The Effect of Context Difference to Comprehension and Recall - Research Paper Example

 The Effect of Context Difference to Comprehension and Recall Abstract Research evidence suggests that context has an effect at the encoding stage hereby assisting recall at the retrieval stage. Patterned after Bransford and Johnston (1972), this study used three groups for context differences: no-context, context-before, and context-after to test its effect on comprehension and recall. Context-before group had the highest mean of responses; T-test showed negative values both in recall and comprehension; comprehension and recall were positively correlated in all groups in Spearman’s rho where context-before had positively significant correlation at the 0.01 level. Results showed that the group in which context was given before reading the passage had performed better in comprehension and recall than the two groups in which no difference on recall was found and that comprehension and recall is significantly correlated when context was given prior to the introduction of material. Introduction Read the following as quickly as possible and see if the passage makes sense. The procedure is really quite simple.  First, you arrange things into different groups depending on their makeup.  Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do.  If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next step, otherwise you are pretty well set.  It is important not to overdo any particular endeavor.  That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many.  In the short run this may not seem important, but complications from doing too many can easily arise.  A mistake can be expensive as well.  The manipulation of the appropriate mechanisms should be self-explanatory, and we need not dwell on it here.  At first the whole procedure will seem complicated.  Soon, however, it will become just another facet of life.  It is difficult to foresee any end to this task in the immediate future, but then one never can tell. (Bransford & Johnston, 1972, p. 722.) Bransford and Johnston used this passage in their study of comprehension and recall. Two groups of subjects listened to the passage, and were asked to understand and remember it.  One group was made to listen to this passage right away while the second group was informed beforehand that the passage was about washing clothes.  Bransford and Johnston found that people in the second group were much better at understanding and remembering the passage than those in the first group.  The first group had no context in which to incorporate the passage; the second group could readily integrate it into their prior knowledge of washing clothes. Prior knowledge is a factor in comprehending a material at the encoding stage. Integrating context to a base of knowledge allows comprehension thereby promoting recall at the retrieval stage (Bransford & Johnston, 1972; Dooling & Lachman, 1971; Stern, Dahlgren, & Gaffney, 1991). Within these context, this study used three groups for context differences: no-context, context-before, and context-after to test its effect on comprehension and recall. This is to find out whether knowledge of the title or the subject prior to exposure to the material influences comprehension. It also explored the effect of integration of context to previous knowledge in recalling information. A correlation between comprehension and recall was also being considered. Method Participants The study utilized the class of one hundred (108) 1st year psychology students from ARU as respondents. The students were randomly assigned to form three groups. Materials: The same passage from Bransford & Johnston (1972, p. 722) was used. A Recall Checklist which contains 12 essential data units from the passage was then employed to score the experiment. Design: The design type between subjects was used to test the effect of context difference: no-context, context-before, and context-after to comprehension and recall of material. Procedure: The class was randomly split into three groups. Though all participants read the same passage of text, they differ in context condition. One group received no background information about the passage at all (‘no context’ group). The other two groups were told that the passage was about washing clothes, but one group received the information before reading the passage (‘context before’ group), the other after reading the passage but before recall (‘context after’ group). Results To score, respondents worked in pairs and scored one another’s work using the Recall Checklist that contains the list of twelve (12) essential idea units from the passage. Marking was done either objectively or subjectively. Objective mark was done by awarding a mark for every ‘unit’ reproduced exactly in the participant’s recall sheet. Subjective marking accepted responses, which reveal that the participant recalled the meaning of a phrase but not the exact words in the passage. T-test on independent samples and spearman’s rho correlation at 0.01 (two-tailed) significance on comprehension and recall were employed. T-test values were found to be negative both in recall (-4.145) and comprehension (-4.771). As shown in table 1, recall and comprehension was found to have a not significant negative correlation both in no-context (-0.270) and context-after (-0.215) groups but was found to be significantly positive in context-before (0.486). Table 1. Spearman’s Rho Correlation of recall and comprehension in all groups Groups Correlation Coefficient (at 0.01level; 2-tailed) No-context -0.270 Context-before 0.486 (significant) Context-after -0.215 The mean of the responses was computed in each group and the standard deviation as well to give an overview of the distribution of responses in terms of comprehension rating and idea units recalled. As shown in table 2, the group responses were almost uniformly distributed but context-before group had the highest mean response both in recall and comprehension. Table 2. Mean responses of each group in recall and comprehension Groups Recall Comprehension Mean No-context 2.81 2.61 Context-before 4.42 4.28 Context-after 2.75 3.39 SD No-context 1.60 1.34 Context-before 1.70 1.61 Context-after 1.20 1.60 Overall Mean 3.32 3.43 Overall SD 1.69 1.65 Results showed that the group in which context was given before reading the passage had performed better in comprehension and recall than the two groups in which no difference on recall was found as shown in figure 1. Discussion The study has the following results. Responses showed that the context-before group in comprehension has the highest mean with the value of 4.42 while the two groups—no-context and context-after has 2.81 and 2.75 respectively. This shows that that comprehension is enhanced by context as prior knowledge. The same result was also apparent with the recall units. Spearman’s rho analysis showed that comprehension and recall are significantly correlated when context was given prior to the introduction of material. Results showed that the group in which context was given before reading the passage had performed better in comprehension and recall than the two groups in which no difference on recall was found and that comprehension and recall is significantly correlated when context was given prior to the introduction of material. This result is consistent with hypothesis & background work. To make it more generalizable, more passages should be developed for inclusion in the material and subjects of passage should cover wide range of interest Context given before exposure to a material serves as a cue of prior knowledge promoting comprehension and recall. Comprehension and recall is positively and significantly correlated with each other when context was given before the material is reviewed. References Bransford and Johnson (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding.  Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726) Read More