The goal of this test was to investigate the impact of degrees of processing (Self-employed Variable) on our memory space (Dependent Varying). We hypothesized to find a deeper degree of processing lead to a much better memory and subsequently, greater recall. The experiment controlled parameters such as environmental conditions, age group of the mark people and educational record of the participants. The test uses the Separate Measures design and the individuals are a convenience sample of teenagers. We reduced Practice Result and Fatigue Impact by using the Single-Blind Approach. The results turned out the hypothesis: Semantic encoding lead to greater retention and a deeper trace of memory space whereas Structural encoding business lead to a shallow handling of storage area. These results are replicated in Craik and Lockhart's (1972), Levels of Control model. The researches done by Hyde and Jenkins (1973) and Craik and Tulving (1975) also show the same results: deeper degrees of processing lead to raised recall. The Mann-Whitney U test also made a definite distinction in the number of words recalled credited to deep and shallow processing. The study also raised some restrictions such as generalizations, rehearsal, ecological validity among others. In totality, the test effectively manipulated variables and reproduced exact results.
Research Question: From what extent do levels of processing influence memory of words?
Learning occurs through various processes. The Degrees of Processing are used to clarify why we have a deeper trace of some things and a shallow track of others.
The research by Craik and Lockhart (1972) on levels of processing functions as a backbone for cognitive mindset. In contradiction to the Multi-Store Model by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) that divides storage into different stores (STM and LTM), the levels of handling model by Craik and Lockhart shows that storage occurs through different functions.
Shallow Handling is split into Structural (visually attractive words) and Phonological (sound words) encoding whereas, Deep Handling is based on Semantic (meaning of words) encoding. They demonstrated through their research that "trace persistence is a positive function of the depth to which stimulus has been examined" which means, Elaborative Rehearsal (examining what) lasts much longer than Distinctiveness (distinguishing between words).
Another research by Craik and Tulving (1975) is similar and moreover validates the ex - research. They conducted an test where the participants were divided into 3 organizations. Each participant was presented with a set of 60 words through one of the three responsibilities, which tested the three degrees of processing. The memory space recognition test figured what semantically processed possessed a larger recall than the rest.
Hyde and Jenkins (1973) also completed an experiment using the incidental learning (casual learning) strategy. They divided their members into different groups and conducted one of five tasks on each. Following the delight recall test, they concluded that those duties, which involved semantic processing, got a better recall and subsequently deeper control.
Elias and Perfetti (1973) performed a study using the same approach. It involved a rhyming activity for a list of words along with finding synonyms for the same. Participants in the synonym activity could actually recall more words than the rest, sketching the same summary as above.
Hence, I thought we would investigate the partnership between levels of control and the recall of words by performing two asks: One in which the first band of participants need to identify the term color and the other in which the second group must make phrases with the given words.
Null Hypothesis: There will be no impact of the degrees of control on memorizing words.
Non-directional Hypothesis: There will be a big change in the recall of words semantically refined to people structurally prepared.
Directional Hypothesis: The number of words structurally refined will be leave a deeper track than those semantically processed.
The participants were given a Consent Form and weren't forced to be a part of the investigation. They were given clear instructions at the beginning of the duty and debriefed at the end.
Deep and Shallow Levels of Processing
Number of words recalled
Age of the student
Educational degree of the student
Number of words
We reduced Demand Characteristics utilizing the Single Blind strategy as we conducted a wonder recall test at the end of the task before which the participants were not allowed to interact with each other. It had been also stated in the consent form that their identity will remain concealed. Hence, this reduced the Exhaustion Result and Practice Impact.
We also used Indie Measures inside our design as each participant was part of either group and were permitted to perform each one of the jobs involving profound or shallow degrees of handling. Therefore, this increased Exterior Validity.
The Mann-Whitney U Test was conducted as it is a non-parametric test and the sample participating in the research does not go over thirty, hence it proven as the right calculation test representing statistical data for our test.
We used Non-Probability Sampling under which we used Accidental Sampling or Convenience Sampling keeping this group constant. It was also the most convenient for an test to be completed in a school setting.
We conducted the experiment on 20 individuals altogether, and we divided them into two groups of 10 participants. In factor of gender, the individuals were randomly merged and each group contains an uneven quantity of males and females.
The target inhabitants included 16-year-old children having an identical educational level and an integral part of IB 12 months-1. As a control, the members in Group 1 (Deep LOP) completed the task together at the same time and individuals in Group 2 (Shallow LOP) does the same. This reduced the chances of interaction between individuals.
Appendix A- Consent Form
Appendix B- Parents Consent Form
Appendix C- Standardized Instructions
Appendix D- Phrase lists and attached Task sheets
Appendix F- Debriefing Letter
Blank bed linens of paper
A classroom setting was necessary to conduct the test.
The method was equivalent for both categories, Group 1 (Deep LOP) travelled first and then followed by Group 2 (Shallow LOP)
The participants weren't allowed to work together at any point in this experiment.
Each group was taken to a comfortable class room with sufficient chairs and tables for 10 members.
They were then handed the Consent Form (Appendix A) and Parent's Consent Form (Appendix B) for those above age 16.
