International” 3/cs Baccalaureate Internal assessment: group 3 individual candidate coversheet Submit to: Moderator Arrival date:20 Apr/20 Oct Session: MAG. JOLS 0 fo O[STsI4] \wherredtnval. Scho | d Pragve- Write legibly using black ink and retain a copy of this form. Complete this form in the working language of your school (English, French or Spanish). + Ailach one completed copy of this form to the work of each candidate represented in the sample. sine“ PSY CRONE, toe HL cunddscrane Nike Wadi ‘School number: ‘Schoo! name: ... Candidate session number: ool ojals folz Titles and dats of work: complete i appropriate) (de Gee eramest Wwerdpelnyg he Beg J @. a) (4), ‘Teacher declaration, To the best of my knowledge, the material submitted is the authentic work of the eandidate, Signature of teacher: a Date: sins Candidate declaration: 1 confirm thet this work is my own work and is the final version, 1 have ins gis LN baw Pha. 26, at ‘Types of work undertaken (to be completed by teacher) (for example, written assignmentessay/ease study/ieldworkiportfolio/photogrephy/video/computer) Geography SL: note whether the one piece is felabvork or a research assignment and to which theme itis linked, Business and management SL: the issue or problem selected forthe commentary must relate tothe SL syllabus and refer directly to a single business organization (Business and management guide, March 2007, page 52) Exee ire ST Otter relevant information (where appropriate) Teacher support (where a candidate could not have completed the work without substantial support, please indicate) @ Handbook of procedures forthe Diploma Programme 2010 29An Experiment Investigating the Effect of Categorizing on Short-Term Memory According to the Levels of Processing Theory by Nicole Madi IB HL Psychology Candidate number: 000889-023 Word Count: 2000 Instructor: John Crane Date of submission: December 10, 2009Table of Contents Abstract... Design... Participants. Procedure. Results. Discussion. Works Cite Appendix i: List of Words. Appendix ii: Letter of Consent . Appendix iii: Debriefing Notes. Appendix iv: Standardized Instructions. Appendix v: Raw Data... Appendix vi: Calculations for the Mann Whitney Test.Introduction Memory, a cognitive function of our brain, is defined as the ability to store and retrieve information. Short-term memory initially temporarily stores the information you wish to remember. According to memory span tests conducted by Miller (1956), people’s memory performance on random lists fluctuates around seven. There are various explanations for the process of memory, for instance the levels of processing theory by Craik and Lockhart. Firstly, Craik and Lockhart argue that humans often remember things in their long-term memory although its duration may have been as short as one minute, Therefore, Craik and Lockhart proposed that it is the depth of processing, rather than the length of rehearsal, that affects whether an experience is stored in our short-term or long-term memory. This is the levels of processing theory’. One study pertaining to memory is on distinctiveness by Eysenck (1979)°. The aim of this study was to determine whether or not saying words in a distinctive way will increase the number of words one is able to recall. In the process of this study, Eysenck gave participants a list of words, and asked some of them to say the words in distinct ways, such as spelling them out verbally. Eysenck found that such participants recalled more words than those who merely read the list of words. Similarly, Tyler et al (1979) ‘did a study on memory. The aim of this study was to the effect of effort on memory. The aim of this study was to see whether one will recall a difficult anagram more accurately rather than an easy anagram, In the process of this study, the participants were given anagrams to solve. Half of the participants received easier level anagrams such as FAHTER, while the other half of the participants received harder anagrams such as HREFAT. Afier solving the anagrams, the participants were asked to recall the words in the anagrams. The findings of this study show that the participants who had difficult anagrams recalled more accurately, possibly due to the higher effort and time put into them A final study on the process of memorization is done by Mandler (1967)*. The aim of Mandler’s study was to see whether putting words in categories increases our chance of memorizing them. In the process of his study, Mandler provided the participants + Zimbardo, Philip G., and Richard J. Gerrig. "Levels of Processing.” Psychology and Life. 14th ed. N.p.: Harper Collins College Publishers, 1996. 364. Print. 2 "Memory, distinctiveness." Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia. N.p., 6 Dec. 2009 Web. 9 Dec. 2009. . 3 Tyler, James M. "Research Statement." Perdue University, N.p., n.d, Web. 9 Nov. £82009. , *Mandler, Geroge. Cognitive Psychology. