Effect Of Highlighting On The Short-Term Memory
Saginaw Valley State University
Gunner Metzer and Brandon Messing
Dr. Louis Cohen
Presented at Psychology Conference (Saginaw, MI.)
Abstract
This study explored the differences in short-term memory recall while looking at a list of numbers with or without the use of a highlighter. Participants were 30 college-aged individuals both male and female (N = 30). A list of twenty randomized numbers was given to participants and the instruction given was to attempt to remember as many as possible in 45 seconds. 15 subjects were given a highlighter to use while 15 were withheld from doing so. Our findings suggest that the use of a highlighter gave a slight advantage in recall (M = 5.20) in comparison to the non-highlighting group (M = 4.8).
Introduction:
The purpose of this laboratory experiment was to look at the participants’ ability to recall numbers with/without the use of a highlighter. Previous research done on memory looked at the role of rehearsal in short-term memory and stated that “rehearsal must play a major part in any complete theory of memory, yet its function is still poorly understood” (Craik & Watkins, 1973). This understanding leads some researchers to suggest that there are multiple ways to recall specific information, whether through rote learning, visual learning, or speaking to oneself. Comprehension is also a major component looked at in the basic processes of reading and remembering (LaBerge & Samuels, 1977).
A study that looked at comprehension on screens with the use of online tools (such as highlighting) found that “students reading from screen performed as well as those reading from paper” (Kol & Schcolnik, 2000) when they used techniques similar to ones they would use on physical paper assignments.
The use of a writing utensil seems to be a significant component of tasks that require short-term memory; thus, it is hypothesized that participants using highlighters will receive higher scores than those who do not.
Method:
Design: The experimental design used in this test was an independent measures/between-groups test. The dependent variables in the experiment were the sheet with randomly assorted numbers, the amount of time given, and the final scores. The independent variable that was being tested was the use of a highlighter. Every participant who took part in the test was given the exact same instructions.
Subject: The subjects who took part in this test were thirty college-age individuals both male and female.
Materials:
- Timer
- Pen
- Sheet with the assortment of twenty numbers ranging from 0-19
- Blank sheet of paper
- Yellow highlighter (Sharpie Brand)
Procedure:
Prior to the study, participants were given an informed consent form to look over. If they agreed with all of the terms, they then signed the sheet and the experiment began. The participant was then handed a sheet upside-down with a list of numbers (0-19) in a randomized order which remained consistent throughout the duration of the project. The variable we were manipulating was the use of a highlighter. Depending on the participant, the highlighter was either included or taken off of the table. A countdown from five was announced and then the study began. The participant was given a total of 45 seconds to memorize the list of random numbers. After the 45 seconds were up, the sheet was removed from view and a blank sheet took its place. We then asked them to write down as many numbers as they could possibly remember in order. Another 45 seconds was issued. After the 45 seconds were up, they were asked if they had any additional questions or comments.
Scoring:
- A positive result will be the correct number in the correct location.
- No additional penalty will be given for incorrect answers outside of not earning the point.
- The test results will be out of twenty points.
- No negative scores are possible.
Results:
Out of the fifteen individuals tested in each group, the group that used the highlighter (N=15, Min.=1, Max.=8, M=5.20, SD=1.781) performed slightly better than those who did not use a highlighter (N=15, Min.=1, Max.=8, M=4.80, SD=1.740). Each group had a high score of 8 and a low score of 1.
The following data table presents the results as well as an overall average between the two groups:
The following graph compares the two groups in relation to the number of correct answers out of twenty possible points:
Discussion:
After running the experiment and looking at the data, individuals who scored the highest were those who had used the highlighter, but the effect was not strong enough to support the hypothesis. Between each group, the minimum and maximum scores were 1 and 8 respectively. The main difference was the mean, which was 5.20 correct for those using the highlighter and 4.80 correct for those not using it. Research comparable to this supported the idea that visual aid can help with the retention of characters/numbers; however, a 0.40 point difference is not sufficient enough to say that it will be effective, so, the null must be rejected.
The high and low scores were the same in each group. No one exceeded 8 or went below 1. This could have been from the total of numbers that were presented. In future studies, the 45-second time limit could be increased or the number of numbers to recall could be decreased.
The primacy and recency effects also factored into the final results. From looking at the recalled numbers, the ones answered correctly most often were the ones at the start or end in both groups. The primacy effect “is the tendency for individuals without neurological impairment to show enhanced memory for items presented at the beginning of a list relative to items presented in the middle of the list” (Troyer, 2017).
One primary issue that was encountered came from the participants who were asked to highlight the list. The highlighter was held but never used, so the data received from those individuals had to be discarded. In conclusion, highlighting seemed to increase the number of numbers recalled but was not significant enough to support the hypothesis.
References:
- Craik, Fergus I.M., and Michael J. Watkins. “The Role of Rehearsal in Short-Term Memory.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, vol. 12, 1973, p. 599.
- Kol, S., & Schcolnik, M. (2000). Enhancing Screen Reading Strategies. CALICO Journal, 18(1), 67-80. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24147693
- LaBerge, D. (Ed.), Samuels, S. (Ed.). (1977). Basic Processes in Reading. London: Routledge.
- Troyer, A. K. (2017). Primacy Effect. Neuropsychology and Cognitive Health Program, Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, Toronto, ON, Canada. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-56782-2_1141-2.pdf.