Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final

8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final

1/29

PSYCHOLOGY: HIGHER LEVEL

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

TITLE: The influence of degree of intentional learning upon the performance of an incidental task.

Name of Candidate: Sakshi Jain

Candidate Number: 002279-035

Session: May 2012

Word Count: 2116

Supervisor: Dr. Deepika Tikoo


2/29

Sakshi Jain 002279-035

Abstract

The aim of the present research study was to study the influence of an intentional task on the performance of

an incidental task. The research hypothesis was that the performance of participants in the experimental group

(intentional learning) will be better than the control group (incidental learning).

The design of the experiment was of independent measures. The independent variable is the presentation of list

consisting of 10 nonsense syllables. The dependent variable is the recall of words from the list of nonsense

syllables. The participants were divided in two groups, experimental and control. The experimental group was

further divided into 2 groups. Experimental group 1 anticipated 4 words. Experimental group 2 anticipated 8

words. Then they anticipated colours instead. The control group was only told about learning a list and thus

had to anticipate the common colours in 3 trials.

All participants were in year 11 and year 12 students studying I.B. in G.D Goenka World School in the age

group of 16-18 years.

The results proved the research hypothesis, that the performance of an intentional task would be better than the

performance of the incidental task. These results support the study conducted by Hergenhahn and Lee (1965)

Introduction


3/29


The aim of the present research study is to study the influence of degree of intentional learning upon the

performance of an incidental task.

The term incidental learning refers to the acquisition of a word or expression without the conscious intention

to commit the element to memory, such as picking up an unknown word from listening to someone or from

reading a text.

The terms incidental and intentional learning were originally learning in terms of stimulus-response

contingencies (Postman & Keppel, 1969). Researchers experimentally investigated human learning by

providing human subjects with information (such as a list of words) under two conditions. In the intentional

condition, subjects were told in advance that they would afterwards be tested on their recollection of the

materials to which they were going to be exposed. Subjects in the incidental condition were not told that they

would be later tested. The terms incidental and intentional learning referred to a methodological feature of

learning experiments, pertaining to the absence or presence of a notification whether subjects would be tested

after exposure.

A number of investigations have shown than an increase in number of stimulus presentation affects both

intentional and incidental learning (Gleitman & Gillet, 1957; Saltzman and Atkinson,1954).

According to McLaughlin (1965), the early studies of incidental learning were directed primarily at

demonstrating that the phenomenon did in fact occur and that such learning is inferior to intentional learning

(e.g., Chapman,1932; Mulhall,1915; Myers, 1913; Poppelreuter, 1912).

Saltzman and Atkinson (1954) fount that with a small number of stimulus presentations (2 and 6), both

intentional and incidental learning increased at about the same rate, but with greater number of presentations

(8 and 16), incidental learning benefitted only slightly while intentional learning rose considerably.

The present study is based on the study done by Hergenhahn and Lee (1965). where incidental learning was

measured at various stages of intentional learning. Results indicated that intentional learning was better than

incidental learning.


4/29


Bahrick (1957) hypothesized that intentional learning occurs at the expense of incidental learning and vice-

versa. He measured the degree of incidental learning at various stages of learning the orienting task which

consisted of the serial learning of 16 nonsense syllables.

Research Hypothesis

The performance in terms of recall of words by the participants in the experimental group (intentional

learning) will be better than the control group (incidental learning).

Null Hypothesis

There will be no difference in the performance in terms of recall of words in the experimental group

(intentional learning) and the control group (incidental learning).

Method:

Design:


5/29


The design of the experiment was independent measures. This was used in order to reduce demand

characteristics. The independent variable is the presentation of list consisting of 10 nonsense syllables. The

dependent variable is the recall of words from the list of nonsense syllables.

The ethical considerations were taken where, the consent form, was given out and signed by the participants

The experiment was also assured to not cause any harm to the participant and the participant has the right to

withdraw at any point of the experiment. The participant were debriefed in the end and given a copy of the

results.

Materials:

Consent Form

List of verbal instructions to be given at each stage

8 Index cards (17.3 x 5in.)

NSS list

10 Different colored pens (purple, light green, orange, light blue, yellow, black, pink, dark green, red and dark

blue)

Memory Drum

Standardized Instructions

Participants:


6/29


The target population of this study was the Year 11 and Year 12 students studying I.B. in G.D Goenka World

School in the age group of 16-18 years. A participant sample of 40 was taken which was divided into two

groups that are 20 in experimental group and 20 in control group, where the 20 participants in the experimental

group were further divided into 2 groups of 10 participants each. This sample was a convenient sample as

students who were free and available were able to do the experiment without hindering their classes. The

participants were randomly allotted to each group.

Procedure:


7/29


Total of 20 subjects were there in the experimental group. Who were further divided into two groups, Group 1

and Group 2.Group 1 learned a criterion of 50% or 4 correct. Group 2 learned a criterion to a 100% or 8

correct.

