Verbal Learning Research Paper Essay Research Paper
Verbal Learning Research Paper Essay, Research Paper
Verbal Learning Research Paper Essay Research Paper Essay Example
Verbal Learning 1
Runing caput: Comparison of High and Low Similarity Verbal
Comparison of High and Low Similarity Verbal Learning
Retention in College Students
Jenny A. Rosario
Hunter College in
City University of New York
Verbal Learning 2
The participants were 1 white male and 1 black female ages 21 and 26, severally. The male participant, who was tested with the High Similarity ( HS ) status, knew four linguistic communications ( Russian, Polish, Gallic and English ) . The female participant, tested with the Low Similarity ( LS ) status, knew two linguistic communications ( English and Gallic ) . Although both participants were college pupils, they varied in the figure of old ages they had been in school, the male was an undergraduate junior and the female was working on her 2nd unmarried mans. Both participants were honor pupils.
The concluding consequences for this experiment were all of the informations pooled from the pupils in my experimental category. Each pupil contributed two extra participants to the experiment. These participants were 13 males and 13 females runing in ages from 15 to 44 old ages olds ( M = 25 ) . Education ranged from 12 old ages to 23 old ages of school ( M = 15.2 ) . One-half of these participants were given the HS undertaking and the other half were given the LS undertaking. As it turns out, the group given the HS undertaking were older ( M =27 ) and more educated ( M =16.28 ) than the group that was given the LS undertaking ( M =23 old ages old and M =14.14 old ages of instruction ) .
Before the experiment, I prepared 11stimuli cards with one of the undermentioned bunk syllable in each: FAP, ZET, KIB, XEL, ROF, GEV, LOZ, BEX, NAJ, WEM and PIV in that order. I prepared a 2nd set of 11 cards I would subsequently utilize merely with the
Verbal Learning 3
participant making the HS status. These were paired words where on one side I wrote the brace of words and on the other side I merely wrote the first stimulation word. The words were paired in the undermentioned mode: DOG-GAK, TAN-XOM, CAR-VUR, BAT-SEJ, WAR-DEH, BUN-KAL, NET-TEG, HOG-XEN, FIN-YEC, GUN-LOF, and PAD-BIW. All syllable words were manus printed on 3 & # 215 ; 5in index cards, 22 cards in all were used. I besides prepared, on regular lined paper, instructions and topographic points where each participant could compose down any necessary replies, or usage as scrap paper for the LS status. Aside from that, the merely other point used was a ticker with a 2nd manus to maintain path of clip.
To get down the experiment, I met with each participant ( at separate times ) in a quiet room where the participant could sit comfortably and concentrate for the experiment. Before we began, I asked each topic to subscribe an informed consent. Both topics agreed to the conditions and signed the signifier. I so sat across from the participant at a tabular array ( about 3ft off ) , asked the topic if they were ready, and began demoing them the first list of words. In my HS and LS status, I displayed each card for 4 sec one time and asked the participant to expect what the following card would be before I presented it. I manually recorded each of the responses the participant gave me. I continued to reiterate the list until the participant successfully predicted the list one time.
To my HS participant, I proceeded to demo the 2nd list with the mated word-nonsense word. After showing the list one time, I turned the cards over, showed the participant the stimulation word and asked the participant to state me what the mated word was. In this portion
Verbal Learning 4
of the experiment, nevertheless, there was a 15min clip bound, irrespective of whether the participant could memorise the list. Once the 15mins were up, I gave my participant a sheet and asked him to name all the words that he could retrieve from the original list. As it happened, my participant was able to correctly remember all 11 words, had he been unsuccessful, I would hold had to re-teach him the list and enter how many tests it took him to relearn it.
To my LS participant, I asked her to name all premier figure from 1-100. Because she finished this exercising before the 15min were up, I had her do assorted add-on and division jobs utilizing the premier Numberss. When the clip was up, I handed her a piece of paper and asked her to compose down every bit many words as she could remember from the list she had memorized. Once that was done, and because she successfully recalled all 11 words, I thanked her and informed her that the experiment was over.
