Effective Learning Assignment
in a project not being read or graded.
If you do not know what the word “plagiarism” means, read below and make sure you understand.
A full reference to the paper used must be included.
The project must be between 500 and 700 words. Projects shorter and longer will not be read or graded. You must craft your arguments to fit into the word limit. The word limit refers to the body of your project and does not include a title page (not required), references, and any supplementary material you add (not required).
APA style is encouraged but not required.
You may email me questions on how best to do this project
Grading will follow the Effective-Learning Assignment Grading RubricPreview the document
The “Effective-Learning” Assignment Grading Rubric
Each paper starts off with a 95.
If it is truly exceptional, you can go higher than 95 – the A+’s. Your call on how much higher –but no 100’s – no such project is ever “perfect.”
Deductions
Procedural:
· First two spelling/grammatical errors for free, then 2 points per error afterwards.
· Those with more or fewer words will be penalized (1 point (out of 100) for every 20 words over or under). But be careful – this refers to text – references, title pages, abstracts, don’t count. So only apply this if the paper is really short or really long.
· Subjective judgment of attractiveness – up to 5 points for sloppy presentation.
· Clarity of discussion – up to 5 point deduction for lack of clarity.
· No reference section – mandatory 5 point deduction.
· If topic is not from pre-approved list –it will be scored as a 50 (Unless a student has previous approval from the professor).
Content:
Lacking any of these is a 20-point deduction:
· A discussion of the hypotheses, methods, results, or discussion of the paper in question. (20 points off for each section missing)
· A discussion of how the paper could relate to real-world learning
Lacking any of these is a 10-point deduction:
· A thesis statement (somewhere in first paragraph) stating what the issue of the journal article is and what the writer’s position is, and if the student makes a different conclusion than the author of the paper.
· conclusion that re-states the thesis.
Any paper over 30% on Turnitin will be referred for possible disciplinary action.
3/25/2020 Correcting false memories: Errors must be noticed and replaced | SpringerLink
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-015-0571-x 1/26
Advertisement
Search
Log in Menu
Log in
Search SpringerLink Search
Published: 17 November 2015
Correcting false memories: Errors must be noticed and replaced
Hillary G. Mullet 1,2 & Elizabeth J. Marsh1,2
Memory & Cognition volume 44, pages403–412(2016)Cite this article
4441 Accesses
6 Citations
7 Altmetric
Metrics details
Abstract
Memory can be unreliable. For example, after reading The new baby stayed awake all night, people often misremember that the new baby cried all night (Brewer, 1977); similarly, after hearing bed, rest, and tired, people often falsely remember that sleep was on the list (Roediger & McDermott, 1995). In general, such false memories are difficult to correct, persisting despite warnings and additional study opportunities. We argue that errors must first be detected to be corrected; consistent with this argument, two experiments showed that false memories were nearly eliminated when conditions facilitated comparisons between participants’ errors and corrective feedback (e.g., immediate trial-by-trial feedback that allowed direct comparisons between their responses and the correct information). However, knowledge that they had made an error was insufficient; unless the feedback message also contained the correct answer, the rate of false memories remained relatively constant. On the one hand, there is nothing special about correcting false memories: simply labeling an error as “wrong” is also insufficient for correcting other memory errors, including misremembered facts or mistranslations. However, unlike these other types of errors—which often benefit from the spacing afforded by delayed feedback —false memories require a special consideration: Learners may fail to notice their errors unless the correction conditions specifically highlight them.
Help
https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click?xai=AKAOjsvek_e7ZHWm1fJs9GWHjMtkonKj88M-eqfvf2vxBKBMfzmLRv37kCiVCIXNZrg6RUDOddHQMDmGQJkUs9ZsCz9EcLHTSxupdpZ_3T05PpBaQiZVpSOamlmW9ct1JZvVbQ8ZqaIjKdyXDVcN0Mb3MEOZQjWBcLDeEzv02Edd4CqUTFXeitefPyRupDU8oBNwZvQURw-JIMmerZdRcfXeNMaiNgTCWEYpaAnKMXxAq3ZOB0aIay4u3Ypkuw04T_xqoq_D2K8naRuelMH1ZEuutmGIFw&sig=Cg0ArKJSzNrULAODhmaH&adurl=https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319647852%3Futm_source%3Dslink%26utm_medium%3Dbanner%26utm_content%3Dwebsite%26utm_campaign%3DSRHS_4_AG01_GL-HSS-PF-SPRsocialworkportf&nm=1
https://link.springer.com/
https://link.springer.com/signup-login?previousUrl=https%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.3758%2Fs13421-015-0571-x
https://link.springer.com/signup-login?previousUrl=https%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.3758%2Fs13421-015-0571-x
https://link.springer.com/journal/13421
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13421-015-0571-x/metrics
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13421-015-0571-x.pdf&hl=en&sa=T&oi=ucasa&ct=ufr&ei=0_J7XrTdEoWtmwGY9oHwBg&scisig=AAGBfm1HRP1ZdGf7WIRdXthHNPSxGQdaWA
https://scholar.google.com/scholar/help.html#access
3/25/2020 Correcting false memories: Errors must be noticed and replaced | SpringerLink
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-015-0571-x 2/26
People frequently make errors during learning or when they attempt to retrieve information from memory. Upon receiving feedback, however, they are often quite good at correcting those mistakes. The power of feedback has been demonstrated in many domains, including learning English translations of foreign language words (Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005), definitions of English vocabulary (Metcalfe & Kornell, 2007), and science concepts such as the respiratory system (Butler, Godbole, & Marsh, 2013), brain regions (Lantz & Stawiski, 2014), and the solar system (Little & Bjork, 2014). Feedback is one of the most effective tools in the teacher’s toolbox (effect size: d = 0.73; Hattie, 2009); in one study, providing feedback after incorrect translations increased final retention by 494% (Pashler et al., 2005).
Other errors, however, are not so easily corrected. In particular, people often misremember the details of events, or even falsely remember entire events that never occurred. It is notoriously difficult to avoid and correct such false memories. For example, hearing a list of semantically related words like bed, rest, and tired yields later claims that a nonpresented word, for instance sleep, was also on the list (the Deese/Roediger–McDermott [DRM] illusion; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). People misremember sentences like The new baby stayed awake all night as The new baby cried all night (Brewer, 1977). Answering leading questions like How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other? evokes memories of (nonexistent) broken glass at the scene of an accident (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). As compared to other memory errors, false memories are often associated with vivid (but inaccurate) experiences of remembering, or the feeling that one recollects specific details of the event (Chan & McDermott, 2006; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Two common attempts to correct these errors involve specifically warning participants that an activity can yield false memories (e.g., Gallo, Roberts, & Seamon, 1997; McDermott & Roediger, 1998) and allowing multiple encoding opportunities of the to-be-remembered information before a memory test is given (e.g., McDermott & Chan, 2006; Watson, McDermott, & Balota, 2004). Unfortunately, neither method is particularly effective. A strong warning combined with a practice list and a full explanation of the DRM illusion still results in false recognition of nearly half of the critical lures (Gallo et al., 1997), and false recall of almost one-third of them (Watson et al., 2004). After three encoding opportunities of pragmatic inferences (e.g., The new baby stayed awake all night), learners still “recognize” the inference (false memory) answer on 28% of the final test trials (McDermott & Chan, 2006).
Why is it so hard to correct false memories, when it appears relatively simple to correct mistranslations of foreign words (Pashler et al., 2005), definitions of vocabulary words (Metcalfe & Kornell, 2007), and facts about science (Butler, Fazio, & Marsh, 2011)? We believe two factors are key:
1. 1.
The learner needs to realize that a mistake has been made.
Our argument is that learners must first notice their errors in order to correct them. This requirement is simple in many cases, such as when the learner is aware that he or she has no idea of the answer (e.g., you likely know if you don’t know the translation of the Luganda word leero). However, almost by definition, false memories mean that learners are unaware of their mistakes—such memories are accompanied by confidence and the subjective (but false) experience of recalling sounds, feelings, or other experiences from the original event (Chan & McDermott, 2006; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). The vividness of these errors may make the learner resistant to feedback, similar to the case in which two people both claim a memory as their own, despite knowing that the event could only have happened to one of them (disputed memories; Sheen, Kemp, & Rubin, 2001). In addition, most feedback about false memories is not as explicit as someone else telling you that a memory is theirs (and not yours). One of the most common approaches is to give the learner multiple study–test trials; however, success requires noticing that one’s intrusion was not actually on the list (e.g., Kensinger & Schacter, 1999; McDermott, 1996)…
