Associative Memory in Relation to Narrative Learning.
Associative Memory in Relation to Narrative Learning
Tim Flynn
A1034-031
IB Psychology
February 22, 2004
Word Count: 1499
Table of Contents:
I. Abstract...............................................................3
II. Introduction...........................................................4
III. Methods Section...................................................5-6
IV. Results...............................................................7-8
V. Discussion Section................................................9-10
VI. Appendix..........................................................11-19
A. Script..........................................................11-12
B. Debriefing Notes................................................13
C. Word List.........................................................14
D. Test Sheet.........................................................15
E. Raw Data.........................................................16
F. Standard Deviation Calculations...........................17-18
G. Consent Form.....................................................19
VII. References.............................................................20
Abstract:
This experiment is a replication of the 1973 study conducted by Gordon Bower and Michael Clark entitled "Associative Learning through the use of Narrative Stories." The experiment incorporates two groups of individuals, selected through opportunity sampling, whose undertaking is to memorize a list of words sequentially. The experiment's objective was to determine if the original experiment by Bower and Clark was warranted in affirming that the use of narrative stories improves memory word recall. Upon completion, the replication's statistics made clear that the creation of a narrative story for memorization drastically affected one's ability to recall words than other methods and thus supported the findings of the original experiment.
Introduction
Throughout Psychology, the topic of Memory has been a focus in experimentation. Through the process of "Chaining," this experiment seeks to establish a link between narrative learning and associative memory. The social applications of this to learning are immense as it is well suited for natural learning and educational atmospheres.
Bower and Clark first conducted this experiment in 1973. Since then, several assessments of the experiment have arisen, many of them criticisms. In The Complete Problem Solver (1989), J.R. Hayes maintains that this type of learning is only successful under certain circumstances and that other types of memorization, such as the Method of Loci or acronyms would be more effective in other environments. Despite such critiques, the work conducted by Bower and Clark has been applied to the modern day. The 1999 experiment "The Contribution of Thumbnail Images, Mouse-over Text and Spatial Location Memory to Web Page Retrieval in 3D," had Microsoft researchers utilize ideas from Bower and Clark's experiment in order to improve "user memory for where favorite or frequently used information is stored in the electronic environment."
Within this replication, the validity of the hypothesis was assessed through a control and experimental group. Each group was given 20 minutes to memorize 60 words. The control group was instructed to use any memorization technique in order to recall the words while the experimental group was restricted to using narrative stories. In controlling the constants, the experiment was able to focus on the independent variable of narrative learning.
Methods
Design:
This replication of Bower and Clark's 1973 Narrative Learning Experiment utilizes the Matched Pairs design. In this design, subject variables are kept constant between conditions, eliminating extraneous variables such as gender, age and academic aptitude. Controls such as identical lists, tests, words and environments for the control and the experimental groups, increased the accuracy of the results attained. The independent variable is narrative learning ("chaining") while the dependent variable is memory (word recall).
Ethics:
Being that the subjects were not threatened or deceived, the experiment exhibits ethical responsibility. An explanation of what the experiment entails and the option to opt out was administered to the subjects, as well as efforts made by the researchers to the subjects' privacy and debriefing.
Participants:
In the experimental and control groups, there are four participants with ages ranging form 16-18 years with a mean age or 17. Those groups consist of two males and two females, chosen through opportunity sampling. The subjects were taken from a population consisting primarily of 11th grade ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Ethics:
Being that the subjects were not threatened or deceived, the experiment exhibits ethical responsibility. An explanation of what the experiment entails and the option to opt out was administered to the subjects, as well as efforts made by the researchers to the subjects' privacy and debriefing.
Participants:
In the experimental and control groups, there are four participants with ages ranging form 16-18 years with a mean age or 17. Those groups consist of two males and two females, chosen through opportunity sampling. The subjects were taken from a population consisting primarily of 11th grade students at West Morris Central High School, who were available during 6th period.
Apparatus/Materials:
* Word List*
* Standardized Instructions
* Test Sheet
* Debriefing Notes*
*Description given in appendix.
Procedures:
The eight participants were split into two groups; a control and experimental. Both groups were presented with six identical lists of ten unrelated nouns, with which they had 20 minutes to memorize sequentially. The experimental group was told to memorize the words by using them in a narrative story, while the control group memorized the words using any method.. An example was provided to eliminate any confusion. After 20-minutes of study, the groups rejoined to take the test. The first word of each list was read, and the subjects were asked to recall the other nine words in sequentially. After the test, a debriefing session was provided for the experiment, and the subjects were dismissed. The tests were then scored and results produced.
Results:
Control Group
Mean (x1)
3.8
Median
3.5
Mode
0
Standard Deviation
3.2
In the control group, the mean number of correctly memorized words (x1) was 3.8 out of 9 (x1=3.8). The median was 3.5, the mode was 0 and the standard deviation was 3.2.
