According to Gross (1999) the organisation of memory involves two main concepts. These are the format in which information is arranged and how this information is arranged. The earlier theories, such as the matrix and hierarchical network models by Collins and Quillians (1969, 1972) concerning the organisation of memory adopted a logical, sequential approach to the organisation of memory. Later on, in the late 1970's psychologists such as, Schank, Abelson and Rumelhart realised that the organisation of memory is not as logical as the earlier models proposed. The schema theories make an attempt at addressing the more complex aspects of the organisation of memory.

Semantic memory plays a fundamental role in the earlier theories but according to Baddley (1990) it became increasingly obvious during the 1970's that the SM must contain structures considerably larger than the sim

ple concepts discussed in the network models by Collins and Loftus. Bartlett (1932) used the term 'schema' to refer to this larger unit of semantic memory. According to Hayes (1999) a schema is a '....form of representation which we use to guide our actions' Bartlett (1932) described a schema as ' an active organisation of past reactions, or of past experiences which must always be supposed to be operating in any well-adapted organismic response'. Bartlett also realised that our memory is often disorganised, vague and incomplete and that any theoretical model must attempt to explain such inaccuracies in our representation of information or knowledge. Bartlett also recognised that memory is a reconstructive process in which information already stored affects the re!

The schema theories have strengths and weaknesses. They were able to provide a fundamental basis and further development in theorising the organisation of memory. Not only did they address the more complex situations of social and cultural aspects of everyday situations but were also to provide a basis for the explanations of real life situations. However, one of the main problems of the schema theory is that it is often very difficult to define what a schema is. Rumelhart (1980) identified four different analogies of what a schema is but was unable to actually define a schema. The schema theory is also very limited as Alber and Hasher (1987) argue that memory representation is much richer than the schema theory suggests. The schema theory adopted a rather limited model of the schema, which said that schema first encoded only relevant information and then extracted only relevant meaning, so that none of the original form of the information would be needed. When Alber an!

In conclusion, the schema theory has provided us with a fundamental basis on which theorists may d

Some common words found in the essay are:
Alber Hasher, Schank Abelson, Schank Abelson's, According Hayes, Abelson Rumelhart, According Schank, Rumelhart Norman, Fourth Schemas, According Cohen, , organisation memory, schema theory, schank abelson, schema theories, 1975 schank, schank abelson 1977, abelson 1977, schank 1975, schemas represent knowledge, earlier theories, theory limited, schank 1975 schank, alber hasher, memory schema theory, 1975 schank abelson,
Approximate Word count = 1251
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)