Hi dear writer, I send you my paper that I already wrote. I need only Abstract a

Hi dear writer, I send you my paper that I already wrote. I need only Abstract and Discussion. please, use my information that I used in my papers such as numbers. I additional, I send you some pictures of instructor for Abstract and Discussion. Please, use instruction for them.
Thank you
MRS: Correlation Output for Predictions 1 & 2
Prediction 2
Additionally, we predicted that there will be a positive relationship between the number of strategies reported when recalling and the 1) numbers of words recalled, and 2) the number of clusters used. To assess this prediction, we examined Pearson correlation coefficients to determine the direction and strength of associations between variables.
As the number of strategies reported increased, the ability to recall more words increased. The prediction that there would be a positive relationship between age and the number of correct words recalled was supported, r (252) = .17, p =.008. As the number of strategies reported increased, we found that the number of clusters demonstrated when recalling the words did not increase, r (252) = .09, p = .175. There was no relationship between the number of strategies reported and the number of clusters used when recalling words, r (252) = .09, p = .175. That is the number of strategies that a child used to remember words was not associated with the number of clusters they demonstrated when recalling words.
————————————————————————————————————
ANOVA Output for Prediction 3-CADV 380 3
Prediction
(1) Main effect of age:
Descriiptive Statistics:
Older students :(M = 2.07, SD = 1.40)
younger students :(M = 1.84, SD = 1.22)
Inferential Statistice:
F (1, 250) = 4.31, p = .039
Statement:
Older students (M = 2.07, SD = 1.40) used significantly more clusters than younger students
(M = 1.84, SD = 1.22), F (1, 250) = 4.31, p = .039
(2) Main effect of condition:
Descriiptive Statistics:
Condition A: M = 1.33, SD = 1.10
Condition B: M = 2.67, SD = 1.19
Inferntial Statistics:
F (1,250) = 86.33, p < .001
Statement:
Students in Condition B (M =2.67, SD =1.19) used significantly more cluster than students in the Condition A (M =1.33, SD =1.10), F(1, 250) = 86.33, p < .001
(3) Age*Condition Interaction:
Descriiptive Statistics:
Young + Cond A: M = 2.39, SD = 1.11
Old+ Condition B: M = 2.92, SD = 1.20
Inferential Statistics :
F(1,250) = 2.81, p = .095
Statement:
older students in Condition B (M =2.92, SD = 1.20) did not use significantly more clusters than younger students in Condition A (M = 2.39, SD = 1.11), F( 1,250) = 2.81, p = .095
————————————————————————————————————
Insert APA Title Page Here
Abstract
[to be written by students–LEAVE BLANK FOR LAB 15. YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO THIS UNTIL LAB 16]
Method
Participants
Participants (N = 254) were divided into two age groups: 114 Young elementary school students from Grades 1-2 (43 males, 66 females, 5` unknown gender) and 140 Old elementary school students from Grades 3-5 (65 males, 72 females, 3 unknown genders). Within grade level all participants were randomly assigned to one of two memory conditions (A or B), as follows: Young Group (Memory Condition A, Random: N = 57; Memory Condition B, Related: N = 76); Old Group (Memory Condition A, Random: N =; Memory Condition B, Related: N = 64)
Children were recruited from an elementary school serving a middle- to upper-middle-class population in a medium-sized mid-western city. Data collection was completed over five semesters. The school principal gave permission for the researchers to send parent consent forms, 400 per semester, to the parents of all children in Grades 1-5. The return rate was approximate ~11%. Appointments with the children were made in advance via their parents. Children received a token gift for their participation.
As this was a training study for an undergraduate research methods class, permission was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (exempted approval) and from the parent for undergraduate interviewers to contact the parent. The undergraduates made the final arrangements for the interview and the return of the child to the parent after the interview. This helped ensure that the undergraduate felt directly responsible for the whole interview process and that the child knew who was going to carry out the interview. The interviews were supervised by the course instructors. The majority of the participants were Caucasian.
Procedure
Children were met by the undergraduate researchers outside their classroom at the end of the school day. They were escorted to a quiet area in a school corridor where they were interviewed by 1- to 2 undergraduate researchers. Children were told that they could refuse to answer any of the questions and could stop at any time. All children completed one memory task (A or B) and two rapport-building tasks. After the child gave verbal assent the first rapport-building task was given. Once the experimenter was sure the child was comfortable, the experimenter proceeded with the test session. First, there was a practice session in which the participant was presented with three practice words. The interviewer asked the participant to repeat each word immediately after the presentation. If the participant did not comply, he or she was prompted with the instruction, "Can you say it." There was a one-second pause before the next word was presented. Finally, the researcher said "Tell me what words I said," and noted the participant's responses. Following the practice, the focal memory task was given (see measures). The last rapport-building task was given at the end of the interview. The interviews took about 15 minutes to complete and all data were recorded anonymously. Children chose a token gift at the conclusion of the study.
