Republic of the Philippines

Cagayan State University

Carig Campus
CSU Vision COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Transforming
lives by
Educating for
the BEST. LABORATORY EXPERIMENT 1.1:
Rate of Memorization Model
CSU Mission

CSU is committed
to transform the In partial fulfilment for the requirements of the course
lives of people and
communities
Differential Calculus
through high (Math 211E)
quality instruction
and innovative
research, By: GROUP 5
development,
18-04017 BAYLON, CARMINA PEREZ
production and
extension. 18-04163 GUMABAY, MICHELLE P.
18-04508 LIQUIGAN, MARK JOSEPH

CSU – IGA 18-04014 RIVERA, BLESSA JUDIMIN T.

Competence
Social Responsibility

Unifying Presence
Program: BS Chemical Engineering
Year Level: Second Year
COE – IGA Date Submitted: November 27, 2019
Innovative Thinking
Synthesis
Personal Instructor: Engr. Caesar P. Llapitan
Responsibility
Empathy
Research Skill
Rating:______________
Entrepreneurial Skill
Date Checked: _________
 LABORATORY EXPERIMENT 1.1:
Rate of Memorization Model

Abstract
This experiment is expected to use the differential equation model to find
the rate at which a person memorized a given data using the differential
equation of the memorization model. Two students performed three trials each
to obtain their rate. The experimental and theoretical graphs per list were
compared and analyzed. The graphs concludes that there’s no sensible pattern
for the behavior of the k- value of student A and B.

2
I. Introduction
The role of memory in learning and life in general is undeniably
important. Memory as a basic human ability enables human to recall past
events and knowledge. With this, one can store millions of information from
their childhood until their death. In fact, humans create their ideas from what
they have experience and from what they’ve heard from other peoples
experience which are all stored in their memory.
More so, human learning is an extremely complicated process. The
biology and chemistry of learning is far from understood. While simple models
of learning cannot hope to encompass this complexity, they can illuminate
limited aspects of the learning process. According to Wang (2009), the process
of memorization encompasses encoding (knowledge representation), retention,
retrieve and decoding (knowledge reformation). The sign of a successful
memorization process in cognitive informatics is that the same information can
be correctly recalled or retrieve. Therefore, memorization may need to be
repeated or rehearsed for a number of cycles before it is completed.

The model is based on the assumption that the rate of learning is

proportional to the amount left to be learned. We let L (t) be the fraction of the
list already committed to memory at time t. So L = 0 corresponds to knowing
none of the list, and L = 1 corresponds to knowing the entire list. The differential
equation is

𝑑𝐿
= 𝑘 (1 − 𝐿)
𝑑𝑡

Different people take different amounts of time to memorize a list.

According to the model this means that each person has his or her own
personal value of k. The value of k for a given individual must be determined by
experiment. Which will be discussed in the methods section.

3
Objectives:

The purpose of this experiment is to find the rate at which a person

memorized a given data using differential equation of memorization model.
Specifically, it aims to fulfill the following objectives:

1. to estimate the k-value using the differential equation model of

memorization
2. to compare the theoretical model with the experimental data
3. to determine the behavior of k obtained from three trials

4
II. Methodology
A linear differential equation model of memorization is given as

𝑑𝐿
= 𝑘1 (1 − 𝐿)
𝑑𝑡

Where k1 is a parameter that measures the retention after memorization,

L(t) is the fraction of list learned at time t. L(t) = 0 corresponds to knowing none
of the list and L(t) = 1 means knowing the entire list. (1-L) implies that the entire
list learned is subtracted by a fraction of the list learned.

𝑑𝐿
= 𝑘1 (1 − 𝐿)
𝑑𝑡

1
𝑑𝐿 = 𝑘1 𝑑𝑡
−1 − 𝐿

− ln(1 − 𝐿)
𝑘1 = (1)
𝑡

Equation (1) is used to measure the rate of retention. The solution to the
differential equation gives a continuous function of the amount of the list learned
with respect to time.

The fraction of items learnt at any time t is then calculated by plugging

the value of k1 into the equation and solving as in:

𝑒 ln(1−𝐿) = 𝑒 −𝑘1 𝑡

𝐿 (𝑡) = 1 − 𝑒 −𝑘1 𝑡 (2)

The parameter that measure the retention after the memorization k 1 is

different for each individual.

