Week 5 – Reflections
1. How can I summarize this reading in a few sentences?
This chapter moved from working memory to long-term memory. New ideas, concepts, etc… are more likely to stay in the long-term memory if it has been processed in a deep meaningful way or if it can be related to yourself. Pleasant memories are remembered more accurately and quickly. When we go to retrieve long-term memory, we will have better luck if it is done implicitly rather than explicitly. This was also true for amnesia patients. In the previous mentioned items are quantity-oriented approaches to memory. Autobiographical memory deals with the quality. Flashbulb memory is what you remember in association to an emotional or surprising event. In memory schemas we tend to bring our past and present together. Source monitoring is trying to figure out where the memory came from. Finally there are a lot of things that influence eye witness testimony, making it not as reliable.
2. How does it fit into what I have learned already in this course?
This chapter answered a lot of my questions on the last chapter. Working memory isn’t necessarily increased; it just gets moved into the long-term memory. It brought up ecological validity from chapter 1 and proactive interference & memory expertise from chapter 4. It also talked about how the research done in chapter 4 was explicit memory tests.
3. What am I still not clear on?
This chapter was the easiest so far for me to understand, so I think I understand everything. One thing that I wondered though, do these processes work for special education students also?
4. How would apply this to my own teaching/work?
Some thoughts that went through my head as I was reading the chapter is to try to get the students to relate the subject matter to themselves, and try to associate the subject matter with pleasant items.
5. What proof does the author offer that makes me believe this is valid? Do I believe it? Why?
I had some a question about the validity in one section. When the authors were talking about “more accurate recall for neutral stimuli associated with pleasant stimuli” why was the study only done on undergraduate students? Would the data still be the same if the study had been done on younger children or older adults?
Although, I was impressed with their research about implicit memory and amnesia patients. That was pretty convincing evidence. It made me think of the research that has been done on coma patients also.
6. Why is this important? What does it help improve or explain or predict?
I think this is important for me as a teacher because it gives me some clues on how I might be able to help my students retain new concepts in their long-term memory. It also helps me understand the diversified eye witness reports we get from playground incidents. HA!
7. When would I actually use this – under what kind of circumstances and for what kind of students?
I would use this in all my subject and for all students. It will just take some time to rethink how I teach to make sure I am including implicit instruction, the Pollyanna Principle, self-reference effect and deep levels of processing.
8. Are there other ways to accomplish the same thing that are faster, cheaper, and/or better?
As teachers would it be better if we just skipped explicit memory tasks and moved right into implicit memory tasks as a way for students to remember things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You did a good job of tying working memory and long term memory together, as well as explaining long term memory. This helped me to understand flashbulb memory and source monitoring a little better because of you clear and simple examples. I also thought about the study with undergraduate students and it made me think similar things. Why didn't they do the study on a larger group or a different age group? That would make it seem more valid. What might this outcome tell us? These are just some thoughts I had. I am interested in your answer to #8, but I'm not entirely sure how we would remove explicit memory tasks entirely. It seems like it is always going to be present in some of our teaching.
ReplyDeleteJill,
ReplyDeleteI was also thinking about these processes with special ed. students. Does the lesson need to be more intense in nature, repeated more often, or taught differently in order for the material to be retained? After reading this, I began to wish for the "handbook" that tells us exactly how to do things.
In one of my responses, I mentioned something about implicit tasks. I noticed that you put this in the category of what you would work on in your class. I am beginning to wonder if my students don't learn better with these tasks rather than the explicit ones. In writing for example, if we surround our students with different authors, genres, and experiences, the students will have a well-round literary sense. If we tell them that they must do "A - B - and C" for the ISAT, they don't do nearly as well. I guess that I keep thinking about the implicit tasks as the entire ocean that surrounds all life. The explicit tasks tend to become one type of fish to learn about. What do you think?
I agree with you on questioning the validity of the neutral vs positive stimuli, due to the fact that they tested it on undergraduate students only. My perception is that undergraduates are taking classes to fulfill a requirement, thus most neutral events will not be recalled because students don't have the willpower to recall (at least not after midterms/finals). However, adult level students have different ambitions and purposes for classes, so perhaps neutral would be more easily recalled due to the intrinsic motivation. Likewise, children recall a lot of bad incidents, as noted through tattling and your playground analogy. I would like to see this trial performed again on different subjects.
ReplyDelete