Kirthana Senthil

Extended Response Practice 1

Scenario:

Aim: To determine if the memory technique used (maintenance or elaborative

rehearsal) in students affects their learning ability.
IV: Memory technique as operationalised by singing the first 20 elements of the
Periodic Table to the tune of Michael Flannigan or reciting them.
DV: Learning ability as operationalised by a score, out of 20, on a test of the
names and symbols of the first 20 elements in the Periodic Table.
Hypothesis:
That students who sing the first 20 elements to the tune of Michael Flannigan
will have a greater learning ability than students who only recite them.
Sampling:
Non-random sampling was used in this design as not every member of the
population had equal chance of being chosen in the sample. Not all students had
an equal chance of participating in the study as only year 7 students were

Kirthana Senthil
chosen, thus reducing the chance of students in other year levels (8,9,10,11,12)
from entering the experiment. Also, only the year 7 students from the two
teachers classes had a chance of being part of the experiment, other students in
other classes could not volunteer for the study. Therefore, the sample used in the
study was not a true representation of the population (students). So, the results
of this experiment cannot be generalised to all students (the population). This
could have been avoided by using random sampling which gives every member
of the population/every student an equal chance of participating in the
experiment. So, the teachers could have put all the names of the students in
their school in a hat, and randomly picked out a few for the experiment.
Allocation:
Non-random allocation was used in this experiment as the participants in the
study did not have equal chance of being in the control or experimental group.
All the year 7 students in Class A only had the opportunity to conduct the control
group of reciting the names of the first 20 elements. They did not have any
chance of being selected for the experimental condition of singing the names of
the first 20 elements. This was also the case for Class B. Hence, they did not
have equal chance of being in the two conditions. This could lead to extraneous
or confounding variables in the experiment. This has occurred as the difference
of teachers between the two classes indicates the possibility of the experimenter
effect-where the actions, characteristics and treatment of the two different
teachers could affect the results in an unwanted way. Thus, the results cannot be
generalised to the population of students, as the results and DV (learning ability)
could have been affected by the experimenter effect, not just the IV (memory
technique), making the results unreliable.
Research Design:
The independent-groups design was used for this experiment, where the
participants were separated into the experimental and control groups,
conducting the experiment only once and exposing the participants to one level
of IV only. So, the students were separated into the experimental group of
singing the names out (class B) and control group of reciting the names (class A),
conducting the experiment only once and exposing the students to one memory
technique only. While this has many strengths including the fact that it is quick
and easy, it has many limitations. It can be subject to many extraneous
variables, such as participant differences (in this case, varying levels of natural
intelligence), participant effects (motivation differences) and experimenter
effects
(different teaching styles of the two teachers). Therefore, the results cannot be
generalised to all students.
Most of these can be fixed by using a repeated measures design, where the
same participants undergo both the experimental and control conditions, being
exposed to all levels of the IV and repeating the experiment twice. Therefore, the
teachers could have asked the year 7 students of one class to first learn the
names and symbols of the first 20 elements by recital and get tested, then at a

Kirthana Senthil
later date, learn the first 20 elements again by singing it to the tune of Michael
Flannigan and get tested. The results, this time, will not be affected by
individual differences, participant effect or experimenter effects (as these will be
balanced by using the same students). However, this will results in presence of a
new confounding variable- order effects. This is when the results are affected in
an unwanted way by practice, fatigue or boredom. So, the students, by learning
the first 20 elements of the periodic table twice, may gain practice and
remember the elements from the previous trial or have lost motivation by
becoming tired or bored. This could have negatively impacted on the results and
DV (learning). If this design was used, this obstacle could be tacked by using
counterbalancing. Hence, half the students will conduct the control condition-of
reciting only- before the experimental condition- of singing, and the other half
will the conduct the experimental condition before the control.
Another design that could be used in place of the independent-groups, is the
matched participants design. In theory, the participants are paired according to
similarity in a certain characteristic (an extraneous variable), and then split into
the experimental and control group. In this experiment, the students from the
two classes will be paired up according a characteristic (eg. Natural intelligence,
that is pretested with an IQ test) and then split to class A (the control group
learning through reciting names) and class B (the experimental group learning by
singing). Whilst, this eliminates 1 extraneous variable, others still may be
present. Also, the pretesting and pairing of the participants could be very timeconsuming, while perfect pairing is very hard to achieve.
Results
The type of results that are initially collected are descriptive statistics-by
calculating the average/mean score on the test on the first 20 elements names
and symbols for each class. This cannot be used to come to a conclusion or
generalisation, as they only represent trends and are not statistically significant.
To come to a conclusion, inferential statistics are needed (p-value).
Conclusion
If the p value <0.05...
As the p-value is below 0.05, there was less than 5% probability that the results
and the DV (learning ability) are due to chance factors. Therefore, it is
statistically significant and there is a cause-effect relationship between learning
ability and memory techniques. Therefore, the hypothesis is supported that
students who learn the first 20 elements of the Periodic table by singing will have
a greater learning ability than those who recite it only. This means that students
should use singing to a tune (using elaborative rehearsal) to maximise their
learning ability and memory.
Nevertheless, a generalisation cannot be made to the population (all students)
as non-random sampling and allocation was used- where the students did not
have equal chance of being selected for the study and for those who did, did not

Kirthana Senthil
have equal chance of being in the singing or reciting group). In addition,
descriptive statistics were used, and that was impacted by a number of
confounding and extraneous variables. These include:

individual differences- where the natural intelligence and prior exposure to

the periodic table was not controlled between the classes
participant effect- where some students may have been extra motivated
and believed that they need to get a high score on their test
experimenter effect- where each class had a different teacher causing
their differences in teaching style/personality/conduct to affect the
students results.

If the p-value > 0.05

As the p-value is above 0.05, there was greater than 5% probability that the
results and the DV (learning ability) are due to chance factors. Therefore, it is not
statistically significant and there is not a confirmed cause-effect relationship
between learning ability and memory techniques. Therefore, the hypothesis is
not supported that students who learn the first 20 elements of the Periodic table
by singing will have a greater learning ability than those who recite it only. A
generalisation to the population (students) cannot be made.
Ethics
Some ethical considerations had been breached in this experiment:
1. Voluntary participation was not adhered to, in that the students did not
have a choice to refuse to take part in the experiment. In fact, it is unclear
if the students are aware they are in the study. This could mean that the
students were deceived by the two teachers.
2. The two teachers did not get written permission or signature from the
parents of the students participating to allow their year 7 children (all
minors) to take part in the study. This is crucial before the experiment is
conducted as the students and their legal guardians/parents are not told of
the true nature of the study, the students rights (to withdraw results,
confidentiality etc) and the possible risks of the procedure.
These breaches could have been fixed by attaining the students parents
signatures, allowing their childrens experiment to be conducted and the results
published. Furthermore, the students could be debriefed of their participation in
the study, the procedure itself and the results. Their rights could be reminded
and be allowed to withdraw their results before publication.