LEVELS OF PROCESSING
Another alternative to the continuing development of structural models has been to emphasize the importance of processing in memory, rather than structure and capacity. Craik and Lockhart (1972; Craik, 2002) argued that how well we remember depends on how we process information. They described different levels of processing, from ‘superficial’ levels that deal only with the physical properties of what is to be remembered, through ‘deeper’ processes involving phonological properties, down to yet deeper processes that involve semantic processing of the material (i.e. perhaps involving elaboration of the material). So, for example, if we see the word ‘SHEEP’, we might simply process it shallowly by noting that it is written in upper case. On the other hand, we might process it phonologically by registering that its sound rhymes with ‘leap’ and ‘deep’. Alternatively, we could think about the meaning of the word: ‘sheep’ refers to domesticated, woolly, grazing animals. Further semantic processing – elaboration bas d on the meaning of the word – is deeper processing, and should lead to better memory (for example, we might think about the grazing of sheep, the uses of sheep – for example, in providing food and material for clothing – and the large number of sheep in some parts of the world, such as Australia and New Zealand). Demonstrating the power of this approach, Craik and Tulving (1975) showed that the probability of the same word being recognized in a memory experiment varies from 20 per cent to 70 per cent, depending on the type of processing that is carried out on the word. When the initial processing involves only decisions about the case in which the word is printed, correct recognition occurs at the 20 per cent level. Performance is better following the rhyming (i.e. phonological) decisions, and far better (almost 70 per cent correct recognition) when processing involves decisions about whether the word fits meaningfully into a given sentence. Although many studies support the model, the details of the original ‘levels of processing’ model have been criticized (e.g. Baddeley, 1978). For example, it has been argued that a level of processing cannot be identified independently of the memory performance that it produces (in other words, it has been suggested that the definition of what constitutes ‘deep’ and ‘shallow’ processing is circular). More recently, though, Craik (2002) has pointed to physiological and neurological methods that may provide an independent measure of depth. Thoughtful discussion about the viability of the model continues. Wherever it leads, it is clear that a ‘levels of processing’ approach draws attention to important memory-related issues including the type of processing, elaboration of materials, and the appropriateness of this processing (in terms of ‘transfer’ to the later task). A key message from this research is that what we remember depends on what we ourselves do when we encounter a thing or an event, as well as the properties of the thing or event itself.
Another alternative to the continuing development of structural models has been to emphasize the importance of processing in memory, rather than structure and capacity. Craik and Lockhart (1972; Craik, 2002) argued that how well we remember depends on how we process information. They described different levels of processing, from ‘superficial’ levels that deal only with the physical properties of what is to be remembered, through ‘deeper’ processes involving phonological properties, down to yet deeper processes that involve semantic processing of the material (i.e. perhaps involving elaboration of the material). So, for example, if we see the word ‘SHEEP’, we might simply process it shallowly by noting that it is written in upper case. On the other hand, we might process it phonologically by registering that its sound rhymes with ‘leap’ and ‘deep’. Alternatively, we could think about the meaning of the word: ‘sheep’ refers to domesticated, woolly, grazing animals. Further semantic processing – elaboration bas d on the meaning of the word – is deeper processing, and should lead to better memory (for example, we might think about the grazing of sheep, the uses of sheep – for example, in providing food and material for clothing – and the large number of sheep in some parts of the world, such as Australia and New Zealand). Demonstrating the power of this approach, Craik and Tulving (1975) showed that the probability of the same word being recognized in a memory experiment varies from 20 per cent to 70 per cent, depending on the type of processing that is carried out on the word. When the initial processing involves only decisions about the case in which the word is printed, correct recognition occurs at the 20 per cent level. Performance is better following the rhyming (i.e. phonological) decisions, and far better (almost 70 per cent correct recognition) when processing involves decisions about whether the word fits meaningfully into a given sentence. Although many studies support the model, the details of the original ‘levels of processing’ model have been criticized (e.g. Baddeley, 1978). For example, it has been argued that a level of processing cannot be identified independently of the memory performance that it produces (in other words, it has been suggested that the definition of what constitutes ‘deep’ and ‘shallow’ processing is circular). More recently, though, Craik (2002) has pointed to physiological and neurological methods that may provide an independent measure of depth. Thoughtful discussion about the viability of the model continues. Wherever it leads, it is clear that a ‘levels of processing’ approach draws attention to important memory-related issues including the type of processing, elaboration of materials, and the appropriateness of this processing (in terms of ‘transfer’ to the later task). A key message from this research is that what we remember depends on what we ourselves do when we encounter a thing or an event, as well as the properties of the thing or event itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment