Descriptive Statistics Commentary Essay Example for Free

Descriptive Statistics Commentary EssayIn Condition A, participants were told to assure at a list of words whilst listening to music, they were then asked to match the bracess with the music turned hit. In Condition B the music was kept on whilst participants were matching the pairs.The mean average for Condition A is 4.8 pairs whilst the mean average for Condition B is 4.15 pairs.The median average for Condition A is 4.5 pairs compared to Condition B that is 3 pairs.The modal average for Condition A is 4 pairs, whilst the modal average for Condition B is 2. Additional Graphical Description of ResultsDescriptive Statistics CommentaryThe highest amount of words understandt in my line represent was 11 and the natural depressionest was 0. The graph shows that masses who got low rec whole in Condition A, likewise got low recall in Condition B. Only one participant got all eleven pairs matched correctly on both(prenominal) conditions. Almost none of the participants got any i ncorrect and this is shown on the graph.thither is one piece of extreme point data on my line graph, where the participant matched all the pairs correctly in each condition.There is withal a lot of overlap between the two conditions and this shows that the outcome for each condition was very similar. The deviation in each condition is difficult to explain.Relationship of Results to HypothesisMy results show that people did not learn more words with music on, in fact they learned less. Only one participant matched all eleven pairs in both conditions. The overall result shows that the music didnt act as a inform as it did not aid learning or recall.The results do not relate to my hypothesis, as I did not prove that music aids learning. Therefore I must accept my null hypothesis.The averages for both conditions were 4.8 for Condition A and 4.15 for Condition B, this is very close and there is not a signifi undersidet difference. newsValidityIn this experiment I manipulated whether or not music was played to the participants. A problem with the experiment is that it lacks in ecological validity. In real life people do not pair words, memory does not reckon in the same way as an experiment, we do not hark back in lists. This experiment is trying to look at something that is not true to life.Suggestions for improved validity slipway of improving validity could be to do a field experiment, do longitudinal studies or to guard a diary case. Participants could learn in a classroom what they collapse to learn and then get the exams in the same classroom. This may champion them to remember.A case study would provide insight up to now you cannot generalize.A field experiment is good as you can also get rid of make characteristics but you cannot control extraneous variables and you cannot generalise.ReliabilityExperiments are generally reliable because it produces quantitative data and it can be replicated. You can generalise and you can also control extraneous variables.When the experiment took place participants, copied off each other, they shouted the answers out and there was generally a lot of noise in the room. There were also more girls than boys. Participants didnt want to ask questions about the task, so it is possible that they may not have fully understood what to do, they are responding to demand characteristics.Opportunity sampling is also very limited and I was only allowed to experiment on English classrooms.Improving ReliabilityHaving a special room to do the experiment in would help improve reliability. Also maybe getting the participants to take us more seriously would help.Maybe not giving the participants as long to look at the words would also improve reliability or having a person in authority be present.ImplicationsMy background tuition like Tulving and Godden and Baddeley suggest that cues help recall. I used music as a cue in my experiment and that did not appear to help recall. The difference in the two conditio ns was very narrow. This may doom that the experiment was wrong in some way.Generalisation of FindingsThe experiment was done on 20 17-19 stratum olds who are studying AS or A2 levels. You cannot generalise to the rest of the population as students are ingenious to remember as they have been in education since the age of 5.You could therefore only generalise on 17-19 year olds in full time education. It did not tell us about age or gender.A sample of 20 is far too small to generalise from, as 20 people cannot account for everyone in the rest of the population.Application to everyday lifeIn many situations cues can be very helpful. Students use cues to help them to revise for exams and the examiner can use a stimulus to help the student to remember in exams. E.g. after revising for psychology, students could use Tulvings ideas to create categories of information to make the work more manageable and easier to remember.