Impact of Categorized Word List on Recall, Relative to a List Randomly Arranged - Research Paper Example

The experiment was interested in investigating the impact of categorized word list on recall, relative to a word list that is randomly arranged. The study utilized a field experiment in which participants are within their natural setting. The study utilized an independent group design in which each participant engaged in one condition of the experiment only. The study utilized opportunity sampling method with a sample of 20 participants who were drawn from a restricted population of church goers aged between 18 and 40 years. The study participants were divided into two groups each comprising of ten members; the first group was provided with a list of words bearing not specific order, while the second group was provided with a word list arranged in categories. The two groups were given 60 seconds to study the words detailed in the list, and were later given a further 60 seconds to recall as numerous words as possible. The study results demonstrated that participants who were given a categorized word list recalled more words relative to participants who were given a random list. The mean number of words recalled from the categorized list is 14.2, which is significantly higher than the average words recalled from the random list stood at11.2. The raw data and the computed mean implies the hypothesis should be accepted that, the participants who were able to memorize words detailed in categorized lists recall more word relative to participants who memorize words detailed in random lists. Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary…………………….…………………………………………………………2 Section I: Introduction……………………………………………….……………………………4 A. Research Hypotheses…………………………………….. …...…..………………….6 B. Research Aims………………………...…………..………………………..…………6 Section II: Methods………………………………………………………………………………..6 A. Design…………………………..………………………………………..……….……6 B. Participants……………………………….…………………………..……………......7 C. Materials………………………….….………………………………………………..7 D. Procedure…………………………………………………………………………..….8 E. Findings……………………………………………………………………………….8 Section III: Discussion…………………………..………………………………………………..9 A. Ethical Issues encountered in the Study……………………………...........................14 B. Limitations of the Study……..…………………..…………………………………....15 C. Recommendations……………………………………………………………………16 Section IV: Conclusion………...…………..…………………………………………..………..16 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………….….17 Appendix……………………………………..…………………………………………………..18 Human memory Section I. Introduction Studies have highlighted that repetitive testing on information learnt can enhance retention of information considerably. Studies have demonstrated that the frequency of occurrence of word impacts. The study was grounded in a research undertaken by Bower (1969), Bousfield (1953), and Tulvin and Pearlstone (1966), which highlighted that participants enjoyed enhanced recall if accompanied by words that have an organized format relative to just random words. Recall of memory represents to the re-accessing of events of information from the store that had been encoded and stored within the brain. Memory is a pertinent component of the human make-up. Although, questions still linger in how memories are generated and retrieved, it is evident from studies undertaken in the past, that organized information is usually easier to recall. In his hi study; Bousfield (1953) demonstrated that even with randomized words, the bulk of the participants exploited several forms classification so as to help their recall (Kahana & Wingfield 2000, p.516). Bousfield took lists of words from a number of diverse categories including cities and animals and randomized the list. There are other experiments undertaken to establish the impact of organization of material on memory include Wittrock and Carter (1975) who utilized lists that were similar to those used by Bower; however, the ordering of the words in the list was in random format. Mandler (1967) also undertook a study in which participants were required to self categorize the word material. The participants, in this case, were provided with word list printed on cards and were required to organize the words into several categories ranging from 2-7. Tulvin and Pearlstone (1966) also explored the impacts of cued recall in which participants were expected to memorize the words, rather than the category headings (Kahana & Wingfield 2000, p.516). The first group was provided with category headings to help them recall (cued recall), while the second group was required to free recall. The study unearthed that, the group that was provided with category headings usually recalled more words, which implies that organization into categories helps with memory retrieval. Bower et al. (1969) study utilized repetitive measures design, a common challenge that manifests with such as design draws from the order effect. This highlights which an independent group design was select for the experiment, since the results are not biased by participants engaging within both conditions and hence capable of deducing what the experiment is all about, or gain more skill at the task at hand, which averts the order effect. Bower et al utilized 112 words, which were presented within four trials comprising of 20 words each. The methodology of the study demanded that participants cram the cards and retrieve as many words as possible undertaken successively. Bower also employed a unique model detailing both stimuli input (visual) and output (spoken). This may raise questions regarding working memory model that separate visual and audio processing. In order to avert the outlined pitfalls, the experiment utilizes a solitary mode-visual (which encapsulates both input and output). The mode of choice for both input and output reflects the environment in which the experiment is taking place. The group whose cards were presented logically recalled the entire collection of the 112 words within the final two recalls, while the other group only averaged about 70 words during the final recall. The study demonstrated that the material that was presented within logical memories was readily stored and retrieved from memory. Research Hypotheses Directional Hypothesis: the participants who were able to memorize words detailed in categorized lists recall more word relative to participants who memorize words detailed in random lists. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference within the number of words recalled irrespective of whether participants are provided with words within an organized or random list. Research Aims To study investigated the role of organisation in memory and whether organisation of material helps memory recall. The study sought to determine whether rationally structured material is easier to remember relative to disordered material. As such, the study sought to establish whether lists of categorized words are better recalled relative to lists from random words utilizing experimenter-imposed organization based on the approach adopted by Bower. Section II. Method Design The study utilized a field experiment in which all the participants were found within their natural setting. The study utilized an independent group design in which the participants only engaged in one condition only. The independent variable comprised of 20 words bearing two conditions the first group (10 participants) was provided with unstructured, non-categorized or random word-list, while the second group made of 10 participants was provided with same words, but structured in an organized word-list. The dependent variable detailed the number of words recalled. The extraneous variables to be explored detailed environmental (such as time of day) and participant detailing reading capability, emotional state, age, and demand characteristics. Participants The research sample included friends, relatives, Families and members of my church. The study utilized opportunity sampling since it was the most cost-effective, practical, and an efficient based on the resources and timescale at hand. The 20 participants comprised of both men (10) and women (10) aged between 18 and 40 years, all of whom are congregants at my church. The 10 participants were placed within the control group that was provided with a random word list, while the remaining 10 participants were belonged to the experimental group, which was provided with a random word list derived from the clustered word list. Each participant was required to undertake every task once. All the participants in the study were requested to turn off mobile phones so as to minimize distractions, which carry the potential of undermining the study. Materials Each of the participants was provided with two sheets of A4 paper (one detailing the categorized and random word list and a blank paper) at the start of the experiment. The first group of 10 was presented with a word list detailing organized categories, while the second group comprised of 10 participants was presented with a paper detailing the same words, but detailed in a randomized single list. The word list featured everyday prominent words that are not complex to recall (the word list is featured in Appendix 2 and 3). The second sheet of the A4 paper was blank and the participants were expected to write down what they recall. A timer was also utilized to gauge time. Procedure Each of the study participants consented to the memory experiment and enjoyed the right to decline or withdraws. (See Appendix 4 for the consent letter). The participants were initially given a sheet of paper that comprised of only 20 words that belonged to both the experimental and control group. The participants were also given a blank piece of paper that they were required to utilize to write down as many words from the list that they would recall. Both groups were informed that they were undertaking a “memorization experiment” and the participants had about 60 Seconds to memorize a list of about 20 words. After the 30 seconds, the lists were collected and the participants were provided with a blank Paper on which the participants were expected to write down as many words as they could recall from their list. The participants had one minute to write down as numerous words that they could recall from their list. The number of words remembered was noted, guided by an index of clustering was computed to appraise organizational strategies. Findings From the table in Appendix 1, it is apparent that there is a significant difference manifest between the mean numbers of words recalled by the participants studying both lists. The outcome of the study reinforce the findings of analogous studies cited in the background material, which demonstrated that better recall was manifest among participants who learnt from categorized lists as opposed to random lists. The research demonstrates that individuals usually have more effective recall of categorized list relative to random lists. The results from the raw data table (Appendix 1) highlights that the total number of words recalled was 130 words for categorized list and 100 for the random list, which evidently support the study hypothesis. This outcome is reinforced by computed mean of 14.2 for the structured wordlist versus 11.2 for the random list. The variation of words recalled for the organized list was 16, while that of the random list was 5, which evidently demonstrates a wide differentiation of results from the organized list. It is also essential to appreciate participant 11 had a significant impact on the results since he recalled only 5 words which is way below the average words recalled for the categorized list. Section III. Discussion