Describe the levels of processing model by Craik and Lockhart.

It is likely that progress in the early stages of scientific development is made more by reaction and counterreaction than by the discovery of great immutable truths. Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) levels-of-processing (LOP) model, as a reaction against the boxes-in-the-head scheme of memory, is consistent with that view. They take the position that data can be better described by a concept of memory based on levels of processing. The general idea is that incoming stimuli are subjected to a series of analyses starting with shallow sensory analysis and proceeding to deeper, more complex, abstract, and semantic analyses.

Whether a stimulus is processed at a shallow or deep stage depends on the nature of the stimulus and the time available for processing. An item processed at a deep level is less likely to be forgotten than one processed at a shallow level. At the earliest level, incoming stimuli are subjected to sensory and featural analyses; at a deeper level, the item may be recognised by means of pattern recognition and extraction of meaning; at a still deeper level, it may engage the subject’s long-term associations.

With deeper processing a greater degree of semantic or cognitive analysis is undertaken. Consider word recognition, for example. At the preliminary stages, the visual configuration may be analysed according to such physical or sensory features as lines and angles. Later stages are concerned with matching the stimuli with stored information—for example, recognition that one of the letters corresponds to the pattern identified as A. At the highest level, the recognised pattern “may trigger associations, images or stories on the basis of the subject’s past experience with the word” (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).

The significant issue, in Craik and Lockhart’s view, is that we are capable of perceiving at meaningful levels before we analyse information at a more primitive level. Thus, levels of processing are more a “spread” of processing, with highly familiar, meaningful stimuli more likely to be processed at a deeper level than less meaningful stimuli.

That we can perceive at a deeper level before analysing at a shallow level casts grave doubts on the original levels-of-processing formulation. Perhaps we are dealing simply with different types of processing, with the types not following any constant sequence. If all types are equally accessible to the incoming stimulus, then the notion of levels could be replaced by a system that drops the notion of levels or depth but retains some of Craik and Lockhart’s ideas about rehearsal and about the formation of memory traces.

A model that is closer to their original idea is shown in Figure . This figure depicts the memory activation involved in proofreading a passage as contrasted with that involved in reading the same passage for the gist of the material. Proofreading, that is, looking at the surface of the passage, involves elaborate shallow processing and minimal semantic processing.

Reading for gist, that is, trying to get the essential points, involves minimal shallow processing, or “maintenance rehearsal” (held in memory without elaboration), but elaborate semantic processing. Another example of this latter kind of memory activity would be a typist who concentrates on responding to letter sequences but has very little understanding of the material being typed.

As a result of some studies (Craik & Watkins, 1973; and Lockhart, Craik, & Jacoby, 1975), the idea that stimuli are always processed through an unvarying sequence of stages was abandoned, while the general principle that some sensory processing must precede semantic analysis was retained.

Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)