LAB REPORT PSY1004 PDF

Preview

Summary

LAB REPORT ...

Description

Mass study versus Distributed study and the effects of free form responses and multiplechoice examinations on memory retention.

Abstract – Research from the late 1800’s has focused on the area of mass study, or “cramming” over a spaced or distributed model to identify what method is more successful in memory retention. It has been hypothesised that a distributed model would prevail as the superior form of study as opposed to the mass or cram convention. Much research has focused not only on the differences between mass and distributed practices but also the interstudy Intervals, or ISI, to help understand how timing between repeat learning can solidify the retention of the material. Testing methods that will be examined in this research will be focus on examinations with either free form response type questionnaire or a multiple choice scenario. Methods used to test these hypothesis’ include group models with control conditions to identify differences within overall retention. Using the nested model we will be able to draw inferences to help predict which of these methods are superior in overall learning and memory retentiveness. Empirical studies results vary slightly, however it has been found that the spacing or distributed study effect is superior to mass study. Furthermore, studies have identified that longer spacing gaps between learning and revision are more beneficial in the long term for memory retention.

For over 100 years research has aimed to find the most effective way to design educational programs, to ensure that retention of this knowledge is not only retained, but is a solid foundation to build on, with future knowledge and concepts. Since Ebbinghaus (1885), who reported that most short term memory (STM) can be lost in hours and that savings in Long term (LTM) memory can last for decades, numerous studies have been conducted on the benefits of distributed or spaced learning, that is the interval between initial introduction of new knowledge and then time between the revision of such knowledge. Mass study is often referred to a “cram session” whereby the student will condense these spaced sessions into one main study time, or back to back intervals to learn all materials with revision in the one session. Whilst both these options have advantages mass study seems to have one main advantage, this being able to draw on the information learned in a shorter period as opposed to a longer retentive period. This advantage would be more in line with examinations. Spaced study or the distributed model allows the learner to revise and recall information in multiple learning sessions which has been proven to aid memory retention of this learned information (Carpenter et al., 2012). Carpenter et al., (2012) also discovered the ISI optimal spacing timeframe is between 10-20% of the test delay, indicating that the interval between the learned information and the revision should be between 10 -20% of the time between introduction of the material and examination. The PQ4R method, (preview, question, read, reflect, recite and review), has been found to actively engage LTM with information encoding. (Bernstein et al., 2018). Dempster (1988), reported that empirical studies have shown that spaced or distributed learning models have generally been conducted in a laboratory environment which lack the ability to tie these correlations to the real world. In one of these such lab projects students were taught words

in a computer lab, and either mass learned (six sets of words, one learned each day, with each set presented three times) versus the spaced model (two sets of words, presented three times, once every other day). In this study students who learned via the distributed model had higher recall of the words learned (Sobel, Cepeda and Kapler, 2011). Bahrick et al., (1993) pioneered a study to focus on the retention of learned materials, however as this was a first of its kind focusing on retention over a longer period, with findings lacking empirical backing this has now been used as a basis for further research into the long term benefits of spacing and retention intervals for previously learned material. Other testing measures such as a fill in the blank type scenario or multiple choice scenarios have the potential to recall information encoded into LTM by the language used and the direction of the question. In a study by Hart and Schooler (Hart, 2003) questions were written in second person, “you will …”. This construction of language may in fact have the participant reflecting upon personal experiences instead of that of a shared nature under a human experience umbrella or previously learned in a theoretical environment, which may lead the answer in a different direction based on learned experience as opposed to theoretical learning (Scoboria et al., 2006). With Multiple choice examinations a student may find that as four or so answers are available to a single question. This may lead to retrieval the memory or learned experience based on other factors associated with the learning. This could include environmental or some other sensory or visual information that was used to encode this information into memory (Bernstein et al., 2018). Physical Learning can also be examined using the spacing principal. Christina (1974) presented a thesis on the effects of massed and distributed practice on the performance of motor skills. This thesis reported distributed or spaced practice was more beneficial when learning a motor skill than mass practice (Singer, 1965). Method In this study 274 undergraduate students enrolled to participate through the Swinburne Research Experience Project, REP. Of the 274 participants 239 completed the study, 66 male (27.62%), 169 female (70.71%), and 4 unidentified or other gender (1.67%). The ages of the participants ranged between 18 – 65 years of age with the SD of 3.12. Students were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions, (1) Massed practice with a 20 item fill in the blank test, (2) Massed practice with a 20 item multiple choice test, (3) Distributed practice with a 20 item fill in the blank test, (4) Distributed practice with a 20 item multiple choice test. Participants regardless of their assigned condition were to read the research methods chapter of the Bernstein text (Chapter 2). The mass practice participants were instructed that they would need to spend 6 hours studying the material uninterrupted in one sitting, whilst the distributed condition participants were required to spend 2 hours studying the material on 3 consecutive days. Each group were also asked to disclose demographic information such as age and gender. Participants were advised that this study was approved by the Swinburne University Human Research Ethics committee. Participants were advised that they were able to withdraw from the study at any given point and that compensation for such involvement was not financial but provided as grade points towards their final grade. The chronological events for this research was: 

Participants signed up for the study through the Research Experience Program and began Part 1 of the study through Qualtrics (computer software; qualtrics.com). Part 1 of the

  



