Craik & Tulving
Aim: To test LOP - measure durability of memory trace to measure which information is recalled best – semantic, structural or phonetic
Procedure: 24 pp’s were tested individually using a repeated measures design (e.g. they took part in all categories being tested) Measured shallow, intermediate and deep encoding by using different questions – based on structural, phonetic and semantic. PP’s were informed they would be answering questions about the words – they were not told they would be asked to remember these. Words were presented using a tachistoscope for 200 milliseconds after the question had been asked. When words were presented pp’s had to click ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in answer to the question using the response control. Recall was tested by free recall in the correct order (pp’s had to remember words) or by recognition ( pp’s were given a list of words which included words that were not originally shown)
Findings: Recognition was 17% for words processed structurally; 36% for words processed phonetically and 65% for words processed semantically
Conclusion:The deeper the processing the greater the recognition. This suggests sematic information leads to the deepest memory trace in comparison to material presented structurally or phonetically.
Evaluation:
Generalisability: Only 24 pp’s were used, this is a relatively small sample size despite being over 20 pp’s so it is unlikely to be representative.
Reliability: The experiment was carefully controlled such as the time each word was displayed using the tachistoscope. This means the experiment is reliable as it can be repeated and checked for consistency. However, improved recognition may be due to time rather than processing of the material. e.g. semantic questions took longer to study so this may be why recall was increased.
Application to real life: Useful for students to understand and apply in their revision. Reading a book with not lead to best recall.
Validity: PP’s were not told they would need to recall the words later. This ensured they did not consciously try to remember them, making it more accurate. However learning lists of words is not necessarily how we learn in everyday life so this makes the task artificial and lacking validity.
Aim: To test LOP - measure durability of memory trace to measure which information is recalled best – semantic, structural or phonetic
Procedure: 24 pp’s were tested individually using a repeated measures design (e.g. they took part in all categories being tested) Measured shallow, intermediate and deep encoding by using different questions – based on structural, phonetic and semantic. PP’s were informed they would be answering questions about the words – they were not told they would be asked to remember these. Words were presented using a tachistoscope for 200 milliseconds after the question had been asked. When words were presented pp’s had to click ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in answer to the question using the response control. Recall was tested by free recall in the correct order (pp’s had to remember words) or by recognition ( pp’s were given a list of words which included words that were not originally shown)
Findings: Recognition was 17% for words processed structurally; 36% for words processed phonetically and 65% for words processed semantically
Conclusion:The deeper the processing the greater the recognition. This suggests sematic information leads to the deepest memory trace in comparison to material presented structurally or phonetically.
Evaluation:
Generalisability: Only 24 pp’s were used, this is a relatively small sample size despite being over 20 pp’s so it is unlikely to be representative.
Reliability: The experiment was carefully controlled such as the time each word was displayed using the tachistoscope. This means the experiment is reliable as it can be repeated and checked for consistency. However, improved recognition may be due to time rather than processing of the material. e.g. semantic questions took longer to study so this may be why recall was increased.
Application to real life: Useful for students to understand and apply in their revision. Reading a book with not lead to best recall.
Validity: PP’s were not told they would need to recall the words later. This ensured they did not consciously try to remember them, making it more accurate. However learning lists of words is not necessarily how we learn in everyday life so this makes the task artificial and lacking validity.