An experiment to investigate whether contextual
information, the display of an image, affects comprehension,
measured by correct answers, of an audio passage: a partial
replication of Bransford and Johnson (1972)
Alyssa San Jose
IB HL Psychology
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL MANILA
00046October 10, 2012
Word Count: 1998
Abstract
This experiment investigates the effect of context on comprehension. This study is a
partial replication of Bransford and Johnson (1972). The aim of this study is to investigate
whether context affects the comprehension of a passage, in the form of answers to a
questionnaire. The research hypothesis states participants who see the picture with the story
will answer more questions correctly than participants who only hear the story. This experiment
uses an independent sample design, and participants were gathered by an opportunity sample of
students, aged fifteen to sixteen of both genders. The participants were divided into equal,
random groups. Group one was provided with the contextual picture and heard the story while
group two only heard the story. The results of this study supported the research hypothesis as
group one participants answered 5.50 questions correctly while group two participants
answered 3.63 questions correctly. The probability that the data was influenced by chance was
eliminated with the Mann Whitney U test value of 14.5, which was less than the critical value
of 18, allowing the rejection of the null hypothesis. Therefore, the conclusion of this
experiment was that provision of context affects the comprehension and recall of a passage.
(199 words)
i
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Method ................................................................................................................................ 3
Design ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Participants .................................................................................................................................. 3
Materials...................................................................................................................................... 4
Procedures ................................................................................................................................... 4
Results ................................................................................................................................. 5
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................................... 5
Inferential Statistics..................................................................................................................... 6
Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 7
References ........................................................................................................................... 9
Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 10
Appendix I—Student Consent Form ......................................................................................... 10
Appendix II—Parent Consent Form ......................................................................................... 11
Appendix III—Script of Procedure ........................................................................................... 12
Appendix IV—Pre-recorded Audio Test .................................................................................. 15
Appendix V—Pre-recorded Story ............................................................................................. 16
Appendix VI—Picture .............................................................................................................. 17
Appendix VII—Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 18
Appendix VIII—Raw Data ....................................................................................................... 19
Appendix IX—Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................ 20
Appendix X—Inferential Statistics ........................................................................................... 21
Appendix XI—Mann Whitney U Test ...................................................................................... 22
Introduction
Cognitive psychology involves study of the human mind and processes. This level
of analysis states that mental representations guide behavior and mental processes can be
scientifically investigated. Cognition involves mental activities that are associated with
thinking, knowing, and remembering. Schema theory, significant in cognitive
psychology, proposes that schema exist within cognition as concepts or frameworks that
organize and interpret information (Crane & Hannibal, 2009).
Schema theory has been subject to criticism as it is unsuccessful in providing
specific explanations of how schemas are acquired. Also, the sparsity in ecological
validity causes schema theory to appear vague. The theory is simplistic and reductionist,
not accounting for the human mind as a multifaceted, complicated object (Cohen, 1993).
Beyond the criticisms, schema theory consists of two methods to understand and interpret
the world: accommodation and assimilation. Accommodation consists of changing