  

study involved assigning participants to study strategy conditions, presenting the relevant instructions, and answering the demographic questions. Participants had 5 minutes to complete Part 1 of the study. Participants read the consent information statement and agreed to participate in the study by clicking 'Continue'. Participants were randomly assigned a study strategy condition. Thus, half of the participants received the massed practice condition instructions, whereas the other half received the distributed practice condition instructions. All participants were advised to log into Qualtrics three (3) weeks after their final study session to complete Part 2 of the study where the researchers tested participants’ knowledge of research methods. When they logged on, Qualtrics randomly assigned half of the participants to complete the fill-in-the-blank test, whereas the other half completed the multiple-choice test. Participants had 25 minutes to complete the test in Part 2 of the study. Both tests (fill-in-the-blank vs. multiple-choice) contained 20 items. All participants were debriefed at the end of the study about the purpose of the study, manipulations, and the researchers’ hypotheses.

Results Analysis of the Mass Study (MS), showed n = 121, M 14.70, SD 2.31 vs Distributed Study (DS) n =118, M 16.03, SD 1.49. This shows the difference in this study was MS M 14.70 VS DS M 16.03 providing superiority in this comparison to DS. Analysis of the Fill in the blank (FB) n = 120, M 13.92, SD 1.52, vs the multiple choice scenario (MC) n = 119, M = 15.36, SD 2.29. This identifies that MC scenario was more beneficial as opposed to FB, MC M 15.36 VS FB M 13.92 When further filtering into the study method and testing condition the following results have been noted. MSFB n = 60, M = 12.36, SD 1.53 vs DSFB n = 60, M 15.47, SD 1.52. This identifies DSFB as superior in learning and testing methods under this experiment. DSFB M 15.47 VS MSFB 12.36. Analysis of the Multiple choice scenarios yielded the following results. MSMC n = 61, M 17.03, SD 2.87 vs DSMC n = 58, M 16.59, SD 1.45. These results have identified the MSMC was slightly superior in this experiment MSMC M 17.03 VS DSMC 16.59

MASS VS DISTRIBUTED Massed

Distributed

Overall

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Individual condition results Massed

Distributed

Overall

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Discussion After collating and interpreting all the data, a distributed model of study has better results in the retention and the recollection of learned information, whilst multiple choice questionnaire yielded better results when compared to that of free form response questionnaires. When looking at study model with type of questionnaire it has been found that distributed study with a multiple choice exam has the highest mean scores (M = 17.03), followed by a mass study multiple choice (M = 16.59). Fill in the blanks or freeform response altogether had lower mean scores with Distributed study freeform response (M = 15.47) and mass study freeform response yielded the lowest mean score (M = 12.36). Carpenter et al., (2012) documented the benefits of distributed

study and identified the ideal spacing intervals to maximise on memory retentiveness in relation to material that was to be learned and retested. Building upon these ideals the PQ4R method allows for efficient encoding of information into the long term memory to allow retrieval for such information to be readily available more so than a Mass study session which leaves this information in STM without the connections required to form a solid foundation of understanding for the information learned in that particular mass session. Combining distributed learning and revision with a mass learning “cram” before an exam may in fact be complimentary to learning, however alone it provides an environment that is unwelcoming and underwhelming that can easily lead to disinterest and discontinuation of learning. (Cepeda et al., 2008). Carpenter and Delosh (2005) found that any type of spacing or distributed learning practice produces better results than mass study practices and when combined with the ideal spacing gaps (Carpenter et al., 2012) of 10 - 20% of the test delay will enhance student’s overall results and engagement levels. Christina (1974), also concluded that with the acquisition of new motor skills and refinement of them in the field of physical education. Distributed training in some instances elevated the skill level of one motor skill whilst declining another (dribbling a basketball was superior with spaced training vs mass training however running speed decreased by this process) which is a variable that would need further investigation. Empirically and through this study we can conclude that the relationship between mass study and distributed study in conjunction with memory retention are causally related in a lab setting, with results allowing us to interpret the more regular the intervals between study and revision, with methods such as the PQ4R (Bernstein, 2018), the easier it is for a participant to retain and recall this information from LTM. Whilst the participants are all PSYC students we can not infer from this study to the general population as the subset of participants do not completely reflect a sample to make this inference. Articles referenced in this research also state that due to the nature of these experiments occurring within a laboratory setting no causal relationship can be made on the general population, the correlations can be tested to further support these findings.

References

Bernstein, D. (2018). Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 208-260). Melbourne: Cengage. Carpenter, S., & DeLosh, E. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to name learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 619-636. doi: 10.1002/acp.1101 Carpenter, S., Cepeda, N., Rohrer, D., Kang, S., & Pashler, H. (2012). Using Spacing to Enhance Diverse Forms of Learning: Review of Recent Research and Implications for Instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 369-378. doi: 10.1007/s10648-012-9205-z Christina, W. (1974). Kinesiology, Sport Studies, and Physical Education Master’s Theses | Kinesiology, Sport Studies and Physical Education | The College at Brockport: State University of New York. Retrieved 10 September 2019, from http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/pes_theses Scoboria, A., Mazzoni, G., Kirsch, I., & Jimenez, S. (2006). The effects of prevalence and script information on plausibility, belief, and memory of autobiographical events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(8), 1049-1064. doi: 10.1002/acp.1240 Sobel, H., Cepeda, N., & Kapler, I. (2010). Spacing effects in real-world classroom vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 763-767. doi: 10.1002/acp.1747...