Table 1

Helping Students Understand the Article

Section

 Tips, Comments, and Problem Areas

Abstract

anecdotal evidence: nonscientific evidence, usually consisting of people’s reports of their own experiences.

retrieval practice: recalling the names several times.

“Matching….” (next to last sentence): The authors’ goal was to show that the better memory of the people playing the name game was not due to being exposed to the names more times or to spending more time studying the names.

Introduction

First paragraph

 robust effectiveness of retrieval practice … (last sentence of first paragraph): that practicing recalling information is an effective way to improve memory for real world events—retrieval practice is a powerful memory strategy that works in a variety of situations.

Second paragraph

 A simpler version of the memory strategies described in this paragraph are available at  described http://www.psywww.com/mtsite/remnames.html

As well as at

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTIM_12.htm

Third paragraph

imagery mnemonics: memory strategies that involve visualizing (making mental pictures, seeing pictures in  your head).

Landauer and Bjork ….: Imagine two groups. In the first group, participants are presented with each name (e.g., “Mark Mitchell”) and immediately given the first name (e.g., “Mark”) and asked to recall the last name. In the second group, participants are presented with each name but there is a delay before they are given the first name and asked for the last name. Later, both groups are given a test on all the names. Landauer and Bjork’s research suggests that the second group would do better on this last recall test.

Fourth paragraph

Anecdotally: from informal observations

Sixth paragraph

semantic elaboration:  make more meaningful and thus more memorable. For more on elaboration, go to

http://www.ship.edu/~ambart/PSY_325/Levels.htm

or

http://www.ycc.ac.uk/yc/new/HUMSOC/psycho/unit1/craiktulv.htm

 cue: a key that unlocks a memory, something that activates the memory.

Eighth paragraph

Note that Experiment 1 would have been a multiple group study if they had used only one time of recall. Because they used three times of recall, the experiment was technically a mixed design (see Chapter 12). However, as we will see, they treated it as if it were three different multiple group experiments.

Ninth paragraph

Intake: group

Experiment 1

Method (Design)

practice effects: the researchers were concerned that the tutors, who were not experienced teachers, would do a better job of interacting with their third class than with their first class (for more about practice effects, see p. 381 of Research design explained).

Counterbalanced:  If (a) tutors did get better with practice and (b) all the tutors did the meeting in pairs exercise for their first class and the elaborate name game in their third class,  the elaborate name game group might do better simply due to practice effects. To control for practice effects, the authors set up a situation where 1/3 of the tutors used the meeting in pairs exercise for their first class, 1/3 used the regular name game in their first class, and 1/3 used the elaborate name game in their first class (for more on counterbalancing, see top of page 388 of Research design explained).

Results

First paragraph

alpha level:  significance level (for more, see page 251 of Research design explained).

Acoustically similar:  sounded like

Proportions: If 4 names were recalled in a 9-person (8 students besides the subject) class, the proportion would be 4 out of 8 (names other than the student’s own name) or 50%. If, on the other hand, 4 names were recalled in an 11-person class, the proportion would be 4 out of 10 (names other than the student’s own name) or 40%.

Second paragraph

 Note that you can understand the article without knowing the three terms below (two-way ANOVA, floor effect, and interaction). The authors are explaining why they did not do the two-way ANOVA.

two-way ANOVA: an analysis of variance that uses two predictors (in this case, memory strategy and time of testing). For more on two way ANOVAs, see Chapter 11 of Research design explained.

floor effect: In this study, the floor effect was caused by having very poor recall in the control group. To see a definition of floor effect, read page 128 of Research design explained; to understand  why floor effects would be a problem, read pages 349 and 350 of Research design explained.

Interaction: In this case, the authors are referring to the advantages of one memory strategy over another being different over different times of testing. For example, if the name game led to the worst recall on the first test (30 min after learning the names) but the best recall on the second test (2 weeks later), there would be an interaction between memory strategy and time of test. To understand interactions, read page 325 and Tables 11-3 and 11-4 of

Research design explained.

planned comparisons: these are essentially t tests that were planned in advance. The authors are not just fishing for significant effects. For more, see footnote on the bottom of page 214 of Research design explained.

first test: refers to number of names recalled on first recall test (30 min after learning names)

second test: refers to number of names recalled on second recall test (two weeks after learning names).

 Progressively:  increasingly

Monotonic: consistently increasing

  Linear trend test: a statistical test to see if the data would fit a straight line.

 “names position in its group…” The second name of a list of 8 names would be .25 (2/8) ; the second name in a list of 10 names would be .20 (2/10). The last person to be introduced would be 1.00 (e.g., 8/8 and 10/10 both equal 1.00).

Sixth paragraph

Students dropped out of the study before doing the final recall test. Students who recalled fewer names were more likely to drop out of the study. If more of the poor recall students dropped out of the experimental groups than the control group, the results may be due to differential dropout rate. However, differential dropout probably did not affect the results because about the same number of students dropped out of each condition. To support the position that students with poor memories are not more likely to drop out of one condition than another, the authors report the results of a couple of 2 (dropout versus nodropout) X 3 (pairing up, simple name game, complex name game) tests. You do not need to understand these tests:Just understand that they failed to find any evidence that students with worse memories were more likely to drop out of the control condition than treatment conditions.

Discussion

repetition alone: reading and hearing the names several times

repeated retrieval practice: practice recalling the names

Experiment 2

Results

first test: refers to number of names recalled on first recall test (30 min after learning names)

second test: refers to number of names recalled on second recall test (two weeks after learning names).

General Discussion

Bottom of second paragraph

You might repeat the study asking students to rate how interesting they found the learning task.

Bottom of third paragraph

     You might repeat the study using bigger classes.