Group members:
Submission date: May 29
Word count: 2012
section page
Background information
Independent variables
Dependent variable
Experimental hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Research design
Sampling method
controls 6
Descriptive statics
Inferential statics 8
Evaluation 9
References 12
Raw data
Inferential statics
Informed consent
The aim of this experiment is to determine whether the original Bower’s experiment was justified in conforming that the mental imagery is more convenient and more suitable for recalling and remembering information that we get to the surrounding.

There are two memory types, and they include long and short-term memories. When words are organized well, and students are asked to memorize, they tend to remember more words, especially when they associate the words with what they are used to. Therefore, unorganized words should be difficult to remember. This fact has been applied by Bower et al (1969) to describe how organized words are easy to recall, especially if they are organized in an unorganized word are difficult to recall. Proper word organization can be applied in any course or field where recall or remembrance is required. This theory has been applied by students in their course work as they study, in order to remember the course contents. Therefore, students need to organize their words and associate them with real things for them to easily remember them.
Modifications of the original experiment done by Bower (1970) is required so that a more recent and accurate outcome from the current society is obtained. Bower (1970) suggested mental imagery that improves paired-associate learning caused by increased stimulus encoding reliability or improved relational association that is produced by imagery. Modification on this theory is required to incorporate the aspects of organizational memory where words that are organized in a hierarchy and are associated with something that causes mental imagery. This way memory can be enhanced. The human brain tends to remember organized things rather than unorganized things ADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“DOI”:”10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113720″,”ISBN”:”0610101137″,”ISSN”:”0147-006X”,”PMID”:”21456960″,”abstract”:”Work with patient H.M., beginning in the 1950s, established key principles about the organization of memory that inspired decades of experimental work. Since H.M., the study of human memory and its disorders has continued to yield new insights and to improve understanding of the structure and organization of memory. Here we review this work with emphasis on the neuroanatomy of medial temporal lobe and diencephalic structures important for memory, multiple memory systems, visual perception, immediate memory, memory consolidation, the locus of long-term memory storage, the concepts of recollection and familiarity, and the question of how different medial temporal lobe structures may contribute differently to memory functions.”,”author”:{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Squire”,”given”:”Larry R.”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Wixted”,”given”:”John T.”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},”container-title”:”Annual Review of Neuroscience”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2011″},”title”:”The Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Memory Since H.M.”,”type”:”article-journal”},”uris”:”″},”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Squire & Wixted, 2011)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Squire & Wixted, 2011)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Squire & Wixted, 2011)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:””}(Squire ; Wixted, 2011).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Background Information
Throughout psychology, memory has been studied a lot. According to research, organizational strategies help people to memorize tasks such as word recall. There are some studies that have explained effectiveness of applying organizational strategies in facilitating word recall ADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“DOI”:”10.1080/09658211.2012.683010″,”ISSN”:”09658211″,”PMID”:”22646657″,”abstract”:”The order in which participants choose to recall words from a studied list of randomly selected words provides insights into how memories of the words are represented, organised, and retrieved. One pervasive finding is that when a pair of semantically related words (e.g., “cat” and “dog”) is embedded in the studied list, the related words are often recalled successively. This tendency to successively recall semantically related words is termed semantic clustering (Bousfield, 1953; Bousfield & Sedgewick, 1944; Cofer, Bruce, & Reicher, 1966). Measuring semantic clustering effects requires making assumptions about which words participants consider to be similar in meaning. However, it is often difficult to gain insights into individual participants’ internal semantic models, and for this reason researchers typically rely on standardised semantic similarity metrics. Here we use simulations to gain insights into the expected magnitudes of semantic clustering effects given systematic differences between participants’ internal similarity models and the similarity metric used to quantify the degree of semantic clustering. Our results provide a number of useful insights into the interpretation of semantic clustering effects in free recall.”,”author”:{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Manning”,”given”:”Jeremy R.”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Kahana”,”given”:”Michael J.”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},”container-title”:”Memory”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2012″},”title”:”Interpreting semantic clustering effects in free recall”,”type”:”article-journal”},”uris”:”″},”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Manning & Kahana, 2012)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Manning & Kahana, 2012)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Manning & Kahana, 2012)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:””}(Manning ; Kahana, 2012). A study was conducted on subjects where 60 words were categorized into 4 unorganized structures. It was revealed that when subjects were asked to free-recall words that were given in unorganized categories, most of them organized the words into categorical clusters ADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“DOI”:”10.1080/00223980.1953.9712878″,”ISBN”:”0022-1309″,”ISSN”:”19401019″,”abstract”:”Subjects who were given a list of randomly arranged items showed in their recall a greater-than-chance tendency to group the items in clusters containing members of the same general category. This implies the operation of an organizing tendency. The results further indicated that the extent of clustering varies in an orderly manner as a function of the number of items already recalled. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved)”,”author”:{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Bousfield”,”given”:”W. A.”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Cohen”,”given”:”B. H.”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},”container-title”:”Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1953″},”title”:”The Effects of Reinforcement on the Occurrence of Clustering in the Recall of Randomly Arranged Associates”,”type”:”article-journal”},”uris”:”″},”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Bousfield & Cohen, 1953)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Bousfield & Cohen, 1953)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Bousfield & Cohen, 1953)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:””}(Bousfield ; Cohen, 1953). Another experimental study conducted by (Ruben and Olson (1980) support this theory. In this study, students were requested to remember as many staff names as their memories could. Many students recalled staff names by department the staff member served within. However, there is inadequate evidence backing this theory that organization of words causes higher recall amounts, but studies show that there is an evident correlation between them.