An analysis of the mode and mean results reveals that the total number of words recalled align with Bousefields assertion that organizing in categories is the most appropriate means of processing information. It is of interest to note that the bulk of the participants (60%) who studied the random list characteristically listed the words recalled in one column. This deviates from Bousefield (1953) findings that participants who were provided with randomized were inclined to recall the words in clusters belonging to one category. The bulk of participants (80%) provided with a categorized list, on the other hand, recalled their words in precise duplication of the category structure, which implies that the participants utilized the categories for retrieval, which aligns with Bower et al. (1969) study findings. This also indicates that the participant provided with categorized list placed some effort towards memorizing the structure and the words in the list. In a study by Wittrock and Carter (1975), half of the participants were required to copy the word list, while the other group was required to order the words in a logical manner prior to writing the word list down. The researchers unearthed that recall was significantly higher in those groups who had been expected to organize the word list themselves. Wittrock and Carter (1975) also undertook a similar experiment, but word list, in this case, was organized. The researchers found that recall was significantly higher among the group that had been required to impose their own organization on the list relative to the group that was required to copy the structured word list. This implies that, recall is likely to be higher in instances in which the learner is expected to place some input during the organization of the reading material. In a study by Mandler (1967), in which participants were required to self-categorize word list, the participants with categorized list were found to recall more words relative to participants who had been provided with a random word list. The researcher unearthed that, the higher the number of categories that the participants had utilized, the higher the number of words recalled by the participants. This implies that, a high organization of material yields to enhanced memory retrieval and storage. Similarly, the research findings on the differential recall reinforce the assertion that, the active organization of information is equally important as the objective to learn. Indeed, the most effective learners are those that actively pursue categorization of material. Furthermore, Jenkins and Russell (1952) established that, when the participants in their study recalled lists of words detailing high associates such as woman and man, fork and knife, the participants tended to recall the words in pairs, despite the words being split up during the presentation (Baddeley 1997, p.130). The outlined impact of material organization on memory was also examined by Deese (1959), who provided participants with 15 words of three categories. One of the lists detailed 15 words, which were all high associates of single provided starting word such as butterfly with associated words may entail; flower, wing, fly, and blue. The second list detailed low associates, while the third list detailed words that are completely unrelated to each other such as book winter, and arithmetic. Deese (1959) unearthed that the participants with high associated words recalled a mean of 7.35 words, which is significantly higher than the 6.08 words and 5.05 words recalled from medium and unrelated sequences respectively (Baddeley 1997, p.130). Human memory can be regarded as a complicated system for the storage and retrieval of significant amounts of diverse kinds of information. Short-term memory avails adequate storage for individual to focus on simple tasks including listening and understanding a sentence. Short-term memory also relays information from long-term memory to advance assist the task (Roediger & Karpicke 2006, p.181). Nevertheless, it is sometimes essential for the information to be held for a longer period. Information of this form is mainly rehearsed, analysed or linked to other memories. Some of the factors influencing memory recall include motivation, rehearsal, names and faces, visualization and association, and chanting the rhythm (Baddeley 1997, p.130). This observation signifies the importance of memory organization, especially with regard to long-term memory. Organization can manifest either at storage or at retrieval and can be imposed by another person or spontaneously structured by the subject learning the material. Other studies have highlighted that structuring in categories is the most natural means of processing information in long-term memory (Galotti, 162). Other studies have highlighted that participants tend to remember the words in cluster of words that belong to the same category. This indicates that categorical clustering is indicative of semantic organization within memory. There is no issue that can be considered as more significant to human learning that the connection between organization and memory. In self-initiated memory, participants largely depend on pre-existing knowledge of semantic relations as may be manifest in a list of items (semantic memory) and contextual associations among the list items (episodic memory). One of the most reliable output order effect manifest in free recall relates to the inclination to recall categorically related words in clusters, even in cases in which the order of presentation of the list items are randomized. In some instances, the word lists detailed unconnected items (items that may not be constrained by pre-existing categorically or associated relations); a subjective organization usually tends to establish a correlation of output order between the successive recall trials (Galotti 2010, p.162). Such findings have been taken by some to imply that structuring shapes learning, in which the participants inform the semantic relationships. In its extreme mode, structuring may be judged basis, rather than being an outcome of learning where the structuring is recognized as a strategy that effective learners trigger to foster learning. The other alternative to the perception that organization yields to learning details the possibility that enhancing organization and heightening organization and recall are the by-products of a sole, albeit intricate, learning process. Some studies have highlighted that multitrial free recall is associated with enhanced structuring of output over learning trials, even in cases where the order of presentation if randomized (Baddeley 1997, p.130). Tulving and Thomson (1971) highlighted that retention is largely dependent on the storage of suitable information and the retrievability of the stored information at the time of test. The authors highlighted that that likelihood of recognition is perceived as being highly dependent on the similarity of the encoding of the test word and the information that stored within memory. A section of the encoded version of a certain study may encompass other items detailed in the study list. When this manifests, recognition of an item can be improved by preceding the test with a presentation of an item that is linked to the study (Klix & Joachim 1980, p.99). Hence, an ordered list usually generates an encoding that is more analogous to the presentation, which was encoded on the study trial and usually improves recognition. Other studies have unearthed that, even in cases where the organization is not imposed, participants still actively structure material. The evidence derived from free recall studies highlighted how subjects consistently appear to recall groups. The impact on recall of relationship can be linked to the process of search or situating items in memory. The divergences in the influences of organizational of memory, coupled with the appreciation that free recall performance was shaped by the presentation of a categorized list was improved in the cases where the same category were presented within a categorized manner relative to instances in which the list was structured randomly (McDaniel, Roediger, & McDermott 2007, p.200). The connection between organization and recall performance, as well as the representations of memory were examined in serial and free recall paradigms. In serial recall task, list categorization yielded to better learning relative to organization associated with random lists. Indeed, the organization of memory remains pertinent to researchers who are interested in learning and comprehension (Moxon 2000, p.54). The capability to recall information is connected to the organization of information. Organization, in this case, represents the extraction of shared information. The distinctive information is pertinent if individuals are to depart from general information to distinct event memory during retrieval. The information that can be retrieved highly relates to the information that has been stored. The improvement in organization with learning has consistently been considered a core feature of self-initiated memory retrieval. The contemporary theories of memory have appreciated that the learning process is an intricate one informed by multiple mechanisms. Studies on memory have highlighted that good memory is linked to good organization; nevertheless, the measures of memory and organization are two distinct aspects: memory is gauged by recall, while organization is gauged by clustering (Galotti 2010, p.162). Organization processes has been shown to contribute to good memory. This draws from the fact that effective organization is connected to enhanced economy of storage (encoding), whereby individuals organize information bits into holistic units that usually saves on the quantity of the stored items. Organization has also been shown to enhance memory since the size of information that is stored per unit is heightened (chunking). Organization also benefits memory owing to its impact on retrieval. Organization usually manifests as the encoding process of incorporating disconnect items into holistic units. The gain of memory emanates from the capability to access the memory unit at retrieval (Moxon 2000, p.55). Memory gains from the outlined processes through distinctive (encoding the divergences) and organizational (encoding the similarities) processing. Encoding details giving attention to certain aspects of events that may be shared or divergent; effective or optimal memory necessitated pairing of both distributed and differing programming. Self-generation may negatively impact on memory since generation difference may occur at diverse memory conditions (recognition, recall). Organization at encoding mainly generates information that is outlined in the retrieval process. Ethical Issues encountered in the Study The protection of subjects is considered the core focus of research ethics. Careful consideration was given to all ethical issues that may arise within the study and plans were laid in the design of the study so as to safeguard against unethical mistakes. Validity in research necessitates that scientists disclose the methods and be honest when presenting the research findings. Some of the ethical issues that the study paid attention towards include: protection of research subjects; adherence to honesty and openness; attainment of valid results; and, fostering appropriate application. All the participation in the study was voluntary and the subjects were given alternatives to participation. Details regarding how the participants will be recruited were also included. In order to protect research subjects, the study made an effort to obtain informed consent from the