Experimental Group
Mean (x2)
7.8
Median
9
Mode
9
Standard Deviation
3.4
In the experimental group, which memorized words through the use of a narrative story, the mean number of correctly memorized words (x2) was 7.8 words out of 9 (x2=7.8) The median and mode of the experimental group were both 9 and the standard deviation was 3.4.
Table 1: Percent Correct on Each List by Group
Control Group
Experimental Group
List 1
69 %
00 %
List 2
39 %
83 %
List 3
42 %
97 %
List 4
44 %
92 %
List 5
44 %
75 %
List 6
4 %
72 %
Total %
42 %
87 %
As illustrated by table and graph 1 is the number of correctly recalled words from each list. The experimental group scored higher than the control group, as is concurrent with the graph. The percent of words recalled correctly by the experimental group (represented in red) is drastically superior to the percent of the control group (represented in blue).
Graph 2 illustrates the total percentage of words correctly recalled by the experimental and control groups. The total percentage is much higher in the experimental group than the control. The control group correctly recalled 42% of the words while the experimental correctly recalled 87%. This shows that 45% more words were recalled with the use of a narrative story than memorization through any other method.
Discussion
This study's hypothesis was that memorizing through using a narrative story improves memory and has been supported by the results of the experiment. The experimental group, which memorized using a narrative story, recalled 87% of the words correctly. Additionally, the experimental group recalled 45% more words than the control group, which had memorized identical words using any memorization technique. Moreover, the results of this replication are consistent with those originally obtained by Bower and Clark. In that experiment, the experimental group recalled 65% more words than the control group. Though the difference between the two groups in the replication was only 45%, it still illustrates a significant difference between the memorization techniques.
Furthermore, the subjects of the experiment performed in the expected manner thereby supporting the hypothesis. The experimental group utilized the narrative story technique to memorize each word list, whereas the control group was permitted to use any memorization technique.. The control group used memorization techniques including acronyms, rhyme keys, and the image-name technique. These techniques which J.R. Hayes (1989) claimed to be equally effective in certain situations, allowed for the participants in the control group to memorize only 42% of the words. However, this experiment refutes such claims as its results illustrate a considerable difference in use of the narrative story in contrast to other memorization techniques. In general the subjects of the study performed as expected, the hypothesis and results of this replication are consistent with those originally produced by Bower and Clark.
Because the study held clear strengths, it yielded results supporting its hypothesis. All directions, tests, and examples were organized, understandable and concise. The experiment's organization caused little confusion for the participants, making the experiment more accurate. There were a total of eight participants ranging from ages 16 to 17, from various academic levels so the study was unbiased towards intellectual status, which could affect memorization capabilities. The study did however hold weaknesses; extraneous variables that were out of the researchers' control. The seriousness of each participant slightly affected the results. Though most of the participants were motivated, several could not control their emotions (i.e. laughter). Also, the inability to control the memorization technique employed by those in the control group was a weakness. These participants were permitted to memorize the words given to them using any memorization technique. One participant of the control group utilized a method quite similar to the narrative story technique. Though this participant did not distort the final results, the control group was not intended to use this technique for memorization. To eliminate the laughing, the researchers could separate the participants completely, creating an area for each subject. If alone, the experiment would benefit from a more distraction free environment. To prevent the control group from utilizing the narrative story technique, the researchers could give precise directions to the control group. The researchers could present the group with a list of techniques to choose from and this way no subjects in the control group would use the narrative story technique.
Even with its weaknesses intact, the experiment was an overall success. In producing results consistent with that of the original study, the hypothesis that the use of a narrative story improves memorization was supported.
Script
Welcome. Thank you for participating in our experiment. First, did everyone here submit his or her consent form?
(if yes, continue)
(if no, the subject that does not have proper consent may not participate any further)
Also, please realize that you have the right to withdraw from this experiment at any time. Thank you for participating.
(Divide into pre-determined groups. The groups are separated during the instruction period. One researcher will take the control group and explain the following:)
You will be provided a worksheet with six lists, containing 10 words each. Using any memorization method you choose, memorize all six groups of words in sequential order; however, the groups of words do not need to be memorized in order. Here's an example: (poster 1)
Poster 1
The first word of each list will be given.
You will be asked to provide the other 9
words of each list in order. Any
questions?
(if no, continue)
(if yes, clarify instructions)
At the same time, another researcher will explain the instructions to the experimental group:
You will be provided a worksheet with six lists, containing 10 words each. Memorize all six groups of words. The words must be memorized in sequential order; however, the groups of words do not need to be memorized in order (poster 1). You must memorize the words using a narrative story. Here is an example to clarify:(poster2)
Poster 2
Are there any questions?
(if no, continue)
(if yes, clarify)
(Bring both groups back together)
Please stay seated and quiet throughout this study period. You will have 20 minutes to memorize the words. (passout words)
(20 minutes later)
Time is up. Please pass forward your word lists. (collect worksheets)We will now pass out the test sheets and pencils. On the test sheet, in red, is the first word of each group. Note: the groups are not in the same order as on the study sheet. Please fill in the next 9 words of each group in order. Any questions?
(10 minutes later)
Time is now up. Please pass forward your test sheet and pencils.
