The Effect of Depth of Processing on the Retention of Words:

A Classroom Experiment

Dina M. Al-Sibai

Eng. 597
Dr. M. Z. Kebbe
November 9, 2005
 I. Introduction

According to Mergel (1998), one of the most influential papers on memory and information
processing has been on the approach involving deep processing (Craik and Lockhart, 1972). By
1980, in just eight years, Roediger (1980) found that this article had been cited over 700 times! The
belief is that the more deeply you process information, the better it is retained. Craik and Lockhart
theorize that people can analyze stimuli (i.e. information) at different levels, and thus referred to it as
the Level of Processing (LOP) framework. In a typical level of processing experiment, when subjects
are presented with words and are required to respond (e.g., to shallow orientation questions: “Is
this word in capital letters?”, or deep orientation questions: “Does this word refer to an animal?”),
and memory is subsequently tested, it is consistently found that memory is strongest for words
subjected to a deep orienting task. They proposed that the shallow levels involve analysis in terms of
physical or sensory characteristics., and the deeper levels involve meaning. Shallow processing is
said to lead to short-term retention and deeper processing to longer retention.

Whitt (2000) explains that some have challenged this theory and have stated that the amount of time
spent processing information is what allows people to retain information for longer periods of time.
However, Whitt reports that experiments show that the time spent rehearsing information is not
always related to how well the information is recalled. He relates the story of a Professor named
Sanford who estimated he had read the same mealtime prayer at least 5000 times over a 25-year
period and still could not repeat it from memory. Whitt explains this apparent discrepancy by
proposing that it is the depth at which information is processed that determines the persistence of a
memory.

However, this framework is not without fault. Whitt (2000) reports that the depth of processing
theory of Craik and Lockhart has had some fairly severe criticism centering on the vague nature of
the term “depth”. As a result, Craik and Lockhart have been accused of circular reasoning:
information is deeply processed if it can be remembered for a long time and information can be
remembered for a long time because it has been deeply processed. Further, the inability of the
theorists to adequately define what may constitute “depth” has lead to a certain loss of enthusiasm
for those who desire to test the limits of the depth of processing model. Certainly, it is difficult to test
limits where the theoretical parameters are not clearly defined. Nevertheless, testing of the depth of
processing model of information processing has continued to the present in an effort to define what
limits or properties may be included in the definition of deep processing of information.

In 1975, Craik & Tulving designed ten experiments to explore the levels of processing framework
for human memory research proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972). The basic philosophy is that,
“the episodic memory trace may be thought of as a rather automatic by-product of operations carried
out by the cognitive system and that the durability of the trace is a positive result of "depth" of
processing,” (p. ) where depth refers to greater degrees of semantic analysis. Subjects were
encouraged to process words to different depths by answering various questions about the words. For
example, shallow encodings were achieved by asking questions about typescript; intermediate levels
of encoding were accomplished by asking questions about rhyme; deep levels were induced by
asking whether the word would fit into a given category or sentence frame. After the encoding
phase was completed, subjects were given a recall or recognition test for the words. In general,
deeper encodings were associated with higher levels of performance on the subsequent memory test.
It was further suggested that the durability of the memory trace is a function of depth of processing.
That is, stimuli which are analyzed only to a shallow sensory level, result in very weak memory
traces. Conversely, stimuli that are fully analyzed result in a long-lasting memory trace.

1
 II. The Purpose of This Paper

In this paper, an attempt will be made to replicate 2 of the experiments that were carried out by Craik &
Tulving (1975), specifically the two experiments involved in “Experiment 9: Classroom Demonstration”
(See Appendix A for Experiment 9) which involve using only three levels of encoding in a classroom
context – as opposed to the first 8 experiments which involve rigid laboratory conditions. The 3 levels of
encoding involve: questions concerning type-script (uppercase or lowercase), rhyme questions, and
sentence questions (in which subjects were either given a sentence frame with one word missing or were
asked a category question). The results of such experiments are expected to give teachers a clearer
picture of what learners are capable of in terms of their retention abilities. Although this paper only
investigates how well learners remember words in a normal classroom setting and whether motivation
improves their performance, in fact, the results of this experiment can hopefully be translated into a better
awareness of our learners’ abilities and tendencies. The following experiment was carried out in this
spirit, however, several changes from the original experiment were necessary:
* A larger number of participants were asked to participate and all at once, not two at a time.
* The participants are non-native speakers of English.
* Questions were orally read, not presented on paper as in Experiment 9.
* The students were shown the words for 2 seconds instead of 1 second.
* As a way of motivating the second group, grades were used instead of money.

