Week 7 — Rebuilt, Not Replayed: A Memory Brief

Assignment 7 of the term — read Ebbinghaus's forgetting curve and Loftus & Palmer's verb experiment as numbers, explain what each one shows about how memory works, and tell a friend who is about to give a witness statement why a sure memory can still be wrong.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based brief. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 2 you met both of this week's studies as models of method: Ebbinghaus's percent savings as an operational definition and Loftus & Palmer's verb as an independent variable. This week you use them to explain memory itself. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together and explain them.

The task

Ebbinghaus (1885) measured memory as percent savings on relearning: how much less time relearning a list took than learning it the first time. Loftus & Palmer (1974) asked students how fast two cars were going when they hit each other, changing only the verb in the question, and then measured the speed each group estimated.

Work these two problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. Ebbinghaus (1885) measured memory as percent savings on relearning. Savings were 58.2% after 19 minutes and 21.1% after 31 days. How many percentage points did savings fall from 19 minutes to 31 days?
2. In Loftus & Palmer (1974) Experiment 1, students who heard the verb smashed estimated an average speed of 40.8 mph, and students who heard the verb contacted estimated an average of 31.8 mph. How many miles per hour higher was the smashed average?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation. For problem 1, explain what percent savings measures and why it can catch memory you cannot recall, describe the shape of the forgetting curve (where most of the loss happens), and name one limit of Ebbinghaus's method. For problem 2, name the independent variable and the dependent variable, explain why random assignment lets the study say the wording changed the estimate, and connect the result to reconstructive memory and the misinformation effect.

Explain it to a non-expert

A friend saw a minor fender-bender in a grocery-store parking lot and is about to give a statement to an insurance adjuster. The friend says, "I'm sure the car was speeding, so I'll be right." Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains, in everyday words, why the way a question is worded can change what a person remembers, and why feeling sure is not the same as being right. Name one limit, such as how a laboratory film differs from a real event. Explain any technical term in everyday words.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker who asks why they keep typing their old password after it was changed. Model answer: "Your old password isn't gone; it's getting in the way. When something you learned earlier blocks something you learned later, psychologists call it proactive interference. The more you use the new password, the less the old one will pop up. Some people take longer than others to make the switch, so a few slips in the first week are normal."

Use that pattern for your friend, with your own explanation and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both answers, the two brief interpretations, and your message to your friend before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show calculations when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the brief for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about memory: percent savings and the forgetting curve, the independent and dependent variable in an experiment, random assignment, reconstructive memory, and the misinformation effect. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The facts: Ebbinghaus (1885) measured memory as percent savings on relearning; savings fell steeply in the first hour and then leveled off over a month. In Loftus & Palmer (1974), the verb in the question was the independent variable, the speed estimate was the dependent variable, and students were randomly assigned to a verb. Recall rebuilds a memory each time, and misleading information supplied after an event can change what a person later remembers.
PROBLEM P1: Ebbinghaus (1885) measured memory as percent savings on relearning. Savings were 58.2% after 19 minutes and 21.1% after 31 days. How many percentage points did savings fall from 19 minutes to 31 days?
PROBLEM P2: In Loftus & Palmer (1974) Experiment 1, students who heard the verb smashed estimated an average speed of 40.8 mph, and students who heard the verb contacted estimated an average of 31.8 mph. How many miles per hour higher was the smashed average?
After the two answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, what percent savings measures and why it can catch memory I cannot recall, the shape of the forgetting curve, and one limit of Ebbinghaus's method; for P2, the independent and dependent variable, why random assignment lets the study say the wording changed the estimate, and how the result connects to reconstructive memory and the misinformation effect. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a friend about to give a witness statement, explaining in everyday words why question wording can change a memory, why feeling sure is not the same as being right, and one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct memory computations (20 points), memory reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my witness message only with P2, not again with P1.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct difference = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing result or the wrong values or operation = 0. Accept equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, an accurate account of what percent savings measures plus an accurate account of the steep-then-flat shape with one limit = 2; exactly one of the two = 1; neither = 0. For P2, BOTH an accurate account of the experiment (IV, DV, and random assignment, tied to the misinformation effect) AND a witness message that explains question wording and why confidence is not accuracy and names a limit = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. Swapping the independent and dependent variables, or treating a confident memory as proof of accuracy, does not count. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to psychology, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the witness message with P2 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the two starting values and the subtraction shown = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a result alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Offer the reflection as a choice of two equally weighted prompts and let me pick one: (a) what did the revision change about how I explain forgetting, or (b) what would I now tell a friend differently about trusting a confident memory. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both answers and their brief interpretations AND written my message to my friend AND revised at least one calculation or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised memory brief, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised memory brief with both answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to your friend — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the forgetting curve with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 7 skills — reading the forgetting curve as percent savings over time, explaining an experiment's independent variable, dependent variable, and random assignment, and explaining why memory is reconstructive and why confidence is not accuracy — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, the two brief interpretations, and the message to your friend. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised memory brief, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The calculations, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com