Before the participant was called, the room was properly arranged with the materials required. The participants

from experimental group 1 were called in and handed over the consent forms and told they had the right to

withdraw. After signing the consent form, standardized instructions were given.

After setting up the apparatus the participant is made comfortable. She is asked whether she is able to see the

apparatus properly and clearly. This is done to get a focused response from the subject.

The participants from the experimental group 1 which learned the criterion of 50% or 4 correct responses were

first shown the list of nonsense syllables and were told to try to remember the syllables. After this initial

exposure, the first learning trial began. Participants were instructed to anticipate which syllable was going to

appear next in the list by spelling it. Participants were told to work as quickly as possible, although no time

restrictions were placed upon them. Trials were massed.

Similarly for the participants from the experimental group 2 which learned the criterion of 100% or 8 correct

responses were given the same instructions as the experimental group 1.

After reaching these criterias, participants in each group were immediately switched to the problem involving

the colours in which the syllables were written. Participants were told to anticipate the colour rather than the

nonsense syllable. Criterion for learning the list of geometric forms was 3 consecutive trials for each of the

groups. The participants were thanked and debriefed. The room was rearranged and the apparatus were setup.

Then the participants from the control group were also given a consent form followed by standardized

instructions and then they were told that they were about to learn a list of common colours, however they were

not exposed to the list before the first experimental trial. They were simply asked to guess blindly what they


8/29


thought the colour would be. Except for this first trial, the regular serial learning procedures were followed,

and these participants were also run to a criterion of 3 consecutive correct trials.


9/29


Results

Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation of Control and Experimental Group 1 (criterion of 50% or 4

correct responses)

Group Experimental Group 1 Control Group

Mean 5.0000 4.4500

Standard Deviation .973 1.932

T-Test Value .263

The graph above represents standard deviation and mean for both experimental and control group. Graph 1

show that the mean number of words recalled in experimental group 1 was 5.0000 words and in control group

was 4.4500 words. The t-test between the groups is .263, which shows that there is no significant difference

between the two groups. The standard deviation for experimental group was .97333 and for the control group

was 1.93241. The standard deviation compared to the mean is very low, thus the actual mean is closer to the

calculated mean.

Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation of Control and Experimental Group 2 (criterion to a 100% or 8

correct)


10/29


Group Experimental Group 2 Control Group

Mean 7.9500 4.4500

Standard Deviation .759 1.932

T-Test Value .000

The graph above represents standard deviation and mean for both experimental and control group. It shows

that the mean number of words recalled in experimental group was 7.95 words and in control group was 4.45.

The t-test between the groups is .000, which shows that there is significant difference between the two groups

in terms of the recalling of the words. The standard deviation for experimental group was .75915 and for the

control group was 1.93241. This demonstrates that there was a greater dispersal in control group than there is

in the experimental group. The null hypothesis can thus be rejected and the research hypothesis is clearly

supported. The standard deviation compared to the mean is very low, thus the actual mean is closer to the

calculated mean.

Discussion

From the result table 1 it can be seen that the mean for the experimental group 1 is 7.9500 and standard

deviation is .75915 whereas for the control group the mean is 4.45 and the standard deviation is 1.93241 and


11/29


the t-test value is .263. Table 2 shows that the mean for experimental group 2 is 7.95 and the standard

deviation is .75915 and the t-test value is .000.

Based on the experimental results it was concluded that it supported the research hypothesis as the results from

intentional learning were better than incidental learning and thus the null hypothesis was rejected. This is also

evident from the independent t-test conducted which is in lieu with the original study.

Incidental learning has generally been studied by presenting subjects with a learning task disguised

instructions, testing them later and comparing their scores with those obtained by subjects who initially were

instructed to learn (Gleitman and Gillett, 1957)

Findings by Mulhall (1915), Biel and Force (1943) and Jenkins (1933) show that the performance of

incidental groups was worse on successive tests compared to intentional learners.

It has also been explained by Saltzman and Atkinson (1954) also found that with a small number of stimulus

presentations (2 and 6), both intentional and incidental learning increased at about the same rate, but with

greater number of presentations (8 and 16), incidental learning benefitted only slightly while intentional

learning rose considerably. This is seen in the present study.

This can also be seen in the present study that when experimental group 1 who learned to a criteria of 50% or 4

correct responses and experimental group 2 who learned to a criteria of 100% or 8 correct responses , there

was a significant difference compared when compared to the control group. As observed by McLaughlin

(1965), that further presentations of the materials have limited effects upon the incidental learning since initial

differentiations presumable reflect strong habits which benefit little from further exercise. On other hand,

intentional subjects do not limit their differential responses to highly familiar items, but utilize additional trials

to increase the number of differentiations and connections among items.

