X-Message-Number: 12913
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 20:07:32 -0500
From: Jan Coetzee <>
Subject: New human memory theory

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 6 DECEMBER 1999
University of Wisconsin-Madison
http://www.wisc.edu/

Psychologist challenges basic assumptions of human memory theory

MADISON -- For those who get flummoxed by how-to manuals, or stymied by
instructions for assembly, University of Wisconsin-Madison psychologist
Arthur
Glenberg has a reassuring theory. It's not all your fault. The
instructions
run
counter to how your memory works.

Glenberg is an expert on the nuances of human memory, one of the most
intriguing, but hard to understand, mysteries of the mind. More
recently,
Glenberg has been refining a controversial theory about memory and
language
that questions some basic assumptions of his field.

Glenberg's opening salvo came in 1997, when his paper was published in
the
journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences called "What Memory is For." It
suggested
psychologists drop the widely accepted view that human memory works like

computer memory, which stores abstract symbols designed to be reproduced

with
verbatim accuracy.

Instead, Glenberg argued that human memory is a direct result of action:
Of
how
the body moves and responds to its environment. Memory exists to help us

walk,
talk, run, drive a car, answer the phone, and all of the myriad tasks of

getting along in the world.

Because these memories are designed to facilitate action, rather than
verbatim
reproduction, human recall is rarely totally accurate.

His theory was not universally accepted, to put it lightly. The paper
generated
more than two dozen written responses from peers, uncommon in the
erudite
world
of research journals, ranging from expressions of interest to piercing
critiques.

"It's actually a matter of some pride now that I got so much flak,"
Glenberg
says. "Because now we're starting to convince the editors of some of the

major
journals that there's something to be learned from this."

Beyond creating an academic snit, Glenberg's ideas have strong practical

applications. Glenberg is now looking at memory's role in language, and
his
"embodiment theory" of memory could lead to better pedagogical
techniques.
He
has experiments designed to find whether action-oriented learning tasks
can
improve the teaching of technical information to adults and help
children
who
are good oral language users but poor readers.

And it may end up helping those poor souls who bristle at the phrase,
"some
assembly required."

In a recent study, Glenberg taught volunteer participants how to
identify
landmarks using a compass. The students heard descriptions of all the
different
parts of a compass and map.

However, one group received only written and oral descriptions of the
components, whereas another group watched video clips of a person
interacting
with a compass while the parts were described. The video group had no
problem
later when asked to read and use instructions for how to use the
compass,
Glenberg says, but the text-only group was utterly baffled. Tests showed

they
could describe parts of a compass, but couldn't put that knowledge into
action.

"As in the compass experiment, understanding verbal instructions
requires
that
those instructions 'contact' the right memories," Glenberg says. In the
case
of
following instructions for assembly, the trouble sometimes stems from
trying
to
draw on memories that we don't yet have.

Glenberg says the various tests of his theory -- that action is the
basis
of
memory -- could be strong reinforcement of what teachers know
intuitively:
Hands-on and interactive lessons pack a bigger punch.

How memory really works is still totally up for grabs, he says,
cautioning
that
theories on the subject draw from limited knowledge of the human mind.
"For
the
most part, memory does a magnificent job for us," he says. "Every time
you
spell a word, drive a car or pick up a telephone and recognize your
mother's
voice, it's a wonder."

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12913