Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Defining the Self-Generation Effect
The SGE is gaining momentum as a possible strategy for maximising learning in brain-damaged individuals (Dick & Kean, 1989; Mitchell, Hunt & Schmitt, 1986; Multhaup & Balota, 1997; Souliez, Pasquier, Lebert, Leconte & Petit, 1996). The SGE refers to the finding of superior retention and recall for stimuli constructed or generated by an individual. Memory for stimuli such as words, numbers and pictures were found to be enhanced by the extent to which the individual was involved in its construction (Ghatala, 1981; Jacoby, 1978; Peynircioglu, 1989; Slamecka & Graf, 1978). Research into the SGE has found it to be a robust phenomenon of memory that has been shown to exist under a number of different condition types (Slamecka & Graf, 1978). The SGE has been shown to increase the recognition and recall of items that involve some kind of generation or construction by the individual. The memory advantages derived by the full involvement of the individual in constructing, deriving or generating items have been shown to be superior.
Slamecka & Graf (1978) were the first in the field of psychology to test for the SGE and to prove the memorial advantages of having the individual construct or generate to-be-remembered items. During four experiments, they investigated the SGE under a variety of conditions ranging from recognition to free recall in normal adults. Their empirical study reported on a “robust phenomenon of memory” (Slamecka & Graf, 1978, p.593), namely the SGE. These researchers were able to show that to-beremembered words which were generated by the participants were better remembered than words which were simply read by the participants. Slamecka & Graf (1978) established the SGE as an important memory-enhancing tool and were also able to define the characteristics of the SGE. These characteristics have become fundamental to understanding the SGE and have been the focus of much of the subsequent research in this field.
Slamecka & Graf (1978) proposed that some of the early studies on memory (Abra, 1968; Scwartz & Walsh, 1974) failed to show a SGE because the participants’ use of their own methods for generating responses produced a bias which influenced the recall of the responses. They felt that in order to prove the true influence of the SGE, the participant’s generated responses needed to be derived in a manner that allowed for predictable responses, thus eliminating any bias in response generation. In their first experiment, Slamecka & Graf (1978, p. 593) tried to avoid the “idiosyncratic item selection habits” of participants by constraining the participants’ responses and making responses predictable. They thus introduced the concept of the all-important generation rule when testing for the SGE. This initial experiment also showed that the magnitude of the SGE did not seem to be affected by the type or category of the selfgeneration rule applied. Slamecka & Graf (1978) successfully elicited the SGE when using a variety of generation rules ranging from opposites, synonyms, rhyming words, categorisation and association.
In their second experiment Slamecka & Graf (1978) were able to show that the SGE was not influenced by the intentional learning required from participants. They supposed that since the participants were informed that they would be tested following the generation tasks, it may have heightened their awareness of the task items, therefore directly influencing their recall of items. Therefore the superior recall found could not be reliably attributed to the SGE. In the second experiment, one group of participants was informed of the test procedure to be followed and the other group were not informed. The results showed no meaningful discrepancies between the groups with each group showing superior recall for the generated items.
Additionally, experiment two looked at another important defining characteristic of self-generation. This experiment investigated whether the SGE may still be elicited if it were directly contrasted with the to-be-read condition. There was no difference in results between the group with the contrasting condition and the group without the contrast of conditions. However, the generated items were recalled better than the non-generated items in both instances. This further extended “the range of circumstances” under which the SGE could be elicited (Slamecka & Graf, 1978, p. 596).
The SGE’s influence on the recall of the actual stimulus word was investigated in experiment three. The researchers argued that if the SGE produced a heightened awareness of the generated items then it may also have extended this awareness to the stimulus item. However, if this was so, the effect of generation on recall of items may
Table of Contents
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
- LIST OF TABLES
- LIST OF FIGURES
- ABSTRACT
- LIST OF APPENDICES
CHAPTER 1: ORIENTATION
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Chapter Outlines
1.3 List of Terminology
1.3.1 Self – generation effect
1.3.2 Non self-generation condition
1.3.3 Self-generation treatment
1.3.5 Severe aphasia
1.3.6 Augmentative and alternative communication
1.3.7 Blissymbols
1.3.8 Probe measures
1.3.9 Connect-the-dot >illustrations</span
1.3.10 Withdrawal periods
1.4 Abbreviations
1.5 Summary
CHAPTER 2: THE SELF-GENERATION EFFECT, AAC AND SEVERE APHASIA
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Scope of the chapter
2.2 Defining the Self-Generation Effect
2.3 Theoretical Interpretations: What causes the Self-Generation Effect?
2.3.1 Semantic/lexical activation theory versus cognitive effort theory
2.3.2 The factor theories
2.4 Self-Generation and Picture Stimuli
2.5 Application of the Self-Generation Effect to Individuals with Brain Damage
2.6 AAC and Severe Aphasia
2.6.1 Defining severe aphasia
2.7 AAC Intervention for Persons with Severe Aphasia
2.8 Why Would Self-Generation Work With Severe Aphasia?
2.9 Summary
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Question
3.2.1 Sub-questions
3.2.2 Steps towards answering the main research question
3.3 Research Design
3.3.1 Within-subject counter-balancing of symbol sets and treatment
3.4 Study Phases
3.5 The Pre-Experimental Phase
3.5.1.1 Defining the equivalency variables
3.5.2 Development of the connect-the-dot illustrations
3.5.3 Development of participant screening tests
3.5.4 Development of the treatment scripts
3.5.5 Development of the scoring forms
3.5.6 Pilot studies
3.6 The Experimental Phase: The Main Study
3.6.1 Participants
3.6.2 Data collection
3.7 Scoring
3.8 Data Analysis
3.9 Inter-Rater Testing
3.10 Summary
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Treatment Integrity and Reliability
4.3 Scores Obtained
4.4. Statistical Analysis Procedure
4.5 Presentation of Results
4.5.1 Interactions of the symbol sets with recognition levels
4.5.2 Interaction of treatments with symbol recognition
4.5.3 Interactions of time with symbol recognition
4.6 Summary
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS,EVALUATIONS AND RECOMANDATION
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Conclusions
5.2.1 The symbol sets
5.2.2 Self-generation (SG) versus non self-generation (NSG)
5.3 Evaluation of the Study
5.4 Recommendations for Future Research
5.5 Summary
