The research of Craik and Lockhart changed the direction of memory research. They showed that the encoding and processing of information was not just a simple and straightforward process. Craik and Tulving’s research confirmed this theory by finding that elaborative rehearsal was a better way of encoding and processing information than any other. This theory has lead to hundreds of experiments, much of which support the theory that semantic research is the best way to process information into memory. The model also has practical applications that work such as suggesting ways to improve our memory.
However, there are more criticisms and limitations than support for this model of memory.
Words that require deeper processing also require more effort to process. It could be the processing that increases remembering abilities. Deeper processing also takes much more time and it could be the amount of time that passes which increases recall and not rehearsal. The model doesn’t explain why deeper processing helps improve memory; it just states that it does. Eysenck argues against the material that is used to test the shallow processing. He believes it is not distinctive and that is why it is not remembered as well.
The levels of processing model also makes no distinction between short-term memory and long-term memory yet most research done has shown that two separate memory stores do exist.
Bransford et al found distinctiveness of material to be a more effective memory predictor than depth of processing.
The concepts of depth, elaboration, distinctiveness and rehearsal are difficult to measure and define and so no research will prove 100% that any of these help memory.
Atkinson and Shiffrin’s multi store model separates the long-term and the short-term memory stores and most researchers have found there to be two different memory stores and so is more reliable than Craik and Lockhart’s levels of processing model. However, this model does not give any insight into memory strategies such as shortened terms people use to remember things. They also do not offer any other way of information entering long-term memory other than through short term memory. Shallice and Warrington used a case of a motorcycle accident victim to question Atkinson and Shiffrin’s multi store model. The victim’s short-term memory was affected and he could only remember two new things at a time, but yet they still managed to enter his long-term memory.
Baddeley and Hitch suggested the working memory model where information had several different ways of being encoded into long-term memory. This model is more stable than the multi store and levels of processing model. The only problem with this model is it only offers views on the short-term memory store and offers no insight into long-term memory. Yet it does have practical applications, in particular helping us to understand how children learn to read and write.
I don’t believe the levels of processing memory model is as effective as Baddeley and Hitch’s working memory model, yet it does offer some information on how we can improve our memory.
