Running head: RUNNING HEADER RUN RUN
Practicing Mirror Figure Tracing with the Preferred or
Non-preferred Hand: Does Practice Make Perfect?
Boomer A. Bear
Missouri State University
1
RUNNING HEADER RUN RUN
2
Abstract
Leave the Abstract out of this report.
RUNNING HEADER RUN RUN
3
Practicing Mirror Figure Tracing with the Preferred or
Non-preferred Hand: Does Practice Make Perfect?
This experiment was designed to measure the effects of practice with the
preferred or the non-preferred hand on the ability of a person to use the
preferred hand to trace an object seen through a mirror. It has three competing
hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: In learning mirror figure tracing, a person learns only a
skill that is specific to the hand that does the tracing. The prediction from this
first hypothesis is no transfer from one hand to the other hand should occur.
Hypothesis 2: In learning mirror figure tracing, a person learns only the
cognitive principle of mirror reversal. The prediction from this second
hypothesis is transfer from one hand to the other hand should occur, and the
transfer should be complete because the cognitive principle is not specific to
either hand.
Hypothesis 3: In learning mirror figure tracing, a person learns both a
skill specific to the hand that does the tracing and also the cognitive principle
of mirror reversal. The prediction from this third hypothesis is transfer from
one hand to the other hand should occur, but the transfer should not be
complete because the cognitive concept that is learned will be transferred, but
the skill will not.
This study used a single-factor, matched, three-group, between-subjects
experimental design (Table 1). Please do not include a literature review or a
References page in your report. You should also mention the independent
RUNNING HEADER RUN RUN
4
variable, the dependent variable, and a short version of the procedure using the
normal sentence and paragraph form.
Method
Participants
The participants were . . .
Apparatus
The participant used a model 31010 mirror tracer from the Lafayette
Instrument Company, 3700 Sagamore Parkway North, P O Box 5726, Lafayette,
Indiana 47903 to trace the figures. Include more . . .
Procedure
Explain the procedure step-by-step. Include operational definitions of the
independent variable and the dependent variable. Then show what you are
looking for by including the following three paragraphs.
In order to support Hypothesis 1, the test-trial results should show that
the scores of groups nonp and rest are not significantly different and the
scores of group pref are lower and significantly different from the scores of
groups nonp and rest.
In order to support Hypothesis 2, the test-trial results should show that
the scores of groups nonp and pref are not significantly different and the
scores of group rest are higher and significantly different from the scores of
groups nonp and pref.
In order to support Hypothesis 3, the test-trial results should show that
the scores of group pref are lower and significantly different from the scores of
RUNNING HEADER RUN RUN
5
group nonp and the test-trial results should also show that the scores of group
nonp are lower and significantly different from the scores of group rest.
Results
The data analysis was performed on 21 participants instead of the
original 24 because of participant attrition. One of the participants did not
return for the second session of mirror tracing, so one block of three
participants had to be dropped from the analysis.
The analysis of variance for a randomized blocks design, using an alpha
cutoff level of .05, indicated a significant effect of the treatment, F(2, 4) = 22.10,
p = .007. The size of the treatment effect (R2) was .32, which means 32% of the
variation in the scores was accounted for by the different treatment given to
the three groups. The means (with standard deviations in parentheses) for
groups nonp, pref, and rest were 91.00 (17.44), 54.67 (9.07), and 131.33 (16.65),
respectively. The Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch Multiple Range Test (alpha = .05, df
= 4) showed that the test-trial scores of group pref were lower and significantly
different from the scores of group nonp and also that the scores of group nonp
were lower and significantly different from the scores of group rest.
Discussion
The
RUNNING HEADER RUN RUN
6
Table 1
The Hand Used in Mirror-tracing by the Three Groups (the Trial Numbers Are in
Parentheses)
______________________________________________________________________________
Groups
Matching Trial (1/2/3)
Practice Trials (4-11)
Test Trial (12)
______________________________________________________________________________
Nonp
Preferred hand
Non-preferred hand
Preferred hand
Pref
Preferred hand
Preferred hand
Preferred hand
Rest
Preferred hand
None
Preferred hand
______________________________________________________________________________
RUNNING HEADER RUN RUN
Figure 1. A sample of a simple four-line diagram.
7
RUNNING HEADER RUN RUN
Figure 2. A sample of a complex 10-line diagram.
8