The Effect of Recall on Non-Meaningful Words

In the last half century several theories have emerged with regard to the best model for human memory. In each of these models there was a specific way to help people recall words and

This experiment is based on previous research done. For example, in 1969, in a research by Bower and Clark, no difference in the immediate recall scores of both groups was noted, but when later asked to recall, those who used narrative chaining recalled an average of 93% of the words compared to the control group which only recalled an average of 13% of words. In another experiment, participants who used narrative chaining remembered six times more information than participants who learned by simply repeating the words to themselves (Loftus, 1980). Narrative chaining is particularly useful when a person wants to remember information in a particular order. The aim of the study is to investigate the effectiveness of narrative chaining on memory. It is hypothesized that in a group of 59 participants aged 10-69 years old, participants who use narrative chaining to remember a list of words will remember a higher number and percentage of words when asked to write down as many words as possible through serial recall compared to participants who use maintenance rehearsal.

Memory span is a measure of short term memory and its capacity through the use of a list. Participants are asked to review a list of items, retain, and immediately recall as accurate as possible. The list may be conducted with a random list of numbers, words, or letters since these items may influence differently amongst each participant. The list is also varied in item length to test in which particular length the participant is subject to make the least of errors and determine their memory span. The average short-term memory capacity is ranged

In each trial, the participants were presented with a sequence of words on the left side of the window. Each word was presented for one and a half seconds. After all the words were presented, the response buttons were presented on the right side of window. These response buttons were labeled with words from the sequence along with new distractor words that were not part of the sequence. The goal of the participants was to click on the response buttons and identify all the words that were part of the sequence. The independent variable for this study was the types of words that were presented on the test (response buttons). The dependent variable was the percentage of each types of items reported.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this experiment was to test whether a delay before recall would affect the serial position effect. The experiment was done by getting participants to take part in a simple tests; hearing words read out, then after they are read out, recalling them and writing them down. Two of these tests took place, one without a gap before recall, and one with. The results only partly supported previous research, with both tests showing a higher number of people remembering words at the start of the list, but unlike previous research findings, the last words of the list were not remembered

The current study was created to retest reproducibility of Slamecka and Graf results about participants remembering words better when they generated the words than when they read the words in a sample of undergraduate students at Texas A&M University (Slamecka and Graf, 1978). Nineteen undergraduate students at Texas A&M University participated in an experiment where one group was given a set of words and were told to memorize the words. The other group was given one word and the first letter of the second word and was told to generate the second word. It was hypothesized that the group with the participants who generated the second word would remember those sets of words better than the other group. Results showed that the group who generated the second word significantly memorized the words better, the p value being < .05. More in depth explanations involving more variables are discussed such as the five rules, or the within subjects, and their effect on the generation effect as well as future directions.

The experiment is as follows; one hundred students, randomly selected, participated in a context dependent memory experiment. twenty five were in each of the four following learn-recall situations; hot room-hot room, hot room-cold room, cold room-cold room, cold room-hot room. They were asked to spend thirty minutes learning a list of thirty words. The next day they were asked to recall those words in a fifteen minute time period. There are no results.

Furthermore, the language used on the rubric is rather arbitrary as there is minimal distinction between the different achievement categories. For a reliable assessment task, it is imperative that the activities provided facilitate authentic teaching and learning opportunities, in turn increasing the validity, fairness and flexibility of the assessment. Therefore, this misalignment between the marking rubric, the task sheet and the assessment outline weakens the reliability of this Assessment Task.

In both of the tasks, the research participant confidently listed a word that was not originally part of the picture or the list of words. For example, the participant in test A1 listed the word ``door`` and omitted other details that he was not attention to it in the original picture. He added the words that made sense in completing the missing parts of the picture in his memory. In test A2, the research participant circled the words ``sleep`` because some of the words such as night, bed and snoring interfered with his information and made him imagined that this word was listed. After the distractive discussion about what he ate for breakfast, he also circled the words table and chair as he remembered the details of the moment breakfast and he recreated a memory that he believed it was accurate.

Using paired wordlists of nouns, Bower and Gordon demonstrated this in their 1970 experiment. In their study, they had undergraduate students learn paired wordlists by one of four methods – rehearsal of the two words; reading a sentence in which one of the words acted upon the other (i.e. “The boy hit the ball.”); creating a sentence which linked the two words (i.e. “Nancy threw her bag on the table.”) or creating a mental image of the two words together (i.e. imagining a basket of flowers) (Bower & Gordon, 1970). Results found that students who employed imagery did better on recalling the word pairs in comparison to other methods and those who utilized rehearsal had the lowest recall rate out of the four groups (Bower & Gordon, 1970).

The experiment consisted of 6 trials that contained words such as: sleep, bed, tired etc. The participants were asked to look at the rectangle on the screen before starting the trials. In the first trial, the participants were asked to press the “start trial” button because a fixation dot would appear in the middle of the screen. The participants were asked to stare at the computer until a sequence of words appeared, with each word was presented for one second. After a full sequence was presented, a set of buttons were shown, each labeled with a word. Some the words were on the list, and some were not. The participant’s task was to click or tap on the buttons to indicate which words were in the sequence. The sequence of words consisted of the actual words shown or related or unrelated words. For example, some trials consisted of all sleep related content to see if the participant would select items that were related or select items that were not in the sequence. After identifying the words that were shown in the sequence, they would receive feedback on the accuracy of their memory. After the participants were done

In the results provided in the journal, we see that in the free recall testing, the use of the 3R method was more successful across the board than those who used note taking or rereading as their study strategy. The results of the students who used the note-taking strategy and the rereading strategy were not as significant as students using the 3R strategy.

This data is very similar to the study done by Huang, Tomasini, and Nikel (1977), where there was roughly a 50% difference between words presented in the beginning of the list and those presented later. The current study most resembled this study, as they both had to do with sequential positioning of words on a list, and short-term memory recall. The other two studies, performed by Asch (1946) and Furnam (1986), are harder to compare to the current study because they differ in setup, and give results in a different format. However, both studies confirmed the primacy effect theory, similarly to the current study.

In daily life, memory is used all the time. When we go to buy things, we would remember the list of items what we are going to buy. At school, we would also need to have revision in order to remember the materials for examination. Or even, when we meet friends, we would also need to recall their names. Thus it is important to know and understand how we remember such things so that we can effectively recall them when necessary. Obviously, we do not need to remember the exact position or order of things in daily life. We would have our own pattern for remember and retrieve information (Ashcraft, 2010). This is named as free recall, which items recalled in any order (Francis, Neath, MacKewn and Goldthwaite, 2004). However, many researchers

Cognitive psychology studies the way people think an how memory plays a role in people's everyday lives. Memory is important, in both the short-term and the long-term, because without it all actions would have to be innate. Since it has been well-researched that both innate and experiential are needed for people to develop successfully (Sutton, 2008), memory of experiences and the lessons learned are important for every type of functioning. Memory, in the case of the article to be reviewed, is studied with regard to how students retain lists of vocabulary words in a Spanish class. This paper will look at all aspects of the article to determine how the author provided the given information.