Variables
The independent variable is whether or not the list of SAT vocabulary word definitions included examples on how the words can be used in a sentence. The dependant variable, on the other hand, is the number of words recalled correctly.
Participants
The participants were a class of 30 students from an International School in Hong Kong, age ranging from 16 to 18. Genders, cultures and ethnicity were all mixed. They were sampled using opportunity sampling; the people who were present and available in the class were asked to participate. This sampling method is chosen because it is the most time-efficient method, it would not be necessary to go around the whole school looking for people to participate.
Apparatus
- A stop watch to time the participants
-
30 lists of SAT vocabulary word definitions for the class, 15 of them containing examples of word usage (refer to appendix 2), while the other 15 don’t (refer to appendix 3).
-
30 sheets of word definitions with the words missing and the participants will be asked to fill them in. The order of words will be scrambled. (refer to appendix 4)
- Pencils and Erasers to write
Procedure
The experiment took place in an ordinary classroom in an international school in Hong Kong. They were asked to get into pairs, then numbering each other 1 or 2. The 1’s were taken to one side of them room, and the 2’s were taken to the other side. They were asked to sit down with a considerable amount of space between each participant. The experimenter introduced himself (see appendix 1 for standardized instructions), and handed out 15 lists of word definitions without examples of word usage to group 1, and 15 lists of word definitions with examples to group 2. All the word lists were handed out facing down, the participants were asked not to read them until told to and not to talk. Then they were told that they had 5 minutes to read the list and memorize as many words as they could because they would be tested on them. The stop watch would start and they were then asked to flip over the list and start reading. After 5 minutes, the experimenter announced that the time was up and collected in the lists of words. The participants were then handed the sheets with the order of word definitions scrambled and the words left blank (see appendix 4.) They were then told to fill out the question sheet in 5 minutes. The stopwatch started again and they were notified to start writing. After 5 minutes, the experimenter announced the end of the experiment and collected in the sheets. The participants were debriefed on the aims and rationale of the experiment.
Controls
All the extraneous variables were kept constant. The participants did not start until notified and were told to stop when the time was up so the time was constant. They were all given the same instructions and the same words, the only difference being that some word definitions contained examples while some did not. Also, all the subjects filled out the same question sheet. The individual differences were minimized as the subjects were randomly allocated to two different conditions. Furthermore, to prevent the subjects from cheating and exchanging answers, their seating was spaced out.
Moreover, to keep the experiment ethical, permission was asked from the headmaster of the school before conducting the experiment. Before the experiment commenced, the participants were told that they are free withdraw from the experiment if they feel uncomfortable (see appendix 1). The results of individual participants were kept private as they were not asked to write their names. Lastly, the participants were debriefed after the experiment so they knew exactly what the experiment was for.
3. Results
Summary Table
The number of words recalled correctly was recorded.
The table clearly shows that participants recall better when they read word definitions with examples than when they only read the word definitions without the examples. Participants who read the word definitions with examples recalled an average of 4.2 words correctly, most of them recalled 5 words correctly and they recalled a median of 4 words, whereas those who read definitions without the examples only recalled an average of 3 words, majority of them only recalled 2 words correctly, and they achieved a median of 3 words.
Graphical Results
The bar chart shows more clearly that more words are recalled correctly when word definitions include examples. The average words recalled when examples were given is slightly above 4 while the average words recalled when there weren’t any examples is only 3.
Relationship of results to hypothesis
The results showed that on average the participants who read the word lists with examples recalled 1.2 more words correctly than those who read the lists without examples. This supported the experimental hypothesis (H1) and hence rejected the null hypothesis (H0) as more words are correctly recalled when the list of word definitions include examples than when the list of word definitions don’t, because the semantic processing is deeper and hence the words adhere better in the participants’ minds leading to better recall of the words.
4. Discussion
Validity
Firstly, this research has high ecological validity, as taking a vocabulary test is something very usual for students in English classes. Secondly, the construct validity was high as well since the experimental method was used in this research, so all the extraneous variables were kept constant and only the independent variable changed, which ensures that the dependent variable, the number of words recalled correctly, was only influenced by the independent variable, whether an example of the word usage was included in the word list. This shows that what this research had initially set out to measure – the number of words recalled correctly affected by word usage demonstrations – was indeed measured. Furthermore, the words used were not common words that people know so they had to learn them during the experiment, which means it has content validity as it is measuring what people recalled from the list, not from previous knowledge of the words. Moreover, the results of the study positively correlated to the Craik’s study (stated in background research) which means it has concurrent validity. However, demand characteristic might have been at work for certain participants who could not be bothered so they intentionally did badly, making the experiment less valid.
Improving Validity
Although the experiment was generally valid, to improve validity, all the extraneous variables should be considered and kept constant. There might have been variables that were not considered and affected the results. Also, to eliminate the demand characteristic stated above, results that show abnormal results such all words were recalled correctly or no words were recalled correctly should not be recorded as they might be people cheating or people who did not bother. However, this may eliminate legitimate results as well.
Reliability
The results obtained are generally reliable, and if the study was to be replicated it would probably show the same results. The instructions and the procedures were all standardized so the results were reliable. However, there are still some downsides to the methods used, particularly the sampling method. Opportunity sampling was used so the target population was not accurately sampled. There were also problems with the experimental design as well; independent measure was used so the participants were randomly put into 2 different situations. Some people might have had good vocabulary to start with so their scores were higher.