This experiment will hopefully help in answering the following 2 questions:

1) Will the results of this experiment be similar to those of the original experiment keeping in mind
that this experiment was done with non-native speakers of English?
2) Will motivating students enhance their retention abilities?

III. The Experiment

The participants in this experiment were Level 5 College of Languages and Translation female students
majoring in Translation. The first group (Group A, n = 31) was only informed that the experiment con-
cerned perception and memory, however, the second group (Group B, n = 34) was also informed of this
but they were also told that they would be awarded ½ a point for every 5 words they were able to
recognize on the subsequent retention test (which would be included as part of their final course grade)
and therefore they should attempt to learn each word. It was emphasized to all participants that their main
task was to remember the words, and that a recognition test would be given after the presentation phase.

Phase One: During the initial perceptual or encoding phase, the participants were first given a sheet (see
Appendix C) which included 60 YES/NO choices. On each trial, the participants were orally asked a
question, then a different word (a five-letter common noun) was exposed on a computer screen for
exactly 2 seconds using the Microsoft PowerPoint program. The purpose of the question was to induce
the students to process the word to one of several levels of analysis. Three types of questions were asked
in the initial encoding phase. (a) An analysis of the physical structure of the word was achieved by asking
about the physical structure of the word (e.g., “Is the word printed in capital letters?"). (b) A phonemic
level of analysis was induced by asking about the word's rhyming characteristics (e.g., "Does the word
rhyme with BRAIN?"). (c) A semantic analysis was activated by asking either a categorical question
(e.g., "Is the word a boy’s name?") or a "sentence" question (e.g., "Would the word fit the following
sentence: 'The boy kicked the ____ in the air'"). At each of the three levels of processing, half of the
questions yielded YES responses and half NO responses.

Phase Two: The general procedure thus consisted of giving the participants a long series of trials (60
words) in which both the type of question and YES-NO decisions were randomized (see Appendix B for
the questions and words). The students upon hearing each question had exactly 6 seconds to either
choose YES or NO as their answer. Once the 60 words and questions ended, the students were given a
final retention test. The retention test included the 60 words the students saw on the computer screen and
an additional 140 five-letter common noun distractors (see Appendix D). The participants were asked to

2
check all the words they saw on the computer screen in the encoding phase. Both groups were given 10
minutes to complete the retention test. Once the 10 minutes were over, all sheets were collected
promptly. The two groups were thanked for their cooperation and Group B was informed that this was
just an experiment and that they would not be given the extra points. They graciously accepted this with
no objections. The expectation was that memory performance would vary systematically with the depth
of processing and that the “motivated” Group B would perform better than Group A.

IV. Results & Discussion

Correctly recognized words were tallied for each student in both Groups A & B. Using the Microsoft
Excel program, the data were analyzed. Table 1 shows that some of the results of this experiment are
quite different from those of Experiment 9 (see Table 2).

Table 1
Proportion of Words Recognized from the
Replication of Experiment 9 Table 2
_____________________________________ Experiment 9

Response Type Case Rhyme Ca./Fr.

_____________________________________

Group A (n = 31)
YES .37 .59 .65
NO .59 .79 .77
_____________________________________

Group B (n = 34) (Craik & Tulving, 1975, p. 287)

YES .39 .53 .60
NO .60 .82 .72

According to the levels of processing framework, the deeper the level of processing on an item, the more
likely it should be remembered. In Craik and Tulving's original report of this experiment, a difference in
the frequency with which YES and NO items were remembered was found. Specifically, they found that,
words to which a YES response was given in the encoding phase were recognized better than those to
which a NO response was given. Surprisingly, the exact opposite pattern is evident in the present data
(see Table 1). Another unpredictable finding is that in both Group A & Group B, recognition
performance was best for rhyme words (which only require an intermediate level of processing) to which
a NO response was given, not for category/sentence frame words. Furthermore, a comparison of
recognition of case words in Table 1 and Table 2 reveals that in general, the participants in this
experiment had better recognition of case words (that require shallow processing) than did the
participants in the original experiment. Last but not least, with the striking exception of rhyme words to
which a NO response was given, an overall evaluation of both Tables 1 & 2 confirms that a similar
pattern in both exists; deeply processed/encoded words are recognized better than shallow-
encoded/processed words.

