Hi
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Paul Leiberton wrote:
> It is frequently stated in intro texts books that chunking can increase
> the capacity of STM.
>
> But isn't there research that would support the idea that th size of the
> item in STM affects the capacity of STM? While 7+/-2 works fine with
> numbers of one syllable, if the numbers given to a subject were longer
> (e.g., 178, 438, etc) what can be retained in STM drops.
>
> One of my high school students pointed this out to me after viewing a
> video that contained a filme clip of a subject demonstrating the effect of
> word length on STM capacity. He wondered if the notion of chunking should
> be discarded.
No, although there may be some limitations. One clear example of
chunking would be separate letters vs. letters that comprise
words ... gdotcatra (9 units) vs. dog-cat-rat (3 units). It
might be less obvious, but other kinds of "chunks" (e.g., IBM,
your telephone area code, running times in one exceptional
example in the literature) can become sufficiently unitized to
function in a similar manner. Another illustration is
translation from binary to higher-order numbers (is this a Miller
study perhaps?). That is, rather than 101110001111010011 (18
units), one has 101=5 110=6 001=1 111=7 010=2 011=3; that is,
561723 (6 units), which falls within the memory span.
The limitation might be that some so-called chunks (e.g.,
IBM) might still involve multiple units and hence not achieve
_as_ dramatic an improvement. STM is predictable from
pronunciation speed, for example, and perhaps these kinds of
chunks can simply be rehearsed more rapidly (say IBM as quickly
as possible, vs. MBI?).
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