schema based on the intake of new information. Assimilation is the understanding of new
information in terms of previously existing schema (Crane & Hannibal, 2009).
Bartlett (1932) exemplified this idea where he proposed that culture affects
schema. Participants were told a Native American folk tale, which included foreign
structure and word choice to the Western participants. When retelling the story, the
participants used cultural schema to activate their memory, for example, the change
between the word “canoe” to the word “boat”. The conclusions of Bartlett’s (1932) study
explain when participants lacked cultural background, they were unable to activate
schema, and thus lacked the ability to recall information. Similarly, participants in this
study were given a picture to activate schema and put the nonsensical story into context.
Brewer and Treyens (1981) conducted a study hypothesizing that location schema
affects visual memory. The study looked to explore the accurate recollection of objects
when the schema of the office was consistent with the objects. Various objects
contradicting the office schema, such as a chainsaw or stilettos, were placed around the
room as well as objects consistent with the office schema, such as a stapler or paper. The
participants were brought into the room, without knowing they were partaking in
incidental learning. After they were lead out of the room, participants were asked which
objects they remembered. The conclusion of this study was that the schematic location of
1
an office activated schema to encourage recall of familiar items. Similarly, participants in
this study assimilated the nonsensical story based on the given picture, which provided
pre-existing schematic context, encouraging recall and comprehension.
This internal assessment is a partial replication of Bransford and Johnson (1972).
The original aim of the study was to investigate the role of context, a picture, in
comprehension and recall, the answers to questions. Participants were divided into two
groups. Group one was shown a picture, played a recorded passage, and asked to answer
questions testing comprehension of the story. Group two was played the same passage
and asked to answer the same questions, without the display of the image. The findings of
the study showed that group one was able to answer more comprehension questions
correctly by a significantly higher amount than group two. Bransford and Johnson’s
(1972) hypothesis that participants provided with context would answer more questions
correctly was supported. In conclusion, the support of the hypothesis displayed the idea
that contextual information, affects recall a significant amount in comparison to having
no contextual information.
The partial replication is beneficial as the previous and potential findings are
applicable to present society. This study lends its findings towards assisting educators to
change styles in order to maximize comprehension through context. In other words, by
replicating this study, the findings could provide support to encourage teaching methods
to be changed so students retain information more effectively through the use of context.
The aim of this partial replication is to investigate the extent to which a contextual
picture can affect the comprehension of a passage, in the form of answers to a
questionnaire following the recording.
H0 Null Hypothesis: There will be no significant difference in mean number of
correct answers between the participants seeing the picture with the story and participants
only hearing the story.
H1 Research Hypothesis: Participants who see the picture in conjunction with
the story will answer more questions correctly than the participants who only hear the
story.
2
Method
Design
Independent sample was used to eliminate the order effect and diminish demand
characteristics. Independent samples prevented participants from guessing the outcomes of the
experiment. Controlled variables included the script of procedures, questionnaire, pre-recorded
story, and researchers for both groups. Control of these variables allowed the dependent
variable to be studied, since the independent variable could be manipulated. The design allows
groups one and two to receive different amounts of context during the experiment. Informed
consent was obtained from the participants and debriefing followed the conclusion of the
experiment. Participants were ensured of their confidentiality. Debriefing the aims of the
experiment and the results were offered at the end of the experiment.
Independent Variable (IV1): the picture displayed while the story was heard
Independent Variable (IV2): no picture displayed while the story was heard
Dependent Variable (DV): number of correct responses to the comprehension test (out of 7)
Participants
The target population consisted of high school students of both genders, from various
cultural backgrounds, all speaking English. The Information Literacy class of seventeen
participants, nine girls and eight boys, ages fifteen to sixteen, was chosen by opportunity
sample because of minimal availability of classes during the researcher’s Psychology period.
To separate participants into groups one and two, participants were asked to select a paper,
labeled one or two, randomly from a container.
3
Materials