V. Conclusions & Implications

These results confirm and extend, to some extent, the findings of other similar investigations. The
findings, indeed, have provided useful answers to the two questions posited in this paper. Regarding
question 1, the first and most important finding is that this experiment, just like Craik and Tulving's
Experiment 9 has proved, once again, that, in general, deep processing of words leads to better retention
of them. However, in this experiment, there appears to be some kind of retention boost for rhyme words

3
for which NO responses were given regardless of whether there was motivation provided or not. For the
time being, the only modest explanation that can be provided is that participants were probably able to
remember these words because the rhyme pair that they were provided with was quite striking, e.g.,
“heart, ear”, “onion, onions”, “north, south”. However, another experiment, exactly like this one, would
be required with 2 other similar samples in order to establish the consistency of this phenomenon. If the
results match the ones found in this experiment, then it would be interesting to investigate the reasons
behind our nonnative English participants’ ability to remember words that involve rhyme-encoding more
than the other encoding processes. Such information can be experimented with in vocabulary classes to
determine whether or not using a “rhyming technique” really does help in improving students’
vocabulary skills. However, if this experiment is replicated and the results tend to be more like Craik and
Tulving's, then this means that most probably, the results found for rhyme words in this experiment are
not very significant after all.

In this experiment, there was better recognition for words for which NO responses were given whereas in
Craik and Tulving's experiment, words to which a YES response was given in the encoding phase were
recognized better than those to which a NO response was given. In fact, this is probably the most striking
difference. Again, another experiment, similar to the one in this paper, needs to be conducted to confirm
this finding. If the results prove to be similar, however, then such findings can be pedagogically applied.
In fact, there has always been strong criticism targeted towards providing students with wrong
alternatives during class explanations (e.g., to write on the board, “Ok, now I am _____ walking or
walks?” in a grammar class) and if the findings of this experiment are found to be reliable, then this will
confirm, more than ever, that students should not be given incorrect alternatives as an explanation
technique because these wrong alternatives will be the ones that stick in the learners’ minds. In a recent
post-meeting with the participants, this explanation was confirmed but they also added something very
interesting. The majority stated that when they did not know how to answer, they simply answered NO
and that this caused them frustration and guilt but it was a strategy that they had actually applied. Does
this mean that when strong emotions are associated with an event (e.g., in this case it was the encoding
phase of words), better retention, in general, will occur? If so, then this can be used as one the strategies
used in boosting ones memory of things, may it be vocabulary words, faces, names, etc.

Another interesting finding is that participants of this experiment had better recognition of case words
than the participants in Experiment 9. A logical explanation for this, although one cannot be sure 100%,
is that the Saudi system of education supports verbatim memorization, mainly because instructional
material and testing provided in Arab schools ultimately depend on one’s ability to memorize
information well. This is due to the existence of subjects involving religion that can only be learned this
way. Therefore, it is not surprising that Arab students would have a better ability of memorizing words. It
is believed that this is what happened with the recognition of case words; Arab learners are simply better
at memorizing, thus, they are consequently better at recognizing case words. Further proof comes from
the rest of the data; our participants’ mean score on case and rhyme words - which require more
memorization – is considerably higher (M = .58) than that of Craik and Tulving's participants (M = .42).

As for question 2, Table 1 shows that recognition performance for only some types of words (case words
and rhyme words to which a NO response was given) was just slightly better in the group that was
motivated. Hence, this proves that for the participants of this experiment, motivation “with grades” did
not have a positive influence on their retention abilities whereas motivation “with money” did slightly
enhance the participants overall recognition performance in Experiment 9. To be very honest, this was
the most unexpected outcome of all because students are usually very eager to obtain more points at any
given opportunity. In this experiment, grades were practically being offered to Group B on a silver
platter, but even then, the difference between their recognition performance and that of Group A is
extremely insignificant; in fact, the average mean score for Group B was less than that for Group A
(Group A: M = .62) & (Group B “motivated”: M = .61)! The only way to know why this happened was to
directly ask Group B about their inability to do better when there were so many grades at stake. Students,
in fact, were very recently asked about this and most suggested that because so many grades were at
stake, they had become quite nervous and that this may have affected their performance level.