Improving Reliability
To improve the reliability of this study, the size of the samples need to be increased so the population could be represented better as there are more data; the samples also need to be stratified, so the samples are taken from the percentages that each year has out of the whole school population. This will provide a wider range of people, so the results can generalize better. Furthermore, matched design should be used, so the participants will be asked to take a small vocabulary test at the beginning to see their ability, and then they will be put into pairs according to the scores. The pairs will then be split up into 2 groups the same way it was done in this study. This will eliminate the individual differences and how one situation might have smarter subjects while the other situation has less bright subjects, so the results can be more reliable.
Implications
The results showed that people who read the word list with examples remember the words better. This correlates to Craik’s study - since word usage demonstrations are semantically processed, they improved the ability of recall. Also, according to Craik’s theory, significant events improve recalls. Although the word definitions were semantically processed as well, they did not give a huge impression, which meant that they were not processed enough to improve recall. The examples helped the participants understand the words better, and hence semantic processing was stronger leading to better recall.
Generalization
The results obtained can only generalize to the students between the age of 16 and 18 who study in an international school, because that is the population sampled. It cannot generalize to the people outside this specific population because no other category of population has been sampled and the results may vary if the same study was done on other people.
Application
The results of this research can help many schools and test preparation centers (for example, SAT preparation courses) to improve their teaching system so their students learn vocabulary more efficiently. The results showed that, to learn words, the students should not only be provided with word and their definitions, they also need to be shown how the words are used so they can get a better understanding and hence remember them better. The school can make use of that to improve the student’s vocabulary.
5. References and Appendices
References
-
Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S, 1972, Levels of processing. A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671-684.
-
Craik, F.I.M., & Tulving, E., 1975, Depth of processing and retention of words in epiusodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-94
-
Jarvis, M., Russell, J., Flanagan, C., Dolan, L., 2000, Angles on Psychology, 2nd Edition, Cheltenham, Nelson Thorne
- Craik and Lockhart (1972) The levels of processing approach, 76-78
Appendix 1. Standardized Instructions
Hello, my name is Albert Chen. For the next 20 minutes you will participate in a short experiment on memory. If you feel uncomfortable at any stage of the experiment, you are free to withdraw. Now, can I please have your consent to do this experiment?
Thank you, now please get into pairs and number yourselves 1 and 2.
Okay, now the 1’s please sit over here, and the 2’s please sit over there. You will now be given a list of words with their definitions. You will have 5 minutes to read and memorize the words’ meanings as you will be tested on them afterwards. Don’t turn over the sheets until I have told you to.
Okay now read. (5 minutes passes) Okay now time is up please pass the sheets on to me. You will now be given a question sheet each with definitions on them, the words are left blank and you will have to fill them out. You will have 5 minutes. Do not start until I have told you to.
Okay start. (5 minutes passes) Okay now time is up please pass your sheets on to me.
Thank you for your co-operation today class. This experiment was to test whether deeper processing improves recall ability. Half of you were given word definitions with examples while the other half were only given the words and their definitions. The experiment is to find out whether the examples would help you to understand and hence recall words better. Any questions?
Thank you again for participating, have a nice day.
Appendix 2. Word List w/ Examples
1. Copious – plentiful (i.e. I was hungry, so I ate copious amounts of food.)
2. Amorphous – lacking form or shape (i.e. liquid and gases are amorphous)
3. Immaculate – totally clean (i.e. My answer sheet was immaculate due to the difficult exam: I couldn’t answer any questions.)
4. Autonomous – independent (i.e. Although Hong Kong is called an Autonomous Region, the Chinese government still has a lot of control over it.)
5. Strident – Loud (i.e. Some composers develop varying musical textures by combing melodious flutes with more strident cymbals and electronic effects.)
6. Exonerate – to free from blame (i.e. After the police officers who beat up Rodney King were exonerated, there were riots in Los Angeles.)
7. Recalcitrant – Disobedient (i.e. The “Three Strikes” law is an attempt to keep recalcitrant criminals behind bars permanently.)
8. Pragmatic – Practical (i.e. My idealistic side tells me I should try to solve all of the world’s problems, but my pragmatic side knows I can’t.)
9. Erudite – Highly educated (i.e. The audience was impressed by the erudite display of knowledge by the Jeopardy grand champion.)
10. Petulant – Short-tempered. (i.e. After one hour of complaining, the petulant customer was asked to leave the pet store.)
Appendix 3. Word List w/o Examples
1. Copious – plentiful
2. Amorphous – lacking form or shape
3. Immaculate – totally clean
4. Autonomous – independent
5. Strident – Loud
6. Exonerate – to free from blame
7. Recalcitrant – Disobedient
8. Pragmatic – Practical
9. Erudite – Highly educated
10. Petulant – Short-tempered.
Appendix 4. Blank Question Sheet
Questions
1. Lacking form or shape - _____________________
2. Highly educated - ____________________
3. Independent - ___________________
4. Loud - _______________________
5. Plentiful - ______________________
6. To free from blame - ___________________
7. Totally clean - ____________________
8. Short-tempered - _____________________
9. Practical - ____________________
10. Disobedient- ______________________
Questions
1. Lacking form or shape - _____________________
2. Highly educated - ____________________
3. Independent - ___________________
4. Loud - _______________________
5. Plentiful - ______________________
6. To free from blame - ___________________
7. Totally clean - ____________________
8. Short-tempered - _____________________
9. Practical - ____________________
10. Disobedient- ______________________
Appendix 6. Complete Results Table