participants and pursue steps to maintain privacy and confidentiality. The participants were made to understand what the research involved and what will be done to the data gathered in the study. During the disclosure session, the subjects were informed about the experiment’s purposes and methods, as well as their reactions to the experiment. Limitations of the Study The study manifest some limitations emanating from the fact that memory is highly intricate and encompassing the processing of multiple links on knowledge, events, and objects. The wordlist may not necessarily represent an accurate depiction of everyday memory, since one may argue the recall of a telephone numbers of grocery items reflects everyday task. Furthermore, since the experiment was conducted in church, one may argue that the participants are not in their natural setting and do not share learning and recall capabilities. The study manifests other methodological limitations occasioned by the use of extraneous variables. For instance, there were a number of participants who experienced conditions that significantly impacted on their performance within the test. Since the study was carried out in a public space, there were instances in which the participants were repeatedly interrupted in the course of the study. One of the participants had neurological conditions, which might have impeded on his capability to engage effectively in the recall. The participants may be swayed by “demand characteristics” emanating from knowledge that they are engaging in the psychology experiment. The other limitations of the study emanate from the fact that learning lists is not characteristic of memory use and can be critiqued for not representing a real task. Furthermore, the categories of the word list employed might not mirror local constituencies’ understandings. Lastly, the study also failed to take into account the different cultural conditions that might have influenced the study. Recommendations In future studies, it is advisable to alter experiment conditions and shift to laboratory conditions so as to minimize instances of distraction and ensure that all participants carry out the test under similar conditions. The study does not expose the differences in recall brought about by gender. As such, future studies should investigate four conditions that ought to be met: male participants provided with both categorized and random lists and female participants provided with both categorized and random lists. Section IV. Conclusion Organization of memory has been linked to high propensity to recall and learning. People who memorise words in categorised lists usually recall more words than participants who memorise words from a random list, which implies that individuals should organize new material to ensure that one has improved capability to retain the information. The order in which the items are presented is also important since study list associations are essentially manifest where old category members are displayed for recognition test within an order, which is analogous to the order that they were presented for study. Moreover, the likelihood of gaining a facilitative effect of random list might be inversely connected to the number of test items that intervened between test items in the random lists. Bibliography Baddeley, A. (1997). Human Memory: Theory and Practice, Sussex, Psychology Press Ltd. Galotti, K. M. (2010). Cognitive Psychology: In and Out of the Laboratory, Canada, Nelson. Kahana, M. & Wingfield, A. (2000). A Functional Relation Between Learning and Organization in Free Recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7 (3), pp.516-521 Klix, F. & Joachim, H. (1980). Cognition and Memory, Amsterdam, North-Holland Pub. Co. McDaniel, M.A., Roediger, H.L., & McDermott, K.B. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, pp.200-206. Moxon, D.  (2000). Memory, Oxford, Heineman. Polyn, S., Norman, K., & Kahana, M. (2009). Task Context and Organizational in Free Recall. Neuropsychologia, pp.1-6. Accessed from: http://www.polyn.com/struct/PolyEtal09b.pdf Roediger, H.L. & Karpicke, J.D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, pp.181-210. Appendix 1 Condition 1: The Number of Words recalled accurately form an organized list of twenty words Condition 2: The Number of Words recalled accurately from a Random List Participant Condition 1 Participant Condition 2 1 14 11 5 2 13 12 12 3 10 13 10 4 12 14 11 5 16 15 13 6 15 16 12 7 11 17 13 8 13 18 11 9 14 19 13 10 12 20 12 Total 142 112 Mean 14.2 11.2 Graphical Representation of the Test scores Appendix 2: List of 20 words Four legged animals (wild):  Lion Crocodile Buffalo Zebra  Antelope Types of Buildings: Bungalow  Chalet  Museum Garage Hotel  Members of the Family: Nephew Aunt Brother  Mother-in-law Uncle  Car Parts: Radiator Bonnet Bumper Hatch Starter Appendix 3: Condition 2 LIST OF 20 WORDS  Museum Radiator Aunt Zebra  Bonnet Antelope Mother-in-law Bumper Bungalow  Crocodile Chalet  Hotel Buffalo  Nephew Lion Brother  Garage Hatch Uncle  Starter Appendix 4: Consent Letter Thank you for accepting to participate in voluntary memory experiment. This research will take about 10 minutes at most, and during this time, you will be required to memorize a word list and write down your recall. You may find the experiment enjoyable since most people do not get a chance to engage in a memorization test. Please note that you can withdraw from the experiment if you deem it fit at any time and please be confident that all the information submitted will be highly confidential. Several steps will be undertaken to safeguard your anonymity an identity since the submitted list will be anonymous and will be destroyed after the test. If you feel that you will need a copy of the results for the study, feel free to contact the researcher by the number provided below. Read More