4
 VI. Suggestions

The most important question generated by such experiments is: What are the encoding operations
underlying "normal" learning and remembering? These experiments have shown that people do not
necessarily learn best when they are merely given "learn" instructions. The results of such findings
imply that certain types of “deep” encoding can benefit people’s learning & memory capacity in
many ways:
A) First and most important, you must make sure that you understand new material before trying to
remember it. In fact, you cannot form a clear and correct memory trace from a fuzzy or poorly
understood concept. For example, in the classroom, one should not hesitate to ask the instructor to
further explain a point that is not clear (adapted from Intelegen Inc., 2005).
B) Using the funnel approach is also useful. This means learning general concepts before moving on to
specific details. When you study in this manner, you understand the general concepts first, then the
details seem to make more sense since they can be easily related to one another. For example, one usually
uses this type of approach when studying from an outline, table, or concept map. (adapted from Intelegen
Inc., 2005).
C) One way to process information more deeply is to make associations; thinking of one thing helps
bring the other to mind. For instance, when you are having difficulty recalling new material, you can help
bring it to mind by thinking about what you have associated it with. In addition, when learning something
new and unfamiliar, try pairing it with something you know very well, such as images, events, etc. The
association does not have to make logical sense; particularly funny associations for some reason stay in
our minds. For example, some people remember names this way: they may remember the name "Robert
Green" by picturing Robert playing golf (on the green), wearing green clothes, or covered in green paint
(adapted from Intelegen Inc., 2005).
D) Another way to create meaningful associations is to think about how the information can be
personally meaningful. You might think about how the new material relates to your life, your experience,
or your goals. If you can link new information to memories already stored ("mental hooks"), you'll have
more cues to recall the new material (adapted from Intelegen Inc., 2005).
E) In more specific pedagogical contexts, (Healey, 2000, p.1) cites James Coady (1997) who offers a
synthesis of research on second language vocabulary acquisition: “Three main principles appear to
underlie effective vocabulary teaching. First, learners should be provided with both definitional and
contextual information about words. In the case of L2 learners, this could be related to their often-felt
need for dictionary access. Second, learners should be encouraged to process information about words at
a deeper level. Among L2 learners this could be reflected in the current emphasis on authentic
communicative activities. Finally, learners need multiple exposures to words. ... Extensive reading is the
most often cited remedy for this lack.” Don’t these principles seem similar to the 3 levels of processing?
F) Healey (2000) also refers to Brown & Perry (1991) who describe different vocabulary learning
strategies, focusing on the keyword method and semantic processing techniques. The cognitive basis for
both of these is the concept of "depth of processing". Simply put, the idea is that when more cognitive
resources are used in processing a word or phrase, more attention is paid, and the word or phrase is better
retained . The keyword method has the learner associate a word with an image or aural cue -- producing s
a deeper level of processing. When context is provided, the learner's past experience is associated, and
schema are active, semantic processing takes place - a very deep level. What Brown & Perry found in
their research with Arabic-speaking EFL students learning English was that a combination of keyword
and semantic processing methods worked best.

In conclusion, the levels of processing framework states that memory for an event depends upon the
nature of the processing it underwent when it was experienced or encoded. The deeper the event is
encoded, the more likely it will be remembered. The findings of Craik and Tulving's Experiment 9, as
well as the results of the experiment in this paper, both support this conclusion. Keenan (2001) states that
there can be no doubt that the levels of processing framework has fulfilled an important role by providing
and developing a strong foundation that has led researchers to more fully appreciate the role of encoding
processes in determining memory performance.
References

5
Craik, F. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of Processing and the Retention of Words in Episodic
Memory [Electronic version]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294.
Retrieved on October 31, 2005, from http://step.psy.cmu.edu/scripts/Memory/
CraikTulving1975.html

Healey, D. (2000). Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary. English Language Institute Technology Tip
of the Month. Retrieved October 30, from http://oregonstate.edu/dept/eli/feb2000.html

Intelegen Inc. (2005) Improving Memory. Retrieved October 25, 2005, from http://brain. web-
us.com/memory/improving_memory.htm

