PSYC1022 Learning to Learn Week 8 PDF

PSYC1022 Learning to Learn Week 8 Context Reinstatement and Encoding Variability  Overview Some de nitions Recognition Failure of Recallable Words (encoding speci city; Tulving & Thomson, 1973) Levels of Processing vs Transfer Ap...

PSYC1022 Learning to Learn Week 8 Context Reinstatement and Encoding Variability  Overview Some de nitions Recognition Failure of Recallable Words (encoding speci city; Tulving & Thomson, 1973) Levels of Processing vs Transfer Appropriate Processing (Morris et al., 1977) Generation Effect vs Transfer Appropriate Processing (Jacoby, 1983) Encoding variability and environmental context (Smith et al., 1978) Encoding variability and context reinstatement with restudying and practice testing (Imundo et al., 2021) Mental context reinstatement, the cognitive interview, and high-stakes exams Recommendations fi  De nitions Encoding Variability Encoding repeated information in more than one way, often in more than one context “Context” can be an external environment, method of processing (e.g., semantic [meaning] encoding, phonemic [sound] encoding), mood, drug in uence… Used to explain the spacing effect Builds robust representations by providing more paths to retrieval fi fl  Encoding Variability Low Encoding Variability Encoding Retrieval Context 1 Presentation 1 Context ? Presentation 2 Presentation 3 Context 1 High Encoding Variability Presentation 1 Context 2 Presentation 2 Context ? Context 3 similarity Presentation 3  De nitions Context Reinstatement Matching the encoding and retrieval context Facilitates memory Encoding speci city (most effective retrieval cues are the ones “encoded speci cally” with the to-be-remembered information) Environment contains cues (e.g., Godden & Baddeley, 1975) Transfer Appropriate Processing Relationship between type of processing at encoding and test If it is “appropriate” - good “transfer” between learning and test (good retrieval) fi fi  Recognition Failure of Recallable Words (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) Step 1 Steps 2 & 3 Step 4 Study Phase Free Association and Recognition Test Cued Recall Test head-LIGHT dark: night, light, black, r m head-light bath-NEED want: need, des e, wish, get bath-___ pretty-BLUE sky: sun, cl d, blue, en pretty-blue grasp-BABY infant: child. moth , l e, baby grasp-baby.......... Participants failed to recognise several words (in Step 3) that they were able to recall (in Step 4): light, blue, baby ou ir er op ov oo  Recognition Failure of Recallable Words (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) How could participants recall words that they couldn’t recognise? Encoding: target words encoded with weakly related cue words (e.g., head - LIGHT) Recognition test: participants were trying to recognise targets generated in the context of strongly related cue words (e.g., dark - LIGHT) These were not the cues words that were encoded speci cally with the target words Context mismatch - poor memory Recall test: weakly related cue words were presented again These words were encoded speci cally with the target words Context reinstatement - good memory Result: Recall was successful but recognition failed fi fi  Levels of Processing A way of thinking about memory in terms of how deeply processed information is during encoding Semantic (meaning) - deep: durable memories Phonemic (sound) - medium: less durable memories Orthography (letters) - shallow: fragile memories that decay quickly Morris, Bransford, and Franks (1977) Participants encoded nouns with an orienting task that either: Encouraged deep (semantic) processing: “The _____ had a silver engine.” TRAIN? (Yes); EAGLE? (No) Or encouraged shallow (phonemic) processing: “_____rhymes with legal.” TRAIN? (No); EAGLE? (Yes) Morris, Bransford, and Franks (1977) Testing: Standard recognition test: “Did you study this word earlier: TRAIN? EAGLE? Rhyme recognition test: “Did you study a word earlier that rhymed with this word: PAIN? LEGAL? Morris, Bransford, and Franks (1977) Deep Encoding Shallow Encoding 80 Percent Recognised 65 50 35 20 Standard Recognition Rhyme Recognition Deep semantic encoding leads Deep semantic encoding leads to better standard recognition to worse rhyme recognition Morris, Bransford, and Franks (1977) Deep level of processing is not necessarily superior to shallow encoding “Shallow” encoding can lead to good memory too It depends on the type of test If the test is sensitive to the type of processing that occurred during encoding, then memory will be good Transfer appropriate processing  Jacoby (1983) Also demonstrated that memory is dependent not just on how the information is encoded (e.g., deep vs. shallow), but on whether testing draws on encoding processes Generation Effect: self-generating information leads to better memory than reading it Like LoP, only describes the encoding; ignores how memory is tested  Jacoby (1983) Encoding: Read: xxx-COLD Generate (an antonym): hot - ??? (Most people will generate COLD) Test: Standard recognition Expect a generation effect Perceptual Identi cation task (try to identify brie y presented words) Prior research: If word has been studied recently, better able to identify it Will a generation effect occur? May bene t more from perceptual (reading) processes than conceptual (generation) processes fi fi fl  Jacoby (1983) Generate Read 80 60 Percent Correct 40 20 0 Standard Recognition Perceptual Identi cation Generating vs reading words leads Generating vs reading words leads to better standard recognition to worse perceptual identi cation fi fi But What About Education?  Bad Advice! https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-study-for-your- economics-exam-1146330 Bad Advice! !! Bad Advice! !! !!  