I've been studying into the important of memory and learning. I think it's undeniable that part of learning is requiring the retrieval of information at the relevant times, but the counter argument I've heard is that understanding is more important, but I always pose the question "isn't understanding just a combination or applications of things you know? Since you know it that means you must have memorized it." To which people usually don't have a good counterargument or concede that it's plausible. I'd like to test my theory on the importance of memory in learning. I argue that all of learning is dependent upon memory in some form or another, therefore if someone wants to better their learning they need to better their ability to remember and retrieve relevant information in situations.
I argue that all of learning is dependent upon memory in some form or another, [...]
I can't think of any learning theory that would say otherwise. I think it's also fairly obvious that any information processing system such as the brain needs some abstract form of memory to function at all.
therefore if someone wants to better their learning they need to better their ability to remember and retrieve relevant information in situations.
I don't agree that this necessarily follows. Just because learning critically depends on at least one form of memory (e.g., working or episodic memory) this doesn't mean that memory has to be the bottleneck limiting learning performance. Also, 'remembering and retrieving relevant information' ignores that memory can also be implicit. For example, you can easily ride a bike but might find it hard to deliberately recall all movements involved.