The consequences that follow are based on the informat
ion gathered from the whole category. An alpha degree of.05 was used for all statistical trials. With that in head, I found there was no important difference in the figure of tests it took for the HS ( M=9.71, SD=4.2 ) and LS ( M=10.43, SD=3.75 ) groups to larn the words, T ( 26 ) = -0.456, P = 0.651, two-tail. Besides, there wasn’t any important difference in the figure of points recalled after the distraction period for the HS ( M= 9.36, SD=1.67 ) and LS ( M= 9.71, SD=1.28 ) ; T ( 26 ) = -0.61, P = 0.546, two-tailed. In add-on, there besides was no important difference between the HS ( M=2.21, SD=1.03 ) and LS ( M=1.93, SD=1.61 ) in the figure of tests it took for them to
Verbal Learning 5
re-learn the original list: T ( 26 ) = 0.538, P = 0.595, two-tailed. However, there was a important difference in instruction where T = 2.325, P = 0.028, but there was no important difference for age, T ( 26 ) = 1.858, P = 0.075. Both my participants showed no important difference in nest eggs ( both at 100 % nest eggs ) . For the whole group, although the LS ( M=78.26 ) had a higher nest eggs than HS ( M=69.92 ) , there was no significance at that place either with T ( 26 ) = -1.002, P = 0.326.
Although old informations suggest that important difference should hold been found between both groups ( Walker, 1996 ) , I was unable to demo that in this experiment. In fact the lone topographic point where I did happen important difference was in seeing if my groups matched to get down with. Unfortunately that information did non assist. I found that although participants of the HS were more educated so the LS group, they did non performed better at the undertaking in acquisition, callback or relearning.
In the country of nest eggs, I did happen that the LS group had a somewhat higher economy, nevertheless, non plenty for significance and neither were there any difference in age for the two groups. Interestingly, both my participants commented now how they each had awful memories, yet both showed 100 % nest eggs in the callback undertaking.
I decided to split the participants harmonizing to types of occupations, as seen in figure 5 and found that a greater figure of participants with & # 8216 ; trade type & # 8217 ; occupations were in the LS group, but this did non look to take down their tonss as an norm.
In figure 1, we see that that form of the curve is similar to the one shown by Walker ( 1996 ) . In other words, the mean figure of mistakes were low at the beginning
Verbal Learning 6
and at the terminal of the list but high in-between. My 2nd participant was able to acquire a low figure of mistakes on certain words mediate due to the types of words they were. For illustration I noticed that for the 5th word, ROF, she merely miss twice. I believe that was due to the fact that it came after XEL which sounds really much like a plan which she uses a batch as a secretary. This is an illustration of the Von Restorff consequence. It is extremely plausible that & # 8216 ; XEL & # 8217 ; was non significantly noticeable to the remainder of the participants, hence, they didn & # 8217 ; t see the same consequence.
Another interesting note, I think, is that although my 1st participant took 15 tests to larn the original set of syllables, he was able to memorise the 2nd set in merely 4 tests taking me to believe that possibly some pupils would execute better in a paired-association undertaking.
Finally, in comparing figures 2, 3, and 4, we can see a tendency in the way of the graphs, although non tantamount in form. Figures two and three are from my two participants and figure 4 is an estimated mean larning curve for all the information gathered. Participant # 1 closely follows figure 2, nevertheless participant # 2 & # 8217 ; s curve was less predictable ( she besides admitted after the trial that she wasn & # 8217 ; t experiencing good and that she had a concern ) .
As a concluding note I must state that I would non swear some of the analysis done on these informations collected since 6 participants were declared to hold successfully completed 11 points recalled and so listed as holding an & # 8216 ; x figure & # 8217 ; of tests to relearn the undertaking. Obviously there is an mistake someplace on the portion of the experimenter, unluckily that most likely had an consequence on my consequences.
Verbal Learning 7
Verbal Learning 8
Figure 1. Group information of mistake vs. point positioning
Figure 2. Learning curve for participant # 1
Figure 3. Learning curve for participant # 2
Figure 4. Learning curve for all 28 participants.
Figure 5. Frequency of participants in different types of businesss.
Walker, JT. ( 1996 ) . Verbal acquisition. The psychological science of larning ( pp212-231 ) . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.