Encoding Variability Smith et al. (1978) investigated people’s memory for word lists that were either studied twice in the same environmental context, or in two different contexts. They were then tested in a third, neutral context. P (Perry school) context: a large blackboard, glass cabinets, no windows, and a general clutter. Words were presented on slides in a semi-darkened room where only a small red light and the slide projector provided illumination. Experimenter wore a coat and tie. M (Mason Hall) context: a very tiny compartment within the animal laboratories in a large, modern, central campus building. Two windows overlooked a large courtyard, and a one-way mirror covered another wall. Experimenter wore a annel shirt and jeans. Neutral (retrieval) context: a large classroom with large windows overlooking a busy street, and there was little clutter around the room. Encoding Variability Encoding Variability  Imundo et al. (2021) Sought to replicate Smith et al.’s (1978) results with longer retention intervals (48 hours instead of 3hrs) Also investigated the effect of testing (vs. restudying) in same versus different contexts Perhaps using a more effective learning technique (testing) would amplify the effects of encoding variability Participants rst studied a word list in a particular context Restudied same list in same context (same context-restudy) Restudied same list in a different context (varied context-restudy) Tested on list in the same context (same context-test) Tested on list in a different context (varied context-test) fi Method Results - Final Test Results - Final Test !! Encoding variability hurts performance if practice testing! What is a student to do?  Imundo et al. (2021) Hypothesised that tested performance was poor in the varied context condition because they retrieved so little during training Failing to retrieve during retrieval practice does little to help performance (unless feedback is given, which it wasn’t in this case) Because the context changed between initial study and training, it meant that retrieval was very poor Retrieval performance during training: Same context: 36% recall Varied context: 17% recall Interplay of Encoding Variability and Context Reinstatement when Practice Testing Encoding Variability Interplay of Encoding Variability and Context Reinstatement when Practice Testing Context Reinstatement Testing is more bene cial with increased Encoding Variability variability as long as most of the material is retrieved fi Interplay of Encoding Variability and Context Reinstatement when Practice Testing Context Reinstatement Testing is more Retrieval during bene cial with practice increased deteriorates with Encoding Variability variability as long increased as all the material variability thereby is retrieved limiting the bene ts fi fi  What About High-Stakes Exams (Not Quizzes)? So far, we’ve discussed the role of encoding variability and context reinstatement during practice (learning) What about exams? Different emphasis: need to maximise retrieval; not so important to learn from retrieval practice Encoding variability not critical Maximise context reinstatement Reinstatement of Context and Exams If learning has taken place in multiple contexts (encoding variability), then: it is likely that some cues from the many learning contexts will overlap with the retrieval context particularly true if the learning was spaced Not always possible to write exams in the same environmental context as learning Mental reinstatement of context is still possible Reinstatement of Context and Exams Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992) An interviewing technique used in forensics to maximise retrieval with eyewitnesses and victims of crime Can be applied to education Consists of four stages: Stage 1: Mentally reinstate the context Stage 2: Recall events in reverse order Stage 3: Report everything they can remember Stage 4: Describe events from someone else’s point of view Reinstatement of Context and Exams Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992) An interviewing technique used in forensics to maximise retrieval with eyewitnesses and victims of crime Can be applied to education Consists of four stages: Stage 1: Mentally reinstate the context Stage 2: Recall events in reverse order Stage 3: Report everything they can remember Stage 4: Describe events from someone else’s point of view Reinstatement of Context and Exams Mentally reinstate the context mentally revisit the to-be-remembered (TBR) event (e.g., lecture theatre/video) Form a mental picture of the environment in which the material was learned This picture could include the placement of objects such as windows or furniture, the lighting, or even the temperature of the room in which the material was learned Revisit your personal mental state during the learning The purpose of this process is to increase the overlap between the initial learning context and current retrieval context  Recommendations Don’t believe websites and other sources that tell you to study in the same place and time (or to cram, unless cramming is additional to spaced learning) Vary the context in which you are learning material, whether that is restudying (e.g., rewatching lecture videos; rereading articles or textbook chapters) or practice testing (e.g., self- or group-quizzing; ashcards) If self- or group-quizzing, varying the context will likely reduce the success of retrieval practice, so be sure to have corrective feedback available Without the corrective feedback, retrieval might be poor, and will yield few bene ts fi  Recommendations For exams, consider the context in which you will be writing an exam At home with computer? In a gymnasium? In a computer lab? Learn the module content in same context where you will be tested Take time during exams to mentally reinstate the learning context prior to answering questions  References Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Charles C Thomas, Publisher. Godden, D. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01468.x Imundo, M. N., Pan, S. C., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2021). Where and how to learn: The interactive bene ts of contextual variation, restudying, and retrieval practice for learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820968483 Jacoby, L. L. (1983). Remembering the data: Analyzing interactive processes in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 485– 508. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90301-8 Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9 Rasmussen, H. (2019, May 24). Best ways to study for economics exams. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/howto-study-for-your- economics-exam-1146330 Smith, S. M., Glenberg, A., & Bjork, R. A. (1978). Environmental context and human memory. Memory & Cognition, 6, 342–353. https://doi.org/ 10.3758/BF03197465 Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding speci city and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373. https:// doi.org/10.1037/h0020071 fi