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1985. Print, 101with a pack of word cards and asked them to organize them in any way they please, Later, they were asked to recall as many words as they could remember. The findings of this study conclude that the process of categorizing information enables a higher chance of memorizing the information. This study can be useful for students and their academics, for it can improve their method of preparing for exams. Aim: The aim of our study is to determine whether categorizing words into piles will increase or decrease the number of words one is able to memorize. ‘Null Hypothesis (H0): Categorizing information has no effect on number of words one is able to memorize. sreases the number of words Research Hypothesis (H1): Categorizing information i one is able to memorize. Design In the experiment we used independent samples, because it allowed us to use the same list of words (see appendix i). Likewise, as the participants only participate in one condition, demand characteristics are not a problem. However, one limitation is that participant variables differ which could become confounding variables. Firstly, we handed out a letter of consent (see appendix ii) explaining what the participants will be doing to avoid any surprises. In the experiment each participant was placed in the same room one by one to avoid cheating, and the controlled variable was the list of words as it was the same for each participant. The independent variable was the instruction to either categorize the words into piles, or not to, and the dependent variable was the number of words each participant remembered. Finally, the participants were debriefed after the experiment (see appendix iii). Participants The sample used was an opportunity sample, as we took them from two 12" grade economics classes. Both groups of participants consisted of 10 students, 5 girls and 5 boys. Of the 20 students, 6 were also ESL students. An opportunity sample is advantageous because it saves time, as it is not necessary to search for participants because the group already exists. However, all the participants are around the age of 17 and 18, we cannot generalize to a larger population. Lastly, the first group was told simply to observe the words, and the second group was told to categorize the words, It was done this way to avoid contamination, because if the first group was told to categorize they could tell the second group. Material The list of words (see appendix i) Letter of Consent (see appendix ii) Debriefing note (see appendix iii) Standardized instructions (see appendix iv)Procedure 1, Twenty students from the 12th grade will be asked to take part in this experiment 2. Two groups of ten will be selected from Mr. Pape’s twelfth grade Economics class, and the participants in each group will be numbered from one to ten 3. The first experimenter will call out the appropriate number and will escort the student from the economics room to the room where the experiment is being conducted 4. The other two experimenters are waiting in the empty room 5. The student will be sat down and given a letter of consent to sign (see appendix ii), 6. The second experimenter will then read the standardized instructions (see appendix iv) for the appropriate group, and place words (see appendix i), which are written on separate cards, in front of the student 7. The third experimenter will have a table to fill with the student’s name, gender, number of piles made, if in the experimental group, and consequently the number of words recalled 8. After the student is given 2 minutes to memorize according to the instructions, the note cards are removed from the desk, 9. The student is handed a blank paper and is instructed to write down the words he or she can recall 10. After one minute, the second experimenter records the number of words recalled 11. The student is told that the information will be kept confidential and that he or she will receive debriefing 12. The participant will be told not to reveal any information regarding the experiment to the other students 13. The third experimenter will walk the student back to their classroom 14, Steps 3-13 are repeated with each studentResults In the group that only observed the words, the mean number of words remembered was 10.9, and the standard deviation was 2.13. In the group that observed the words and categorized them into piles, the mean number of words remembered for the ten participants was 15.2, and the standard deviation was 3.49 (raw data is in appendix v). ‘The Mean and Standard Deviation of the Number of Words Remembered For Group 1 and Group 2 Mean Standard Deviation Group 1 (only 109 2.13 observe) Group 2 152 3.49 (observe and categorize) Figure 1 The mean number of words remembered by group 1 and group 2 oe 182 16 Zu £2) 10.9 5 10 Bi gtd if g Be} — - es 4 g 2 * Group 1 Group 2 Figure | shows that the mean number of words remembered in the group that simply observed (indicated with blue) is 10.9 and the mean in the group that observed and categorized into piles (indicated with purple) is 15.2. The mean tells us that in group one the number of words remembered all fluctuated around 10.9, whereas the number of words remembered in group 2 fluctuated around 15.2. The standard deviation indicates that in group one the average amount the scores vary from the mean is, smaller than in