An experiment to investigate whether chunking leads to better recall.
Extracts from this essay...
An experiment to investigate whether chunking leads to better recall. ? Introduction Background research This research is all based on cognitive psychology. The cognitive area of psychology focuses primarily with thinking and mental processes. There are two key assumptions in the cognitive approach. Firstly the Information processing assumption: this assumption comes from the belief that information flows from an external stimuli and results in a response. The second key assumption is the computer analogy assumption. This assumption has obvious links with the previous one. We learn from experience, but also have innate knowledge (hardwired). This research is all on the topic of or relates to the human memory and forgetting. There are already many theories about how memory works. One of the favored theories on how memory functions, is the levels of processing approach. This approach was put forward by Craik and Lockhart in 1972. They argued that it is useful to think about memory as a byproduct of information processing. They believe whether someone remembers something depends on how it is processed. Most of the events in our day to day lives are so trivial that nothing is thought of them, so they are quickly forgotten. Big events or experiences are often remembered better because of the amount of consideration we put into processing the information. shallow processing produces only small memory traces, while deep mental processes create far more elaborate and longer lasting memory traces. Craik and Lockhart suggested that there are three levels of processing: Structural-what something looks like? Phonetic-what something sounds like? Semantic-what something means? The deepest level of processing is semantic because semantic analysis results in deeper processing. Structural is the shallowest level of processing because structural analysis results in shallower processing. This approach was originally favoured for its move away from hypothetical rigid mental structures to more realistic mental processing. Support for this approach come from Craik and Tulvings study in 1975.
The mean number for the related list is considerably higher than the mean number for unrelated data. This means that on average more related words were remembered. The fact that the mean, mode and median are very similar or the same as the each other suggests that in this case all of these measures are representative of the data collected. The variation ratio is higher for the unrelated data then for the related data. Also it is tri-modal. This suggest that the mode for the related data is more representative of the data that that of the unrelated. The range for both conditions was the same and quite large. This suggests that the median is not very representative. The interquartile range is also very useful, as extreme scores at either end of the data do not affect it. In this case it shows that the data is fairly closely grouped which suggests that it is representative. However when extreme scores are allowed, the median is representative. The range for both conditions was the same. Additional graphic representation of results (Related Unrelated) Description statistical commentary This graph clearly shows that there is a dip in the frequency of recall of words in the middle of the words lists. The dips in the middle of these graphs are probably the result of the serial positioning affect where information is remembered from the beginning and the end but less in the middle due to primacy, recency. The dip in the related list is less distinct then that of the unrelated list, this is probably due to chunking. This was predicted in the hypothesis. This could be due to overall word recall in related list is more accurate. Also when a participant is recalling related words one word may cue another for example: The 'word' boxers may cause the participant to remember the word 'briefs'. This could also have been a factor in this.
11 7 12 15 12 14 13 12 13 6 14 14 14 9 15 13 15 12 16 13 16 6 17 12 17 7 18 9 18 7 19 17 19 11 20 13 20 8 Related word Times Recalled Unrelated word Times Recalled Fleece 15 Carrot 14 Gloves 10 Locker 12 Cardigan 11 Microphone 10 Thong 17 Aero plane 9 Bra 12 Bush 12 Trainers 10 Steel 5 Knickers 11 Hair 4 Trousers 15 Elbow 6 Jacket 11 Poster 6 Hat 12 Siren 5 Shoes 18 Dog 7 Jeans 9 Cooker 8 Scarf 12 Curtain 5 Jumper 13 Rain 9 Briefs 14 Light 2 Boxers 9 Bag 4 Coat 13 Bike 12 Shirt 14 Bat 11 Socks 17 Chimney 12 Stockings 14 Telephone 13 The Mann - Whitney U test U=NA NB + NA(NA + 1) - RA 2 U= 20*20 + 20(20+1)/2=610 610-255.5= 354.5 U=354.5 U- = NA NB - U 20*20-354.5= 45.5 U-=45.5 Na= 20 Nb= 20 U=354.5 U-= 45.5 Calculating the mean Related 15 10 11 17 12 10 11 15 11 12 18 9 12 13 14 9 13 14 17 14 =257 257/12= 12.85 Unrelated 14 12 10 9 12 5 4 6 6 5 7 8 5 9 2 4 12 11 12 13 =166 160/20= 8 Calculating the variation ration Related: 100/20*8=40% Unrelated:100/20*12=60% References Atkinson, R.C. and Shiffron, R.M. (1968) Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K.W. and Spence, J.T. (eds) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 2. London: academic press. Craik, F.I.M. And Lockhart,R.S. (1972) Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and Verbal behaviour. Craik, F.I.M. and Tulving, E. (1975) Depth of processing and retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of experimental psychology. Miller, G.A. 91956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97 Tulving,E. and Pearlstone, Z. (1966) Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words.
Found what you're looking for?
- Start learning 29% faster today
- Over 150,000 essays available
- Just £6.99 a month
- Over 180,000 student essays
- Every subject and level covered
- Thousands of essays marked by teachers