Keenan, J. (2001). Levels of Processing. Retrieved October 25, 2005, from www.du.edu/psychology/
methods/experiments/manual/Chapter2.pdf

Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design & Learning Theory. Retrieved October 31, 2005, from
bbbbhttp://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm

Whitt, G. (2000). The Effects of Speech Cues on Long-term Memory. Dissertation submitted to the
Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University In partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Teaching and Learning. Retrieved
October 31, 2005, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-10302000-14070023/

Appendix A

6
 Experiment 9: A Classroom Demonstration

Throughout this series of experiments, experimental rigor was strictly observed. Words were
exposed for exactly 200 msec; great care was exercised to ensure that subjects would not inform
future subjects that a memory test formed part of the experiment; subjects were told that the experi-
ment concerned perception and reaction time; response latencies were painstakingly recorded in all
cases. One of the authors, by nature more skeptical than the other had formed a growing suspicion
that this rigor reflected superstitious behavior rather than essential features of the paradigm. This
feeling of suspicion was increased by the finding of the typical pattern of results in Experiment 9,
which was conducted under intentional learning conditions. Accordingly, a simplified version of
Experiment 2 was formulated which violated many of the rules observed in previous studies.
Subjects were informed that the main purpose of the experiment was to study an aspect of memory;
thus the final recognition test was expected and encoding was intentional rather than incidental.
Words were presented serially on a screen at a 6-sec rate; during each 6-sec interval subjects
recorded their response to the encoding question. Indeed, the subjects were tested in one group of 12
in a classroom situation during a course on learning and memory; they recorded their own judgments
on a question sheet and subsequently attempted to recognize the target words from a second sheet.
Reaction times were not measured.

The point of this study was not to attack experimental rigor, but rather to determine to what extent
the now familiar pattern of results would emerge under these much looser conditions. If such a
pattern does emerge, it will force a further examination of what is meant by deeper levels of
processing and what factors underlie the superior retention of deeply processed stimuli.

Method. On a projection screen, 60 words were presented, one at a time, for 1 sec each with a 5-sce
inter-word interval. All subjects saw the same sequence of words, but different subjects were asked
different questions about each word. For example, if the first word was copper, one subject would be
asked, "Is the word a metal?", a second, "Is the word a kind of fruit?", a third, "Does the word rhyme
with stopper?", and so on. For each word, six questions were asked (case, rhyme, category × yes-no).
During the series of 60 words, each subject received 10 trials of each question response combination,
but in a different random order. The questions were presented in booklets, 20 questions per page. Six
types of question sheet were made up, each type presented to two subjects. These sheets balanced the
words across question types. The subject studied the question, saw the word exposed on the screen,
then answered the question by checking yes or no on the sheet. After the 60 encoding trials, subjects
received a further sheet containing 180 words consisting of the original 60 target words plus 120
distractors. The subjects were asked to check exactly 60 words as "old." Two different
randomizations of the recognition list were constructed; this control variable was crossed with the six
types of question sheets. Thus each of the 12 subjects served in a unique replication of the
experiment. Instructions to subjects emphasized that their main task was to remember the words, and
that a recognition test would be given after the presentation phase. The materials used are presented
in the Appendix.

Result. The top of Table 6 shows that the results of Experiment 9 are quite similar to those of
Experiment 2, despite the fact that in the present study subjects knew of the recognition test and
words were presented at the rate of 6 sec each. The finding that subjects show exactly the same
pattern of results under those very different conditions attests to the fact that the basic phenomenon
under study is a robust one. It parallels results from Experiment 4 and previous findings of Hyde and
Jenkins (1969, 1973). Before considering the implications of Experiment 9, a replication will be
mentioned. This second experiment was a complete replication with 12 other subjects. The results of
the second study are also shown in Table 6.

