THE EFFECTS OF PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE
Schemas – what we already know Bartlett (1932) asked English participants to read and then recall a Native American folk tale, The War of the Ghosts, which came from a culture that was very different from their own. When they attempted to recall the story, their reports were obviously based on the original tale, but they had added, dropped and changed information to produce stories that seemed more sensible to them – what Bartlett termed an ‘effort after meaning’. Bartlett proposed that we possess schemata (or schemas), which he described as active organizations of past experiences. These schemas help people to make sense of familiar situations, guiding expectations and providing a framework within which new information is processed. For example, we might possess a schema for a ‘typical’ day at work or at school. People seemingly have trouble understanding things if they cannot draw upon memory, or schemas, for previously acquired knowledge. This point was nicely illustrated in a study by Bransford and Johnso (1972). They gave participants a passage to remember, which began as follows: The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange items into different groups. Of course one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next step; otherwise you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. . . . (p. 722). Recalling the passage proved difficult, even if a title was given after the passage had been read. Bransford and Johnson (1972) found that it was only when the title (‘Washing Clothes’) was given in advance that recall was improved. The title explained what the passage was about, cued a familiar schema and helped people to make sense of the statements. With the title provided first, the passage became meaningful and recall performance doubled. So it seems that memory aids understanding; and understanding aids memory. It is possible to remem er without understanding, though – especially with extra aids, such as having the information presented for verification. Alba, Alexander, Hasher and Caniglia (1981) demonstrated that, although recall of the ‘Washing Clothes’ passage was much improved when the title was known in advance, recognition of sentences from the passage was equivalent, with or without the title. Alba and colleagues concluded that the title allowed the participants to integrate the sentences into a more cohesive unit, but that it affected only the associations among the sentences, not the encoding of the sentences themselves (which is why recognition performance was apparently preserved). The research with the ‘Washing Clothes’ passage illustrates how our previous knowledge helps us to remember. Bower, Clark, Lesgold and Winzenz (1969) provided another demonstration. They asked participants to learn sets of words that were presented either as a random filled hierarchical chart or in a wellorganized one.
Bower and his colleagues found that presenting the words in meaningful hierarchies reduced the learning time to a quarter of that required for the same words when they were randomly positioned in the hierarchy. The organization of the hierarchy apparently emphasized aspects of the words’ meanings, which appeared not only to simplify the learning of the lists but also to provide a framework within which the participants could structure their recall.
[Sir Frederick C. Bartlett (1886–1969) was one of Britain’s greatest psychologists. Although he began his research using Ebbinghaus’s methods and materials, he was dissatisfied with the limits of simple artificial materials and turned his attention to how people recall stories and pictures. His studies remained experimental and carefully controlled, but he began to use materials ‘of the type which every normal individual deals with’ (1932, p. v). Whereas Ebbinghaus tried to limit the effects of meaning and studied the effect of other variables on memory, Bartlett’s emphasis was on the role of meaning and social influences upon remembering. Even today, his work is often cited and is the basis of much contemporary research.]
Schemas – what we already know Bartlett (1932) asked English participants to read and then recall a Native American folk tale, The War of the Ghosts, which came from a culture that was very different from their own. When they attempted to recall the story, their reports were obviously based on the original tale, but they had added, dropped and changed information to produce stories that seemed more sensible to them – what Bartlett termed an ‘effort after meaning’. Bartlett proposed that we possess schemata (or schemas), which he described as active organizations of past experiences. These schemas help people to make sense of familiar situations, guiding expectations and providing a framework within which new information is processed. For example, we might possess a schema for a ‘typical’ day at work or at school. People seemingly have trouble understanding things if they cannot draw upon memory, or schemas, for previously acquired knowledge. This point was nicely illustrated in a study by Bransford and Johnso (1972). They gave participants a passage to remember, which began as follows: The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange items into different groups. Of course one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next step; otherwise you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. . . . (p. 722). Recalling the passage proved difficult, even if a title was given after the passage had been read. Bransford and Johnson (1972) found that it was only when the title (‘Washing Clothes’) was given in advance that recall was improved. The title explained what the passage was about, cued a familiar schema and helped people to make sense of the statements. With the title provided first, the passage became meaningful and recall performance doubled. So it seems that memory aids understanding; and understanding aids memory. It is possible to remem er without understanding, though – especially with extra aids, such as having the information presented for verification. Alba, Alexander, Hasher and Caniglia (1981) demonstrated that, although recall of the ‘Washing Clothes’ passage was much improved when the title was known in advance, recognition of sentences from the passage was equivalent, with or without the title. Alba and colleagues concluded that the title allowed the participants to integrate the sentences into a more cohesive unit, but that it affected only the associations among the sentences, not the encoding of the sentences themselves (which is why recognition performance was apparently preserved). The research with the ‘Washing Clothes’ passage illustrates how our previous knowledge helps us to remember. Bower, Clark, Lesgold and Winzenz (1969) provided another demonstration. They asked participants to learn sets of words that were presented either as a random filled hierarchical chart or in a wellorganized one.
Bower and his colleagues found that presenting the words in meaningful hierarchies reduced the learning time to a quarter of that required for the same words when they were randomly positioned in the hierarchy. The organization of the hierarchy apparently emphasized aspects of the words’ meanings, which appeared not only to simplify the learning of the lists but also to provide a framework within which the participants could structure their recall.
[Sir Frederick C. Bartlett (1886–1969) was one of Britain’s greatest psychologists. Although he began his research using Ebbinghaus’s methods and materials, he was dissatisfied with the limits of simple artificial materials and turned his attention to how people recall stories and pictures. His studies remained experimental and carefully controlled, but he began to use materials ‘of the type which every normal individual deals with’ (1932, p. v). Whereas Ebbinghaus tried to limit the effects of meaning and studied the effect of other variables on memory, Bartlett’s emphasis was on the role of meaning and social influences upon remembering. Even today, his work is often cited and is the basis of much contemporary research.]
No comments:
Post a Comment