Hello! Many thanks to those who engaged with and supported my recent book news. If you missed my mid-week post about the publication of ‘What Teachers Need to Know About Memory’ you can find a link to it below.
This seems like an appropriate time to address a common concern that many educators have about the very concept of memory in education.
Some just don’t think we should be talking about memory at all!
While recipients of these updates no doubt recognise the vital importance of understanding memory, for others in education, the concept is associated with flawed, behaviourist-style pedagogy (ironic… since our theories of memory stem from the cognitive revolution, which specifically opposed behaviourism as a framework).
Similarly, some educators seem to think that an emphasis on memory implies promoting ‘meaningless memorisation’. This negative view sometimes generalises to anything to do with the psychology of learning.
I can understand where these attitudes arise from, but I also think they are short sighted, and at times stem from a lack of understanding of what memory is or what it does on a technical level.
So, what would I say to those educators (and teacher educators)? Here are a few points.
1. Memory is the method, not the goal
A misconception is to think that because we talk about memory, we are aiming for memorisation. But memory is just a tool, just like a vehicle is (for most people) not an end in itself but a device for reaching our chosen destination. Our vehicle will help us more if we have some understanding of how it works.
2. There isn’t another good way to explain how learning happens
Science isn’t perfect, but it is a pretty good attempt at analysing reality as we know it. Psychological science includes the scientific study of what is happening when students learn, think, act and remember. There simply isn’t another framework for systematically studying these things. Ignoring it feels rather anti-science, like ignoring biology or physics.
3. Students are using their memories whether we like or not.
So, sure—you don’t have to talk about memory, just like you don’t have to talk about politics or the weather. But it’s happening whether you like it or not. Humans have memories that are very powerful but also very flawed, and it’s strange to think we can tackle educational problems and priorities without considering this.
4. Memory is not inherently linked to a particular pedagogy.
Just as people in a gym are using their muscles no matter how they choose to exercise, students in a class are engaged in cognition and memory no matter how we choose to teach them. Some may associate the concept of memory with ‘factory’ style approaches to education, or Freire’s ‘banking model’. But memory researchers would be the first to say that memory is not a basket of facts, and learners are not containers into which memories can be poured. In fact, we specifically study how to make knowledge resilient and transferrable to other contexts. Flawed pedagogies don’t invalidate the importance of memory.
5. Retaining things in memory is essential to achieve other goals
Connected to the above, some educators see memory-focused teaching as opposed to skills like critical thinking or creativity. That couldn’t be further from the truth. You can’t be critical or think creatively if you don’t have anything in your long-term memory. Scientists can’t devise new theories without developing expertise first. Likewise, if we want to instruct students about wellbeing, anti-racism or whatever, surely we want them to retain what they learn? Memory doesn’t oppose these broader educational goals—it supports them.
6. Flaws in research don’t invalidate the concepts
It can certainly be argued that a lot of memory research is done in labs, with artificial stimuli, and without long-term follow-up. However, memory researchers are not unaware of these limitations, and there are plenty of exceptions. Research findings attempt to shine a light on psychological processes, but imperfectly. If the research is flawed, that doesn’t mean that the processes don’t exist or cease to be important.
7. Memory is not opposed to understanding
Finally, a major assumption (connected to the idea that memory = memorisation) is that teaching for memory and for understanding are two fundamentally different things. Totally wrong! In fact, it’s almost impossible to remember random unconnected facts that you can’t make sense of, which understanding is underpinned by what we remember. The two go hand in hand.
This last point may connect to people’s experiences of not fully understanding things taught in school, and then forgetting them. But that is not an argument for ignoring memory, but rather, for applying it better in pursuit of permanent learning. As Soderstrom and Bjork (2015, p. 176) put it:
“…instruction should endeavor to facilitate learning, which refers to the relatively permanent changes in behavior or knowledge that support longterm retention and transfer.”
I say more about the fact that memory is not opposed to understanding in the following short article, which is core reading for our undergraduate student teachers:
Firth, J. (2018). Is it all just memorisation? The Profession: The Annual Publication for Early Career Teachers, 1, 31–35.
Anyway, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. I have a couple more posts on memory-related topics to share in the coming weeks.
Have a great week,
Jonathan
Last week: Learning and Relearning
Links to my new book, What Teachers Need to Know About Memory:
Amazon UK | Amazon US | Booktopia Australia | Preview on SAGE site.
Please note that my slides and similar materials are used under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. This means you can use or adapt them with attribution for non-commercial purposes. If you wish to use my materials for other purposes, feel free to get in touch.