A study conducted by Mandler (1967) entailed asking participants to organize words list into categories that ranged between two and seven, and to recall them. According to this study, there was more recall in groups that used more categories. Participants who used 7 categories recalled more words, on average about 20 words. The groups that used 2 categories recalled less words ADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“DOI”:”10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60516-2″,”ISBN”:”0079-7421″,”ISSN”:”00797421″,”abstract”:”This chapter illustrates three general principles associated with organization and memory. First, memory and organization are not only correlated, but organization is a necessary condition for memory. Second, the organization of, and hence memory for, verbal material is hierarchical, with words organized in successively higher-order categories. And third, the storage capacity within any one category or within any level of categories is limited. Evidence from a large number of sources suggests that there are limitations on the capacity of the human organism for processing information. Memory consists of the recall of a limited number of chunks and retrieval of the contents of these chunks. In the sense of the unitization hypothesis and its elaborations, the process of memorization is a process of organization. Memorization or learning depends on organization and the organizational variables determine memory. 1 The initial experiment on free categorization was presented at the meetings of the Psychonomic Society at Niagara Falls, Ontario, in October, 1964, where the hypothesis of the category-recall relation was outlined. The general model and some preliminary data were discussed at a Conference on the Quantification of Meaning in January, 1965, at La Jolla, California, and at a colloquium at the Center for Cognitive Studies, Harvard University, in February, 1965. The major experimental data were presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society in Chicago, Illinois, in October, 1965.”,”author”:{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Mandler”,”given”:”George”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},”container-title”:”Psychology of Learning and Motivation”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1967″},”title”:”Organization and Memory”,”type”:”article-journal”},”uris”:”″},”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Mandler, 1967)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Mandler, 1967)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Mandler, 1967)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:””}(Mandler, 1967). This study was a subject-based organization because the subjects were given words that lacked structure. In case the words were structured prior to being given to subjects, then experimenter-imposed organization would be used.

Conceptual hierarchy was used in an experiment where participants were asked to either recall words that have been organized in form of a hierarchy or in random manner. In this experiment, similar words were used in either condition. The experiment outcome revealed that participants who had organized hierarchy form averagely recalled 65% of all the words in the correct manner. But those who used randomly placed words recalled only 19% of the words correctly ADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“DOI”:”10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80124-6″,”ISBN”:”0022-5371″,”ISSN”:”00225371″,”abstract”:”These experiments investigate the effects of hierarchic organization of word-lists upon their free recall. Ss recalled nested category lists presented either randomly or in a hierarchically organized manner. Recall was 2-3 times better with the orgainzed presentation. Later experiments showed this effect (a) was similar with associative as well as conceptual hierarchies, (b) was attenuated with recognition tests of memory, and (c) could not be accounted for by associative “guessing.” Another experiment demonstrated retroactive facilitation in recall of List 1 when List 2 contained the hierarchic superordinates of the words on List 1. Analyses suggest that the hierarchic principle was used as a retrieval plan for cuing recall, with generated candidates monitored for their list membership before being overtly recalled. © 1969 Academic Press Inc. All rights reserved.”,”author”:{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Bower”,”given”:”Gordon H.”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Clark”,”given”:”Michal C.”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Lesgold”,”given”:”Alan M.”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Winzenz”,”given”:”David”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},”container-title”:”Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1969″},”title”:”Hierarchical retrieval schemes in recall of categorized word lists”,”type”:”article-journal”},”uris”:”″},”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Bower, Clark, Lesgold, & Winzenz, 1969)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Bower, Clark, Lesgold, & Winzenz, 1969)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Bower, Clark, Lesgold, & Winzenz, 1969)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:””}(Bower, Clark, Lesgold, ; Winzenz, 1969). Several studies have supported Bower’s theory, and in this experiment, 30 words will be employed in evaluating the relevance of Bower’s experiment. The hypothesis that when organized words in a hierarchy are used the recall rate will be higher compared to when the words are unorganized will be tested in this research.

