Talk:Generation effect

Untitled

Peer Review: The lead section is definitely understandable. I think maybe even a little more detail in the section would help. The structure of the article is also very clear. All of the different headings make it easy to skip around the article and know exactly where certain things are explained. Most of the topics are well balanced; however, I think that more information should have been added about the experiments on Generation Effect. This should have been the “meat” of the article. There are a ton of experiments done on generation effect, and so those should have been covered more thoroughly. However, this section was very surface level. It did not explain any experiments in detail like I thought it should. The coverage of the article was neutral and the references appear to be reliable. Also, there is no warning banner at the top of the article. This means that the quality and neutrality are fairly decent. There are no language problems in the lead section other than, as mentioned earlier, that it could have been elaborated on a little more. The article did not contain any un-sourced opinions or value statements. It was all strictly from the sources provided. The article did mention “Researchers” and “participants”, however, there were no specific names provided. Adding these specific names into the article would increase the quality. Not too many aspects of the topic seem to be missing other than the information in the lead section and in the "Generation Effect in Alzheimer's". It described the results of a couple experiments showing that individuals with DAT did not show the generation effect and couldn't recall the information as easily. However, it would have helped the article a great deal if there were possible reasons for WHY this could have happened and what evidence shows this. Maybe explaining what exactly went wrong in the individuals with DAT would help. There may not be a definite answer, but by presenting the possibilities, it helps the reader understand even more and the true meaning behind the generation effect. There were no sections that were overly long compared to the rest. This article also provides many good references to back up the information that was given. Lie46840 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

Peer Review: I believe that this article has a clear and understandable lead section. However, maybe it needs a little more information in the definition because it doesn’t give very many explanations or varieties of the definition. I find the structure to be clear except I wonder if having Causes before Generation effect in experiments would make for a more understanding layout. Also, I find that the subheadings under Causes kind of confuse me. Maybe have a sentence that explains what these subheadings mean to the Generation effect. The article is definitely balanced well where there isn’t too much of one section taking over. The coverage is also neutral because there is no underlying tone from the editor, and there are numerous amounts of reliable sources! However, I still have some suggestions editing wise that may make this article stronger, I didn’t want to change it too much, so just think of them as options!

In the section Generation Effect in Experiments, the second sentence should have an “or” inserted after synonym and before generating. This makes the sentence sound precise and clear rather than a long list of things. The only question I have about this section is that it says generation effect in experiments, but only describes one experiment in detail. Were there experiments that also represented generation effect with antonyms and synonyms that go into more detail which helps the reader understand the effect better?

The Causes section was put together really well in my opinion. It was clear and concise in all three paragraphs. The multi transfer-appropriate processing account was the most confusing paragraph not because it was poorly put together, but because it was the more in depth process.If you could dumb it down a little it might help with the understanding.

Under the Limitations section the third sentence that begins “For example” could instead read “For example, when participants are given instructions to process information the way the generation conditioned group did, the generation advantage between the groups was eliminated.” It makes the sentence less wordy, and focuses on the concise meaning of the experiment. In the next sentence after “(imagery)” the word “that” should be deleted. In that same sentence, it becomes a little confusing after the “more effective.” Does the “reading” refer to the group prior and the experiment compared both? Or is it just the authors opinion? In the section paragraph of Limitations the sentence beginning “For example” could instead read, “For example, one study didn’t find the generation effect when they used legal nonwords, and also found a reduction in the generation effect when they presented unfamiliar material to the participants.”

In the Generation Effect in Alzheimers section, what does DAT stand for? I know it’s a type of Alzheimer’s but it makes me wonder what it’s actually called. The amount of references used is amazing! (HatchMcGatch (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC))

Peer Review 2

• Lead: The lead section could be expanded. You might want to include a general overview of what to expect in the article without going into too much detail.

• Structure: I recommend reorganizing the article’s sections. I would begin with a history/background section that addresses how the generation effect was discovered or who was the first to study it. The next section could talk about the causes, followed by important research concerning the generation effect. Next I would talk about the applications and maybe convert the section about Alzheimer as a subsection of the applications. Finally, I would address the limitations of the generation effect.

• Balance: The article’s balance needs to be improved. More should be written about the definition of the generation effect. Additionally, the section regarding experiments needs to be extended. Besides writing about more experiments, it would be beneficial to describe in more detail the methods and results of the experiments that are already mentioned. Finally, in the section about causes, more is said about the Multifactor transfer-appropriate processing account than of the lexical activation hypothesis and the procedural account.

• Coverage: The article is neutral, especially when describing the causes for generation effect

• Sources: The article has reliable sources, most of them from Psychology Journals.

• Warning Banners: There is no warning banner at the beginning of the article.

• Language in the lead: The lead is ok, but could be reworded to be more effective. Like I said before, it also needs to be expanded.

• Opinions and Statements: I found few un-sourced statements. The first was in the first sentence of the limitations section. It states that experimenters have reduced the effect through the manipulation of materials or instructions. However, there is no citation following this sentence. The second was under the section regarding Alzheimer. The first study described lacks a citation.

• Unnamed groups of people: The article refers to many researchers, but not once is a name provided.

• Missing: For me the only section this article is missing is a history/background section.

• Section length: There were no overly long sections. Although, the limitations section seems to be slightly larger than the rest of the article’s sections.

• References: for the size of this article, there seems to be a reasonable number of references. I already mentioned above the only two instances were citations are missing.

Copy-editing Suggestions

Lead:

“The generation effect is a phenomenon where information is better remembered if it is generated from one's own mind rather than simply read.”

Generation effects in experiments:

“This effect has also been demonstrated using a variety of materials, such as generating a word after being presented with its antonym[3] or synonym,[1] or generating keywords in paragraphs,[4]pictures,[5] and arithmetic problems. ”[2][6]

Causes:

-Lexical activation hypothesis

“Researchers have struggled to account why generated information….” “… the participant must search their semantic memory during the process of generation.”

-Procedural account

“…argues that when generating, people are more likely to engage in particular cognitive procedures during the encoding of items.”

Limitations:

“…when participants were given instructions to process information in a manner that was similar..” “…when they used legal non-words and found…” “…if the generation effect is to be incorporated into educational practices such as classroom teaching, it should help students learn new material.”[11] “However, encoding requires limited-capacity resources, thus the better encoding of one type of information…”

Practical Applications:

“Some examples include:”

Generation Effect in Alzheimers: “…individuals diagnosed with DAT (a type of Alzheimer’s) do not display the generation effect…” JudithBrizuela 01:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudithBrizuela (talk • contribs)

I agree - more research evidence should be provided, adding more citations to your article. I would move the first sentence under lexical activation hypothesis to open that section. I would also elaborate a little on the causes to explain things to a more general audience. I would also consider changing the Alzheimer's heading to something else - exceptions or something similar. Good information and nice job so far. 69.160.138.33 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)dguyla