Kutsulisc1

hey court! hope you enjoyed spending the weekend in texas! see you in class tomorrow. Breaugha1 (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Chunking Outline Courtney Kutsulis The Wikipedia article is lacking content and structure. I plan to add more subheadings and content to make the article more organized and easier to understand. It also lacks effective transitions between paragraphs and topics. The language and message tends to get confusing with some of the words chosen. I am going to try and simplify and organize the messages in the article. Experts and Familiarity When learning and using memory there is a great difference in the success of memory depending on how familiar a person is with the information. Studying the differences between memory capacity of experts and novice learns is emphasized in much of the research on chunking, particularly in Miller’s paper. The article would be better if this topic had a subsection of its own. Short Term Memory Short term memory is a recurrent theme in the articles. The connection between STM and chunking needs to be addressed more thoroughly in the article. It is a very important topic in memory and chunking and should have a subsection of its own. This will also help connect the information to the last subsection in the article, “Chunking as the learning of long-term memory structures.” See Also The “See also” section only has one link. Additional links need to be added. Long-term memory and short-term memory should have a link in this section. Links about forgetting and memory retention would be relevant as well. Appendix Graphs on the differences in learning between experts and average learners were shown in some of the articles. If I can find an appropriate graph, I would like to include an appendix with some graphs to help emphasize the difference. Graphs about memory retention and forgetting will also be helpful. I would really like to find a visual representation showing the differences between chunking with familiar information and irrelevant information.

Additional Sources Gabriel, R. F. Mayzner, M. S. (1963). Information "chunking" and short-term retention. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 56, 161-164. Lindley, R.H. (1966). Recording as a function of chunking and meaningfulness. Psychonomic Science, 6, 393-394. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.93.247.38 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edits on Chunking (psychology)

I have reverted your edits to Chunking (psychology) due to the formatting you used. All changes made to Wikipedia articles are automatically stored in the article's history tab, so there is no need to indicate changes by using colors or strikethrough, and doing so is not desirable in an encyclopedia article. Please feel free to make your edits again, without the colors and strikethrough. If you want to experiment, you can copy the article into your sandbox Thanks! Regeseane (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Courtney Here are my suggestions from my Peer Review of your article Chunking, (Psychology) by: Dan Hurlburt Considering the fact that this article was removed by a previous editor I just looked in the articles history and examined the latest edited form of the article before the changes were undone in order to complete my peer review.

The lead section provides a good stand alone summary of Chunking, in psychology. The article already has a strong intro that didn’t require much editing in the form of adding new material. It did however, require some fine tuned modifications that I think she did a good job of locating and crossing out words and rephrasing sentences that needed to be more specific. The contribution does not seem to be cut and pasted from an existing source it flows well with the article and is properly placed. The terms used go along with the articles style well and are easy to understand. One sentence that sounds a little confusing when read is “Runners may chunk the numbers into different relevant mile, or other distances, times.” May need a little more elaboration just to clear up the point you are trying to get across. In the Short term memory section the sentence: “The short term memory processes (stores) information for about twenty to thirty seconds” I think needs a word or two added in, in order to complete the thought, I tried to include a suggestion. May need a little more elaboration just to clear up the point you are trying to get across. She relates to her references where it seems necessary. Even though the article already includes a decent amount of information she finds the areas that did need further elaboration and creates an appropriate section for the information. Grammar and verb tenses and spelling all match up well with the rest of the article. One area where a wiki link may help the article is in the section where she is talking about short term memory, possible link to Short Term Memory but I don’t think that it is necessary, since she does explain it a little using a reference. Her references match up well with the rest of the ones listed in the document in format and when investigating them, they all are relevant to the subject matter and provide useful information for the article. I don’t think that any images would enhance the article, considering the article already provides a good diagram that is explained well and fits the topic nicely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.60.135 (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)