Student and Parent Consent Forms (Appendices I and II)

Script of Procedure (Appendix III)

Projector, screen, and audio system

Pre-Recorded Audio Test (Appendix IV)

Displayed Picture (Appendix VI)

Pre-Recorded Story (Appendix V)

Stop-watch

Questionnaire (Appendix VII)
Procedures
1. Participants were briefed on the aims of the study and were asked to sign a
consent form (Appendix I) and, if necessary, have a parental consent form
(Appendix II) signed.
2. Participants were divided into two random, equal groups. Group two left the room
to stand outside with two researchers.
3. Participants in group one were given a sheet of questions (Appendix VII) upside
down on their desk.
4. They were then shown a picture (Appendix VI) and played the pre-recorded story
(Appendix V). Once the story finished, the projector was shut off and group one
was asked to turn over the question sheet and answer the five questions in three
minutes.
5. Members of group one left the classroom and group two entered the classroom.
6. Group two was given the same question sheet upside down on their desks.
7. They were played the pre-recorded story without the picture shown. When the
recording finished, they were given three minutes to answer the question sheet.
8.
Group one was brought back into the classroom and the participants debriefed of
the experiment.
4
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The data collected is in the interval level of measurement (Appendix VIII);
therefore, the appropriate measures of central tendency and dispersion are the mean and
standard deviation (Appendix IX). Table I and Figure I show that group one answered
more questions correctly than group two on the comprehension questionnaire.
Table I: Mean and standard deviation of correct answers to the comprehension test.
Group 1: Seeing the picture with the
story (IV1)
Group 2: Only hearing the story (IV2)
Mean
Standard Deviation
5.50
1.46
3.63
1.69
Figure I: Graph depicting means of correct answers to the comprehension test.
5
As Table I and Figure I show, group one scored 5.50 answers correctly while group two
scored 3.63, resulting in a 1.87 difference in marks. The standard deviation for group one was
1.46 while group two was 1.69, suggesting there were more correct answers dispersed around
the mean in group two.
Inferential Statistics
An independent samples design was used to collect interval data. The constraints of the
population were unknown, therefore data was converted to ordinal level through ranking
(Appendix X) and the Mann Whitney U test was applied (Appendix XI) to test probability that
data was influenced by chance. The U-value observed (14.5), was below the critical U-value
(18) on a one-tailed test (Appendix XI). This eliminates the probability of in the data of groups
one and two. This means the null hypothesis can be rejected and the experimental hypothesis
can be accepted since the p value was less than 0.05.
6
Discussion
The research hypothesis of the experiment was retained since group one, after
seeing the picture and hearing the story, answered 5.50 questions correctly, while group
two answered 3.63 correctly after only hearing the story. These results are consistent
when compared with the original study done by Bransford and Johnson (1972) where the
results stated that the context group answered 3.8 questions correctly, out of seven,
opposed to the participants in the no context group, answering 2.3 questions correctly.
Therefore, the difference between group one and group two can be used to support the
idea that, since the results were consistent, the study by Bransford and Johnson (1972)
can be easily replicated increasing validity with every further replication yielding the
same results.
Although the data was similar to the original study, Bransford and Johnson (1972)
found a higher amount of correct answers in the context group (6.1 out of 7) than the
replication context group (5.5 out of 7). Despite this fact, the Mann Whitney U test value
of 14.5 was less than the critical value of 18, showing that chance did not play a role in
the outcome of the collated data of the replicated experiment, allowing the rejection of
the null hypothesis.
In the replication of this study, the controlled variables allowed for reliable
results, since constant conditions isolated the independent variable, seeing the picture or
not while hearing the story. The dependent variable, correct answers, was measured by
the same questionnaire (Appendix VII) for both groups to allow assessment of interval
data. Differences in intonation of the human voice were eradicated by recording the
passage (Appendix V) to play for both groups. By doing so, the independent variable, the
projection of the picture (Appendix VI), could be analyzed as context affecting
comprehension of the story. To prevent interaction between participants and thus
eliminate any chance of changed subject expectation, the entrances and exits of both
groups were choreographed such that the groups never passed. Ethical guidelines were
closely followed in this replication. Informed consent from students, and parents if
necessary, was collected before the experiment started and participants were notified of
their confidentiality and right to withdraw at any time.
7
Some variables were unable to be controlled, however. The use of an opportunity
sample, in general, limited the control of age and gender bias, shown in the class tested of
students aged only fifteen and sixteen. However, the class was evenly distributed in
gender with nine girls and eight boys. The possible ability of generalization of the results
is not as strong because of the limitation of ages. Another methodological criticism of the
replication is the ecological validity of the study. The passage presented to the
participants was not representative towards a real life situation. The use of a nonsensical
passage reduces the ecological validity, and therefore the applicability of the results.
To modify this experiment, a passage more applicable to real life situations would
increase ecological validity and the applicability of results. To increase ecological
