
45 9 1 4.2142857 4.2142857 1 17.76020408
-
41 4 -3 0.7857143 2.3571429 9 0.617346939
-
42 1 -2 3.7857143 7.5714286 4 14.33163265
-
40 3 -4 1.7857143 7.1428571 16 3.18877551
-
48 4 4 0.7857143 -3.1428571 16 0.617346939
-
44 2 0 2.7857143 0 0 7.760204082
46 5 2 0.2142857 0.4285714 4 0.045918367
44 5 0 0.2142857 0 0 0.045918367
-
42 4 -2 0.7857143 1.5714286 4 0.617346939
45 9 1 4.2142857 4.2142857 1 17.76020408
43 8 -1 3.2142857 -3.2142857 1 10.33163265
42 6 -2 1.2142857 -2.4285714 4 1.474489796
46 6 2 1.2142857 2.4285714 4 1.474489796
Ʃ(X-M )( Y-
x Ʃ(X- Ʃ(Y-M ) y
2

M =44 M =4.785714286
x y M )=6
y M ) =80
x
2
=90.35714286
= 0.070570795

Discussion

The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether the whole or part method of
learning was efficient for the subject. The material used was of same difficulty level. Two
subjects of different age groups were presented with two poems paired with a method of
learning; their responses were recorded. 
The results of the study shows that subject A younger age group has forty percent of retention
when whole method learning was used. The same subject had only twenty of retention when
used part method. The difference was only of twenty percent however, this suggests that
subject A has better retention using whole method of learning. The data suggest that whole
learning was slightly more efficient than part learning for Subject A. For subject B when
whole method was used forty percent retention was there, and zero percent retention when
part method used.

The results of current study are congruent with the previous studies of Davis, A. J., &
Meenes, M. (1932) who found similar results for the criterion of number of errors on the first
attempt at reproduction. This study also measured the effects of other variables such as sex,
age and habitual method learning on efficiency of retention by whole method and part
method. This study suggests that the subject’s habitual method of learning is not a factor in
determining the efficiency of a particular learning method. However, in this study the age
difference is significantly large. The younger subject B has better retention using part method
of learning than older subject B.
That could be because of the IQ difference mentioned by McGeoch. The less intelligent do
not fare as well with the entire method as the more intelligent do. We did not measure the
subjects' IQ prior to testing in this experiment, so IQ as a determining factor of efficiency is
unreliable. According to Postman and Egan (1949) literature, the whole method is found to be
better if the learner is more practised.

Limitations

 The subject’s attitude towards learning is an uncontrolled variable.

 The subject might be familiar with the poem.
 The experiment was not conducted in laboratory setting.
 Extraneous stimuli like noise and illumination were not fully controlled.
 Sample size is too small; hence generalization of result is not possible.

Implications

1. It could be useful to verify what type of material/ content are better suited to a
practical method of learning and can be further applied in creating a tailored way of
teaching.
2. It provides insight into changes in learning process across age groups and can be
further researched.
3. It is applicable in educational field as policy makers can includes the efficient
methods of learning for students whilst designing curriculum and testing criteria.
4. It can be used to get an insight on personal compatibility to a particular method of
learning and would be significantly helpful to utilize ones predisposed strengths.

Conclusion

The study was aimed to determine the whether whole or part learning has better efficiency for
subjects. Using within-subject design on two subjects from different age groups. The
experimented objective was to measure retention by whole method and part method and
compares the results. Other objective was to determine effects of age on retention. The results
findings show that the whole method of learning was more efficient than part method of
learning for both subjects hence the first hypothesis is retained. The results also indicate that
younger subject had better retention than older subject therefore the second hypothesis is
accepted.

References

 Brown, W. (1924). Whole and Part Methods in Learning. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 15(4), 229.
 Davis, A. J., & Meenes, M. (1932). Factors determining the relative efficacy of the
whole and part methods of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(6), 716.
 Fujita, K., Carnevale, J.J. & Trope, Y. Understanding Self-Control as a Whole vs. Part
Dynamic. Neuroethics 11, 283–296 (2018)
 McGeoch, G. O. (1931). The intelligence quotient as a factor in the whole-part
problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(4), 333.
 Postman, L., & Goggin, J. (1964). Whole versus part learning of serial lists as a
function of meaningfulness and intralist similarity. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 68(2), 140–150

 Postman, L., & Egan, J. P. (1949). Experimental Psychology: An Introduction. New

York: Harper.
  Reed, H. B. (1924). Part and Whole Methods of Learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 15(2), 107–115.
S ISO 9O 9001:2015

Appendix

 Informed consent

Subject 01:
Subject 02:

 For part method learning

Image 1. Poem no.1 for Part Method of Leaning

Image 2. Response by Subject for poem 1

 For whole method learning

Image 3. Poem no.2 for whole method of learning

Image 4. Response by subject for Poem 2.