Learning

Craik and Tulving (1975)

They found that the greater the depth of processing had been on a word the better people were at correctly recognizing that they had seen it before on the list.

Th elevels of processing effect was observed with intentional learning, incidental learning, recall tests and recognition tests.

Depth of processing

The proposal by Craik and Lockhart that the more deeply an event is processed, the better later episodic memory will be.

Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP):

Proposal that retention is best when the mode of encoding and mode of retrieval are the same.

incidental learning

Learning situation in which the learner is unaware that a test will occur.

Intentional learning

Learning when the learner knows that there will be a test of retention.

Maintenance rehearsal

: A process of rehearsal whereby items are “kept in mind” but not processed more deeply.They are repeated for example, but are kept at the same level of encoding

Elaborative processing hypothesis

Elaborative process: Process whereby items are not simply kept in mind but are processed either more deeply or more elaborately.

Semantic processing creates a more elaborate memory trace – i.e., a trace with more associations. More associations => more routes back to memory at retrieval. • The girl placed the ____ on the table (bowl)

Levels of processing hypothesis

Craik and Lockhart (1972): depth of processing determines how well it will be retained in memory. • Success determined by type of operation performed on stimulus at encoding • Stimuli first processed according to perceptual features (e.g., visually, acoustically), then semantically

what were the 3 orienting tasks in Craik and Tulving

structural (capital letter or nit), semantic , or phonemic( eg rhymes)

Morris, Bransford & Franks (1977)

Transfer appropiate processing

In the study retrieval was higher when the mode on learning was the same as at retrieval (learning rhymes with rhymes , semantic with semantic). There was overall better recall when the words where encoded and retrived semantically

Match between encoding and retrieval

Transfer appropriate processing: – Likelihood of recall affected by match between processes engaged at encoding and processes engaged at retrieval. • Encoding specificity principle (Tulving, 1979): – Retrieval success is determined by the amount of overlap (match) between the cues present at retrieval and the cues present at encoding

Optimal learning conditions: Testing effect

Roediger & Karpicke (2006) Taking a test not only measures memory, it improves it!

mixed desig. Px were tested after 5 minutes, 2 days and 1 wek after inital study session of 2 texts. Initially the study , and restudy group scored higher (better recall. Hoever in the long term those who were tested had significantly better recall

theories of the testing effect

Desirable difficulties (Bjork)

Bjork: retrieval as a “memory modifier”: retrieval changes the representation of information in memory, making future success more likely. • Testing is a desirable difficulty: the more effort needed to retrieve the item, the greater the boost to its memory strength and its accessibility

desirable difficulties studies evidence

Conditions which make learning difficult or effortful lead to better subsequent memory for the learned material – Spacing > massing (e.g., Cull, 2007) – Recall > recognition (Bjork & Whitten, 1974) – Fewer cues at initial test => greater benefit (e.g., Carpenter and deLosh, 2006) – Longer time to retrieve at initial test => greater benefit (Gardiner, Craik, & Bleasdale, 1973)

testing effect pros

Direct benefit: retrieval itself enhances memory – Indirect benefit: e.g., encourage studying; identify what still needs to be learned • Feedback enhances testing effect (e.g., Butler & Roediger, 2008)

summary

Processing operations at encoding can affect how well something is remembered – Levels of processing hypothesis – Elaborative processing hypothesis • Successful recall depends on encoding and retrieval conditions – Transfer appropriate processing • Testing is not just diagnostic, but a powerful learning tool – Much empirical evidence, no consensus as to theoretical explanation

In one experiment, Craik and Tulving asked participants to count the number of vowels in the stimulus word instead of judging whether the word was in upper or lower case.

They wanted to make the structural judgment take as long as the semantic judgment, to test the hypothesis that semantic judgments lead to better recall because participants spend more time on them.

They were testing the "total time hypothesis". By equating the time taken to make the structural judgment with the time taken to make the semantic judgment, they could test the hypothesis that the reason semantic processing appears to yield higher recall is simply because participants spend more time thinking about each stimulus item. They found no evidence that this was the case: Semantic judgments still led to higher recall than structural judgments.

Turner and Engle's Operation Span with words (OSPAN) task requires participants to

Remember words while performing arithmetic calculations

In the OSPAN task, participants have to read aloud arithmetic calcuations, e.g., IS (2 X 3) + 1 = 7?, then verify them (i.e., say "Yes" or "No") and read aloud the word that follows the calculation, e.g., CLOCK. After a series of these (which might range from 2 to 9 or more), they are required to recall the words in the correct order. This is used as a measure of working memory capacity, which can then be correlated with other measures, e.g. intelligence or ability to resist interference.

Ebbinghaus

The independent variable (IV) is the thing that is manipulated by the experimenter. It always has at least two different variants (called "levels"). In this case, the IV is the delay between study and test - sometimes it was as short as 20 minutes, other times it could be 2 or even 30 days. By comparing the results of his self-testing between different time delays, Ebbinghaus was able to explore the effect of short versus long delays between study and test.

The nonsense syllables were his stimuli.

The number of words recalled in each list, and the length of time taken to recall the list, are not factors over which the experimenter has control. They are outcome measures, also known as dependent variables (DVs).