Cognitive effort, defined as the “engaged proportion of limited-capacity central processing,” has been found to impact memory recall but only in specific settings (Tyler, Hertel, McCallum & Ellis, 1979, p. 607). In four separate experiments, Tyler, Hertel, McCallum & Ellis (1979) tested the impact of cognitive effort on recall and found that high effort was indeed linked to better recall than low effort, but not for all types of memory (short term versus long term). Moreover, there are a range of extraneous variables that might mitigate the effect of effort on memory recall. The type of material being memorized, the length of time between the active memorization mode and the recall, and intervening distractors including lying about the material or personality variables may also have an effect on whether the effort spent on memory recall will lead to improved recall (Simon, Williams, Wolfe & Hessler, 2015). In this study, Simon, Williams, Wolfe & Hessler (2015) examined the differences between participants with Machiavellian personality characteristics and people with low levels of Machiavellian characteristics, and found that those with high Machiavellian characteristics who lied about a video they watched versus those who did not lie were more prone to distortion of the material. In other words, lying about the material led to poorer recall but only for those with specific personality characteristics. Moreover, short term memory retention varies depending on variables like anxiety, which is adversely linked with recall even when effort levels are controlled for (Chadwick, et al, 2015).
Therefore, there is a complex interaction of variables when it comes to measuring the effects of effort on memory recall. Since the 1980s, researchers have used the term cognitive load to refer to the specific type of effort spent at memory recall. Issues related to the capacity model of attention have also been under scrutiny (Mitchell & Hunt, 1989). These theories show that cognitive load impacts “working memory,” linked more to short term memory than to long term retention of facts (Chadwick, et al, 2015). Cognitive load theory has suggested specific numbers of units of information that working memory can handle. Furthermore, cognitive load theory proves especially relevant when the goal is to improve learning and not simply rote memorization. To this effect, researchers recognize three different types of cognitive loads including intrinsic, extraneous, and germane (Leppink, et al, 2014, p. 32). Intrinsic cognitive load has to do with differential levels of difficulty. For example, for an English speaker, it will be easier to learn Spanish than to learn Arabic because of the different characters/alphabet, phonemes, and general levels of familiarity or exposure to the language.
Stuck Writing Your "Effort and Impact on Memory" Essay?
Extraneous cognitive load refers to the method of instructional design. Using the similar example, the use of Rosetta Stone software, which relies on visuals, will have different memory recall effects than a conversational class or immersion into an Arabic society. Finally, germane cognitive load is a more abstract concept related to memory and refers to how individuals construct schemas that can be used to structure the information to aid in the recall process. All three of these types of cognitive load are instrumental in understanding the interaction between effort and recall, and it is predicted that there will also tend to be individual differences in recall.
Aim
The aim of this research is to determine what type of effort proves most effective on the learner’s ability to memorize 25 different Chinese characters, based on their appearance and their phoneme. It is assumed that learning Chinese has a high intrinsic cognitive load, and that creating a low extraneous cognitive load via a simple design will promote the types of germane cognitive load that will have a stronger effect on learner ability to memorize the 25 different Chinese characters and their corresponding phonemes.
Hypothesis: Learners who put more effort, defined by the amount of time spent looking at each character and saying out loud the sound of the character, into their learning the 25 Chinese characters will have measurably better recall of the characters and their corresponding phonemes versus learners who put in less effort (less time).
Methodology
Method: An experimental research design will be used, in which the independent variable is the effort condition, and the dependent variable is the rate of recall. Independent variable of “effort” is measured in the amount of time the learner is exposed to both the visual image of the character and the amount of time the learner repeats the sound of the character. Dependent variable “recall” is the number of total characters each person remembers in a post-test given one hour later. The advantage to this method is the ability to test experimentally the role of a specific type of effort on a specific type of recall, eliminating any extraneous variable such as the semantics/meaning of the character or any images or photos related to the meaning of that character.
Design: This is an independent measures experimental research design in which participants will be….....
Chadwick, D., et al. (2015). Using cognitive load compliant instructions to support working memory for anxious students. 8th Cognitive Load Theory Conference (p. 32).
Leppink, J., et al. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction 30: 32-42.
Mitchell, D.B. & Hunt, R.R. (1989). How much "effort" should be devoted to memory? Memory and Cognition 17(3): 337-348.
Simon, I., Williams, T., Wolfe, M. & Hessler, J. (2015). I Can't Remember: The Effects of Machiavellianism, Mental Effort and Lying on Memory. Student Summer Scholars. Paper 137.
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/sss/137
Tyler, S. W.; Hertel, P. T.; Mccallum, M.C. & Ellis, H. C. (1979). Cognitive effort and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 5(6), Nov 1979, 607-617.
Zein, P.H. (2009). The most common Chinese characters in order of frequency