Independent Variables
The independent variable in this research was that how we instructed them to remember the words.

Dependent Variables
The number of word participant recalled made the dependent variable.

Experimental Hypothesis
There will be a significant difference between number of words recalled by the students who did mental imagery versus the ones who did rote rehearsal.

Null hypothesis
There will be No significant difference between number of words recalled by the students who did mental imagery versus the ones who did rote rehearsal.

Informed consent form (see appendix 3)
Distraction paper (see appendix 7)
Power point presentation (see appendix 5)
A4 paper including tables with some blank spaces for recalling test. (see appendix 6)
Twenty participants of age 16-18 evaluated were students that enrolled for psychology course. Participants were grouped into two (see appendix 1). The participants were asked to be seated and they had their consent form (see appendix 3) ready to fill it up. Participants were not psychology students, we asked them to stay quit and concentrate on our instructions. We showed them the presentation (see appendix 5) and each slide remained for 10 seconds. The first group had 30 words attached in presentation which they were asked to recall and rote rehearsal. The second group had same words in presentation, which they were required to imagine and remember. Once the presentation was presented, participants had distraction time for 2-3 minutes in which they filled the distraction form. In between they were pleased to remain quit as well, we collected the consent from and then they were given A4 paper including tables with some blank spaces for recalling test. They had around 7 minutes to fill the blanks.

Research design
We used independent sample design and two different group of participants took part (see appendix1). We did this research design because if the same group use the condition A and were to do condition B
as well then, they would figure out the purpose of the study and their answers may have been affected.

Sampling method
Participants were chosen means, we used opportunity sampling method because it was convenient, we contacted classes and scheduled timing with them. Then we followed them by giving consent forms (see appendix3) where it was written that if they don’t want to participate then they can leave.
Our participants were 16-18-year-old school students. Participants were from Norwegian school they had Norwegian as a first language, they were fluent in English, but they were also asked to whether if they want to translate in Norwegian. We chose students over 16-year old none of younger because then students have to have parental consent for ethical reasons, also not adults because it would be easy for them to remember and this could affect the experiment.
Interaction: participants were told not to interact with each other because if they interact they can ask each other, and it can affect in our results. (see appendix 8)
After the experiment was done participants of condition A was told to not talk about the experiment so that it won`t affect our second condition.

Language: as students were from Norwegian school we asked them if they prefer English or Norwegian because if they wouldn’t understand in English then it could affect in experiment results.

Descriptive statics
Fig.1 Rote rehearsal Mental imagery
mean 9,6 9,1
Standard deviation 5,8 4,2
Result we got from our participants were measured by the number of words pair they recalled correctly. In the condition A (rote rehearsal) the mean correct answer score was 9,6 with a standard deviation 5,8 and in condition B (Mental imagery) the mean correct answer score was 9,1 with a standard deviation 4,2.

Fig.2 Graph of the mean recall of words at different rehearsal methods

Inferential statistics
To test the statistically significant of our data, we used a Mann-Whitney U test (see appendix2) because our data was interval. Using a Mann Whitney U test, a not significant difference was found between the DV of condition A rote rehearsal (median rank= 8,5) and condition B imagery (median rank=7,5) Mann Whitney U=130 “p<0.5”
The calculated U value was 130, which is not equal to or less than critical value 48 see appendix 2) (n1=16,n2=10) at p;0.05, so result showed that the experimental condition that was condition B (mental imagery) had lower average scores with (mean= 9,1) on the imagery test compared to the controlled condition that was condition A (rote rehearsal) with (mean=9,6). We therefore are accepting our null hypothesis.

Bowers theory of mental imagery demonstrated that words recalled by mental imagery are most likely to remember than that of word recalled by rote rehearsal. The result of our experiment did not agree with Bowers theory, most likely due to some inaccuracy during the experiment, because the average number of word pair recalled by rote rehearsal (condition A) was 9,1 while the average number of word pair recalled by mental imagery (condition B) was 9,6. Thus we can see a not significant condition compared to other. One of the studies that supported recall technique of memory that somehow did not contradict with ours was that of Mandler (1967). In this study, there was more recall in groups that used more categories. Participants who used 7 categories recalled more words compared to groups that used 2 categories. Mandler study suggested that if more categories were used when remembering words, especially between 2 and 7, the words amount to be remembered would be very high. Our experiment did agree with Mandler because two categories were used, and the recall number was quite low for both groups, especially the second group. Although our findings show that rote rehearsal can increase the amount of words recalled, our results did not agree bowers it can be because of limitations, and the amount of the participants, if more participants were involved, more accurate results would have been obtained, meaning more generalized results would have been obtained. Thus, both Bowers and Mandler experiment shows the different results. However, we still cannot prove that rote rehearsal is more effective than mental imagery. However, the experiment was fairly done, and the results are justifiable.

We gave them questions (see appendix6) after watching the presentation so that they can recall the words and not look in papers before presentation.

The instruction (see appendix8) we gave them was clear and understandable. It was both in English and Norwegian so, the participants could understand it and do the experiment well.

The word pair we gave them were tricky so that they would concentrate in the presentation and try to recall the word pairs correctly.

Limitation and modification
One limitation of our study is participant were in small group in both conditions, but they were fewer in condition B (see appendix1) that affected in our experimental result. Some participants didn’t have good concentration in power point as we suggested them to concentrate. They were asked not to use their mobile phones and not to talk to each other specially when they were answering so that they won’t get answers from each other, this could affect in our results because participants have to write their answers individually. To make this happen we needed to be stricter and we should had asked them to put away their mobiles.
Another limitation is that our findings might contains error due to our instructions. We instructed our participants to either recall the word pair or imagine the word pairs but since, we do not know how participants recalled the words. It can be possible that participants created an image of the word pair. Thus, this could affect the number the number of words recalled. To make result more accurate it is an option for is to change the instruction to simple in form and help them to understand the technique of rote rehearsal and make them to use it. This will lead to small errors because there is less possibility that participants will use the mental imagery technique. However, this does not completely assure that our findings are without errors or inconsistency.
ADDIN Mendeley Bibliography CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Bousfield, W. A., ; Cohen, B. H. (1953). The Effects of Reinforcement on the Occurrence of Clustering in the Recall of Randomly Arranged Associates. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied.
Bower, G. H., Clark, M. C., Lesgold, A. M., ; Winzenz, D. (1969). Hierarchical retrieval schemes in recall of categorized word lists. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior.
Mandler, G. (1967). Organization and Memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation.
Manning, J. R., ; Kahana, M. J. (2012). Interpreting semantic clustering effects in free recall. Memory.
Squire, L. R., ; Wixted, J. T. (2011). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Memory Since H.M. Annual Review of Neuroscience.

Appendix #1: Raw data
Participants score
Rote rehearsal Participants score
1 6
2 8
3 19
4 14
5 4
6 2
7 6
8 17
9 1
10 10
11 8
12 9
13 19
14 13
15 14
16 4
Mean score 9,6
SD 5,8
Mental imagery participants score
1 4
2 4
3 12
4 13
5 8
6 7
7 12
8 7
9 17
10 7
Mean score 9,1
SD 4,2
Apendix#2: Mann Whitney U Calculation
N for Condition A = 16
N for Condition B = 10
Probability level – 0.05
One tailed hypothesis
U value = 130
Condition A Rank
6 7.5
8 13
19 25.5
14 21.5
4 4.5
2 2
6 7.5
17 23.5
1 1
10 16
8 13
9 15
19 25.5
13 19.5
14 21.5
4 4.5
Sum of rank 221
Condition B Rank
4 4.5
4 4.5
12 17.5
13 19.5
8 13
7 10
12 17.5
7 10
17 23.5
7 10
Sum rank 130

RA = ; Sum of rank for condition A = 221
RB = ; Sum of rank for condition B = 130
Apendix#3: Informed consent form

May 2018
Hello and welcome to our psychology experiment!
Our names are Nikita, Uma, Vicuna and Aisha.

We are conducting an experiment as part of our coursework for our IB Psychology class. We are investigating conditions that influence recall. So, we would like to invite you to be part of our experiment.

If you agree to take part in this experiment, you should know that:
All data that we obtain will be kept confidential and anonymous.

