ALL WORK MUST BE COMPLETELY ORIGINAL NO RECYCLED WORK 

MUST BE COMPLETED IN APA FORMAT 

Memory Models

Learning about the structure of memory can improve your study skills. In this assignment, you will discuss the academic applications of memory models and try to apply the principles to yourself. Use the readings for the module and the terminology of the subject and respond to these questions:

• You are a teaching assistant for an undergraduate history class and need to prepare a test. You want evidence to show that students know the material well. What kind of test would you prepare? What kind of test do you think requires the most in-depth knowledge? Why?
• As Dan took his history test, he could not recollect many of the dates he had studied. Dan had memorized some important dates just before the test. While he was doing this, he was also talking on the phone. Which of Dan’s memory stores—sensory memory, short-term memory (STM), or long-term memory (LTM)—do you think were most affected by his phone conversation? Why? Could Dan have done something differently to prevent forgetting the dates? Explain.
• Identify two different kinds of mnemonic devices that could help Dan remember dates for his history test. Explain how they could be used.
• Melissa is disappointed that she received yet another “D” on a test. She studied for several hours by reading and rereading her textbook and class notes. Based on the levels-of-processing memory theory, explain why Melissa’s method of studying was not very effective? What could she have done differently?
• Using Baddeley’s working memory model, give an example of two tasks that could successfully be performed simultaneously (For example, can you listen to music while studying at the same time?). Discuss two other tasks that probably would interfere with each other. Make sure to discuss your answers in terms of the visuospatial scratchpad, the phonological loop, and the central executive.

Write your initial response in 4–5 paragraphs. Apply APA standards to citation of sources.

By Saturday, February 14, 2015, post your response to the appropriate Discussion Area. Through Wednesday, February 18, 2015, review and comment on at least two peers’ responses.

Discussion Grading Criteria and Rubric

This discussion assignment is worth 40 points and will be graded using the discussion rubric.

Discussion Grading Criteria

Maximum Points

Initial Discussion Response

16

Discussion Participation

16

Writing Craftsmanship and Ethical Scholarship

8

Total:

40

Unsatisfactory

Emerging

Proficient

Exemplary

Initial Discussion Response *

Initial response:

·         Did not relate to the concepts or ideas presented in the discussion topic(s)

·         Claims were not supported.

Initial response:

·         Lacked substance

·         Was not original

·         Relied on personal experience only to support ideas

Initial response was:

·         Original and accurate

·         Substantive

·         Demonstrated basic understanding of concepts

·         Discussed key theories and concepts from the readings

Initial response was:

·         Insightful

·         Original and accurate

·         Substantive and

·         Demonstrated advanced understanding of concepts 

·         Compiled/synthesized theories and concepts drawn from a variety of sources to support statements and conclusions.

Discussion Participation *

Discussion Responses:

Were off-topic or irrelevant to discussion.

Discussion Responses:

Contributed a few points of view but mostly repeats information posted by others.

Discussion Responses:

·         Contributed to the discussion offering points of view and/or opinions,

·         Did not make clear connections between one or more points in the discussion.

Discussion Responses:

·         Offered points of view supported by research

·         Asked challenging questions that promoted discussion

·         Drew relationships between one or more points in the discussion.

Writing Craftsmanship and Ethical Scholarship *

·         Demonstrated little attempt to organize thoughts

·         Writing was not clear, concise and formal.

·         Writing contained numerous errors in spelling, grammar, and/or sentence structure that severely interfered with readability and comprehension.

·         Information from sources was not paraphrased and attribution of sources was lacking.

·         Demonstrated some attempt to organize thoughts

·         Writing was not clear, concise and/or formal.

·         Errors in spelling and grammar somewhat interfered with readability and/or comprehension.

·         Information from sources was paraphrased and cited, but major errors were present. 

·         Wrote in a clear and organized manner

·         Writing was not concise or formal in language.

·         Writing followed conventions of spelling and grammar throughout.  Errors were infrequent and did not interfere with readability or comprehension.

·         Information from sources was paraphrased and cited, but minor errors were present. 

·         Wrote in a clear, concise, formal and organized manner. 

·         Responses were error free.

·         Information from sources was paraphrased appropriately and accurately cited.