The findings of the present study is also supported by Bahrick (1957) who found that Incidental learning was

the greatest in the very early (0%-25%) and late (100% -150%) stages of intentional learning. Little or no

intentional learning was found to occur between the 50% and the 100% level of intentional learning, indicating

that during this stage of practice the efforts of subjects were directed almost exclusive towards the mastery of


12/29


the task set by the experimenter. These results agree with the Postman and Adams (1958) hypothesis that a

great percentage of intentional learning occurs during very early trials, and also indicate that overwhelming

(when it occurs) may be a source of a large percentage of incidental learning.

Postman argued that intentional learning and incidental learning are different as a result of the instruction

stimuli which affect the learning in terms of its characteristics and amount by finding out the differential cue

producing responses which occur during practice. (McLaughlin, 1965).

The test of retention employed in incidental learning studies is of critical empirical importance (McLaughlin,

1965). The study of Postman, Adams and Phillips (1955) demonstrated that effects obtained by means of a

free-recall test of retention disappear when the method of recognition is used. They argued that only the free-

recall method is adequately sensitive to differences in incidental and intentional learning.

The limitation of the present study was that the sample size was small in the given stipulated time and in the

future the study could be conducted using the four criterias that are other than two criterias used in the

present study, Criterion I which learned a 25% of the orienting task or 2 correct anticipations. Group III, which

learned to a criterion of 75% or 6 correct anticipations. Group V, which learned to a criterion of 8 correct plus

half the trials it took subjects to reach that criterion.

The problems faced while conducting the study were that because it was a convenient sample, the participants

were willing to participate in the study at different times which to some extent caused difficulty in gathering

the data. The area used for conducting the experiment was also occupied by other students which may have

caused a hindrance and thus has disturbed the participants.

Conclusion

It was seen through the experiment and the instructions given that the performance of a task consisting of

intentional learning was better than the task consisting of incidental learning, thus proving the findings by the

researchers Hergenhahn and Lee (1965).


13/29


References

Bahrick, H. P (1957). Incidental learning at five stages of intentional learning. Journal of Experimental

psychology, 54, 259-261.

Biel,W.C., & Force, R.C. (1943) Retention of nonsense syllables in intentional and incidental learning. Journalof Experimental Psychology., 32, 52-63


14/29


Chapman, D. W. (1932) Relative effects of determinate and indeterminate Aufgaben. American Journal of

Psychology, 44,163-174.

Gleitman, H., & Gillet, E. (1957) The effects of intention upon learning. Journal of general Psychology,

57,137-147

Hergenhahn, B. R., & Lee, P. (1965) Influence of degree of intentional learning upon the performance of an

incidental task. Psychological Reports, 16, 781-785

Jenkins, J.G. (1933) Instruction as a factor in incidental learning. American Journal of Psychology.,45,471-

477

Mclaughlin, B. (1965). Intentional and incidental learning in human subjects: the role of instructions to

learn and motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 63(5), 359-376

Mulhall, E. F. (1915) Experimental studies in recall and recognition. American Journal of Psychology., 26,

217-228

Myers, G.C. (1913) A study of incidental memory. Archives of Psychology, 4(No. 26)

Poppelreuter,W. (1912) Nachweis der Unzweckmassigkeit die gebrauchlichen Associations experiment emit

sinnolsen Silben nach dem Erlernungs ind Tref ferverfahrun zur exakten Gewinnung elementarer

Reproduktionsgezetze zu verwenden. Zeitschrift fur Pschologie.,61,1-24

Postman, L., & Keppel, G. (Eds.). (1969). Verbal learning and memory. Middlesex, UK:Penguin Books.

Postman. L., & Adams P. A. (1958) Studies in incidental learning: VII. Effects of frequency of exercise and

length of list. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 86-94

Postman, L., Adams, P. A. Studies & Phillips, L. W. (1955) Incidental learning studies: II The effects of

associational value and of the method of tasting. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, _-10

Saltzman, I. J., & Atkinson, R. L. (1954) Comparisons of incidental and intentional learning

after different numbers of stimulus presentations. American Journal of Psychology, 67,

521-524.

Appendix 1:

Consent form

The influence of degree of intentional learning upon the performance of an incidental task.


15/29


The experiment is being conducted by Sakshi Jain of grade 12 IB Psychology Higher Level Class. This

consent form is being given to ask for permission to take part in my experiment which is to compare the

performance of an intentional task and incidental task.

The experiment will require you to memorize a list of words and recall them. Your results will be confidential

and will be available to you. The ethical considerations are implemented entirely, thus the participant will be

caused no harm or any discomfort. The participant holds the right to withdraw from the experiment at any

given point.

____________________

(Signature of participant)

____________________

(Name of participant)

__________________

(Date)

Appendix 2

Set of verbal instructions for Experimental Group 1

1. Please come in and take a seat at any of the tables


16/29


2. If you wish to withdraw at any point please let me know

3. You will be shown a list of 10 words with three syllables each on the memory drum shortly.

4. Please look at them silently and carefully.

5. After you have seen the words on the memory drum you will be required to wait for 30 seconds in

silence.

6. You will be shown the list of words again syllable by syllable.

7. Once I give the instructions you will be asked to recall the words that you have seen on the slideshow

by writing them down on the paper in front of you.

8. Once you are done please put your pens down.

9. You will now be required to come back to the room after the task for experimental group 2 is over.

10. If you wish to withdraw your results please let me know now

11. If you dont, thank you very much. Your cooperation is much appreciated.

12. You can now leave the room.

13.After the control group have finished the experiment, you can enter again so that I can debrief

everyone on the aims and implications of the study.

14. Thank You very much for your time.


17/29


Appendix 3

Set of verbal instruction for Experimental Group 2






silence.


7. Once I give the instructions you will be asked to recall the words that you have seen on the slideshow by

writing them down on the paper in front of you.

8. You will be given four trials in order to anticipate as many syllables possible.





13. After the control group and experimental group 2 have finished the experiment, you can enter again so

that I can debrief everyone on the aims and implications of the study.



18/29


Appendix 4

Set of verbal instruction for Experimental Group 1 and Experimental group 2



3. You will be shown a list of 10 colours each on the memory drum shortly.



silence.

6. You will be shown the list of colours again.

7. Once I give the instructions you will be asked to recall the colours that you have seen on the slideshow


8. You will be given three trials in order to anticipate as many colours as possible.








19/29



Appendix 4

Set of verbal instruction for Control Group






silence.


21. Once I give the instructions you will be asked to recall the words that you have seen on the slideshow


22. You will be given four trials in order to anticipate as many syllables possible.





20/29






Appendix 5

List of Nonsense Syllables

1. BIX

2. CEB

3. QAH

4. VOE

5. ZUD

6. COJ

7. TIW

8. VOL

9. QUV

10. XET


21/29


Appendix 6

List of Colours

1. Purple

2. Light Green

3. Orange

4. Light Blue

5. Yellow

6. Black

7. Pink


22/29


8. Dark Green

9. Red

10. Dark Blue

Appendix 5

Debriefing sheet

Thank you very much for participating in this experiment. I appreciate your help and thank you for your

time. Below is a description of the research rationale

The aims and implications of the study

The present study was based on the study done by Hergenhahn and Lee (1965), where incidental learning

was measured at various stages of intentional learning, where the there were two experimental groups


23/29


with two criterions had several trials for the 1st task and 3 consecutive trials for the second task and the

control group had an ambiguous task with 3 trials only.

This was because intentional learning is results in better performance compared to incidental learning.

Rights to withdraw data

You have now been fully informed of the purpose of the experiment and can understand how the results

will be used. If you have any reason against the usage of your result in the final analysis you have the

complete right to withdraw the data.

Appendix 6 :

Sample of 10 participants representing the number of trials and the total number of words recalled


24/29


Name Trials

Total number of words

recalled

Experiment Group 1 (At least 4

words)

Participant 1 3 4

Participant 2 3 5

Participant 3 3 5Participant 4 3 6

Participant 5 3 5

Participant 6 3 4

Participant 7 3 4

Participant 8 3 6

Participant 9 3 7

Participant 10 3 5

Appendix 7 :



25/29


Name Trials


recalled

Experiment

Group 1

(Atleast 8

words)

Participant 1 3 8

Participant 2 3 8

Participant 3 3 7

Participant 4 3 8

Participant 5 3 9

Participant 6 3 7

Participant 7 3 7

Participant 8 3 8

Participant 9 3 9

Participant 10 3 8


26/29


Appendix 8:


Name Trials


recalled

Control

Group Participant

1 3 5

Participant

2 3 5

Participant

3 3 6

Participant

4 3 5

Participant

5 3 6

Participant6 3 2

Participant

7 3 4


27/29


Participant8 3 3

Participant

9 3 4

Participant

10 3 5

Appendix 9:

Group Statistics

Name N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Numberofwordsrecalled Experimental Group

1

20 5.00 .973 .218

Control Group 20 4.45 1.932 .432


28/29


Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances t

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Numberofwordsrecalled Equal variances

assumed

7.275 .010 1.137 38 .263

Equal variances not

assumed

1.137 28.058 .265

Appendix 10:

Group Statistics

Name N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Numberofwordsrecalled Experimental Group

2

20 7.95 .759 .170

Control Group 20 4.45 1.932 .432


29/29


Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances t

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Numberofwordsrecalled Equal variances

assumed

11.036 .002 7.539 38 .000

Equal variances not

assumed

7.539 24.728 .000

Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final

Documents

Transcript of Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final