5.2

The chapter by James on Memory essentially supported many other chapters in the assertion that strong association is the key to learning.  James makes it clear that he believes that people need to make connections for learning to happen.  Remembering is no different in that connections are required to use memory to its greatest extent.

One section of James caught my attention in light of our discussion last week on learning styles.  James said, "You should interrogate them as to their imagery, it is said, or exhibit list of words to their eyes, and then sound similar lists in their ears, and see by which channel a child retains most words.  Then, in dealing with that child, make your appeals predominately through that channel" (p. 68).  James goes on to say that perhaps this would be possible in a small class, but it is not feasible in most classrooms.  He suggests instead that teachers try to use as many modalities as possible when teaching to try to reach all kinds of learners.  I think that Kirschner would agree with James that it is not feasible to run a classroom in this way; however, Jame appears to be acknowledging that there are different learning styles.  According to the article from last week, that is not the case.  What does James' alluding to different learning styles mean for his view on teaching pedagogy as a whole?  Can this view be backed up by modern research?

Both James and the Roediger article also spend a significant amount of time discussing the best ways to insure good retrieval.  James points out that just because we cannot immediately retrieve a piece of information, it does not mean that we have not learned it.  He suggests that the information has had an effect on the way we view the world, thus it is learned.  Roediger suggests that the best methods for good retrieval are those that require frequent retrieval practice.  As in, the more we retrieve a piece of information, the better we will retain it.  Overall, I am not sure that the two authors are saying inherently different things, but I am unsure of how Roediger would feel about James assertion that retrieval is not necessary for learning.

The Roediger article reminded me of some classes I had in high school that I did not enjoy much.  One in particular came to mind.  My freshman year, in U.S. History, we were memorizing states and capitols.  We had quizzes each week where we were given a blank map and required to fill in the states and capitols.  Spelling counted, which frustrated me because I was not a strong speller and I felt that it was unfair to count my correct answer wrong because of a minor spelling error.  However, after reading the article and James, I realize that my teacher was being clever.  I was making more connections with the materials by having to learn how to spell each item.  I was also having to retrieve the material frequently and produce the correct answers rather than recognize them.  In the long run, I probably retained more state and capitol names spelled correctly through this process than I would have had we not been continuously quizzed.

I was also reminded of the controversy surrounding state assessments and common core.  The education system is constantly under fire for spending too much time testing and teaching for the purpose of testing.  However, Roediger would defend the system insisting that the retrieval process will lead to better retention.  I do not believe that James would rebuke the process; however, I believe that he would say that the test should not be the only measure of learning.  Is testing necessary for learning or does it get in the way?