7
 TABLE 6
Proportion of Words Recognized from Two Replications of Experiment 9

Overall recognition performance was higher, especially with case questions, but the pattern is the
same. The results of these two studies are quite surprising. Despite intentional learning conditions
and a slow presentation rate, subjects were quite poor at recognizing words which had been given
shallow encodings. Since subjects in this experiment were asked to circle exactly 60 words, they
could not have used a strict criterion of responding. Thus their low level of recognition performance
in the case task must reflect inadequate initial registration of the information or rapid loss of
registered information. Indeed, chance performance in this task would be 33%; we have not cor-
rected the data for chance in any experiment. The question now arises as to why subjects do not
encode case words to a deeper level during the time after their judgment was recorded. It is possible
that recognition of the less well-encoded items is somehow adversely affected by well-encoded
items. It is also possible that subjects do not know how best to prepare for a memory test and thus do
no further processing of each word beyond the particular judgment that is asked. A third hypothesis,
that subjects were poorly motivated and thus simply did not bother to rehearse case words in a more
effective way, is put to test in the final experiment. Here subjects were paid by results; in one
condition the recognition of case words carried a much higher reward than the recognition of
category words.

In any event, Experiment 9 has demonstrated that encoding operations constitute an important
determinant of learning or repetition under a wide variety of experimental conditions. The finding of
a strong effect under quite loosely controlled class- room conditions, without the trappings of timers
and tachistoscopes, is difficult to reconcile with the view that was implicit in the initial experiments
of the series: that processing of an item is somehow stopped at a particular level and that an
additional fraction of a second would have led to better performance. This view is therefore now
rejected. It seems to be the qualitative nature of the encoding achieved that is important for memory,
regardless of how much time the system requires to reach some hypothetical level or depth of encod-
ing.

(Craik & Tulving, 1975, pp. 287 – 288)

Appendix B

8
 60 Questions and Words Presented to the Students for the Experiment
1) Would the word fit the following sentence:
I just can’t seem to get rid of this blood ______. stain
2) Does the word rhyme with plump? thumb
3) Would the word fit the following sentence:
I was so scared yesterday. I had to walk down a very dark ______ to get to my friend’s
house. alley
4) Is this word a girl’s name? ankle
5) Does the word rhyme with piper? viper
6) Does the word rhyme with rumor? tumor
7) Does the word rhyme with tooth? booth
8) Is the word printed in capital letters? PORCH
9) Would the word fit the following sentence:
Wow! This ____ smells really delicious. Did you buy it or make it yourself? piano
10) Is this something we carry money in? purse
11) Is the word printed in capital letters? TRACT
12) Is this word found in a classroom? train
13) Does the word rhyme with secret? sauce
14) Is the word printed in capital letters? RODEO
15) Is the word printed in capital letters? angel
16) Does the word rhyme with funny? bunny
17) Is the word printed in capital letters? chest
18) Would the word fit the following sentence:
The space shuttle had a safe ________ upon returning to Earth. entry
19) Is the word printed in capital letters? RANGE
20) Does the word rhyme with fence? sense
21) Does the word rhyme with peace? prize
22) Is the word printed in capital letters? dairy
23) Is this word used in cakes? flour
24) Is the word printed in capital letters? bride
25) Would the word fit the following sentence:
You look really funny wearing that red nose; just like a _________! clown
26) Would the word fit the following sentence:
The _________ of this pizza is filled with cheese. Yummy! flash
27) Is the word printed in capital letters? GRAIN
28) Is this word a something we listen to? bagel
29) Does the word rhyme with course? horse

9
30) Is the word printed in capital letters? clove
31) Is this word something we eat? brick
32) Does the word rhyme with ear? heart
33) Would the word fit the following sentence:
As you can see, the _____ shows that pollution is increasing in the world. graph
34) Is the word printed in capital letters? idiom
35) Is the word printed in capital letters? lease
36) Does the word rhyme with leech? beach
37) Does the word rhyme with leader? lobby
38) Is the word printed in capital letters? motor
39) Would the word fit the following sentence:
This _ is really dirty. The next time I come to Riyadh, I’ll stay at the Sheraton. medal
40) Does the word rhyme with west? north
41) Does the word rhyme with onions? onion
42) Is the word printed in capital letters? plane
43) Is the word printed in capital letters? TOWER
44) Is this word something we put in the bedroom? truck
45) Would the word fit the following sentence:
Your_____ is very low. If you don’t study harder, you may fail this course. radar
46) Does the word rhyme with skull? scene
47) Is this word something we use when we cook? spice
48) Does the word rhyme with born? thorn
49) Does the word rhyme with lake? snake
50) Is this word a body part? trial
51) Is the word printed in capital letters? VENUE
52) Does the word rhyme with little? latch
53) Is the word printed in capital letters? MEDIA
54) Does the word rhyme with fairy? diary
55) Would the word fit the following sentence:
I’d like to by a _______ of flowers, please. scoop
56) Does the word rhyme with ghost? flood
57) Is the word printed in capital letters? STORK
58) Is the word printed in capital letters? faith
59) Is the word printed in capital letters? PASTA
60) Is this word something we read? story
Appendix C