group two, therefore the scores of the group that did not categorize the words are closer together than the scores of the group that did categorize. To test the significance of the results, a Mann-Whitney test was used (see appendix vi). This was done because this experiment is an independent samples design, and the Mann-Whitney test is appropriate for a small sample. The value of Uais 15, and thecritical value of U < 19, therefore we reject the null hypothesis at P< 0,01. Therefore, the possibility that the results are simply due to chance is 0.01, meaning that tie Participants who categorized the words into piles remembered more words then the participants who only observed. In conclusion, the independent variable, which is the instruction to categorize or simply observe, caused the dependent variable, the number of words one remembered, Discussion Our results show that the participants who categorized the words into piles, were able to remember more words than the participants who simply observed. Furthermore, as the independent variable, categorizing words into piles, caused the dependent variable, remembering more words, our results support our hypothesis; which states that categorizing information increases the number of words one is able to memorize. We can assume that because it required more effort to categorize the words into piles, it caused the participants to remember the words more accurately. This coincides with the findings of Tyler et al (1979), as the participants who dealt with more difficult anagrams, recalled them more accurately. Similarly, Eysneck (1979) found that Participants who said words in a distinet manner, such as spelling them out verbally, were able to remember more words than the participants who simply said the words in a regular manner. We can see that taking the time to spell words causes our brain to remember the process of spelling verbally, hence the word itself. Finally, our results support the findings of Mandler's study (1967), which state that the process of categorizing information increases one's chance of memorizing the information, Based on our results, we concluded that our results are significant. The strengths of using an independent measures design are that demand characteristics are not a big issue, as the participant participates in one condition so is new to the test and less likely to alter their behavior according to the aim of the study. Likewise, order effects such as learning, fatigue or boredom do not influence the second condition. Moreover, on average there is high reliability, as there is stability and consistency of scores in each group due to the standardized procedure. Lastly, we were able to use the same set of words for both groups, In contrast, the limitations of using independent samples are that participant variables differ which could become a confounding variable. For example, as the participants come from an international school, their levels of English vary. In effect, participants with fluent English may remember more words simply due to their understanding of them. Finally, a limitation of this design is that more participants are needed, as each condition req) participants, This experiment has several limitations. Firstly, there is a possibility that when the participant returned to their economies class, they told others certain words from the list. As a result, the next participant would be able to remember more words. Secondly, as our sample is a 12" grade economies class, itis difficult to generalize to a larger population. Likewise, students are already in a habit of memorizing words for examinations, hence, they perform the task better than the average adult, Also, there is a lack of ecological validity, as it is very unlikely for a student to find themselves in a room with one teacher memorizing words in a given time. Lastly, the presence of the researcher could have created an uncomfortable atmosphere for the participant,therefore worsen their score, or it could have increased performance because the participant was being watched, In our experiment, the number of minutes given to memorize the words, were announced and reiterated during the experiment, This may have been a confounding variable because participants may have become stressed out, which would interrupt their focus, or they could have developed a strategy to group the words mentally which we, the researchers, would not see. It may be helpful to carry out an experiment in which the participants do not know how much time they have to observe the words, to see whether the results remain significant, Ideally, participants should be picked more carefully. For instance, the participants should be native English speakers, to avoid the problem of not understanding the words for example. It may be interesting to carry out another study in which the words given are in a language that the participants do not speak, to see whether the participant's understanding of the word affects their ability to memorize it. To conclude, using the Mann-Whitney test we found that, with a 99.99% level of confidence our results are significant. Therefore, the experimental hypothesis was supported. One is more likely to remember a list of words by categorizing the words, rather than simply observing them.Works Cited Mandler, Geroge. Cognitive Psychology. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1985. Print, 101 "Memory, distinctiveness." Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia. N.p., 6 Dec. 2009. Web. 9 Dec. 2009. . Miller, George A. "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on ‘our Capacity for Processing Information." Psych Classics. Psychological Review, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2009. . Tyler, James M. "Research Statement." Perdue University. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nev. #F412009. . Zimbardo, Philip G., and Richard J. Gerrig. "Levels of Processing.” Psychology and Life. 14th ed. N.p.: Harper Collins College Publishers, 1996. 364. Print. Zimbardo, Philip G., and Richard J. Gerrig. "Short-Term Memory (STM)." Psychology and Life. 14th ed. N.p.: Harper Collins College Publishers, 1996. 353. Print. 10Appendix i: List of Words fork spoon plate apron spatula straw zebra kangaroo turtle cat parrot dog table chair sofa bed. stool futon 11 lily grass tree rose cactus weed snow hail wind fog rain cloudAppendix ii: Letter of Consent Dear participants, We, Tosca Rivola, Karen Sovova, and Nicole Madi, are conducting an experiment on memory, by asking you to memorize several words. With this letter we ask for consent to conduct this experiment on you. We grant you confidentiality of results and the right to withdraw your information, in addition to the right to withdraw during the experiment. After the experiment you will be debriefed on further details, If consent is granted, please print and sign your whole name on the spaces provided. Print Name Here Sign Name Here Date 12Appendix iii: Debriefing Notes Dear participants, ‘Thank you for taking part in our experiment. The aim of our research was to sce whether or not categorizing a list of words into piles, increases the amount of words one is able to memorize, As you will recall, you were either in a group in which you were told to simply observe a list of words in front of you, or, you were told to observe the words and categorize them into piles. After either instruction, you were also told that you will be asked to recall the words later. After each participant, we recorded the number of words they were able to write down from memory. Our hypothesis was that the group that categorizes the words into piles, will remember more words. We felt this would happen because categorizing words requires more thought and effort, therefore we are forced to process the words which sticks them deeper into our memory. The participants that would categorize would remember words by the similar characteristics they share with other words from the same pile. In contrast, the participants who would simply observe the list of words would have no organization and the words would be scattered, hence difficult to remember, The results strongly supported our hypothesis. In the group that people categorized words, the mean number of words remembered was 15.2. In the group that simply observed, the mean number of words remembered was 10.9. Thus, higher scores were much more likely to occur in a group that categorizes the words into piles. Finally, we would like to remind you that your individual scores will remain confidential. ‘Thanks again for participating, 13Appendix iv: Standardized Instructions Group | (only observe): First sign the letter of consent with your name and date. Now you will be given words to memorize. You have 2 minutes to observe and memorize as many words as you can, After your time is up, you will have one minute to write down as many wards as you can remember on a blank sheet of paper. Go. Group 2 (observe and categorize): First sign the letter of consent with your name and date. Now you will be given words to memorize. You will have 2 minutes to observe the words, and categorize them into helpful groups in order to memorize them. An example of groups is kitchen utensils, animals, or climates, After two minutes of memorizing, you will have one minutes to write down as many words as you can remember on a blank sheet of paper. Go. 14Appendix v: Raw Data Group 1 (only oobserved): Gender Number of Words Remembered iL 3 14 10 9 8 10 i 14 \z|2)=] =] [zle]=]> 9 Group 2 (observed and categorized): Gender Number of Piles Created Number of Words Remembered 10 12 16 16 21 14 13 20 B =l>)=|=[zlefe[>]E]e jalalalalalsfalolats 17. 15Calculations for the Mann Whitney Test Mann-Whitney Test: n, = 10; 9, = 10 DataEntered: Ranks for Raw Data for ‘count/Sample A Sample B [Sample A|Sample 4 ee 7.5 ao | ut | 2] 9 WW 12 is | | 3 | 165 14 16 | 14 | } 4] 165 5 16 10 | 5 20 25 2 |} 9 | 6 14 1 4 | 8 7] | 5 a | 10 | 8 19 75 20 pec 9] a 14 13 14 | (10 | 18 7 9 | | Mean Ranks for @ provided only for descriptive Purposes. hey are not part of the Mann-Whitney test. 15 z= 2.61 P= 0.0045 P.,, - 0.0091 Critical Values of U for na=10; nb=10 | Level of Significance for a |__ Directional Test 025.1 | _Non-Directional Test ean tower limit | 27 73 "upper limit 16