|
irrelevant to the material. Selectivity is involved—something unknown to the camera lens. Hunter draws a fine line between learning and memory. Little or nothing is known of the physiological process. He lists as efficient techniques of study: selective observing or perceiving, organizing of the material and distributing the effort involved in study, and he rates organizing and finding the underlying principle most effective. Efficient learning, he says, is deliberate and fully conscious—not drill. The neat little packages of advice offered by memory specialists are the conclusions drawn from the numerous investigations made in the field. Careful experiments have been conducted and the results tabulated and correlated, and from these results certain behavior is concluded to be representative of the process. Since the tests usually involve only a sample group, they cannot be considered absolute proof, but they do indicate a tendency, at the very least. Here is a brief review of some of these investigations. One of the earliest memory experiments was conducted by Hermann Ebbinghaus at Harvard during 1892-93. He came to the conclusion that things heard and seen spontaneously were remembered best. Subsequent experiments did not always bear this out. In some instances variations were found among age groups. Some found hearing more effective, some sight. In 1912 Henmon noted that most individuals are of the mixed imagery type. But again in subsequent experiments different results were obtained. Wewick tested seventy college subjects in 1932, and found that the |
|||
|
