Information Processing Theory
Presented by Joe Tise, PhD, Educational Psychology & Senior Education Researcher at CSEdResearch.org
The stark limitations of behaviorist theories of learning gave rise (in part) to cognitive theories of learning, the most prominent of which is information processing theory (IPT) (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). As you will see, IPT is analogous to a computer system in many ways. IPT posits three primary “stores” of memory and three primary cognitive “processes.” The three memory stores include the:
- Sensory register (like a motion detector or thermostat)
- Working memory (like RAM)
- Long-term memory (like a hard drive)
The three processes include:
- Attention (like selecting which folder or drive to work in)
- Encoding (like writing to a disk)
- Retrieval. (like reading a disk)
When a person encounters information (broadly construed), it exists first in the sensory register which is informed by the five physical senses as shown in the following figure.
Information in the sensory register persists only as long as the senses actively perceive the information (e.g., the shapes of words on a page). Once the senses stop perceiving the information, the sensory register is cleared.
So how does one learn anything, then? The first primary cognitive process must be invoked—attention. Information is transferred from the sensory register to working memory when we direct attention toward the information—and only at this point do we become conscious of it. This is analogous to how a computer transfers information from a physical sensor (sensory register) to its RAM (working memory) for manipulation.
You have likely already heard that working memory (WM) is limited to 7 +/- 2 pieces of information (Miller, 1956), and this fact illustrates one relatively strict limitation of our cognitive system. Working memory is in many ways a “bottleneck” to human learning and cognitive functioning. Information persists in WM for about 20-30 seconds without rehearsal or other cognitive manipulations of the information. As with a computer’s RAM, it is limited in capacity and will be periodically cleared.
If we want the information to persist longer than that, we must apply the second primary cognitive process, encoding, to the information so that it can move from WM to long term memory (LTM), much like writing to a hard drive. LTM capacity is theoretically unlimited and information within LTM can persist forever.
Finally, if we wish to use information in LTM, we must invoke the third primary cognitive process: retrieval. Retrieval brings information out of LTM and back into WM so that it is once again conscious to us and can be manipulated or articulated via speech, writing, actions, or other means. Drawing the information from LTM into WM is akin to reading information from a hard drive.
Only now can one understand the IPT definition of learning. IPT views human learning as the transfer (i.e., encoding) of information from working memory into long term memory.
Strengths
Information processing theory provides a succinct framework for understanding how the human brain processes information. While behaviorists completely disregard the cognitive domain, IPT attempts to directly explain it. Tenets of IPT are ripe for empirical investigation (e.g., the capacity and duration of working memory has been studied countless times).
IPT also is directly applicable to many fields beyond just learning, and its tenets are leveraged in domains such as user experience research, driving safety courses, and brain health assessments for sports injuries and dementia screening.
Limitations
While information processing theory provides explanations for many of the cognitive phenomena we encounter during learning and daily life, some limitations still exist. For example, IPT faces a supposed “homunculus” problem. That is, models of working memory (yes, there are sub theories of IPT to further specify the working memory component) detail a central executive component, which controls the two other components of working memory (see Baddeley, 2003 for more detail).
But this raises the question—what controls the central executive? Herein lies the problem. Such models of working memory appear to rely on a homunculus—a small imaginary “being” inside our brains that controls the central executive, which in turn controls the other components of working memory.
This blog post is far too broad to properly detail models of working memory, so for our purposes just know that critics of IPT cite the homunculus problem as at least a needed point of further theoretical refinement.
Potential Use Cases in Computing Education
- Research: How does a student’s working memory capacity relate to their coding skill/accuracy?
- Practice: Direct attention to salient features of content (to ensure attention is on the correct features of content), provide and model use of learning strategies (to promote encoding), and use low-stakes practice quizzes/questions often to exercise students’ retrieval process.
Influential theorists:
- Richard C. Atkinson (1942 – present)
- Richard M. Shiffrin (1929 – present)
- Alan Baddeley (1934 – present)
Recommended seminal works:
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol II (pp. 89–195). Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working Memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Miller/
Shiffrin, R. M., & Atkinson, R. C. (1969). Storage and retrieval processes in long-term memory. Psychological Review, 76(2), 179–193.
References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol II (pp. 89–195). Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews | Neuroscience, 4, 829–839. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn1201
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Miller/
Comments are closed