This study aims to examine the effects of auditory stimulus in the recall of pictorial and worded stimulus, and determine how the interactions between these variables could potentially contribute to a better learning experience for students. It has been well established in the literature that the use of an auditory stimulus enhances an individual ability to recall. Past studies discovered that the medium of delivery such as pictures and audio stimuli has an impact on enhancing an individual’s learning. Hence, through the insights of previous works, the impacts of the three stimuli on learning will be investigated. With quantitative data collection approach, the data is obtained through experiments and statistical measurements. The results from this study revealed that media such as visual image and auditory have only little impact on the enhancement of an individual’s learning. This study also depicted several limitations that affected the results that will be discussed more in the sections.
Keywords: visual image, memory recognition, auditory stimulus, graphical, and learning
Words, Pictures and Sounds and Their Implications on Learning
Learning can be described as a process that is largely dependable on an individual’s experiences and how he/ she integrates these experiences into his/ her memory system. In order for a memory or an experience to be retrieved, it had to be encoded in the first place (Howard & Vesta, 1996). Many factors have been shown to affect how a stimulus is being encoded; for instance, whether or not the stimulus is presented in a pictured format or whether it is presented audibly, its effect on one’s ability to encode and retrieve is non-negligible. Past researches have demonstrated the effects of objects/ pictures leading to better free verbal recall rates than do their labels (Ducharme & Fraisse, 1965). Such findings have lead researchers to conclude that a more complex process other than mere verbal coding is involved; in other words, since objects lead to better recall rates than do their labels, then non-verbal processes must have contributed to the retrieval process. There are 4 ways in which the non-verbal process may have occurred. Objects may be easier to code because there is a unique physical vividness to them, meanings might be activated by seeing the objects, being able to view objects as independent units, as well as providing the platform to organize them into higher order units (Tulving, 1968).
While none of the suggested possibilities have been demonstrated empirically to be involved in why objects are easier to recall than are their labels, Bousfield, Esterson & Whitmarsh (1957) found promising results that would help explain some of the mechanisms at work. They found that participants were able to recall nouns if the nouns are presented along with a coloured picture, but were less likely to recall the nouns if the nouns were presented with uncoloured pictures and least likely to recall if nouns were presented alone respectively. Hence, their study made it clear that it is the physical vividness of the pictures that made it easier for participants to recall the nouns. In fact, the phenomenon of pictures being easier to recall has resulted in a term coined ‘Picture Superiority Effect’. This effect has claimed that pictures may be easier to recall and attributed it to the higher familiarity or frequency of pictured objects that individual holds towards pictures than words (Mintzer & Snodgrass, 1999). Interestingly, the effects of pictures leading to higher recall rates than non-pictured worded stimuli are also apparent among the young and elderly and have been demonstrated in Park, Puglisi & Sovacool’s (1983) study. They found that when provided with the stimuli of words and pictures, both younger and elderly participants were significantly more able to recall the pictured stimuli than the worded stimuli. This shows the widespread phenomenon of the ‘picture superiority effect’ has no age boundaries and that the effects of picture being easier to recall than words are synonymous among all age groups. Similarly, Pavio, Philipchalk & Rowe (1975) found that whenever participants are allowed to recall the stimuli freely, pictured stimuli yielded a higher percentage of recall than do worded stimuli. However, when participants were required to recall the stimuli in sequence, they fair better when the stimulus was worded rather than pictured.
Other than the physical attributes of the word being presented visually, audio representation of words have also been found to improve recall rates as opposed to presenting the word stimulus on its own. Specifically, researchers such as Forrin & MacLeod (2017) found that students tend to recall better when words were read aloud to them than when they were just presented on paper. Similarly, Poulton & Brown’s (1967) study on reading aloud and memory demonstrated the effects of reading aloud on one’s memory. Twenty-four housewives were recruited for Poulton & Brown’s study and they discovered that the end of the passage was remembered significantly better when it was being read aloud as opposed to silently reading it; hence concluding that vocalization added extra emphasis to the text. The effects of vocalizing the stimuli and how it affects an individual’s rate of recall have been studied intensively by Kucan and Beck (1997). They found that when students ‘think aloud’ and verbalize their thought process, they were able to better understand their text, which then result in better rate of recall. Therefore, it would also be interesting to examine the variable of sound and study their effects on the words presented and how they affect rates of recall if presented in an audio format; likewise, it also allows for comparison between words presented in a pictured format and audio format in order to determine the best format for word recall. In fact, researches surrounding the topic of visual and audio presentation of information have found that individuals were more likely to remember visual information presented in a news rather than the content of the news that are being presented audibly (Newhagen & Reeves, 1992). Therefore, the comparison between visual and audio information will likely shed light on the most effective way to increase rates of recall.
With the findings of past researches, the current study aims to compare how pictures and their noun labels determine which condition leads to better recall rates. In line with results from Bousfield, Esterson & Whitmarsh’s findings and the ‘picture superiority effect’, it could be hypothesized that participants will have a higher recall rate in the ‘picture’ condition than in the ‘noun label’ condition. It could also be hypothesized that if physical vividness/ compounding of stimulus is indeed effective, then recall rates should be higher for the pictures rather than for words. However, if physical vividness/ compounding of stimulus were not effective, then concrete meaning of the words would be the determining factor that leads to better recall rates. In addition, with relation to sounds and recall rates, it could be hypothesized that when stimuli are presented audibly, participants would recall them better than when stimuli are presented without the audio stimuli. Hence, participants in the ‘audio’ condition will perform better in terms of recall rate in both the ‘picture’ and ‘noun’ condition than participants in the ‘non-audio’ condition.
