Chapter 6: Learning and memory
MEMORY PROCESSES
Ask Yourself
- Is it easier to remember a word if you think about what it means or if you count the number of letters in it?
- Would it be easier to learn a list of similar words or different ones?
- Is the memory of a beautiful view just a record of the process of analysis that occurred when you first saw it?
What You Need To Know
| 1. MEMORY PROCESSES (E&K p. 205) |
| 2. LEVELS-OF-PROCESSING THEORY (E&K p. 206) |
|
| 3. LEVELS-OF-PROCESSING —UPDATE (E&K p. 210) |
MEMORY PROCESSES
- We can look at the effects of learning processes on long-term memory using several methods.
- Hyde and Jenkins (1973; see E&K p. 206) used a type of approach that involves presenting several groups of participants with the same list of nouns and asking each group to perform a different activity with the list, e.g., counting letters or describing words.
- The participants are not told that there will be a memory test (incidental learning).
- Retention was found to be 51% higher after semantic tasks.
- Incidental learners recall as well as intentional learners, which suggests that it is the nature of processing that determines recall.
LEVELS OF PROCESSING THEORY
- Craik and Lockhart (1972) proposed a framework of various levels of processing of a stimulus.
- The key theoretical assumptions were:
- The level or depth of processing of a stimulus has a large effect on its memorability.
- Deeper analysis produces more elaborate, longer lasting and stronger memory traces.
- Findings of Hyde and Jenkins (1973) and others accord with these assumptions.
- Maintenance rehearsal involves repeating previous analyses whereas elaborative rehearsal involves deeper or more semantic analysis.
- The theory says that only elaborative rehearsal improves long-term memory.
- This view contrasts with Atkinson and Shiffrin's (1968) theory.
- Glenberg et al. (1977) showed that maintenance rehearsal also increases long-term memory but not as much.
Elaboration
- Craik and Tulving (1975; see E&K p. 207) argued that elaboration (the amount of processing of a particular kind) is important.
- Bransford et al. (1979; see E&K p. 207) showed that long-term memory depends on the kind of elaboration as well as the amount.
Distinctiveness
- Eysenck (1979) argued that distinctive memory traces will be more readily retrieved.
- Eysenck and Eysenck (1980; see E&K p. 207) tested this and found that words in a non-semantic, distinctive condition were better recognised than non-semantic, non-distinctive words, and almost as well as semantic words.
- According to Craik and Lockhart (1972), memory traces can be regarded as records of analyses carried out during perception.
- Therefore brain areas involved in perception should be re-activated when memory is tested.
- Nyberg (2002) reviews brain-imaging studies which support this.
Evaluation
- Craik (2002) "Perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Craik and Lockhart (1972) paper is the greater emphasis on memory as processing in current theories".
ACTIVE REFERENCE LINK: Craik, F.I.M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present ... and future? Memory, 10, 305–318. [Link to http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&eissn=1464-0686&volume=10&issue=5&spage=305]
- See also evidence from Watkins, 2002.
ACTIVE REFERENCE LINK: Watkins, M. (2002). Limits and province of levels of processing: Considerations of a construct. Memory, 10, 339–343. [Link to http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/openurl.asp?genre=article&eissn=1464-0686&volume=10&issue=5&spage=339]
- It is hard to decide the level of processing being used by learners due to the lack of an independent measure of processing depth.
- Gabrieli et al. (1996) used fMRI to identify the brain regions involved in different kinds of processing and found greater activation in the left inferior prefrontal cortex for semantic than for perceptual encoding.
- The levels of processing approach fails to account for some findings
- e.g., Roediger and Gallo (2002) state that the theory does not explain why there is no difference between intentional and incidental learning.
- Morris et al. (1977) argued that stored information is only remembered if it is of relevance to the memory test (see E&K p. 209). They support a transfer-appropriate processing theory where different kinds of processing lead learners to acquire different kinds of information about a stimulus.
- Challis and Brodbeck (1992) found only a small levels-of-processing effect with implicit learning.
- Finally, the levels-of-processing approach describes, rather than explains.
INTERACTIVE EXERCISE: Levels of processing
To view this feature you will need the Macromedia Flash plug-in. You can download this free from the Macromedia Download website.
LEVELS OF PROCESSING—UPDATE
- Lockhart and Craik (1990) updated the theory in three main ways:
- They accepted the notion of transfer-appropriate processing.
- They accepted that their previous theoretical assumption that shallow processing always led to rapid forgetting was not correct.
- They accepted that their previous conclusion that processing of stimuli always proceeds from shallow sensory levels to deep semantic levels was inadequate and needed to take account of the complex interactions between top-down and bottom-up processes.
- Craik (2002) argued that deep processing is necessary but not sufficient and that good long-term processing involves both deep processing and a process of consolidation.
- Amnesic patients typically show almost intact deep or semantic processing, but their long-term memory is often very poor.
So What Does This Mean?
Craik and Lockhart (1972) focused on learning processes in their levels-of-processing theory. They (and their followers) identified depth of processing (i.e., the extent to which meaning is processed), elaboration of processing, and distinctiveness of processing as key determinants of long-term memory.
Insufficient attention was paid to the relationship between the processes at learning and those at the time of test. Other problems are that the theory is not explanatory, that it is hard to assess the depth of processing, and that shallow processing can lead to very good long-term memory.
