Running head: RUNNING HEADER RUN RUN 1

Practicing Mirror Figure Tracing with the Preferred or

Non-preferred Hand: Does Practice Make Perfect?

Boomer A. Bear

Missouri State University

RUNNING HEADER RUN RUN 1

Abstract

Leave the Abstract out of this report.

Practicing Mirror Figure Tracing with the Preferred or

Non-preferred Hand: Does Practice Make Perfect?

This experiment was designed to measure the effects of practice with the preferred or the non-preferred hand on the ability of a person to use the preferred hand to trace an object seen through a mirror. It has three competing hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: In learning mirror figure tracing, a person learns only a skill that is specific to the hand that does the tracing. The prediction from this first hypothesis is no transfer from one hand to the other hand should occur.

Hypothesis 2: In learning mirror figure tracing, a person learns only the cognitive principle of mirror reversal. The prediction from this second hypothesis is transfer from one hand to the other hand should occur, and the transfer should be complete because the cognitive principle is not specific to either hand.

Hypothesis 3: In learning mirror figure tracing, a person learns both a skill specific to the hand that does the tracing and also the cognitive principle of mirror reversal. The prediction from this third hypothesis is transfer from one hand to the other hand should occur, but the transfer should not be complete because the cognitive concept that is learned will be transferred, but the skill will not.

This study used a single-factor, matched, three-group, between-subjects experimental design (Table 1). Please do not include a literature review or a References page in your report. You should also mention the independent variable, the dependent variable, and a short version of the procedure using the normal sentence and paragraph form.

Method

Participants

The participants were . . .

Apparatus

The participant used a model 31010 mirror tracer from the Lafayette Instrument Company, 3700 Sagamore Parkway North, P O Box 5726, Lafayette, Indiana 47903 to trace the figures. A purple-ink pen . . .

Procedure

Explain the procedure step-by-step. Include operational definitions of the independent variable and the dependent variable. Then show what you are looking for by including the following three paragraphs.

In order to support Hypothesis 1, the test-trial results should show that the scores of groups nonp and rest are not significantly different and the scores of group pref are lower and significantly different from the scores of groups nonp and rest.

In order to support Hypothesis 2, the test-trial results should show that the scores of groups nonp and pref are not significantly different and the scores of group rest are higher and significantly different from the scores of groups nonp and pref.

In order to support Hypothesis 3, the test-trial results should show that the scores of group pref are lower and significantly different from the scores of group nonp and the test-trial results should also show that the scores of group nonp are lower and significantly different from the scores of group rest.

Results

The data analysis was performed on 21 participants instead of the original 24 because of participant attrition. One of the participants did not return for the second session of mirror tracing, so one block of three participants had to be dropped from the analysis.

The analysis of variance for a randomized blocks design, using an alpha cutoff level of .05, indicated a significant effect of the treatment, F(2, 4) = 22.10, p = .007. The size of the treatment effect (R2) was .32, which means 32% of the variation in the scores was accounted for by the different treatment given to the three groups. The means (with standard deviations in parentheses) for groups nonp, pref, and rest were 91.00 (17.44), 54.67 (9.07), and 131.33 (16.65), respectively. The Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch Multiple Range Test (alpha = .05, df = 4) showed that the test-trial scores of group pref were lower andsignificantly different from the scores of group nonp and also that the scores of group nonp were lower and significantly different from the scores of group rest.

Discussion

The

Table 1

The Hand Used in Mirror-tracing by the Three Groups (the Trial Numbers Are in Parentheses)

______

Groups Matching Trial (1/2/3) Practice Trials (4-8) Test Trial (9)

______

Nonp Preferred hand Non-preferred hand Preferred hand

Pref Preferred hand Preferred hand Preferred hand

Rest Preferred hand None Preferred hand

______

Figure 1.A sample of a simple four-line diagram.

Figure 2.A sample of a complex 10-line diagram.