Learning is Memory

And if you don’t realize that learning is memory, then you won’t realize that the most effective way to learn is to use memory-supporting training techniques.

Want to get notified about new posts? Join the mailing list and follow on X/Twitter.

At the end of the day, learning is memory. Understanding amounts to memory that is well-connected and deeply ingrained. If someone is “just memorizing” as opposed to “truly understanding,” it really means they haven’t stored enough information in memory.

This is more than just semantics. If you don’t realize that learning is memory, then you won’t realize that the most effective way to learn is to use memory-supporting training techniques.

It’s easy to get confused, thinking: “Truly understanding something is different from just memorizing it, so learning doesn’t require memory-focused techniques like active retrieval practice and spaced review. Those are about memorization, not true understanding.”

And if that’s what you think, then you’ll likely shirk the hard work required to build memory, use fun/easy but ineffective training techniques instead, and end up not actually learning much.

Follow-Up Questions

But isn’t learning about making connections?

What I’m saying is that connections themselves are also memory and therefore benefit from memory-supporting training techniques. My larger point is that effective mathematical instruction requires the use of memory-supporting training techniques.

Given your definition of learning and memory, isn’t this tautological? Like if I said you need to use brain-supporting techniques.

It’s one of those things that feels obvious yet many learners don’t fully grasp the implications. For instance, many learners shy away from memory-supporting training techniques like retrieval practice, spaced review, and interleaving (mixed practice).

But isn’t learning a process? It’s not stored anywhere – it’s an effect of understanding, and understanding isn’t memory. If you think learning (understanding) is memory then you’re forced to believe things like ChatGPT “learns.”

I would completely disagree that “learning isn’t stored anywhere,” on the grounds that learning is a physical change that happens inside the brain. It’s not like some spiritual thing that goes beyond the physical world. And processes can be stored in memory too (e.g., procedural memory).

Additionally, I don’t believe ChatGPT learns/understands nearly as well as a human expert, but I wouldn’t chalk this up to usage of memory. I would chalk it up to the brains of human experts having greater storage capacity, superior architecture for representation/inference, and access to way more information (including lots of information that is not publicly available).

Want to get notified about new posts? Join the mailing list and follow on X/Twitter.