Levels of processing and word
Levels of processing and wordAbstract
The relationship between processing words at deeper levels and memory was examined. Participants were 38 experimental psychology students grouped depending on whether the student had completed cognitive psychology by the time of the experiment. Group A was instructed to decide if a word fit a “CCVCV” pattern, and Group B was asked if a word fit into a given sentence. As predicted, results indicated Group B recalled more words from the word list then Group A. The replication and importance of these findings along with other possible applications of the results were discussed.
Effect of Deeper Levels of Processing On Word Retention
Today it seems everyone is interested in improving memory. With new herbs and miracle drugs that now “promise” better memory, memory problems should be a thing of the past. This, however, is not the case. Although these alternatives may be somewhat helpful in increasing memory, our study hopes to replicate previous experiments that dealt with ways to improve memory without the use of drugs.
In a study conducted by Craik and Tulving (1975), the effects of deeper levels of processing on retention of words was tested. They found that the deeper level the word was processed on, the more likely the word was to be retained. A simple structural task (“Is there a word present?”) requires very little processing and therefore a lesser chance for retention. Tasks that required participants to complete a sentence frame task (Does the word fit into the sentence…?) needed a deeper level of processing and resulted in greater retention.
With today’s interest in increasing memory and the findings by Craik and Tulving (1975), we believe that participants who complete the sentence framework task will recall words better then those who simply do a structural task.
Method
Participants
Participants were 38 experimental psychology students. They were grouped depending on whether the student had completed cognitive psychology before the time of the experiment. If the student had cognitive psychology he or she was placed into group A. Others were selected for group B.
Apparatus
The experiment was conducted in a classroom which contained 38 student desks and one large table. The presenter was equipped with two sets of instructions (see Figure 1 attached), one for each group, an overhead projector, a transparency of a 10 word list (see Figure 2 attached), a word mask, and a wristwatch. The results were tallied on a chalkboard in front of the room.
Procedure
The presenter instructed participants to be silent while the first set of instructions were placed on the student’s desks. The participants who received a set of instructions were then asked to quietly move into the hallway. Group A now received instructions and were asked not to look at them until asked. The presenter then explained the instructions on the chalkboard telling Group A to respond to whether words fit the CVC pattern (see Figure 1 attached). Group A was then led into the hallway while Group B returned and received their instructions. They were asked to respond if the word fit into a given sentence (see Figure 1 attached). Group A returned and both groups were instructed to look down. A word was uncovered on the projector in the front of the room and the participants were told to look up. They had two seconds to look at the word and three seconds to record an answer. This procedure was repeated for each remaining word. The presenter then tallied the correct number of words each participant recalled by groups on the chalkboard and the mean number of words retained was calculated.
Results
Results show that as predicted, the mean for group B (x = 5.4) was better then group A (x = 2.15).
Discussion
The results do indeed show evidence that participants in the sentence frame task did show an increase in retention of words from the participants in the structural “CVC” task. These findings support the results of earlier research by Craik and Tulving (1975) that deeper levels of processing allows for better word retention from a word list.
These findings are not only important in the laboratory or in research, but also for students, people in the work place, elderly, or anyone interested in ways to improve memory. Before any of these ideas are applied, there are a few problems with the design of the experiment that should be corrected. Further experiments to control, and correct for these errors and replicate this study is necessary.
Future experimenters should consider correcting a few of the flaws in this experiment's design that may have allowed for nuisance variables biasing results. The explanation of the instructions needs to be presented in a clearer fashion so the participants are less confused at the start of the experiment. This design attempted to do so, but participants were not sure when to actually begin recording answers.
Further, future experiments may want to group the participants in a random fashion rather then using whether a participant has previously taken a cognition class. Although this study tried to group participants who had already learned something about previous, similar experiments, this may have biased results between groups in someway.
Another flaw that should be corrected for in future experiments is Group B already had the first answer on the answer sheet filled in for them before the experiment. This answer needed no processing and therefore should not have been included in the results.
The flaws that have been suggested are far from complete. They are only used to show the need for further experiments designed to replicate these findings. With the high priced market of memory enhancing herbs and drugs for sale in today’s market, further research on these findings should be considered. With prior findings that support an increase in memory with deeper levels of processing (Craik and Tulving, 1975) a more in-depth look into these results is necessary.
References
Craik, I. M., & Tulving, Endel(1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 268-294.