Thereafter, the Standardized Instructions (Appendix C) for each group respectively, was passed out. The participants were permitted to withdraw at this time. For those who didn't clearly understand, the instructions were discussed individually.
They were then given the Word lists and Task mattress sheets (Appendix D) but weren't allowed to start until advised.
Group A (Deep LOP)
Make sentences with the given words.
Group B (Shallow LOP)
2. 5 minutes
Identify the color of the words of each word and write how many were blue, green and red in the given blanks.
The time limit was maintained utilizing a stopwatch and following the time was up, the members were asked to keep their pens down while we started out collecting the answer sheets. If the participant completed early on, all of those other time was used to revise and recheck their answers.
Then after, we announced the delight recall ensure that you a bare sheet of paper was given out to each participant.
They were given 1 minute to complete their recall ensure that you the time was kept by using a stopwatch.
The answer bed linens were collected after the completion of the task plus they were asked to keep up silence until they left.
The Debriefing letter (Appendix F) was then handed out. After it was read, we accumulated it and the individuals of the group were asked to stay seated until we obtained the nest group into another class.
Group A (Deep LOP)
Group B (Shallow LOP)
3, 4 (Bimodal)
The goal of the test was; to what extent do degrees of processing impact our recollection of words. This was turned out by the results of your research as the individuals who made a meaningful sentence with the words got a deeper level of processing in comparison to those who only skimmed through what by identifying the colour of the characters.
This analysis reproduced the same results as that of Craik and Lockhart (1972). The variables were the same for all your researches talked about in the Advantages (Pg. 4). The experiment conducted by Craik and Tulving (1975) strengthened that the depth of control raises as you go further from Structural processing to Phonological and the deepest at Semantic processing. Our research analyzed only two of these conditions, the Structural encoding was the task where in fact the colors of the letters were required to be identified which proved to be a Shallow level of processing. The second activity required the members to make phrases with the same expression list, with this the words were processed deeper in the mind. The cognitive function of memory is affected by many conditions such as these. The study by Hyde and Jenkins (1973) also turned out the same hypothesis with 3 added duties in comparison to our experiment. In addition they concluded that more words were recalled as a result of Semantic handling.
The statistical results also turned out the same; the mean, median and function for Group A was a greater number in comparison to Group B displaying a greater number of words recalled credited to deeper processing. Regarding to Craik and Lockhart, 'storage area is a by-product of perception' in case words inside our brain are recognized deeper, our storage is stronger in the long run. The results also replicated that of Craig and Tulving's experiment as they proven the same by using their examination. Hyde and Jenkins conducted a wider, in depth evaluation reproducing that the recall is directly proportional to the depth of handling. We also integrated incidental learning inside our test; by making use of a surprise recall ensure that you Convenience Sampling.
By using the same classroom setting in both cases, we made sure that the members aren't only comfortable but also in an appropriate condition to answer the task. With this the environmental conditions were governed. Age our target society was the same, and everything the kids were from the same quality. This kept this and educational record of the individuals constant. The impartial measures design ensured the reduction of the Practice Impact and Fatigue Result. The Single-blind approach also guaranteed that Demand Characteristics were averted.
Our participants received a Consent form (Appendix A) prior to the exploration and were thanked and debriefed at the end (Appendix F). These were allowed to withdraw at any point through the experiment had been conducted. Their anonymity was safeguarded even directly after we released the results, which they chose to view or obtain. The experimenters were also mindful not to disrupt the members in any way, which would impede their conclusion of the test and subsequently the results.
A laboratory test like this one questioned ecological validity as the factors could have had a direct effect on the reactions in individuals. We also avoided taking the task sheet before the whole group completed the test which may have resulted in rehearsal, influencing our analysis to an extent. The direct assessment of the results between the two groups might have also created some uncertainties as the participants were different and their social and social qualifications would have impacted. As we have studied, social and interpersonal factors influence our storage area and one will keep in mind things they can relate with. Some words may have evoked this leading to inaccuracies.
It can be quite difficult to make generalizations by using Opportunity Sampling, as it may well not have met the precise requirements for the mark people. Random Sampling could have been a much better options but it is more broadly distributed and therefore frustrating.
There was a discord between cement and abstract words affecting the recall of the participant. As suggested by Walker, I. , & Hulme, C. (1999), concrete words (objects/events that avail to your senses) are recalled more than abstract words (an idea/notion). In order to avoid this, the term list may have included each one of those units. Another review by Weldon, M. S. , & Bellinger, K. D. (1997) figured words learnt collaboratively are going out of a deeper trace in the storage area compared to individual processes in remembering. This contradicts our research as the task was given to 1 participant, separately. In order to avoid this, the test might have been completed collectively, to be able to compare the results.
The difficulty of words was maintained to the very least but this cannot be judged, as a participant may have been acquainted with some rather than with the others. In order to avoid this, we're able to have consulted the word list to a control group and an British teacher.
In bottom line, this experiment effectively manipulated parameters and obtained appropriate results to confirm the hypothesis. The deeper degree of control (Semantic encoding) leaves a deeper track of memory, leading to a better recall. These results support the Degrees of Handling theory by Craik and Lockhart (1972).
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay