Psych Formative Assessment (HALF-TERMLY)
Submit your work for formal assessment by inserting the files into a copy
of this Word document. The contents, in order, should be:
1. This Page 1 coversheet, completed.
2. Page 2 of the coversheet, completed.
3. First draft of the work, with peer feedback comments on. (This may
be two copies for two different sets of feedback.)
4. Page 3 of the coversheet, completed.
5. Draft 2 of the work, if relevant.
6. Page 4 of the coversheet, completed.
7. Draft 3 of the work (call it this whether you did draft 2 or not.) This
is the draft your teacher will comment on and return.
8. Final draft (draft 4.)
9. Page 5 of the coversheet, completed with grades.
Candidate name:
Bryony Sheppard
Exam level:
Unit and / or topic:
AS
Cognitive psychology
Last term’s graded piece:
Target grade:
Title of piece of work:
Marks and time available:
C
“Describe and evaluate research into the multi-store
model of memory. (4+8.)”
Marks
Final grade (self / teacher):
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
30 Minutes
Psych Formative – Page 2
Place this sheet BEFORE the PEER-COMMENTED FIRST DRAFT.
Peer markers should give comment and advice on the work using
the “Review” function in Word. They should not give a grade.
They should give an even balance of praise and criticism.
The two peer markers for my work were: (names + surnames)
Medisa Moradi
Zahra Siddiqui
Include BOTH peer markers’ commented essays or the teacher
won’t help.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Atikinson and Shiffrin (1968) came up with the multi-store model and proposed that there were 3 main parts – The
sensory memory, the short-term memory and the long-term memory. They said that firstly there must be a ‘stimulus
input’ to first go into the sensory memory, with enough attention is will be passed on to the short-term memory then
finally with rehearsal the long-term memory. Also Atikinson and Shiffrin said that each part of the memory had it own
capacity, duration and form of encoding. Sperling (1960) was one of the many papers to support the MSM. Sperlings aim
was to find out the capacity of sensory memory, he used a chart containing three rows of four letters which he displayed
for a very brief time to his participants, then asked them to recall immediately, Sperling found that on average only 4 or 5
out of 12 could be recalled. Once he trained his participant to differentiate between 3 different tones; each
corresponding with a different row, he carried out the experiment again however this time once the letters came off
display he played a tone and participants had to recall letters which were on row the tone corresponded to. He found
that recall was 3 from the row. Therefore the participant must have remembered at least 9 out of 12. He concluded that
the whole image of the letters was available in their Iconic memory of the sensory memory. Evidence for sensory
memory in a real life situation is cartoon. Cartoons are still images however our sensory memory remembers the last
image and combined is with the next to make fluid movement between images. Miller (1956) also did an experiment
which tested capacity, however this time on STM. He tested this by using the digit span technique and came to the
conclusion that the capacity of STM is 5 to 9 Items (7 +/- 2). Conrad (1964) aim was to find out how STM encoded, he
used two different sets of letters: Acoustically Similar and acoustically dissimilar. He found that errors had been made
and a majority of those errors involved substitution of a similar sounding letters, he saw that participant found it harder
to recall acoustically similar words. Overall he came to the conclusion that STM is encoded acoustically. Later on
Baddeley (1966) confirmed Conrad’s findings by carrying our his own study, he also expanded it by using words and
adding semantically similar/ dissimilar words also he added more words to change his experiment to look into how LTM
encodes. Ethically looking at the studies carried out there are very minimal ethical issues, the only concern raised is that
participant could feel anxious to perform and feel distressed if they feel they didn’t do well, but this can be helped by
debriefing at the end. However there are many more methodological issues, for example they have very low ecological
validity as the material used could be too simple or too complex to compare to things we remember in real life situations.
From further studies being carried out we begin to see that the multi-store model is very inaccurate and flawed. Its main
problem is that it’s too simple and it doesn’t look at the complexities of the human memory. One study which
contrasts with the structure of the multi-store model is a study done by Kulik & Brown came up with a special
memory ‘flash bulb memory’, which is where insignificant details surrounding highly emotional events are imprinted
directly in the LTM, contradicting Atikinson and Shiffrin’s idea that is has to be rehearsed from STM to pass to LTM. In
addition Shallice and Warrington (1970) had a patient ‘KF’ who sustained brain injuries in a motorcycle as a result of
this his LTM was intact however his STM was affected and had a recency effect of one item. This again shows that
STM and LTM can function separately again proving Atikinson and Shiffrins model wrong. Also Ruchkin et al. (1999)
measured brain activity when participants are presented with pseudo-words, if STM encoded acoustically then no
difference would show, however Ruchkin saw a difference suggesting semantic information from LTM is being used
and STM and LTM interplay. With many other studies finding flaws and errors with the MSM the working memory
model (1973) was thought up.
 SPELLINGS
 More real life examples
 What about long term memory
 Criticise specific papers
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Atikinson and Shiffrin (1968) came up with the multi-store model and proposed that there were 3 main parts – The
sensory memory, the short-term memory and the long-term memory. They said that firstly there must be a ‘stimulus
input’ to first go into the sensory memory, with enough attention is will be passed on to the short-term memory then
finally with rehearsal the long-term memory. Also Atikinson and Shiffrin said that each part of the memory had it
own capacity, duration and form of encoding. Sperling (1960) was one of the many papers to support the MSM.
