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

Sakshi Jain Abstract

002279-035

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

Sakshi Jain 002279-035 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.

Sakshi Jain 002279-035 Bahrick (1957) hypothesized that intentional learning occurs at the expense of incidental learning and viceversa. 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:

Sakshi Jain 002279-035 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:

Sakshi Jain 002279-035 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:

Sakshi Jain 002279-035 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

Sakshi Jain 002279-035 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.

Sakshi Jain Results

002279-035

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

Group Mean Standard Deviation T-Test Value

Experimental Group 1 5.0000 .973

Control Group 4.4500 1.932 .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)

Sakshi Jain Group Mean Standard Deviation T-Test Value

002279-035 Experimental Group 2 7.9500 .759 Control Group 4.4500 1.932 .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

Sakshi Jain 002279-035 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

Sakshi Jain 002279-035 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 freerecall 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).

Sakshi Jain

002279-035

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. Journal of Experimental Psychology., 32, 52-63

Sakshi Jain 002279-035 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.,45,471477 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.

Sakshi Jain 002279-035 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

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

002279-035

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.

Sakshi Jain Appendix 3 Set of verbal instruction for Experimental Group 2 1. Please come in and take a seat at any of the tables 2. If you wish to withdraw at any point please let me know

002279-035

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. You will be given four trials in order to anticipate as many syllables possible. 9. Once you are done please put your pens down. 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 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. 14. Thank You very much for your time.

Sakshi Jain

002279-035

Appendix 4 Set of verbal instruction for Experimental Group 1 and Experimental group 2 1. Please come in and take a seat at any of the tables 2. If you wish to withdraw at any point please let me know
3. You will be shown a list of 10 colours 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 colours again. 7. Once I give the instructions you will be asked to recall the colours that you have seen on the slideshow

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

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

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

Sakshi Jain 14. Thank You very much for your time.

002279-035

Appendix 4 Set of verbal instruction for Control Group 15. Please come in and take a seat at any of the tables 16. If you wish to withdraw at any point please let me know 17. You will be shown a list of 10 words with three syllables each on the memory drum shortly. 18. Please look at them silently and carefully. 19. After you have seen the words on the memory drum you will be required to wait for 30 seconds in silence. 20. You will be shown the list of words again syllable by syllable. 21. 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. 22. You will be given four trials in order to anticipate as many syllables possible. 23. Once you are done please put your pens down. 24. If you wish to withdraw your results please let me know now 25. If you dont, thank you very much. Your cooperation is much appreciated.

Sakshi Jain 26. You can now leave the room.

002279-035

27. 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. 28. Thank You very much for your time.

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

Sakshi Jain

002279-035

Appendix 6 List of Colours 1. Purple 2. Light Green 3. Orange 4. Light Blue 5. Yellow 6. Black 7. Pink

Sakshi Jain 8. Dark Green 9. Red 10. Dark Blue

002279-035

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

Sakshi Jain 002279-035 st with two criterions had several trials for the 1 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

Sakshi Jain Name Experiment Group 1 (At least 4 words) Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4 Participant 5 Participant 6 Participant 7 Participant 8 Participant 9 Participant 10 Trials 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total number of words recalled 4 5 5 6 5 4 4 6 7 5

002279-035

Appendix 7 : Sample of 10 participants representing the number of trials and the total number of words recalled

Sakshi Jain Name Experiment Group 1 (Atleast 8 words) Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4 Participant 5 Participant 6 Participant 7 Participant 8 Participant 9 Participant 10 Trials Total number of words recalled

002279-035

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

8 8 7 8 9 7 7 8 9 8

Sakshi Jain

002279-035

Appendix 8: Sample of 10 participants representing the number of trials and the total number of words recalled Total number of words recalled

Name Control Group Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4 Participant 5 Participant 6 Participant 7

Trials

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

5 5 6 5 6 2 4

Sakshi Jain

002279-035

Participant 8 Participant 9 Participant 10

3 3 3

3 4 5

Appendix 9:

Group Statistics Name Numberofwordsrecalled Experimental Group 1 Control Group N 20 20 Mean 5.00 4.45 Std. Deviation .973 1.932 Std. Error Mean .218 .432

Sakshi Jain

002279-035 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-

F Numberofwordsrecalled Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 7.275

Sig. .010

t 1.137 1.137

df 38 28.058

Sig. (2-tailed) .263 .265

Appendix 10:

Group Statistics Name Numberofwordsrecalled Experimental Group 2 Control Group N 20 20 Mean 7.95 4.45 Std. Deviation .759 1.932 Std. Error Mean .170 .432

Sakshi Jain

002279-035 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-

F Numberofwordsrecalled Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 11.036

Sig. .002

t 7.539 7.539

df 38 24.728

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000