Results:
A table of results showing what each individual scored:
Graph displaying the results obtained can be seen overleaf and shows:
Analysis:
The experiment was well structured. My findings were correct to those studied by Baddeley, the longer individuals saw the words the more they remembered. Writing the words down after a quick glance was rather difficult, both individuals scored lower marks, in which ten year old M had scored higher. This proved that the brain could not store all the words after a quick glance.
After one minute of looking at the words, individuals scored higher because the brain had more time to absorb these words and take them into the long term memory. There was time to make a long sentence with all the words. M got eight correct and I had seven.
When individuals took a five minute break, my results stayed the same, I had only remembered the words that I knew after one minute and the same after the five minute break. However M’s results showed differently, he knew two extra words. This was an odd result, I would have thought both participants would forget some words, however I saw the adverse. I recalled the words from the one minute experiment, this seems reasonable, however, Muhammad wrote two extra, this is very peculiar, he could have possibly remembered some words from the first and second observation. Alternatively, in an unlikely event, he may have cheated by looking at the words after we both left the room, however this is very unlikely as he was with me in the lounge.
Gender and age may have interfered with this investigation, boys are quicker at remembering things than girls. Younger children tend to have the ability to memorise things quickly. Also, I used flash cards, these are used more for younger children, hence these cards could have made learning easier for M, however as cards are not for a person of my age, their use did not affect me.
M is generally a bright boy, he is memorising the Quran, hence he is used to the idea of learning words with no particular difficulty. However I am not as advanced as M in memorising and taking things into my memory. Looking at the table and graph of results, M’s memory seems to be better than mine.
Or, this could be a result of cue dependant forgetting, M may have forgotten because of the lack of accessibility. The information is in the memory, however it cannot be accessed without a cue.
The investigation was carried out as fair as possible, from the pack of cards, I selected the first ten, neither did I look at them, I laid them out on the floor and covered them with a cloth that was not transparent. Hence both participants had no idea of the words. However if I had used a child who has never learnt masses of words and chapters in their life, it could have been a more fair test. Relationship didn’t affect the investigation, M was eager to ‘win’, and I understood it was an investigation I had to be fair with.
If I was to repeat the investigation, I would use a child who has not memorised things before, hence we would both be at the same level. I would select a girl, two females could do the memory game. In future, I could use acoustic and semantic words, and use more words, such as twenty. This way, my results would have been clearer to understand.
Conclusion:
I consequently conclude, individuals remembered words better after a longer observation. As according to Baddeley’s theory people remember things better if there are syllables or if there are acoustic or semantic patterns, however I did not use these patterns. Also, those who are used to the idea of memorising, are likely to remember better, the mind can absorb the information quicker. Muhammad is ten years younger than me, his memory is better than mine. The test was structured as fairly as possible.