10
Instructions: Please choose “YES” or “NO” Thank you!

(sample) c YES c NO
(sample) c YES c NO 29. c YES c NO
(sample) c YES c NO 30. c YES c NO
(sample) c YES c NO 31. c YES c NO
1. c YES c NO 32. c YES c NO
2. c YES c NO 33. c YES c NO
3. c YES c NO 34. c YES c NO
4. c YES c NO 35. c YES c NO
5. c YES c NO 36. c YES c NO
6. c YES c NO 37. c YES c NO
7. c YES c NO 38. c YES c NO
8. c YES c NO 39. c YES c NO
9. c YES c NO 40. c YES c NO
10. c YES c NO 41. c YES c NO
11. c YES c NO 42. c YES c NO
12. c YES c NO 43. c YES c NO
13. c YES c NO 44. c YES c NO
14. c YES c NO 45. c YES c NO
15. c YES c NO 46. c YES c NO
16. c YES c NO 47. c YES c NO
17. c YES c NO 48. c YES c NO
18. c YES c NO 49. c YES c NO
19. c YES c NO 50. c YES c NO
20. c YES c NO 51. c YES c NO
21. c YES c NO 52. c YES c NO
22. c YES c NO 53. c YES c NO
23. c YES c NO 54. c YES c NO
24. c YES c NO 55. c YES c NO
25. c YES c NO 56. c YES c NO
26. c YES c NO 57. c YES c NO
27. c YES c NO 58. c YES c NO
28. c YES c NO 59. c YES c NO
60. c YES c NO
Appendix D

11
Instructions: Please choose all the words you saw on the computer screen (60 words).
You have 10 minutes. Thank you!

c Aisle c Scalp c Grade c Medal c Prize

c Mouse c Diary c Booth c Doubt c Faith
c Ameba c Merit c Grape c Metal c Purse
c Haven c Dough c Media c Graph c Quail
c Angel c Enemy c Grass c Entry c Ankle
c Angle c Meter c Hatch c Motto c Queue
c Quest c Fairy c Amber c Alley c Plane
c Arena c Pulse c Heart c Molar c Quilt
c Patch c Ferry c Chick c Fetus c Ranch
c Arrow c Motor c House c Motel c Bride
c Basil c Fever c Flash c Story c Bench
c Laser c Route c Idiom c Nanny c Radar
c Beach c Flame c Pasta c Tower c Canoe
c Radio c Hotel c Latch c Notch c Roost
c Board c Fleet c Larva c Onion c Flake
c Grain c Plane c Bagel c Bunny c Robot
c Brass c Flood c Lease c Paste c Stain
c Piano c Query c Floss c Idiot c Rover
c Brick c Floor c Lever c Armor c Salad
c Range c Level c Trait c Pause c Clown
c Brush c Flour c Lodge cVirus c Track
c Magic c Porch c Lorry c Bread c Daisy
c Bully c Frame c Buddy c Plant c Scarf
c Opium c Storm c Manic c Flesh c Tribe
c Canon c Grace c Maple c Plate c Scent
c Ratio c Tract c Straw c Forum c Truck
c Cheek c Cigar c Thigh c Pouch c Scoop
c Thumb c Train c Press c Thing c Sense
c Chest c Lobby c Thorn c Price c Tutor
c Horse c Trick c Chess c Stock c Snake
c Cider c Scene c Thump c Stone c Venom
c Trail c Trial c North c Cloud c Spark
c Cloak c Scone c Towel c Store c Venus
c Trunk c Clock c Sauna c Frown c Spice
c Cloth c Tumor c Trace c Stork c Crumb
c Clove c Snack c Verse c Stove c Sport
c Sauce c Ulcer c Spear c Crane c Rodeo
c Clone c Crate c Viper c Uncle c Stair
c Venue c Vapor c Patio c Crowd c Mummy
c Crust c Space c Vitae c Spine c Dairy

12