A total of 20 Psychology university undergraduates from the Management Development Institute of Singapore (MDIS) between the ages of 17 – 30 are randomly recruited for this experiment.
There will be a total of 20 stimulus presented to the participants. 10-pictured stimulus and 10 concrete words will be presented to them in total. The pictures and words given to the participants will be concrete in nature. The 20 pictured and 20-word stimuli will be presented to participants through the use of a computer. A speaker will be utilized for the ‘audio’ trial of the experiment.
This experiment used a between-subject ANOVA design with the conditions ‘picture’, ‘word’, and ‘audio’ as independent variable with the participant’s recall rates being the dependent variable.
Before the procedure, participants will be asked to sign a consent form stating that they are willing participants and that they will be allowed to withdraw from the experiment at any point in time. The 20 participants will then be randomly separated into 2 separated groups of 10 each, and be ushered into the experimental room. The first group of 10 participants will go through the first trial while the second group will go through the second trial.
First Trial (Non-audio condition)
In the first trial, participants will be shown 10 pictures followed by 10 words with a gap timing of 2.5 seconds between every stimulus on the computer screen. Each stimulus will be shown for duration of about 10 seconds. After showing the 20 stimulus, participants will get a break of 2 minutes before they are told to recall what they saw during the experiment and write them down on a piece of paper provided. Participants are required to recall the stimulus in any order.
Second Trial (Non-audio Condition)
In the first trial, participants were also shown 10 pictures followed by 10 words with 2.5 seconds in between every stimulus. In addition to presenting these stimuli, the word and description of the stimulus will also be read out loud for the participants. Similarly, after going through the stimulus, participants will be required to take a 2 minutes break before writing down what they could recall in sequence.
The experiment will end after the participants wrote down their response. The responses from the participants will be collected and all results obtained from the experiment will be recorded using a spreadsheet. Participants will then undergo a short debrief and the true nature of the study would be revealed to them. They will also be informed of the data and results of the study collected by the researchers. The spreadsheet, which contains all the participant’s scores, will then be analyzed using the ANOVA.
Non-audio versus Audio
Participants in the non-audio condition scored a mean of 8.1 (SD = 8.54) for concrete words and a mean of 11.1 (SD = 9.43) for pictured stimuli. On the other hand, participants in the audio condition scored a mean of 8 (SD = 3.55) for concrete words and a mean of 9.4 (SD = 6.93) for pictured stimuli. The ANOVA comparison between the non-audio and audio condition is non-significant F(1, 36) = 1.14, P = .293 . Hence, the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the audio and the non-audio condition cannot be rejected since the P value is greater than 0.05 and its F value of 1.14 is lesser than the F critical value of 4.113.
Pictured versus Worded
Participants in both the pictured condition scored a mean of 11.1 and 9.4 (SD = 9.43, SD = 6.93) and participants in the worded condition scored a mean of 8.1 and 8 (SD = 8.54, SD = 3.55). The comparison between pictured and worded condition to be significant at the p<.05 level f p="0.013." therefore the null hypothesis that there is no difference between condition and can be rejected at level. variables interaction are statistical significant auditory stimulus type presentation this shows had influence on of pictured vice versa. hence which states interactions cannot since value greater than .05 lesser f-critical discussion non-audio versus audio results obtained for study demonstrated impact having read out loud minimal insignificant in relation to an individual ability recall. presents a disparity does not reflect findings based forrin macleod poulton brown kucan beck as well newhagen reeves claimed or aloud leads higher rate however present failed replicate their findings. few explanations could provided explain non-significant result has been rates firstly sample size far too small yield statistically given variance fairly accounted for. moreover it documented larger more reliable thus precision power from result. may enough participants detected. secondly was mentioned sruthi paper connections word picture formed order lead recall rates. another potential explanation why did fare better compared due fact wasn sufficient time formed. each only mere seconds short any forms meaningful established leading similar condition. simply put process categorizing organizing making absent thereby little conditions. worded supported previous studies with pictures easier remember words do words. phenomenon superiority effect explained by paivio dual encoding theory stimuli encode because features encoded dually csapo other while concrete verbally likely generate verbal pictorial image code being dually. additionally also nelson sensory semantic perceptually distinct one they would deeply increasing chance retrieval sounds implications learning effects cues potentially have enhance students textbooks relevant material should important concepts illustrated many possible. much our cortex devoted vision visual makes complete sense brain processor processor. abstract difficult retain visuals nature easily remembered. various such photos illustrations icons symbols sketches concept maps incorporated classroom setting facilitate student so aid retrieving concepts. even though establish relationship seen miniscule. researchers previously managed addition utilization considered paramount setting. lewis mack emphasizes importance crucial helping monitor thinking help them make what read. limitations current faces numerous unable reliability validity random sampling general population. involved prevented researcher obtaining data. generalizing population rather difficult. likewise affected external lastly all through means convenience sampling. university undergraduates cognitively different group provide generalization future recommendations who interested consider preferably increase study. might want include walks life instead just focusing specifically obtain school going ranges elementary high schoolers accurate examination using use entire comprehension text single examine how reading passage affect participant memory silently experiment typical conclusion researches evidences retrieve teachers shed light presented despite failure recalling disregarded insignificant. aim researchers.>