Sperling’s aim was to find out the capacity of sensory memory; he used a chart containing three rows of four letters
which he displayed for a very brief time to his participants, then asked them to recall immediately. Sperling found
that on average only 4 or 5 out of 12 could be recalled. Once he trained his participant to differentiate between 3
different tones; each corresponding with a different row, he carried out the experiment again however this time
once the letters came off display he played a tone and participants had to recall letters which were on row the tone
corresponded to. He found that recall was 3 from the row. Therefore the participant must have remembered at least
9 out of 12. He concluded that the whole image of the letters was available in their Iconic memory of the sensory
memory. Evidence for sensory memory in a real life situation is cartoons. Cartoons are still images however our
sensory memory remembers the last image and combined is with the next to make fluid movement between images.
Miller (1956) also did an experiment which tested capacity, however this time on STM. He tested this by using the
digit span technique and came to the conclusion that the capacity of STM is 5 to 9 Items (7 +/- 2). Conrad (1964) aim
was to find out how STM encoded, he used two different sets of letters: Acoustically Similar and acoustically
dissimilar. He found that errors had been made and a majority of those errors involved substitution of a similar
sounding letters, he saw that participant found it harder to recall acoustically similar words. Overall he came to the
conclusion that STM is encoded acoustically. Later on Baddeley (1966) confirmed Conrad’s findings by carrying our
his own study, he also expanded it by using words and adding semantically similar/dissimilar words also he added
more words to change his experiment to look into how LTM encodes. Ethically looking at the studies carried out
there are very minimal ethical issues, the only concern raised is that participant could feel anxious to perform and
feel distressed if they feel they didn’t do well, but this can be helped by debriefing at the end. However there are
many more methodological issues, for example they have very low ecological validity as the material used could be
too simple or too complex to compare to things we remember in real life situations.
From further studies being carried out we begin to see that the multi-store model is very inaccurate and flawed. Its main
problem is that it’s too simple and it doesn’t look at the complexities of the human memory. One study which
contrasts with the structure of the multi-store model is a study done by Kulik & Brown came up with a special
memory ‘flash bulb memory’, which is where insignificant details surrounding highly emotional events are imprinted
directly in the LTM, contradicting Atikinson and Shiffrin’s idea that is has to be rehearsed from STM to pass to LTM. In
addition Shallice and Warrington (1970) had a patient ‘KF’ who sustained brain injuries in a motorcycle - as a result of
this his LTM was intact however his STM was affected and had a recency effect of one item. This again shows that
STM and LTM can function separately again proving the Atikinson and Shiffrins model wrong. Also Ruchkin et al.
(1999) measured brain activity when participants are presented with pseudo-words, if STM encoded acoustically
then no difference would show, however Ruchkin saw a difference suggesting semantic information from LTM is
being used and STM and LTM interplay. With many other studies finding flaws and errors with the MSM the working
memory model (1973) was thought up.


Good answer, with an in-depth amount of detail and understanding of each paper and how they relate back to the
question.
Structured order to discussing with each aspect of the multi-store model, this answer was easy to follow.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.

Although there was lots of information about all the papers that aided the multi-store model, I felt you were a bit
short on papers that conflicted with the multi-store model. Highlight more of the problems with the multi-store
model, and be more detailed about what these papers highlight for the model.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Psych Formative – Page 3
From the advice of your peer markers, write 5-10 lines
summarizing what you think you most need to work on and
change (this box expands as you write):
First of all I will fix my simple spelling errors, and then I will add a LTM study to give
evidence for the LTM part of the mutli-store model. I will look for papers I see relevant to
criticize the papers that give evidence or some conflicting papers. Adding papers at the end
that shows flaws in the MSM make the distribution of studies for and against the MSM
even. Finally adding more real life examples will show my understanding of the studies and
my evaluating skills.
If peer feedback revealed major issues you need to fix BEFORE
asking for the teacher’s help, then redraft (draft 2).
Otherwise, you can now pass this on to the teacher.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) came up with the multi-store model and proposed that there were 3 main parts – The
sensory memory, the short-term memory and the long-term memory. They said that firstly there must be a ‘stimulus
input’ to first go into the sensory memory, with enough attention is will be passed on to the short-term memory then
finally with rehearsal the long-term memory. Also Atkinson and Shiffrin said that each part of the memory had it own
capacity, duration and form of encoding. Sperling (1960) was one of the many papers to support the MSM. Sperlings
aim was to find out the capacity of sensory memory, he used a chart containing three rows of four letters which he
displayed for a very brief time to his participants, then asked them to recall immediately, Sperling found that on
average only 4 or 5 out of 12 could be recalled. Once he trained his participant to differentiate between 3 different
tones; each corresponding with a different row, he carried out the experiment again however this time once the
letters came off display he played a tone and participants had to recall letters which were on row the tone
corresponded to. He found that recall was 3 from the row. Therefore the participant must have remembered at least
9 out of 12. He concluded that the whole image of the letters was available in their Iconic memory of the sensory
memory. Evidence for sensory memory in a real life situation is cartoon. Cartoons are still images however our
sensory memory remembers the last image and combined is with the next to make fluid movement between images.