To find the k-value for a given individual, we generated list which are
nonsense and random entries from the tables of integrals. Students A and B
spent one minute studying list of numbers and the students were then required
to reconstruct the list from memory. After which, the students counted the
correct numbers they’ve memorized. Spent another one minute studying the
same list then quiz again. Students A and B repeated the process until they
have learned the entire list.

5
 Using the data generated, the k-value of the individuals can be
approximated through the predictions of the model. The estimation of the k
value was done by integrating the differential equation per fraction of list learned
over time.

6
III. Results and Discussions
The data was compiled by testing two students with random lists given
to them. Student A memorized List 3, 1 and 4. While student B memorized List
4, 3 and 2. The data collected was used to compute for the k-value of students
A and B using the differential equation model of memorization. The
experimental k value then was used to calculate the L(t) of the individual per
minute per list.
The experimental graph (blue curve) was the experimented data of
student A and student B from memorizing a certain list. This was obtained by
getting the k value per minute and using these values to generate L(t). The
theoretical graph (orange curve) was acquired by getting the average of the
experimental k values and using it as the k-value all throughout the calculation
of theoretical L (t) in a certain list of a specific student.
The following graphs shows the rate of memorization of student A and B
at time t in three trials each. All the following graphs was compared to the
experimental curve to its theoretical graph given by the obtained data per list
for each three trials.

The graphs shows the relationship between the fractions of the list
learned over a given time.

A. Rate of Memorization of Student A

Figure 1. Rate of Memorization of Student A on List 3

1.2
Fraction of the list learned, L

1
0.8
(fraction)

0.6
Experimental
0.4
Theoretical
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8
Time in minutes, t

Figure 1 shows that student A was able to memorize List 3 with 20

random numbers within seven repeated one minutes.

7
 Figure 2. Rate of Memorization of Student A on List 1
1.2

Fractionof list learned, L (fraction) 1

0.8
0.6
Experimental
0.4
Theoretical
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time in minutes, t

Figure 2 shows that student A was able to memorize List 1 with 20

random numbers within nine repeated one minutes. Compared to Figure 1,
student A take a longer time memorizing List 1 than on List 3.

Figure 3. Rate of Memorization of Student A on List 4

1.2
Fractionof list learned, L (fraction)

1
0.8
0.6
Experimental
0.4
Theoretical
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time in minutes, t

For List 4, student A takes 10 minutes to memorize it. And the graph of
the experimental graph fluctuates every minute. The behavior of the k-value
varies over time. Compared to the theoretical graph, the k-value increases as
the student studies the list.

8
 B. Rate of Memorization of Student B

Figure 4. Rate of Memorization of Student B on List 4

Fraction of the list learned, L 1.2
1
0.8
(fraction)

0.6
Experimental
0.4
Theoretical
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time in minutes, t

Student B takes nine minutes to memorize list 4. The graph shows that
at times three to seven the k have a lower values. This means that the rate of
memorization of student B is gradual in this part. Unlike the prediction of the
theoretical graph, the rate should follow a constant increase of value of k as
time passes by.

Figure 5. Rate of Memorization of Student B on List 3

1.2
Fraction of the list learned L

1
0.8
(fraction)

0.6
Experimental
0.4
Theoretical
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time in minutes, t

In this figure, the rate of memorization has a gradual change at times 1

to five and eventually imitating the k of theoretical graph from time five through
six. A lower value of k at the beginning of the graph may account for the
concentration of the student, the environment where the student memorize
takes place.

9
 Figure 6. Rate of Memorization of Student B on List 2
1.2

Fraction of list learned, L (fraction)

1
0.8
0.6
Experimental
0.4
Theoretical
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time in minutes, t

The rate of memorization in this figure have a slightly similar curve from
the theoretical graph. The graph at time five, the graph abruptly decreased and
then increased afterward. This point in the graph could mean factors that may
relate to the student's condition when memorizing.

10
IV. Conclusion
This experiment hopes to seek the rate at which a person memorized a
given data. To obtain this purpose, this experiment used a differential equation
model of memorization to find the value of its k and eventually calculating the L
(t).

The experimental and theoretical graph indicates that the k value for an
individual person is not constant and very different from other individual. The
rate at which one person remembers such information is maybe related to the
aspect a person stores data in his or her brain. The graphs concludes that
there’s no sensible pattern for the behavior of the k- value of student A and B.

11
V. References

Blanchard, P.,Devaney, R., & Hall, G (2011). Differential Equations.

Brooks/Cole: Cengage Learning
Gogovi, G., Oduro, F., & Fosu, G. (2014). Performance Analysis of
Memorization Rate Models. https://www.ijert.org/research/performance-
analysis-of-memorization-rate-models-IJERTV3IS10500.pdf
Wang, Y. (2009). Formal Description of the Cognitive Process of Memorization.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-process-of-
memorization_fig4_228911812

12
VI. Appendices
Table 1. Rate of Memorization of Student A on List 3
List 3
L k
Time Memorized K L (t) L(t)
STUDENT A (Fraction) (Average)
0 0 0 0 0 0
Mark Joseph 1 1 0.05 0.051293 0.05 0.261508
Liquigan 2 5 0.25 0.143841 0.25 0.45463
3 8 0.4 0.170275 0.4 0.597249
0.3031454
4 11 0.55 0.199627 0.55 0.702572
5 14 0.7 0.240795 0.7 0.780352
6 17 0.85 0.316187 0.85 0.837791
7 20 1 1 0.9991 0.88021

Table 2. Rate of Memorization of Student A on List 1

List 1
K
STUDENT A Time Memorized L (Fraction) K L (t) L(t)
(Average)
0 0 0 0 0 0
Mark Joseph 1 5 0.25 0.2876821 0.25 0.267225
Liquigan 2 8 0.4 0.2554128 0.4 0.46304
3 11 0.55 0.2661692 0.55 0.606529
4 13 0.65 0.2624555 0.65 0.711674
0.310916
5 10 0.5 0.1386294 0.5 0.788722
6 12 0.6 0.1527151 0.6 0.845181
7 15 0.75 0.1980421 0.75 0.886552
8 17 0.85 0.23714 0.85 0.916868
9 20 1 1 0.999877 0.939083

Table 3. Rate of Memorization of Student A on List

List 4
L k
Time Memorized K L (t) L (t)
STUDENT A (Fraction) (Average)
0 0 0 0 0 0
Mark Joseph 1 5 0.25 0.2876821 0.25 0.226255
Liquigan 2 6 0.3 0.1783375 0.3 0.401319
3 6 0.3 0.1188916 0.3 0.536774
4 9 0.45 0.1494593 0.45 0.641581
5 10 0.5 0.1386294 0.5 0.256513 0.722676
6 8 0.4 0.0851376 0.4 0.785422
7 13 0.65 0.1499746 0.65 0.833971
8 16 0.8 0.2011797 0.8 0.871536
9 18 0.9 0.2558428 0.9 0.900602
10 20 1 1 1 0

13
Table 4. Rate of Memorization of Student B on List 4
List 4
STUDENT L k
Time Memorized K L (t) L(t)
B (Fraction) (Average)
0 0 0 0 0 0
Blessa 1 3 0.15 0.1625189 0.15 0.195722
Judimin 2 5 0.25 0.143841 0.25 0.353136
Rivera 3 4 0.2 0.0743812 0.2 0.479742
4 5 0.25 0.0719205 0.25 0.581567
0.21781
5 6 0.3 0.071335 0.3 0.663464
6 8 0.4 0.0851376 0.4 0.729331
7 13 0.65 0.1499746 0.65 0.782307
8 16 0.8 0.2011797 0.8 0.824914
9 20 1 1 0.999877 0.859182

Table 5. Rate of Memorization of Student B on List 3

List 3
L k
STUDENT B Time Memorized K L (t) L(t)
(Fraction) (Average)
0 0 0 0 0 0
Blessa 1 2 0.1 0.105361 0.1 0.221526
Judimin 2 3 0.15 0.081259 0.15 0.393978
Rivera 3 3 0.15 0.054173 0.15 0.528227
4 6 0.3 0.089169 0.3 0.632737
5 8 0.4 0.102165 0.4 0.250419 0.714095
6 15 0.75 0.231049 0.75 0.77743
7 17 0.85 0.271017 0.85 0.826735
8 17 0.85 0.23714 0.85 0.865118
9 19 0.95 0.332859 0.95 0.894998
10 20 1 1 0.999955 0.918258
Table 6. Rate of Memorization of Student B on List 2
List 2
L k
STUDENT B Time Memorized K L (t) L(t)
(Fraction) (Average)
0 0 0 0 0 0
Blessa 1 2 0.1 0.105361 0.1 0.221449
Judimin 2 4 0.2 0.111572 0.2 0.393858
Rivera 3 7 0.35 0.143594 0.35 0.528088
4 9 0.45 0.149459 0.45 0.250321 0.632592
5 9 0.45 0.119567 0.45 0.713954
6 13 0.65 0.17497 0.65 0.777299
7 15 0.75 0.198042 0.75 0.826616
8 20 1 1 0.999665 0.865011

14
 LABORATORY REPORT RUBRIC
GROUP 5
DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS
EXCELLENT GOOD SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY GRADE
CRITERIA
91-100% 81-90% 71-80% 70-61%
Making Sense of The interpretation and/or The interpretation and/or The interpretation and/or The interpretation and/or
the Task translation of the task are: translation of the task translation of the task are: translation of the task are:
Interpret the  thoroughly developed and/or are:  partially developed and/or  underdeveloped,
concepts of the task  enhanced through connections  adequately developed  partially displayed  sketchy
and translate them and/or extensions to the other and  using inappropriate concepts
into mathematics mathematical ideas or other  adequately displayed  minimal and/or
contents  not evident
Representing and The strategy and representations The strategy and The strategy and representations The strategy and representations
Solving the Task used are: representations used are used are used are
Use models,  elegant (insightful)  effective and  partially effective and/or  underdeveloped,
pictures, diagrams  complex  complete  partially complete  sketchy
and/or symbols to  enhanced through  not useful
represent and solve comparisons to other  minimal
the task situation and representations and/or  not evident and/or
select an effective generalizations  in conflict with the
strategy to solve the solution/outcome
task.
Communicating The use of mathematical The use of mathematical The use of mathematical language The use of mathematical
Reasoning language and communication of language and and communication of the language and communication of
Coherently the reasoning are: communication of the reasoning are: the reasoning are:
communicate  elegant (insightful) and/or reasoning are:  are partially displayed with  underdeveloped
mathematically and  enhanced with graphics or  follow a clear coherent significant gaps and/or  sketchy
clearly use examples to allow the reader to path throughout the  do not clearly lead to a  inappropriate
mathematical move easily from one thought entire work sample and solution/outcome  minimal and/or
language to another  lead to clearly identified  not evident
solution/outcome
Accuracy The solution/outcome is correct The solution/outcome is The solution/outcome is correct The solution/outcome is correct
Support the and enhanced by: correct and enhanced by: and enhanced by: and enhanced by:
solution/outcome  extensions  correct  incorrect due to minor error, or  incorrect and/or
 connections  mathematically  a correct answer but work  incomplete, or
 generalizations, and/or justified, and contains minor error  correct but conflict with the
 asking a new questions leading  support by the work  partially complete and/or work or not supported by the
to new problems  partially correct work
Reflecting and Justifying the solution/outcome The solution/outcome is The solution/outcome is stated The solution/outcome is not
Evaluating completely, the student reflection stated within the context within the context of the task, and clearly stated identified and/or
State the also includes of the task, and the the reflection justifies the the justification is
solution/outcome in  reworking the task using a reflection justifies the solution/outcome completely by  underdeveloped
the context of the different method, solution/outcome reviewing  sketchy
task. Defend the  evaluating the relative completely by reviewing  the task situation,  ineffective
process evaluate effectiveness and/or efficiency  the interpretation of the  concepts  minimal
and interpret the of different approaches taken, task  strategies  not evident and/or
reasonableness of and/or  concepts  calculations and/or  inappropriate
the solution/outcome  providing evidence of  strategies  reasonableness
considering other possible  calculations, and
solution/outcomes and/or  reasonableness
interpretations
TOTAL
AVERAGE

 Rater: Engr. CAESAR P. LLAPITAN

Date:_____________________________
Instructor