Same context - Recalled 18 words
Different contexts - Recalled 12 words
Different contexts with images - Recalled 17.2 words
Smith could see that the participants could be tricked into thinking the environment at encoding was the same at retrieval by using images of the encoding environment in a different room. Smith's study supports and refutes the context dependancy theory. It supports the theory and Godden and Baddeley's study as those who encoded and recalled in the same environment produced a better recall but refutes both the context dependancy theory and Godden and Baddeley's study because Smith created a false environment at retrieving that acted as retrieval cue but wasn't infact the encoding environment.
Rationale:
My study has the same basic aim as the two background studies.
The contexts used in Godden and Baddeley's study were extremely different. On land and underwater whereas in my study the two contexts are a classroom and a cybercafe. I think it is best to test context dependancy in contexts that would occur in real life. By doing so I can generalise my results to a wider group. My study is similar to Smith's, he too used general settings people are more likely to encounter and be familiar with. I will gain better generalisability through using common contexts. I will use a word list containing 30 words this way it is possible for participants to recall all the words. Looking at my background research I now think that in my study the group who encode and retrieve in the same context will produce a better recall.
Aims:
The aim of this study is to see if encoding and retrieving a word list in the same context gives a better memory recall than encoding and retrieving the words in different contexts.
Hypotheses:
My experimental hypothesis predicts that the participants will recall significantly more words from the word list in condition 2 (when they encode and retrieve in the classroom.) than the participants in condition 1 (who encode in the classroom but retrieve in the cybercafe.)
Method
Method and Design:
The method I am going to use to test my hypothesis will be a field experiment.
I have chosen to carry out a field experiment because it has high ecological validity, this will enable me to use the college which is the students natural environment of the college therefore they will act normal. I can draw a cause and effect conclusion because of the controls I will inforce.
I will operate with an independant measures design. I have chosen to use this design for my study because the use of a word list would create practice effects that affect the participant's results if any other design was to be used. Using an independant measures design controls this as participants only take the test once.
Variables:
The operationalised independant variable of my study is the contexts I will use, these are a classroom and a cybercafe, The classroom will be used for encoding of both conditions whereas condition 1 will retrieve in the cybercafe and condition 2 in the classroom.
The operationalised dependant variable is the number of words recalled correctly from a word list by the students.
Participants:
The target population for my research study are the general public considering most of which have a normal memory and fully developed mentally (aged over 13).
The sampling method I will use is opportunity sampling. I chose this method of sampling for my study because it is quick and easy as students will be accessible and plenty around to ask for volunteers due to timetable constraints.
I require 20 participants of mixed gender. They will be students aged 16-18. They all attend a college in North East England.
Apparatus:
I will need a Word List Powerpoint Presentation (appendix 3) to test my experimental hypothesis. I need Briefing (appendix 1) and Debriefing statements (appendix 4) to ensure ethical guidelines are followed. The participants will need Standardised Instructions (appendix 2) to help them understand what to do. Two Stopwatchs are required to keep the test fair and timing controls strict between encoding and retrieving and for the recall. I need Access to the Rooms (Classroom and Cybercafe) in order to manipulate the IV (contexts). For random allocation I will use 20 paper pieces (10 numbered "1" 10 numbered "2") this will divide the participants into two conditions for my study. All participants need a pen and paper to recall the words they remember from the list.
Procedure:
1) After asking the participants for their consent I will use the Briefing Statement (appendix 1) to brief the 20 participants who volunteered to take part in my study.
2) At the entrance to the Classroom they will be randomly allocated into condition 1 and condition 2 by picking a piece of paper numbered 1 or 2 from a bag of 20.
3) They will be seated strategically - 1's near the door to go to the cybercafe to retrieve.
4) I will use the Standardised Instructions (appendix 2) to explain what the participants must do.
5) A Powerpoint slideshow will be used to show the Word list (appendix 3) spacing each word 3seconds apart (30words = 1min 30secs.)
6) 2 stopwatchs must be started.
7) Paper and pens will be handed out to each participant before Condition 1 depart to the Cybercafe with a stopwatch timing. Condition 2 must stay seated to recall in the Classroom.
8) Both groups will be kept in silence to prevent conferring.
9) After 5minutes timed on the stopwatchs both conditions must recall the words they can remember on the paper given. They have 1minute and 30 seconds to do so after which they must stop writing.
10) Papers must be collected from both rooms and condition one must now return to the Classroom for the Debriefing (appendix 4).
Controls:
I had to control the contexts that were used by using two rooms. Both groups encode in the Classroom and Condition 2 recall there too but Condition 1 recalls in the Cybercafe. Secondly both conditions had to be tested at the same time so the time of day was the same so lethargy and alertness was not affecting my results. I had to control the random allocation of the groups by making participants choose a piece of paper numbered 1 or 2 from a bag of 20 (10 ones and 10 twos) this would make it fair and simple. The timing of the experiment was the most crucial and the hardest to control. Both groups would see the Powerpoint Presentation of the Word List that spaced the words 3seconds apart. There were 2 stopwatchs to make sure the participants had 5minutes between encoding and retrieving. And both groups were timed when they were recalling the words for 1minute 30seconds. All participants were given the same Briefing,Instructions and Debriefing so they all had the same amount of information about the study.
There were no protection issues with my study and all participants had the right to withdraw their results if they wished (they were informed of this in the debriefing (see appendix 4)). They gave informed consent as all participants agreed to partake in the study and were fully briefed of the nature of the study (see appendix 1).
Results
Summary Table:
A TABLE TO SHOW THE MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCY DERRIVED FROM THE RESULTS OF A MEMORY RECALL TEST
IN TWO DIFFERENT RETRIEVAL CONTEXTS
(For raw results data see appendix 5)
Summary Table Commentary:
I have found that the participants in Condition 2 recalled more words on average. This means the participants who encoded and retrieved in the same context (the classroom) recalled more words than the participants who retrieved the words in the cafe. I also found that in Condition 1 the number of words the participants recalled has a wider range. I think this means that retrieving in a different context to encoding (as in Condition 1 ) affected some participants more than others.So there was a wide spread of number of words recalled. In Condition 2 (encoding and retrieving in the classroom) there were three modal values of words recalled. This shows that retrieving in the same context as encoding gives a consistently better recall as people recalled the same amount of words.
Graph:
A GRAPH TO SHOW THE MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCY
CALCULATED FROM RESULTS OF A MEMORY RECALL TEST
IN TWO DIFFERENT RETRIEVAL CONDITIONS
Graph Commentary:
Looking at my graph it is evident that Condition 2 have produced better results as the mean number of words is greater than in Condition 1. The median (middle value) is also significantly more in Condition 2. This proves that Condition 2 retrieved words from the word list better than Condition 1. By manipulating the Independant variable (contexts) the dependant variable (number of words recalled from the word list) has shown a significant difference this gives me evidence that my study was successful to draw a conclusion. However the range of number of words recalled is larger in Condition 1 than in Condition 2. This means that participants in Condition 2 produced a closer number of words. This may suggest that Condition 2 who encoded and retrieved in the classroom all had consistantly good recall proving the theory of context dependent memory. It could also mean that because participants in Condition 2 had wider spread results they were all affected by the change in context differently. Which means I can't generalise my findings to the general public as it may be different for everyone.
Relationship of results to hypothesis:
My results support my experimental hypothesis. I can say this because the mean number of words recalled in Condition 2 (the participants who encoded and retrieved in the same context) was more than mean for Condition 1 (those who encoded and retrieved in different rooms.) In Condition 2 participants recalled 13 words on average whereas in Condition 1 participants only recalled an average of 10.3 words from the word list. This supports my hypothesis as i predicted that participants would recall significantly more words from the word list in Condition 2 (when they encoded and retrieved in the classroom.) And that the participants in Condition 1 (who encode in the classroom and retrieve in the cybercafe) would recall less words from the word list as they were in different contexts. Looking at my results I see that this happened and therefore my results back up my original predictions.
