critically evaluate the claim that deep and meaningful learning always leads to the best long term memory encoding
introduction
we're under the assumption that deep and meaningful learning means elaboration and understanding of the material which leads to the knowledge being used in a flexible maner [ie can be manipulated to be applied to problem solving and other jazz hands]
under the assumption that deep and meaningful learning can happen at the inital stage of developing a memory item - possible evidence to suggest that it can happen throughout the development of that memory item until prroper understanding is maintained, ie rehearsal, practice, testing and restudy
under the assumption that long term memory encoding means everything that is stored about the target information, can be broken down into the features of the memory item, the cues for that item and the mediators between cues and the target
the statement assumes that this is always the best way for learning, suggesting a solely cognitive capacity for memory when bio structures are in play - when those are damaged long term memory encoding is impaired
work developing memory in the lab supports the claim
elaboration
test-retest
some evidence found in field work
emotion adds meaning when witnessing an event
post event discussion - yes and no
evidence from neuropsychology
memory loss studies show that impaired ltm individs learn best when learning implicitly than explicitly - doesnt necessarily mean that theyre not doing meaningful learning
rubin and wallace 1989
baddeley and wilson 1993: amnesiacs did better learning stem completion task when it was errorless [focus on explicit memory as partics were directly told what the answer was] than errorful [focus on implicit memory as partics had to generate answers themselves and correct their mistakes manually] but errorful learning showed less errors that were repeated than errorless.
rossi-arnaud et al 2020: when partics discussed events immediately after they saw them the accuracy scores were down compareed to non post event discussion partics, but when they came back after 1 week and collabed again they gave more accurate info than the sole partics - collabing allows the checking and altering of wrongfully retained encoding
are we under the assumption that deep and meaningful learning doesnt need other factors to facilitate its performance
attention
internal states like motivation affect retention and encoding: seli et al 2016 students who were motivated to learn retained more information about the lecture they just watched than unmotivated or mind wandering students
nissen and bullemer 1987: attending to a single task means that implicit learning can take place, but doing dual task means that implicit learning doesnt happen as easily if at all - individs w korsakoff syndrome could learn implicitly what the pattern of the lights were for the single task condition, but didnt notice when there was a pattern and when it went unlike the healthy controls of the study
implicit learning can be deep and meaningful - just because its unconscious doesnt mean the brain isnt applying it to already known knowledge and making it make sense
total time hypothesis
ebbinghaus 1885: the more time an individ spent on learning info the better the learning
neurpsycho tDCS
boggio et al 2015: alzhiemers patients who got tDCS had improvements to their visual memory recognition performance
jones et al 2014: putting tDCS on the left posterior parietal cortex improves memory encoding for short delay recall but not long term
anderson and pichert 1978: encoding is salient to all pieces of important information, but measure of encoding [retrieval] is context dependent - notice the important. whats judged important is up to the individ, its a faulty system
misleading questions anyone
mcdaniel and masson 1985: transfer appropriate cues for the 1st recall but for the 2nd it was the opposite - performance was best when the encoding cues were different to the 2nd recall cues - only worked when the 1st recall was free recall, not recognition.
pyc and rawson 2010: partics created their own mediating cues to link english cues to swahili words [target items], recall w only the english cue, the cue mediator, cue mediator cue. everyone did better for test restudy than restudy alone. RC: practicing the mediators also improved memory retention, possibly by expanding links w/in the cognitive structure that is the LTM store and therefore improving encoding
testing effect roediger and karpicke 2006: studying throughout, study and test 1/2 and 1/2, study for encoding and test from there - first one best for immediate recall, last one best for ltm retrieval
generation effect metcalf and kornell 2007: mediators you make yourself are better for recall of target info
zaromb and roediger 2010: repeateed testing leads to organising for the info in the store, and reorganising means things are more streamlined - info that fires together wires together
kay 1955: when no feedback is given but repeated restudy and testing is, its still not enough to cancel out mistakes - mistakes ended up being repeated
gurung 2005 study techniques - best predictors for exam marks was self testing
bartlett 1932: ltm is based on meaning, so meaning is needed for the best ltm
bugelski 1970: total time hypothesis from stm [5s, 10s, 20s, 30s of study] - theres an asymptote for useful time compared to amount of material to learn
levels of processing craik and lockhart 1972: shallow processing makes a shallow memory trace which means its easy to decay - deeper processing [processing that involves the already existing cignitive structure that is memory] makes better memory traces that is InTeGrAtEd so hard to forget
fisher and craik 1977: when cued recal context matches the encoding context for words, retrieval is at its best
craik and lockhart 1972: maintenance rehearsal keeps something circulating before the info is used or decayed, elaborate is weaving the info into the ltm structure
spreading activation model collins and loftus 1975: things are learnt in the cognitive web so that closely related things have strong links and unrelateed things have weak links. activation of a target item in the web sends out activation, priming the most the strongly linked and barely touching the weak linked - you are the weakest link goodbye
hub and spoke model patterson et al 2007: processing concepts involves perception, context weaving, and different brain regions - means this whole process is abstract and a loosey goosey
i have passed the point of midnight munchies and now its 3 am highs - high off sleeplessness
pobric et al 2010: putting tms on certain bits of the brian will inhibit different parts of the process - the anterior temporal lobe is the modality independent hub where the non context info sits, so disruption here makes naming anything hard. the inferior parietal lobe is modality specific for action processing, so disruption here makes naming manipulable objects hard
graf et al 1984: amnesiacs performed better when learning was implicit not explicit
shows that amnesiacs can still do deep and meaningul learning even when their explicit memory is buggered cos they implicitly compare their current events to past knowledge, they just canna do it consciously, that part had kinda been lost - since amnesiacs performed worse on boht counts, perhaps conscious deep and meaningful learning is best
perhaps theres more than 1 way for the rbain to perfform deep and meaningful learning - top down vs bottom up elaboration
encoding: the input into memory :D baddeley et al 2017 pg 8
meyer and schvaneveldt 1976 stem completion task
mcnamara 1992 trying to retrieve an assoc memory item 2 'links' away from the target item will be harder than items 1 link away
pickel 1998 suprise effect instead of weapon effect - ppl could v accurately identify an object when it was surprising in a situ but tunnel vision for the object instead of increased awareness of the surroundings
attwood et al 2013: not LTM but more false negatives were made when in an anxiety induced state compared to normal on matching faces
shigemune et al 2010: negative emotion and rewards enhance long term memory - also evidence that the amygdala was involved in encoding negative emotion stim into memory, and the monetary reward condition acitvated the left orbitofrontal cortex and left cerebellum. negative stim was more recognised than neutral
the practice of applying the incoming info to the memory through elaboration is that even though the info would be neutral when perceptually encoded, it would become shaped by individual differences so leaving the ltm to go unchecked would subject the memory further and further to personal opinion rather than objective fact - information will make sense but at what cost
ausubel 1963: info that is taken into a web is put under themes and then in the themes they are only separated by what makes them unique - misapplication of themes and info means that features of the items that arent deemed needed because theyre not special enough or not strictly underneath the theme umbrella are forgotten
animal studies - i have resorted to animal studies. welp she didnt specify that it had to be human memory
fishbein 1971: sleep disruption in rats