TB3 Lecture 4; Effective learning and memory
- Created by: mint75
- Created on: 06-05-15 15:43
View mindmap
- TB3 Lecture 4; Effective learning and memory
- Law of effect
- States that any behaviour followed by a pleasant stimulus will most likely be repeated in that situation and vice versa.
- Law of exercise
- The more often a given situation is followed by a particular response, the stronger the associative bond between them
- But is this all there is to learning? (Contingency, freuency, reinforcement etc) From a cognitive psychologists POV...no!
- States that any behaviour followed by a pleasant stimulus will most likely be repeated in that situation and vice versa.
- Other research that disproves association ism includes;
- Tulving& Thompson (1973); memory improves if conditions/state of memory reimposed
- Bradshaw& Anderson (1982); Elaboration of targeted material increases recall
- But is this all there is to learning? (Contingency, freuency, reinforcement etc) From a cognitive psychologists POV...no!
- The more often a given situation is followed by a particular response, the stronger the associative bond between them
- Paired association learning
- Experiments use standard paired association learning paradigm, pps must learn particular word pairings
- In terms of SR theory, the first word of the pair is the stimulus and the second is the R
- Bower (1970); Asked pps to try and learn the pairs using three types of learning...
- Results contradicted basic principles of association ism, rote learning (repetition) of the pairs gave the worst recall.
- Interactive imagery (imagine the two words visually interacting) gave the best recall from all the conditions. Suggests the use of relational encoding is key
- Experiments use standard paired association learning paradigm, pps must learn particular word pairings
- Organizational factors in memory
- Mandler& Pearlstone (1966); Had two groups of pps, Free sorting and Constrained sorting. Pps had to choose which category a single word should be put into. Needed to do this the same on 2 sets of 52 trials
- Constrained pps had to match responses of Free group
- Found the Constrained took more time and more rails to complete the experiment. There was no difference in free recall between the two groups
- This shows that the way that information is organised has more of an effect than repetition (rote learning), perhaps reflecting LTM encoding.
- Mandler& Pearlstone (1966); Had two groups of pps, Free sorting and Constrained sorting. Pps had to choose which category a single word should be put into. Needed to do this the same on 2 sets of 52 trials
- Levels of processing
- Craik & Tulving (1975); A reaction time experiment with a perceptual and unannounced memory task. What are the consequences for memory when unannounced?
- Found that meaningful (semantics and categories, deep processing) orienting tasks produced better retention than those that only focused on visual/phonemic features (shallow processing).
- This data suggests that 1) and 2) are important, tying into the organisational view.
- 1) Relational encoding; recovering meaningful relationships between info, linking the targeted concepts together
- 2) Distinctive relations; Using unique and distinctive relations > 'next-to' relations
- This data suggests that 1) and 2) are important, tying into the organisational view.
- Found that meaningful (semantics and categories, deep processing) orienting tasks produced better retention than those that only focused on visual/phonemic features (shallow processing).
- Craik & Tulving (1975); A reaction time experiment with a perceptual and unannounced memory task. What are the consequences for memory when unannounced?
- The testing effect
- Spitzer (1939); Tested 6th grade students using material similar to that learned in class, and given 25 MCQs
- Found that over time, memory decayed. The longer the first test was delayed, the worse forgetting was.
- The mere presence of a test inhibited forgetting and boosted 2nd test performance!
- This study also highlights the importance of 1) repeated testing 2) retrieval for learning, tested in other studies.
- 1) Roediger et al (2006)
- 2) Karpicke& Roediger (2008)
- Had 4 ST conditions, pps studying 40 Swahili English words. There were 2 main findings of this study.
- There was no difference in learning rate or final performance across all conditions
- However, the criical difference was a test one week later. Repeated study led to virtually no improvements, repeated testing NOT studying led to long term recall
- Had 4 ST conditions, pps studying 40 Swahili English words. There were 2 main findings of this study.
- Found that over time, memory decayed. The longer the first test was delayed, the worse forgetting was.
- Spitzer (1939); Tested 6th grade students using material similar to that learned in class, and given 25 MCQs
- Associationism
- Has 3 basic laws, claims that these are what constitute effective learning and memory
- Contingency
- Frequency
- Reinforcement
- But is this all there is to learning? (Contingency, freuency, reinforcement etc) From a cognitive psychologists POV...no!
- Other research that disproves association ism includes;
- Tulving& Thompson (1973); memory improves if conditions/state of memory reimposed
- Bradshaw& Anderson (1982); Elaboration of targeted material increases recall
- Other research that disproves association ism includes;
- Has 3 basic laws, claims that these are what constitute effective learning and memory
- Law of effect
Comments
No comments have yet been made