Debriefing Notes:
You have just participated in a replication of Gordon Bower and Michael Clark's 1973 experiment which tested memory. You were divided into two groups -one group was allowed to memorize the lists using any memorization technique while the other had to memorize the list using a narrative story. We will grade your tests, but remember your name and other private information will remain confidential at all times. However, if you wish to see your results, feel free to contact one of us.
Thank you for participating in our experiment. You man now leave and return to class.
WORD LIST TEST
Group 4
._________________
2._________________
3._________________
4._________________
5._________________
6._________________
7._________________
8._________________
9._________________
0.________________
Group 1
._________________
2._________________
3._________________
4._________________
5._________________
6._________________
7._________________
8._________________
9._________________
0.________________
Group 6
._________________
2._________________
3._________________
4._________________
5._________________
6._________________
7._________________
8._________________
9._________________
0.________________
Raw Data
Table 1: Percent Correct for Each Group
Control Group
Experimental Group
List 1
69%
00%
List 2
39%
83%
List 3
42%
97%
List 4
44%
92%
List 5
44%
75%
List 6
4%
72%
Total Percent Correct
Fraction of Correct
Percent Correct
Control Group
91/216
42%
Experimental Group
87/216
87%
Control Group - Individual Subjects (# correct)
Subject A
Subject B
Subject C
Subject D
Total
Percent
List 1
9
9
5
2
25/36
69%
List 2
6
4
4
0
4/36
39%
List 3
6
3
6
0
5/36
42%
List 4
0
9
7
0
6/36
44%
List 5
7
8
0
6/36
44%
List 6
2
2
0
5/36
4%
Experimental Group - Individual Subjects (# correct)
Subject E
Subject F
Subject G
Subject H
Total
Percent
List 1
9
9
9
9
36/36
00%
List 2
5
9
7
9
30/36
83%
List 3
9
9
8
9
35/36
97%
List 4
9
9
6
9
33/36
92%
List 5
9
9
3
6
27/36
75%
List 6
9
5
4
8
26/36
72%
Experimental Group
Control Group
Mean
7.79
3.80
Median
9
3.5
Mode
9
0
Experimental Group: Standard Deviation
X
X
(x-x)
(x-x)²
3
7.79
-4.79
22.94
4
7.79
-3.79
4.36
5
7.79
-2.79
7.78
5
7.79
-2.79
7.78
6
7.79
-1.79
3.20
6
7.79
-1.79
3.20
7
7.79
-0.79
0.62
8
7.79
0.21
0.04
8
7.79
0.21
0.04
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
9
7.79
.21
.46
Standard Deviation = = 81.86 = 3.41
24
Control Group: Standard Deviation
X
X
(x-x)
(x-x)²
0
3.8
-3.8
4.44
0
3.8
-3.8
4.44
0
3.8
-3.8
4.44
0
3.8
-3.8
4.44
0
3.8
-3.8
4.44
0
3.8
-3.8
4.44
3.8
-2.8
7.84
3.8
-2.8
7.84
2
3.8
-1.8
3.24
2
3.8
-1.8
3.24
2
3.8
-1.8
3.24
3
3.8
-0.8
0.64
4
3.8
0.2
0.04
4
3.8
0.2
0.04
5
3.8
.2
.44
6
3.8
2.2
4.84
6
3.8
2.2
4.84
6
3.8
2.2
4.84
7
3.8
3.2
0.24
7
3.8
3.2
0.24
8
3.8
4.2
7.64
9
3.8
5.2
27.04
9
3.8
5.2
27.04
9
3.8
5.2
27.04
Standard Deviation = = 246.96 = 3.2
24
Before participating in the following experiment please read the following and provide your consent:
I, ____________________________, give my consent to participate in an IB/AP Psychology experiment testing memory conducted by Tim Flynn, Beth Greaney and Christina Germinario. I recognize that the results of this study may be published but confidentiality will be in effect at all times. I have the ability to withdraw from the experiment at any point, thereby nullifying the results.
Student Signature: ______________________________
Date: _____________________
If you are under 18 years old have a parent or legal guardian read the following and provide his or her consent:
I give my consent for my son/daughter, _______________________________, to participate in an IB/AP Psychology experiment testing memory conducted by Tim Flynn, Beth Greaney and Christina Germinario. I recognize that the results of this study may be published but confidentiality will be in effect at all times. My son/daughter has the ability to withdraw from the experiment at any point, thereby nullifying the results.
REFERENCES:
Bower, Gordon. "How to...uh...Remember." Readings in Psychology Today.
Guilford: Dushkin Publishing, 1973.
Czerwinski, Mary, Maarten van Dzntzich, George Robertson, and Hunter
Hoffman. "The Contribution of Thumbnail Image, Mouse-over Text and Spatial Location Memory to Web Page Retrieval in 3D." 1999.
<http://research.microsoft.com/users/marycz/interact99.pdf). (November 1, 2003).
Hayes, John R. The Complete Problem Solver. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Assoc, 1989.