validity further, the test of comprehension may be instead, a semi-structured interview.
This would allow observations to be made as to how confident a subject is feeling about
the content of the passage, and therefore the extent of their comprehension. To eliminate
researcher bias or confirmation bias, multiple-choice questions could be used. However,
comprehension is best tested with free answers as they test free recall and do not trigger
memory of the story itself.
The experiment investigated the extent to which context plays a role in
comprehension, which could be applied to classroom situations and educating methods in
order to enhance the ability to recall and comprehend information by students. Further
research could investigate the extent to which context during lectures helps students learn
new information.
This replication of a study conducted by Bransford and Johnson (1972) was
extremely successful as the results were consistent. The similar findings yielded by the
replication of the study provide further support and validity for Bransford and Johnson
(1972), schema theory, and other studies investigating the role of schema (Bartlett, 1932 ;
Brewer and Treyens, 1981). It can be concluded from the replication of this study and
others, contextual information, schema, plays a role in comprehension of new
information.
8
References
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding:
Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places.
Cognitive Psychology, 13, 207-230.
Cohen, J. O. (1993) Psyscope: A new graphic interacting environment for designing
psychology experiments. Behav Res Meth Instr Comput 1993; 25: 257–71
Crane, J. & Hannibal (2009). Psychology, course companion. (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press, USA.
9
Appendices
Appendix I—Student Consent Form
August 24, 2012
Student Consent Form
Our names are Alyssa San Jose, Lotta Toppari, Astrid Crowley, and Nora Hartel from
Ms. Beetson’s IB HL2 Psychology class. For our IB Internal Assessment, we are required
to carry out a replication of a already published study that is approved by Ms. Beetson.
You should not feel uncomfortable in taking part of this experiment and you have the
right to withdraw at any point of the experiment. However, we do not anticipate any
partcipants leaving the experiment because there are no complex or stressful components
involved in our procedure. The results from this study will remain confidental and
anonymous. The overall average of the class will be recorded and the results will be
shared with the class during the debriefing, where the aims and procedures will also be
revealed.
I, ___________________________, agree to take part in this psychology experiment.
If you have any questions, please ask before the experiment starts.
Signature:
Date:
______________________________
___________________
10
Appendix II—Parent Consent Form
August 24, 2012
Parent Consent Form
Our names are Alyssa San Jose, Lotta Toppari, Astrid Crowley, and Nora Hartel from
Ms. Beetson’s IB HL2 Psychology class. For our IB Internal Assessment, we are required
to carry out a replication of a already published study that is approved by Ms. Beetson.
We would appreciate if your child is able to participate in this experiment.
We have chosen a study that aims to investigate the effect of context on memory by
testing comprehension and recalling of a story. The student will be required to listen to a
recording and answer five questions.
Your child should not feel uncomfortable in taking part of this experiment and (s)he has
the right to withdraw at any point of the experiment. However, we do not anticipate any
partcipants leaving the experiment because there are no complex or stressful components
involved in our procedure. The results from this study will remain confidental and
anonymous. The overall average of the class will be recorded and the results will be
shared with the class during the debriefing, where the aims and procedures will also be
revealed.
As your son/daughter is under sixteen, parental consent is required to be obtained for the
participation in this experiment.
If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail us at any of these e-mail addresses:
SanJoseA@ismanila.org, HartelN@ismanila.org, ToppariL@ismanila.org,
CrowleyA@ismanila.org.
I, _________________________ , give permission to my (son)/(daughter)
_________________________ to participate in the experiment explained above.
Signature:
Date:
______________________________
___________________
11
Appendix III—Script of Procedure
PRE VISIT
Aly: Hello, I am Alyssa; this is Nora, Lotta, and Astrid. We are all part of the IB Higher
Level 2 Psychology class. Next week we will be conducting an experiment on your
Information Literacy class involving a replication of a published study.
(While this is being said, Student Consent Forms will be handed out by Nora)
Astrid: Please take a moment to read the form thoroughly and sign your name in the
space below if you wish to proceed with the experiment. Raise your hand when you are
finished and we will collect the forms.
Lotta: If you are under the age of sixteen, please raise your hand so we can hand you a
parental consent form. (Aly will hand forms to anyone under sixteen) Please have this
signed and returned to your teacher by your next F block class on Tuesday.
Nora: Thank you for your time. We appreciate your consent to participate in our
experiment. However, we must ask that you do not talk to any other students about this
experiment outside of class as it may affect findings of other experimental groups.
(After this is done, ask Ms Tan how many students are in the class)
BRIEF OF THE EXPERIMENT
Aly: Today we will be conducting the experiment for our IB Higher Level Psychology
Internal Assessment. The aim of the study is to test the comprehension of a story that we
have recorded and will play back to you.
Astrid: Please take a piece of paper out of the container and remain silent. (Lotta walks
around with the container) The participants that have pulled a one, please raise your hand
to identify yourselves now.
Lotta: All participants who have pulled a number two, please stand up and follow Astrid