You may stop participating in this experiment at any time for any reason. You can indicate your wish to withdraw by raising your hand and letting the conductor know.

You will not be subjected to any physical or psychological harm during this experiment or because of this experiment.

You shall receive information about the nature of the experiment upon the conclusion of your participation.
You may choose to withdraw your data at any time until we submit our reports on 15th June 2018.
You shall receive the results of this experiment after we have obtained results.

The experiment will take approximately twenty to thirty minutes to complete.

Please fill out the questions below.

Language background:
I, _______________________________________, understand the nature of this experiment and I agree to participate voluntarily. I am in a fit mental state and able to respond freely and independently. I give the researcher permission to use my data as part of this experimental study.

Signature: _________________________________________________ Date: __________________
Parental signature: ______________________________________ Date: ______________________(If participant is under the age of 16)
113093525717500Would you like to see the results? If so, please write down your email down below.
My email address is:
Apendix#4: Debriefing
This was emailed to all participants.

Dear participants,
Thank you for participating in our IB psychology IA experiment. We were able to successfully complete the experiment and appreciate your participation.

Our study was to determine whether mental imagery or rote rehearsal is more convenient for recalling and remembering information.

Some participants were asked to repeat the words (rote rehearsal) and some participants were asked to imagine the words together (mental imagery). According to the study we are replicating (Bower`s study), the mental imagery condition remembered more word pairs than the rote rehearsal condition.

Our result showed that the rote rehearsal condition was able to remember more word pairs.

Mean=9,1 (mental imagery condition)
Mean=9,6 (rote rehearsal condition)
These numbers represent the average score of each condition.

Our statistical result showed that our result was not significant which means that we accepted our null hypothesis. There will be no significant difference between number of words recalled by the students who did mental imagery compared to the ones who did rote rehearsal.

Our conclusion does not support our hypothesis, which is mental imagery being more convenient than rote rehearsal for recalling and remembering information.
However, there were limitations in our experiment which may have affected our results.

Thank you again for participating in our study and please feel free to ask us any question.

Nikita, Uma, Vituna, Aisha.

Apendix#6 : questions
1 Pain 2 Vacation 3 Shoes 4 Church 5 Program 6 Exam 7 Computer 8 Break 9 Video 10 Strawberries 11 Instructor 12 Party 13 Evening 14 Reservation 15 Fire place 16 Tickets 17 Winter 18 Car 19 Morning 20 Airport 21 Book 22 Pizza 23 TV 24 Suitcase 25 Ski 26 Alarm 27 Business 28 Doctor 29 Kitchen 30 Lamp Apendix#5: Presentation

Apendix#7: distraction form
Please fill in the blanks below:
Your age: ___________________________________________________
Your birthplace: ______________________________________________
Favourite food: _______________________________________________
Height: ______________________________________________________
Eye colour: ___________________________________________________
Favourite artist: ________________________________________________
Favourite place: _________________________________________________
Favourite colour: ________________________________________________
Dream job: _____________________________________________________
Favourite animal: ____________________________________________________
Apendix#8: Standardized Instructions
Welcome Everyone!
Our names are Uma, Nikita, Vituna and Aisha.
Thank you very much for participating in our experiment. We really appreciate it!
You’re all given an instructed consent form that you guys have to fill out before we start our experiment. Our group members will come and collect those when you are done with filling the form. Please feel free to ask us questions if you get confused about anything. If you guys want us to explain it in Norwegian, we are happy to do so.
(We read out the consent form for the participants)
Condition A (Rote Rehearsal)
Now you guys will be shown a PowerPoint with word pairs. Each slide will remain for 10 seconds. You guys should have full concentration. Repeat those word pairs in your mind to help you remember them. For example, if you have the words Earring & Flower keep repeating Earring and Flower in your head till the next word pair shows up. And the power point starts now.

Condition B (Metal Imagery)
Now you guys will be shown a PowerPoint with word pairs. Each slide will remain for 10 seconds. You guys should have full concentration. Have a mental imagery of those word pairs to help you remember. For example, if you have the words Earring and Flower you can imagine flower earrings. And the power point starts now.

(Presentation done)
Please turn around the second paper on your desks and fill out the blanks.

(We collect the papers before handing out the answer sheets)
Now fill out as many word pairs as you remember from the power point.
(Participants fill out as much as they remember, we collect the papers)
Thank you for your help, we really appreciate it! Have a good day ahead.


I'm Dora

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out

I'm Barry!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out