Measures
Half of the participants were presented with twenty words in random order (A) and half were presented with the same 20 words in a semantically-related order (B). The random order list had the constraint that no two words from the same category were presented next to each other. For each memory condition, the experimenter presented one word at a time, pronouncing the word clearly, and then had the participant repeat the word. There was a one-second pause before the next word was presented. After the 20 words were presented the participant was asked to recall as many items as possible, which were recorded in the order in which the participant said the words. The participant was encouraged with phrases such as "Can you remember some more?" "What others can you think of?" No conversation or digression was permitted during the test phase. In the end, the participant was told, "That was fantastic, that was a really difficult list of words, what did you do to remember all those words?" The experimenter then recorded all the strategies. A final rapport-building task was given to ensure that the children felt comfortable about the study when they finished.
Scoring
Number of Words Recalled
The number of responses given by the participant was counted. Those items that were intrusions or repetitions were excluded. The items recalled minus the number of repetitions and intrusions were reported as the total number of words recalled (Range 1- 18)
Clusters
A run of two, three, or four items from the same category, serially, was called a cluster. If a participant gave two items from one category at one point, then another two items from the same category later on, after remembering some other words, then this was counted as two clusters, even if they were from the same category (Range: 0-6).
Strategies
The number of different strategies the participant reported was totaled and recorded as the total number of strategies. "I just remembered them" or "I guessed" were not judged to be strategies because the participant was not consciously attempting to use a mnemonic technique to improve recall. The following were all considered strategies: "I tried to put the ones that were alike together," "I started with the most recent ones, then I remembered the categories," "I repeated them to myself," "I imagined the objects in a room," "I remembered apple because I thought about my teacher," "I tried to make sentences out of the words," "I made a list and then I tried to remember the words." The range for the number of strategies used when recalling words was 0-4.
Results
Prediction 1
We predicted that there would be a positive relationship between age and: 1) the number of correct words recalled, 2) the number of clusters demonstrated, and 3) the number of strategies that were used. To assess this prediction, we examined Pearson correlation coefficients to determine the direction and strength of associations between variables. The prediction that there would be a positive relationship between age and the number of correct words recalled was supported, r(252) = .23, p < .001. As children increased in age, the ability to correctly recall more words increased. The finding that there would be a positive relationship between age and the number of clusters demonstrated was not supported, r(252) = .08, p = .202. As children increased in age, we found that the number of clusters demonstrated when recalling the words did not increase. The prediction that there would be a positive relationship between age and the number of strategies used was supported, r(252) = .22, p < .001. As children increased in age, they reported using more strategies when recalling words.
Prediction 2
Additionally, we predicted that there will be a positive relationship between the number of strategies reported when recalling and the 1) numbers of words recalled, and 2) the number of clusters used. To assess this prediction, we examined Pearson correlation coefficients to determine the direction and strength of associations between variables. The prediction that there would be a positive relationship between the number of strategies and the number of correct words recalled was supported, r(252) = .17, p = .008. As the number of strategies used increased, the total number of words recalled did increase. The prediction that there would be a positive relationship between the number of strategies and the number of clusters demonstrated was not supported, r(252) = .09, p = .18. As the number of strategies increased, the number of clusters used also increased.
Prediction 3
To investigate the relationship between age and memory recall in younger and older elementary school students, we carried out a two-way ANOVA with age and memory condition as the independent variables and clusters demonstrated when recalling words as the dependent variable.
It was predicted that in comparison with younger students, older students would be more likely to demonstrate clusters when recalling words and that students in semantically-related conditions would use more clusters when recalling words than students in the random-
presentation condition. A two-way ANOVA ( analysis of variance) with Age (2:1-2 grade, 3-5 grade) and Condition (2: Random, Semantically-related) was conducted on the number of clusters used when recalling words. Results indicate a main effect for age: Older students ( M =2.07, SD = 1.40) demonstrated significantly more clusters than younger students (M = 1.84, SD = 1.22, F(1,250) = 4.31, p =.039. Further, there was a main effect for condition: Students in condition B (M =2.67, SD = 1.19) demonstrated significantly more clusters than students in Condition A (M = 1.33, SD = 1.10), F(1,250) = 86.33, p < .001. These results supported both predictions, with older students demonstrating significantly more clusters than younger students, and students in the semantically related condition demonstrating more clusters than those in the random conditions.
We also tested for an interaction effect of age by condition (2*2) on clusters demonstrated in the above ANOVA. We hypothesized that semantically related presentations of words would have a great effect on the older age group. The ANOVA revealed that there was no significant interaction between age and condition. That is: Older students in Condition B (M = 2.39, SD = 1.11), F(1,250) = 2.81, p = .095.The lack of significant interaction indicates that the effect for the condition did not depend on the child.
References
Nadelman, L. (2004). Research Manual in Child Development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tulving, E., & Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(66)80048-8
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2006). Verbal and visuospatial short-term and working memory in children: Are they separable? Child Development, 77, 1698-1716. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00968.x
Gathercole, S., Pickering, S., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40, 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *