Method
Method and design The hypotheses was tested with an experimental method. This is appropriate as numerical data can be obtained for unbiased analysis. It was a natural or quasi experiment with rigid control of variables in a natural setting. This experimental design was chosen as laboratory experiments lack ecological validity, and though field experiments are generally closer to reality, confounding or extraneous variables cannot be rigidly controlled, therefore concluding a change in the dependent variable is in fact influenced by the change in the independent variable is difficult. Another reason for choosing this experimental method is its reliability as it can easily be replicated.
An independent measures design was used. This meant testing two groups, one for recall in the same environment where information was learnt and one in another place, acting as a control by showing recall taking place elsewhere to learning. This provided a comparison. A limitation of independent measures design is that participant variables cannot be controlled, that is that one group may contain participants with better recall, which would distort the results. However, the effects of participant variables were reduced by randomly allocating participants to groups. An independent measures design does however have benefits. Unlike repeated measures, independent measures design only involves testing participants once so order effects (practice and fatigue) do not need to be considered and unlike a method of matched pairs, it is not expensive and time consuming.
Variables The variables are context and recall. The context was operationalised by having two rooms as contexts and recall was quantified as the number of words remembered. The independent variable is the context for recall, which we controlled and the number of words recalled is the dependent variable. The context is the variable being manipulated while the recall is what is being measured so any other variables, situational or participant, are extraneous.
Participants The target population of this experiment is fundamentally the entire human race but a method of opportunistic sampling was used because it is cheap and quick, although it is very biased. Thirty-eight participants were used. The participants were all members of two AS level psychology classes, twenty-two from one class and sixteen from the other. All participants were aged 16 to 18. The participants were split into two groups at random with an equal number of each class in each group (eleven from one class and eight from the other class were in each group).
Any psychological research must adhere to ethical guidelines set by The British Psychological Society (BPS). The consent of the participants was given and all were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time, thus adhering to the guidelines on consent and a right to withdraw. Participants were not deceived in any way, being informed of exactly what the experiment involved before it commenced so the guideline on deception was satisfied. Had we conducted a field experiment, it would have been impossible not to deceive the participants and we would not have been able to get informed consent. For this reason, the ethics of some field experiments can be questioned. Following the experiment the participants were informed of the expected results in a debriefing session, eliminating any feelings of inadequacy and in doing so complied with the guideline on debriefing. At no point were participants exposed to physical or psychological damage. The results of the experiment will not be made public, thus conforming to the ethical guidelines concerning confidentiality and at no point in this study will results be linked to individuals’ identities.
Apparatus Each participant had a sheet of paper and pen for recall. The words (see Appendix I) were written on a white board at the front of the classroom. A stopwatch was used to time the learning and recall test. The words were covered with a sheet. A class of younger students randomly suggested words for the experiment, having no contact with the participants. It was suggested that the words be recorded onto tape and then played to the participants as different participants had a different view of the white board. However this idea was rejected as the primacy-recency effect proposed by Glanz and Cunitz, may have distorted the results. That is that the first few words (submitted to long term memory) and the last few (still in short term memory) would be remembered and the middle words, having not been submitted to long term memory but displaced by the words that followed them, would generally not be remembered.
Procedure The experiment was conducted on a cold, bright day. Twenty-words were written randomly on a white board, covered with a sheet, at the front of a classroom where the thirty-eight AS level psychology students were assembled. Participants were told what was to happen, their consent was given and their right to withdraw was explained. The two groups were selected randomly. The sheet was removed and one minute was timed during which the participants studied the words. Participants were asked to leave the classroom and walk outside in silence where they were to assemble. On command from the experimenter, the predetermined groups went to their respective locations. Once seated, all participants had a free recall test for a timed period of three minutes.
Results
Fig 1. Table of results
The raw data from the experiment is displayed in figure 1. The data has been summarised for analysis to its central tendency and its dispersion (see figure 2). The mean was calculated by dividing the sum of the total words recalled by nineteen, the median is the middle value (in this case the tenth piece of data), and the mode is the most frequent result. Dividing the total number of words recalled by the total possible number of words and then multiplying it by one hundred calculated the total percentage recall.
Fig 2. Summary table of results
Summary table commentary The summary table shows that recall was higher in the classroom with a total recall of 48% compared to 41% in the dining hall which is a 7% difference. Each measure of the mean recall is higher in the classroom although the median and mode are very crude measures of central tendency and as such can be disregarded. The data is nominal so the mean is the most appropriate measure of central tendency.
Fig 3. Number of words recalled in two different contexts
Descriptive statistics commentary Figure 3 shows the difference between recall in the two different environments. The bar chart shows recall in the classroom to peak at a significantly higher number of words and the majority of the recall in the dining hall to be at lower numbers of words. Recall in the dining hall peaked at 8 and 10 words whereas in the classroom, recall peaked around 12 and again at 15.
The highest individual recall, which was 18 out of the 25 words occurred in the dining-hall and was notably higher than any other recall. This could be considered an anomalous result. If so, it could be ignored in calculating the average, in which case the difference would be even more significant. In addition, the lowest individual recall occurred in the classroom at 6 out of 25.
The recall in the dining hall is slightly positively skewed while the recall in the classroom is slightly negatively skewed. As the results should be normally distributed, this suggests that either the sample is too small or biased.
Relationship of results to hypotheses The alternative hypothesis is most likely to be supported by these results, as there is a significant and directional difference between the classroom and dining hall evident in each measure of average, although the mode and median can almost be discounted as representatives of central tendency. However, the results show the size of the sample to be insufficient as there are significant gaps in the data.
Evaluation
Validity and suggestions for improving validity The validity can be questioned in terms of whether the experiment actually tested context and not state dependent memory. The classroom, as a natural environment for learning, may have produced a state of relaxation and the dining hall a state of tension, which could account for the differences in recall. This would make the study invalid as the alternative hypothesis refers to memory in different environments (contexts). Although it is impossible to determine whether the change in context induced any change in state, the operationalisation of the variables was quite valid as confounding variables were effectively minimised. To overcome this, the experiment could be carried out using two classrooms or two different environments which are not related to learning. It is difficult to differentiate between internal and external cues, state and context, as different environments induce certain states. The experiment has face or content validity because it appears to test context as a cue for memory but in effect, it is not known whether state is actually being tested as well.
Another plausible explanation for the decreased level of recall in a different environment to that where information is learnt is the disruption and interference caused by taking the participant from one environment to the other. Interference was minimised by all participants going outside before each group went to their respective locations for recall. The interference, such as the cleaners and noise in the dining hall contributes to the context so it does not affect the validity of the study.
As psychology students, all having studied cue dependent forgetting, the participants may have exhibited demand characteristics whereby they conformed to the expected results. It is possible that those having recall tested in a different context (the dining-hall) made less effort to memorise words in the classroom. This could explain the difference in results, but when such tests were first conducted, the expected result would not have been known and the outcome was the same. If non-psychology students had been used, the results have been considered more valid as demand characteristics would be less likely.
Conducting the experiment in a classroom, a natural context for learning, increased its ecological validity while rigid control of the variables was maintained so there was also an element of experimental validity. However, the task of memorising a list of 25 words is unnatural so it could be seen as not worth doing. To increase the ecological validity a class of students could be given a test that some complete in the classroom they learn in, and some complete in another location. Demand characteristics would be eliminated but the study would have to be conducted without informed consent, instead presumptive consent could be obtained and the participants debriefed afterwards but ethical issues would reduce its validity.
Reliability and suggestions for improving reliability The study is reliable as, if it were repeated, the likelihood of the same results being obtained is high. The methodology is clear, simple and replicable. The conditions in the two contexts including lighting, temperature and noise levels would not have to be replicated as their differences contribute to the overall environment of the two different locations but these variables reduce the replicability. To increase the reliability the experiment could be conducted in a laboratory so all situational extraneous variables could be controlled and it would be possible to replicate it exactly. Additionally the same two locations could be used but learning could take place in the dining hall to test whether an association of a classroom with learning affects recall.
A procedural problem was that the experimenter in the hall was a student who may have had less authoritative power and therefore influence over the participants than the teacher. Consequently, there may have been some degree of communication between participants in the hall, distorting the results with cheating, thus making scores of recall higher than they should have been. However, since recall was significantly lower overall in the hall this does not need to be taken into very careful consideration. Nevertheless, to improve this, both experimenters could be teachers.
The apparatus had a number of drawbacks. The words were covered with a sheet, however a Q and a T were visible before the words were exposed and the sheet was removed slowly allowing some participants to see the words for longer. The members of each group of participants were spread evenly throughout the classroom so it is likely that this had little effect on the outcome. This procedure would have to be standardised to increase the reliability, possibly with the use of an overhead projector or with the aid of a computer and all participants having an equal view of all the words.
The randomness of the words chosen can be questioned as some of the words can be easily chunked, aiding recall. For example, there are a number of words relating to water (river, flood, tributary, puddle, tank and goldfish) so if one were remembered it is possible that this would lead to the recall of others. In addition to this, cues in the surroundings of the participants may have prompted recall. For example, while another group were conducting the same experiment, a heater turned on automatically in the dining hall, which resulted in high recall of the word “heating”.
The sample was small, so it is possible that participant variables distorted our results. The participants were not separated under gender or any other criteria such as IQ, so to eliminate participant variables a method of matched pairs could be used, although it is time consuming and costly. As one class of students regularly learns in the classroom of the experiment, it is possible that they associate it with learning, so half of each class was put in each context group to limit participant variables. More realistically a method of repeated measures could have been used which would involve repeated the experiment with the groups taking the recall test in the other place. However, this poses the problem of order effects where performance can improve through the practice effect or deteriorate through the fatigue effect.
Implications of the study This study supports the findings of Godden and Baddeley and Abernathy who found recall to be consistently better when it takes place where information was encoded. Context can act as a cue to aid recall so inaccessible items of information can be retrieved in the right context.
Generalisation It can be questioned how far the findings of this study can be generalised despite the fact that they support other studies such as those of Godden and Baddeley, Abernathy and Klatzky. Due to possibility of demand characteristics evident in this study and the bias in the opportunistic sampling, the results fail to provide sufficient evidence that context aids recall for the entire populace, therefore the findings cannot be generalised very far. The sample was very biased so the furthest the findings could be generalised would be to AS psychology students at the Hewett sixth form.
Application of study to everyday life Context dependent memory has a number of practical applications. One of these is in criminal investigations, as witnesses can be returned to a crime scene where contextual cues may aid their recall. In addition, police stage reconstructions to trigger recall. The theory of context dependent memory can be applied to education as it suggests that formal examinations, which invariably take place in large halls, put students at a disadvantage. Therefore, it could be suggested that revision is done in a classroom which is closer in context than somewhere such as a bedroom is.
Bibliography
Books
Banyard, B and Grayson, A. (1996) Introducing Psychological Research. Basingstoke, Macmillan Press.
Dwyer, D and Scampion, J. (1995) Work out Psychology. Basingstoke, Macmillan Press.
Eyesenck, R. A Student’s Handbook. Psychology Press.
Gross, R. (1992) The Science of Mind and Behaviour. Sevenoaks, Hodder & Stoughton.
Jarvis, M. (2000) Angles on Psychology. Cheltenham, Stanley Thornes.
Malim, T and Birch, A. (1998) Introductory Psychology. Basingstoke, Macmillan Press.
Malim, T, Birch, A and Wadeley, A. (1992) Perspectives in Psychology. Basingstoke, Macmillan Press.
Journals/articles
Abernathy, E.M. (1940) The effect of changed environmental conditions upon the results of college examinations. Journal of Psychology, 10, 293-301
Godden, D. and Baddeley, A.D. (1975) Context dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and under water. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325-31
Tulving, E. (1974) Cue-dependent forgetting. American Psychologist, 62, 74-82
Websites
Appendix I
The following 25 words were written randomly on the white board at the front of the classroom:
Angel
Alive
Apricot
Cabinet
Currant
Dead
Decoration
Doorway
Elusive
Fantastic
Flood
Goldfish
Heating
Justification
Loud
Pacifist
Puddle
Quarry
River
Spider
Tank
Tributary
Turgid
Windy
Yellow
