Experimental Report: Levels of Processing

Prepare an experimental report based on the CogLab “Levels of Processing” experiment and discuss the experimental results which answer the following research question:

Research Question: Does deliberate learning (as opposed to incidental learning), where deep processing is applied, result in better memory retrieval?

Title (1 mark)

Abstract (4 marks) [word limit = 90]

Introduction (20 marks) [word limit = 500]

You will then discuss your experimental results in relation to these studies later in the Discussion section. You must include a minimum of five citations in your Introduction.

Experimental hypotheses:Remember that your literature review should logically lead to the experimental hypotheses – there should be three (H1, H2, and H3). They should be written up clearly at the end of the Introduction section.The first experimental hypothesis (H1) predicts a main effect of the first independent variable

(IV1). The second experimental hypothesis (H2) predicts a main effect of the second independent variable

(IV2). For each of these predicted main effects, you need to state the direction of the predicted effect (e.g., which condition is expected to show, depending on what the dependent variable is, faster/slower response times or higher/lower response accuracy). The third hypothesis (H3) predicts an interaction between the two IVs – this interaction needs to be thought through carefully and written out clearly (Note: There will be a class exercise in Seminar 5 that will help you to formulate the interaction hypothesis). Finally, do note that for each experimental hypothesis, there is a corresponding null hypothesis which predicts the status quo. In other words, the null hypothesis predicts no effect and no interaction.

Methods (4 marks) [word limit = 200]

Design (USE THIS: Within- participants Design)

Participant; Do also note that we did not employ random assignment.

Apparatus/Material

State which online CogLab experiment was administered using a computer.

USE THIS: Levels of Processing experiment via CogLab (https://coglab.cengage.com/)

1. The experiment was based on Craik and Tulving (1975), who founded the Levels of Processing theory. The participant was asked to log in to https://coglab.cengage.com/ and access the Levels of Processing experiment. He was tasked to read through all instructions before participating in the experiment. As per the instructions, the participant was asked if he could see a rectangle at the bottom of the page of the screen. The entire rectangle must be in view before starting the experiment. There were 2 parts to these experiments, namely Phase I and II.

Experimental Hypotheses

2. In Phase I, there were 3 conditions for each word given. Ideally, the options for answers were ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. The 3 types of tasks were split into 3 types of Processing: Shallow, Intermediate and Deep Processing. Thus, the trials tested the physical, phonetic, and semantic features of the word given, in random sequence. For example, a question dependent on physical features would ask a question like “Is RICE in uppercase?”. To which, the participant had to click ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. There were 60 trials altogether,

3. In Phase II, there were 60 words that were featured in Phase I and 60 new words shown to the Participant. The question asked was, “Was this word shown in Phase I?”. The participant would proceed to answer either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ before starting a new trial.

4. If a participant was using an iPad Tablet, then he/she had to tap ‘Start Next Trial’ to begin the experiment and click on ‘Start Next Trial’ if he/she was using a computer.

1) The first part covers the descriptive statistics. The group summary data (class results) can be found in the SPSS output file. Use the data provided to prepare the table of means as shown below, in APA format.

2) The table below is available in TMA02 copy-and-paste table.doc. You may copy-and-paste the table and insert all the necessary information.

3) Do not start this section immediately with the table, but rather, with a brief description of the summary data, highlighting the key findings, as presented in the table of means.

4) The second part of this section covers the inferential statistics (statistical results). State the type of ANOVA that was used to analyse the results. In this case, there are two IVs, so this is a two?way ANOVA, and there should be three sets of results – the two main effects and the interaction.

5) For each effect, provide the statistical test value (F), the degrees of freedom, and the probability value (p) and present them in APA format (see examples below). The F?value in ANOVA is always positive, so it does not give any indication of the direction of the effect. If the effect is found to be statistically significant, you need to check the mean scores of the relevant conditions from the table of means to see if they actually match the hypothesis.

6) You should bear in mind that a significant effect could possibly be due to results that go against what your hypothesis predicted. In such cases, you should discuss the possible reasons for this outcome in the Discussion section. Remember to correctly state whether the experimental hypotheses were accepted or rejected, and whether the null hypotheses were rejected or failed to be rejected.

There was no significant main effect of position of number, F(1,21) = 2.21, p = .081.

Significantly more numbers in the tone suffix condition were recalled than numbers in the speech suffix condition, F(1,21) = 5.26, p = .035.

There was a significant interaction between position of number and type of suffix, F(1,21) = 4.76, p < .001.

Note: Where p = .000, it should be presented as p < .001

Discussion (50 marks) [word limit = 510]

No new literature should be introduced in the Discussion section. In other words, you should not discuss any study that was not introduced or mentioned in the Introduction section. A separate Conclusion section is not necessary as concluding statements can be made at the end of the Discussion section. The concluding paragraph should contain the implications of experimental results in relation to the experimental hypotheses and implications for future research which addresses questions unanswered in your study. Any suggestion made for future research should have a basis, whether it emerged from the findings of your study or from related past research studies

Appendix (1 mark)

Label the Appendix appropriately and attach the SPSS ANOVA results.