Miller (1956) also did an experiment which tested capacity, however this time on STM. He tested this by using the
digit span technique and came to the conclusion that the capacity of STM is 5 to 9 Items (7 +/- 2).In contrast Simon
(1974) said it was the amount of information in the chucks rather than the chunks themselves. Conrad (1964) aim
was to find out how STM encoded, he used two different sets of letters: Acoustically Similar and acoustically
dissimilar. He found that errors had been made and a majority of those errors involved substitution of a similar
sounding letters, he saw that participant found it harder to recall acoustically similar words. Overall he came to the
conclusion that STM is encoded acoustically. Later on Baddeley (1966) confirmed Conrad’s findings by carrying our
his own study, he also expanded it by using words and adding semantically similar/ dissimilar words also he added
more words to change his experiment to look into how LTM encodes. Bahrick et al. (1975) attempted to look into the
duration of LTM, Tested memory of 392 graduated students of their former class mates, various tests were carried
out. Participants performed well up to 34 years, there was a dip in performance after 47 years. However it is difficult
to decide whether this was due to an ageing effect or the passage of time.
Ethically looking at the studies carried out there are very minimal ethical issues, the only concern raised is that
participant could feel anxious to perform and feel distressed if they feel they didn’t do well, but this can be helped by
debriefing at the end. However there are many more methodological issues, for example they have very low
ecological validity as the material used could be too simple or too complex to compare to things we remember in real
life situations.
From further studies being carried out we begin to see that the multi-store model is very inaccurate and flawed. Its main
problem is that it’s too simple and it doesn’t look at the complexities of the human memory. One study which
contrasts with the linear structure of the multi-store model is a study done by Kulik & Brown they came up with a
special memory ‘flash bulb memory’, which is where insignificant details surrounding highly emotional events are
imprinted directly in the LTM, contradicting Atkinson and Shiffrin’s idea that is has to be rehearsed from STM to pass
to LTM. The evidence of this is the incident of 9/11 when people can accurately recall the event without being there
or rehearsing. In addition Shallice and Warrington (1970) had a patient ‘KF’ who sustained brain injuries in a
motorcycle as a result of this his LTM was intact however his STM was affected and had a recency effect of one item.
This again shows that STM and LTM can function separately again proving Atikinson and Shiffrins model wrong. Also
Ruchkin et al. (1999) measured brain activity when participants are presented with pseudo-words, if STM encoded
acoustically then no difference would show, however Ruchkin saw a difference suggesting semantic information from
LTM is being used and STM and LTM interplay. With many other studies finding flaws and errors with the MSM the
working memory model (1973) was thought up.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Psych Formative – Page 4
Place this sheet AFTER the new draft you did following peer
feedback. (If no redraft, this is straight after the Stage 2 sheet.)
Remember that the amount of teacher feedback you can get is
very limited and you should use it carefully and sparingly.
Place a cross (“X”) in ONE box:
“I HAVE redrafted after peer feedback”
“I HAVE NOT redrafted after peer feedback”
x
Now send all of the above on to your teacher. Make sure
EVERYTHING is included IN ORDER before you send it. Your
teacher will add their comments.
After it’s returned you will need to do a FINAL DRAFT bearing the
teacher’s advice in mind.
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Psych Formative – Page 5
Draft 3, with guidance comments from the teacher, should be
BEFORE this sheet. Now rewrite it. You may want to use this box
to plan the changes you need to make (about 2-3 lines will do):
AFTER this sheet, place that Final Draft with improvements made
following the teacher’s advice.
When you have done that, return to the front sheet:
 use the mark scheme to give yourself a final grade
 your teacher will add their view
 if these are different, find some lesson time to ask about it
FINALLY – print it, staple it, and keep it in the folder in the
classroom (this will enable you to refer back to it with your
teacher in order to keep track of your progress.)
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
From plan to feedback to grade (appendix)
Planning might require just a
half-page, or a list of key
terms that must be used.
Summative marking
Formative feedback
Planning / drafting
START HERE
Key terms list
Plan it
First draft
Peer
feedback
Depending on your
confidence level, you might
do the essay under timed
conditions (or not), open
book or closed, with plan and
key terms list visible (or not.)
Try to move up these
confidence levels – but not
too fast.
Rewrite
Teacher
feedback
Final
rewrite
Self- or
peer-grade
Teacher
confirms
© 2011 V Pedersen. No unauthorized use, reproduction or distribution without a valid license.
Peer feedback must come
first and is more
important than teacher
feedback. In the short
route, this is followed by
teacher feedback; or you
can redraft from peer
feedback before getting
teacher help. You won’t
get teacher help without
evidence of meaningful
peer feedback first.
Don’t hand the work to
the teacher to mark
summatively. You must be
able to use the mark
scheme to grade it yourself
– or you don’t understand
what the examiner wants.
The teacher can help you
“home in” on marking
accuracy but the onus is
on you to learn this skill.