How Memory Works

Worried that Google has rotted your memory and that of your students? Then, this book is for you: Remembering and Forgetting in the Age of Technology: Teaching, Learning and the Science of Memory in a Wired World. The author is Michelle Miller, a cognitive psychologist from Northern Arizona University. Her previous book, Minds Online: Teaching Effectively with Technology, is superb and I blogged about it eight years ago. It’s a book I regularly recommend to others interested in the topic, and I’m pleased to say that her latest book joins the list of books I would recommend to my colleagues. Today’s blog will touch on Chapters 2 and 3.

 

Miller discusses some neuromyths, and provides some historical background to the evolving models cognitive scientists have used to uncover how human memory works. Memory is not like taking a videorecording. This misconception misleads us teachers to “assume that just because some new piece of information was introduced during class, students would naturally notice and remember it.” There’s also the classic three-box model of memory that uses the metaphor of a factory conveyor belt to move information from short-term to long-term memory via the technique of rehearsal. (I recommend reading Chapter 2 in Miller’s book for why this model doesn’t work so well.) Neither are students’ brains like containers to be filled with knowledge through transmission into a computer-esque memory bank.

 

Our brains aren’t a blank slate to etch or “code” memories into. Instead, when we learn, we re-code. In fact, every time we try to rehearse a piece of information, we are recoding. But rehearsal isn’t necessarily the best way to recode or to really learn the material. We’ll get to more effective methods a little later, but first I want to highlight the groundwork Miller is laying down. She outlines the evidence for the different subsystems of working memory. One of these is a “visuospatial sketchpad… [which] kicks in when we are doing mental tasks where visualization is key” – this is very relevant in chemistry problem-solving. Several subystems relate to language analysis, and it’s amazing how we parse language and meaning in our native language so fluidly! Miller also goes into detail on the phonological subsystem, it’s the best-studied one. Where it’s important in a subject such as chemistry with significant new scientific terminology: it’s “job is to replay and refresh the pieces of the word’s sound, buying time while other mechanisms create a permanent representation of that new word.”

 

What about long-term memory? It’s that significant limitless “bank” which someone with expertise draws from, myriad connections and all. Miller distinguishes the three types: episodic, semantic and procedural. Episodic memory is tied to a specific experience that you have and you can remember the place and how you were feeling. It’s why certain memorable experiences even from long ago can be triggered. In chemistry class, students will remember a flash-bang demo with surprising sounds, colors, and smells, that they may not have expected! Semantic memory, the primary target in my chemistry courses, is the buildup of conceptual knowledge organized in some form or schema. The richness of semantic memory is what distinguishes the expert chemist from the novice. Both episodic and semantic memory can be triggered by the appropriate cues. Procedural memory is what allows you to carry out a practiced skill without taxing your working memory; knitting or driving a car are examples. In chemistry lab, you can clearly tell the students who’ve had more practice pipetting than others.

 

We remember and we forget. Why does memory work the way it does? Miller’s answer in a word: Survival. “Instead of being a place to store things, memory is an ability that our minds and brains have evolved in order to keep us alive… communication, avoiding danger, prospecting for good thing out there in the world, replicating strategies that have served us in the past, distinguishing friend from foe, solving problems and acquiring skills… makes it more likely that we’ll have only the most relevant, most useful material on hand, and that we will be able to really pick out the thing we need when the chips are down. It also explains the exasperating, now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t quirks of long-term memory.”

 

Miller does a particularly good job articulating why committing certain things to memory is important in learning. She effectively argues against tropes such as “drill and kill” and she highlights problems with the hierarchical representation of Bloom’s Taxonomy. I wholeheartedly agree with her point that memory is an important pillar of learning, and she provides evidence of how strengthening or enhancing memory is crucial for complex reasoning, that “memory and thinking skills enjoy a complementary, not competitive relationship within learning.” I like how Miller cuts to the chase: A key problem in learning is “transfer”, the ability to apply conceptual principles to other cases beyond the exact examples you’ve seen before. Effective memorization of information helps you with transfer. In Miller’s words, transfer “is what makes learning useful.” But it can be hard to do with information that’s not a matter of life-and-death; don’t forget that our brain evolved for survival!

 

Fortunately, we now know more about how humans learn (and we’re still learning) and we can design activities to enhance useful or effective learning. Miller provides examples of how memory tasks can help students develop metacognition in their learning. She provides practical examples of why you might need (as a practitioner) knowledge at your fingertips. As a teacher, if I kept having to look up every piece of information, I’d be a goner. Instead, I try to model in class which pieces of information I need to have immediately available, and which ones students shouldn’t need to memorize. (I actually look them up in class.) But committing information to semantic memory isn’t easy especially since much of what we do in school is biologically secondary. But it’s not easy. Miller reminded me that “it typically takes students a lot of practice and a lot of insight to achieve transfer, and is an area where teachers typically overestimate how quickly and well students really are achieving it” (emphasis mine)!

 

Given the importance of building and enhancing memory, how can we best go about it with our students? Here are my quick summaries of the principles Miller provides:

 

·      Meaning and structure. The key here is meaningful interpretation, and helping students build an organizational scheme. We do this via scaffolding. We do this by telling stories, i.e., providing a narrative structure.

·      Visualization. Humans have evolved to prioritize vision. It’s why a good figure is indeed worth a thousand words or more. That’s why I favor textbooks that not just have good narrative structure, but have excellent figures that are well-designed for learning and not just a pretty picture.

·      Emotional charge. There’s no doubt that emotions heighten memory. For the classroom, there’s evidence that providing a supportive and nonthreatening environment promotes learning. The emotion of surprise can be very effective (we remember plot twists in a story). I’ve been trying to build in more of these aha moments into class.

·      Attention. Duh. Maintaining attention is surprisingly tricky. Much of classroom organization is about this.

·      Connection to goals. I thought this would be more important, but Miller downplays it. Without the other factors, being motivated (having a goal) isn’t quite enough but it can help with attention.

 

Miller goes through several pedagogical strategies to achieve the task of enhancing memory. I was familiar with all of these and they fall under the large rubric of “active learning” approaches. Which strategy you use will depend on who you are, your subject matter of the day, your goals, and who your students are. Local context matters. This is why I’m skeptical of those who promote their particular (and often narrow) pedagogical approach as a silver bullet. I don’t promote my own particular approach either. It works for me. I’m willing to share what I do with others if they’re interested, but I’m not interested in pushing pedagogical strategies.

 

That being said, Miller is preaching to the choir when she highlights one technique that works very well for students: retrieval practice. She writes: “Rarely have we seen a set of findings with such clear and compelling implications for learning… Essentially, what the studies demonstrate is that when students answer questions about material, they remember it better and for longer… It works best when students get immediate feedback, and when the questions are open-ended or short answer in style.” It’s why I give many low-stakes short quizzes at the beginning of class. It’s why I give closed-book exams and require students to generate, and not just recognize, answers. It’s why I try to phrase my study guide in the form of questions and give students questions to test themselves. It’s why I’m always asking them to explain, explain, explain. Some students find it frustrating that I always ask “why” in response to an answer they’ve provided after an initial question. In my experience, this is an effective technique (although not the only one) to learning an abstract, conceptually challenging, jargon-laden, subject such as chemistry. We need to help our students move away from sub-optimal techniques (which Miller also discusses).

 

Miller provides effective rebuttals to those who “are heavily invested in the philosophical stance that tests are a creativity-killing blight on education” and who think that testing only leads to superficial learning. She also addresses the notion that “testing kills authentic enthusiasm for learning and heightens anxiety” – the claim is not only highly subjective, it can “become a self-fulfilling prophecy”. Approaches to testing can be done well and they can be done badly. Low-stakes quizzes help smooth the path, or you could even pipe in a fun way of doing this via Kahoot and other applications that Miller describes. And technology can help our students with retrieval practice. We shouldn’t shun it where it can be very useful.

 

Towards the end of Chapter 3, Miller discusses the symbiosis we have with our electronic information-providing and information-storing devices. Part of why I blog is to offload things I learn from books I’ve read so that I know where to find that information (with “search”!) but I’ve also noticed that by doing so, I do not retain as much of this information for immediate use (the so-called “Google effect”). And that’s okay. But if I didn’t write about it, I’d probably remember less. But I do agree with Miller that “when it comes to the bedrock knowledge of a discipline or professional skill, students shouldn’t fall to looking things up.” This of course begs the question of what that bedrock knowledge is in one’s discipline. Ah, a subject for a different post!

 

P.S. This is the fifth book I’m reading in the “Teaching and Learning in Higher Education” series. For links to the other four, see this previous post.