VIII.  Human Learning & Memory

    A.  Craik & Lockhart: Levels of Processing Theory

        1.  Claim:  A Deeper Level of Processing Creates A Slower Decaying Memory

            a.  There Are Hundreds of Levels Ranging From Shallow (Perceptual) to Deep (Semantic)

            b.  Processing At A Level Creates A Memory That Decays At A Specific Rate

            c.  Rehearsal Doesn't Help If It Just Keeps Information Active At The Sound Level

        2.  Characteristics Of A Levels Experiment

            a.  Incidental Learning (To Prevent People From Choosing Their Own Level)

            b.  Orienting Task (Instruction To Get People To Process At A Certain Level

            c.  Surprise Memory Test (To See What They Remember)

        3.  Supporting Results

            a.  Hyde & Jenkins

            b.  Craik & Tulving

            c.  Phoneme Monitoring Task:  Craik & Watkins

        4.  Some Problems

            a.  Why The Difference Between Yes and No Words in Craik & Tulving?

            b.  Why Should Deeper Levels Cause Slower Decay?

            c.  Things At The Same Level Are Forgotten At Different Rates And Not The Same Rate (see below)

        5.  Recommendation:  Process To Deep (Meaningful) Levels 

    B.  Alternative 1: Eysenck's Distinctiveness Theory

<>        1.  Claim:  Deeper Levels of Processing Create More Distinct Memories

<>

            a.  Success Of Remembering Depends On Interference, Not Decay

            b.  Shallower Levels Involve Items That Are More Similar, Causing More Interference

            c.  Within A Level, More Distinct Items Should Be Remembered Better Than More Similar Items (See Point A.4.c above)

        2.  Supporting Results

            a.  McLaughlin:  Changing Serial Position Effect

            b.  Eysenck & Eysenck:  Distinct Pronounciations

            c.  Hunt & Elliott:  Orthographic Distinctiveness

        3.  Recommendation:  Make Things Distinct!  (Same Advice From Mowrer & Jones; Lieberman; Kamin; etc.)

    C.  Alternative 2: Elaboaration Theory (Stein & Bransford; Anderson & Reder)

       1.  Claim:  A Deeper Level of Processing Creates A More Elaborated Memory

<>             a.  Success Of Remembering Depends On Number Of Retrieval Cues And Paths, Not Decay

            b.  Shallower Levels Have Less Elaboration, So Fewer Retrieval Cues/Paths

            c.  Within A Level, More Elaborated Items Should Be Remembered Better Than Less Elaborated Items (See Point A.4.c above)

        2.  Supporting Results

            a.  Craik & Tulving:  Complex and Simple Sentence Frames

            b.  Stein & Bransford:  Precise versus Imprecise Elaborations

            c.  Maintenance versus Elaborative Rehearsals

        3.  Recommendation:  Make Things More Precisely Elaborate! 

    C.  Alternative 3: Tulving's Principle of Encoding Specificity

       1.  Claim:  Memory Tests Contain Retrieval Cues That Are More Likely To Match Deeper Level Stuff

            a.   Memories Formed in the Context of Encoding Include Event and Context Information

            b.  When Context of Encoding and Context of Retrieval Are Similar, Context Cues Help Activate The Original Memory

            c.  Memory Tests Usually Include Semantic (Deep) Cues So They Do A Better Job Of Activating Deep Level Memories

            d.  If Our Memory Test Contains Shallow-Level Cues, Then We Ought To Be Able To Reverse The Levels Effect

        2.  Supporting Results

            a.  Morris, Bransford, & Franks

            b.  Godden & Baddeley's Diver Experiment

            c.  Smith's Contextual Reinstatement

        3.  Recommendation:  Use Retrieval Cues Relevant To Encoding; Reinstate Context!