Chunking Methodology and Memory Recall - Lab Report Example

Chunking Methodology and Memory Recall The work at hand presents the effectiveness of the methodology of chunking in terms of memory recall by employing a simple activity for memory recall that is not in line with numbers, but texts or words. There were two sets of experiments conducted. The first one was about giving the nine chosen respondents the name of ten countries written on the paper, but these words were muddled up everywhere. The second set was the same procedure, but this time the words were grouped or chunked. The results showed that the standard deviations of the scores associated with the two sets of experiments were not varied. The mean score, particularly in the second set was 6.65 points and only 4.25 points for the first set of the experiment. The implication of this result was discussed. Keywords: memory, chunking, chunk, mean scores, standard deviation Introduction There are many research studies concerning memory. Memory is linked to the cognitive functioning of the brain and is relevant to the fluid intelligence (Shahabi, Abad & Colom, 2014). In fact, it is found and may be scientifically proven at some point that the learning disabilities may be relevant to the working memory of an individual (Ghani & Gathercole, 2013). This brings the idea that understanding or studying many things about memory is an essential subject to be taken into account particularly in the field of psychology of learning. This is one of the reasons why there are many relevant studies linking the memory and intelligence, human perception and cognitive function of the brain in many studies relevant to understanding many things as far as the psychology of learning is concerned. Due to these research studies, there are also identified strategies that are associated with enhancing or improving memory. One of these strategies is chunking. Chunking has been found to be important in the processes of perception, learning and cognition in humans and animals (Gobet et al., 2001). There are also effective methods initiated in line with chunking strategy. For instance, a significant study showcases a linear kernel with masked method for efficient text chunking (Wu & Chang, 2007). This study reveals that chunking does not only apply to numbers, but eventually to text as well. In most cases, chunking method is applied in numbers, forming them in a unit in a maximally compressed code, in order to be effectively stored in the short-term memory (Mathy & Feldman, 2012). However, chunking is not only linked to enhancing or improving memory, but relevant to strategic control and perceptual processes (Gobet et al., 2001). This is one of the most important points that chunking has become a considerable method for memory recall. The work at hand presents the effectiveness of the methodology of chunking in terms of memory recall by employing a simple activity for memory recall that is not in line with numbers, but texts or words. As implied in the stated information previously, the memory recall is part of the perceptual processes, allowing the subjects to achieve the goal of recalling or understanding patterns of things through the capacity of the human memory. It happened that as also discussed earlier, memory recall is relevant to strategic control of things too. For this reason, it is justified to find out the effectiveness of the methodology of chunking in terms of memory recall. Method In this section, the method used in the study is discussed, particularly in line with the participants, materials and procedure. Participants There were nine people or respondents, from eighteen to twenty-one-year old, who were employed in the study. The team randomly chose these respondents and informed them of the experiments that they had to take, which was eventually a form of asking their consent in their participation to the experiment. Materials The only materials used in the experiment were blank papers and those containing words (name of countries), plus a ballpoint pen. Procedure In the actual experiment, there were two sets of obtaining the data. The team gave the respondents the name of ten countries written on the paper, but these words were muddled up everywhere. The number of correct words on the paper was then recorded after the respondents were given two minutes to take a look at them, familiarize the written words and then finally refrain from taking a look at them once the allocated time had passed. In the second set, the respondents were then given another ten names of countries, but this time, countries were paired or chunked. For example, Japan-Canada, Taiwan-USA, and UK-New Zealand were among of the given names of countries for the respondents to recall and to be written on a blank sheet of paper after the given two minutes. Results After tallying the generated data, the results of the experiment with two sets that were employed on the nine respondents are shown in Table 1. Table 1. The data from the results of the experiment Mean Score Standard Deviation Set A 4.25 points .30 Set B 6.65 points .28 Discussion As shown in Table 1, the average score of the nine respondents in the first set of experiment by which the name of countries were scattered on a given sheet of paper was 4.25 points. On the other hand, the average score of the nine respondents in the second set of experiment by which the name of countries were chunked or paired on a given sheet of paper was 6.65 points. By looking at the average score of the respondents, the score in the second set reveals that the respondents may have at most generated seven correct answers out of ten. The standard deviation of the scores in the first set was 0.30 and 0.28 for the second set. The mean score is the measure of central tendency of the generated scores of the respondents. It therefore measures the overall score of the respondents with a sense of generality for the purpose of finding the actual differences or relevant observation. As noticed, by looking at the figures alone in the mean score, the average score in the second set may automatically tell the readers that the respondents were able to perform well compared to their performance in the first set of the experiment. However, one cannot still generalize this point without looking at the other essential information, which are the points presented in the standard deviation section. The standard deviation is a relevant measure of spread or variability of the distribution. This means that the higher the standard deviation, the higher will be the variability or spread of the distribution. Knowing therefore the variability and the measure of central tendency of the data associated with the experiment could substantially provide the vital observation or even conclusion of the study. For example, the data with an average that has been obtained from points that are not far or varied from each other may significantly reveal the truth about the certainty of the averaging principle. However, the data with cases of extreme data points that are far from each other may reveal that the average may not be the essential information required in order to generalise the nature of the data, in the first place. Therefore, the remarkable foundation that will give the basic idea about the reliability of the average of the data will be the standard deviation. In the case of the experiment, both the standard deviations from the two set of data from the two experiments showed relatively lower values. This could only mean that the data points generated from the experiment were less varied or the distributions were not that spread. This further means that the state mean scores could significantly tell about the approximate measure of central tendency of the data. In other words, considering that the obtained data were remarkably significant, the team can confidently say that it will be safe to deduce the idea that the respondents were performing well in the second set of the experiment compared to the first set. This means that there is truth concerning the studies linked to effect of chunking on enhancing one’s memory. The study of Gobet et al is therefore justified, based on the result of this experiment. Furthermore, the result of this experiment may suggest that chunking is in fact a way of ensuring strategic control and perceptual processes too in the area of human cognition, which is also a significant agreement to the result of Goblet et al. References Ghani, K. A., & Gathercole, S. E. (2013). Working Memory and Study Skills: A Comparison between Dyslexic and Non-dyslexic Adult Learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 271-277. Gobet, F., Lane, P. C. R., Croker, S., Cheng, P. C. H., Jones, G., Oliver, I., & Pine, J. M. (2001). Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 236-243. Mathy, F., & Feldman, J. (2012). What’s magic about magic numbers? Chunking and data compression in short-term memory. Cognition, 122(3), 346-362. Shahabi, S. R., Abad, F. J., & Colom, R. (2014). Short-term storage is a stable predictor of fluid intelligence whereas working memory capacity and executive function are not: A comprehensive study with Iranian schoolchildren. Intelligence, 44, 134-141. Wu, Y. C., & Chang, C. H. (2007). Efficient text chunking using linear kernel with masked method. Knowledge-Based Systems, 20(3), 209-219. Read More