Cognitive Essay Question 1
Cognitive Essay 2012-13
The coursework essays are built on independent reading. To answer the essay questions you will have to read original journal papers (not textbooks), understand the main argument, evaluate the empirical findings and compare different views of the topic. Based on that you should try to find a (preliminary) answer to the question or make clear why the question remains open. Provide empirical evidence for your arguments. When you describe the empirical evidence it is important to give a short description of the experiment in which this evidence was found. In particular you should explain what the task of the participants was, what the independent dependent variables were and which results were found related to the hypothesis under consideration. Make sure that the reader understands why a particular experimental result supports a particular argument or theory.
Word count: 2,000 words excluding references.
Please answer ONE of the following:
1. Evaluate the evidence from working memory research that led to the inclusion of a new component to the model, the episodic buffer.
Earlier models of working memory specified two short-term memory components to actively store and maintain visual and phonological information (Baddeley, 1986) and a central executive (Baddeley, 1996) to co-ordinate and process information between the two short-term memory stores as well as long-term memory. Baddeley (2000) introduced the concept of the episodic buffer to explain the transfer and integration information of information between the three original components of working memory and long term memory. The question asks you to evaluate the empirical evidence from the tasks that have been used to substantiate the different aspects of the model.
Starter references
Allen, R.J., Hitch, G.J. & Baddeley, A.D. (2009). Cross-modal binding and working memory. Visual Cognition, 17, 83-102.
Baddeley, A. D. (2008). What 's new in working memory?
The coursework essays are built on independent reading. To answer the essay questions you will have to read original journal papers (not textbooks), understand the main argument, evaluate the empirical findings and compare different views of the topic. Based on that you should try to find a (preliminary) answer to the question or make clear why the question remains open. Provide empirical evidence for your arguments. When you describe the empirical evidence it is important to give a short description of the experiment in which this evidence was found. In particular you should explain what the task of the participants was, what the independent dependent variables were and which results were found related to the hypothesis under consideration. Make sure that the reader understands why a particular experimental result supports a particular argument or theory.
Word count: 2,000 words excluding references.
Please answer ONE of the following:
1. Evaluate the evidence from working memory research that led to the inclusion of a new component to the model, the episodic buffer.
Earlier models of working memory specified two short-term memory components to actively store and maintain visual and phonological information (Baddeley, 1986) and a central executive (Baddeley, 1996) to co-ordinate and process information between the two short-term memory stores as well as long-term memory. Baddeley (2000) introduced the concept of the episodic buffer to explain the transfer and integration information of information between the three original components of working memory and long term memory. The question asks you to evaluate the empirical evidence from the tasks that have been used to substantiate the different aspects of the model.
Starter references
Allen, R.J., Hitch, G.J. & Baddeley, A.D. (2009). Cross-modal binding and working memory. Visual Cognition, 17, 83-102.
Baddeley, A. D. (2008). What 's new in working memory?
References: (APA style) | excellent | good | average | Weak | poor | Completeness, accuracy and format of references in the text | | | | | | Completeness, accuracy and format of the reference list | | | | | | | | | | | | PRESENTATION | excellent | good | average | weak | poor | How well is the paper structured (flow of arguments)? | | | | | | What is the overall quality of writing? | | | | | | MARK |