and me outside into the library. Please remain silent for this portion of the experiment as
communication with others may affect our results. (Group two leaves the room to the
library).
12
GROUP ONE
Nora: Aly will now hand out a sheet of paper. Please keep it facedown on your desk until
further notice. (Aly hands out sheets of paper) A test recording will now be played. (Play
test recording, depending on the students, the volume may be adjusted)
Aly: Now we will turn on the projector and start the experiment. Please do not
communicate with anyone throughout the duration of the experiment. (Picture will come
on, play the recording)
Nora: You have three minutes to answer these questions. You may now turn over the
sheet of paper on your desk. (Aly starts and stops the time and Nora collects the papers)
Aly: Thank you for your participation, you will now be led outside. Please remain silent
until we are in the hallway. (Aly leads students into the hallway and Nora gets the other
group from the library into the classroom. Astrid and Lotta will join the hallway group in
front of the HSMC and Aly will go back to the classroom.)
GROUP TWO
Nora: Aly will now hand out a sheet of paper. Please keep it facedown on your desk until
further notice. (Aly hands out sheets of paper) A test recording will now be played. (Play
test recording, depending on the students, the volume may be adjusted)
Aly: Now we will start the experiment. Please do not communicate with anyone
throughout the duration of the experiment. (Play the recording)
Nora: You have three minutes to answer these questions. You may now turn over the
sheet of paper on your desk. (Aly starts and stops the time and Nora collects the papers)
Aly: Thank you for your participation. Please wait for Nora to get the remaining students
from the hallway. (Everyone will return to the classroom.)
13
DEBRIEF OF THE EXPERIMENT
Astrid: Thank you for your participation in our Internal Assessment. The aim of this
experiment was to test the comprehension of a story when provided with a visual image
to accompany a story versus only hearing the story.
Lotta: In group one we projected this image (Aly puts picture onto the projector) and
played the recording you have all heard. In group two, the picture was not displayed.
Astrid: Our hypothesis was that the group without the picture would have a harder time
recalling the story, and therefore would answer fewer questions correctly.
Lotta: Could I please have a show of hands how many people are interested in the results
of our experiment? (If majority is interested continue to RESULTS 1, if not, go to
RESULTS 2. As this is being said, Nora will write our emails on the board.) We will now
calculate the findings for each group and come back at the end of the lesson to present
our results, or if we do not have time, our emails are listed on the board and you may
contact any of us to ask about the results of the experiment.
RESULTS 1 (Majority—at the end of class)
Lotta: We have now calculated the results for our experiment. The group with the most
correct answers was Group ____.
Aly: This supported/did not support our hypothesis that the group with the picture would
comprehend the story better and therefore have more correct answers.
RESULTS 2 (Minority--At the end of experiment)
Lotta: We will be calculating the findings for each group and our e-mails are listed on the
board. If you would like to know the conclusion of our experiment, please feel free to email any of us with your inquiry.
CONCLUSION
Astrid: Thank you for again for your participation in our experiment. Please remember
not to talk about the experiment to other students as this could affect the findings of
Psychology students.
14
Appendix IV—Pre-recorded Audio Test
“Hello. This is a test recording. If you are unable to understand what I am saying please
raise your hand and notify one of the experimenters now.”
15
Appendix V—Pre-recorded Story
“If the balloons popped, the sound wouldn't be able to carry since everything would be
too far away from the correct floor. A closed window would also prevent the sound from
carrying, since most buildings tend to be well insulated. Since the whole operation
depends on a steady flow of electricity, a break in the middle of the wire would also
cause problems. Of course, the fellow could shout, but the human voices are not loud
enough to carry that far. An additional problem is that a string could break on the
instrument. Then there could be no accompaniment to the message. It is clear that the
best situation would involve less distance. Then there would be fewer potential problems.
With face to face contact, the least number of things could go wrong.”
(Nishibayashi 2006, pp.51-52 from Bransford & Johnson, 1972)
16
Appendix VI—Picture
17
Appendix VII—Questionnaire
HL Psychology Internal Assessment—Questionnaire
Alyssa San Jose, Nora Hartel, Astrid Crowley, Lotta Toppari (2012)
1. Why would the fellow not be able to shout? (1 point)
2. What could be a problem with the instrument? (1 point)
3. What would the best situation involve? (1 point)
4. List three potential problems about the situation: (3 points)
5. Provide a one-sentence description of the situation: (1 point)
18
Appendix VIII—Raw Data
IV1 Picture
IV2 Control
(Questions answered
(Questions answered
correctly)
correctly)
7
1
6
2
5
4
3
3
4
5
7
3
4.5
5
7
6
6
19
Appendix IX—Descriptive Statistics
IV1 Picture
Average/Mean (Questions
IV2 Control
5.50
3.63
1.46
1.69
9
8
answered correctly)
Standard Deviation
Population (N)
(of participants)
Calculations
IV1 (Picture) Participants
Mean
Range
7  6  5  3  4  7  4.5  7  6
 5.50
9
734


7  6  5  3  4  7  4.5  7  6 

*100  78.6%


9

7
Percentage
IV2 (Control) Participants

Mean
Range

1 2  4  3  5  3  5  6
 3.63
8
6 1  5
1 2  4  3  5  3  5  6 
*100  51.8%


8 7
Percentage 

20

Appendix X—Inferential Statistics
IV1
Place
Picture
Order
IV2 Control
Place Order
3
4
1
1
4
6.5
2
2
4.5
8
3
4
5
10
3
4
6
13
4
6.5
6
13
5
10
7
16
5
10
7
16
6
13
7
16
t-Value
(total of place
orders)
50.5
Finding U value
(N1 (N1 1)
t
2
(8(8 1)
U 89
 50.5
2
U  57.5
U  N1N 2 
Finding U’ value


U'  N1N 2  U
U'  8  9  57.5
U'  14.5
21
Appendix XI—Mann Whitney U Test
22