From Ebbinghaus onward psychology has seen an enormous amount of research invested in thestudy of learning and memory. This research has produced a steady stream of results and, with afew "mini-revolutions" along the way, a steady increase in our understanding of how knowledgeis acquired, retained, retrieved, and utilized. Throughout this history there has been a concernwith the relationship of this research to its obvious application to education. The first author haswritten two textbooks (Anderson, 1995a, 1995b) summarizing some of this research. In bothtextbooks he has made efforts to identify the implications of this research for education.However, he left both textbooks feeling very dissatisfied -- that the intricacy of research andtheory on the psychological side was not showing through in the intricacy of educationalapplication. One finds in psychology many claims of relevance of cognitive psychology researchfor education. However, these claims are loose and vague and contrast sharply with the crisptheory and results that exist in the field.To be able to rigorously understand what the implications are of cognitive psychology researchone needs a rigorous theory that bridges the gap between the detail of the laboratory experimentand the scale of the educational enterprise. This chapter is based on the ACT-R theory(Anderson, 1993, 1996) which has been able to explain learning in basic psychology experimentsand in a number of educational domains. ACT-R has been advertised as a "simple theory of learning and cognition". It proposes that complex cognition is composed of relatively simpleknowledge units which are acquired according to relatively simple principles. Human cognitionis complex but this complexity reflects complex composition of the basic elements and principles just as a computer can produce complex aggregate behavior from simple computing elements.The ACT-R perspective places a premium on the practice which is required to learn permanentlythe components of the desired competence. The ACT-R theory claims that to learn a complexcompetence each component of that competence must be mastered. It is a sharp contrast to manyeducational claims, supposedly based in cognitive research, that there are moments of insight or transformations when whole knowledge structures become reorganized or learned. In contrast,ACT-R implies that there is no “free lunch” and each piece of knowledge requires its own due of learning. Given the prevalence of the “free lunch myth” we will endeavor to show that it is nottrue empirically and to explain why it can not be true within the ACT-R theory.This chapter will have the following organization. First we will describe the ACT-R theory andits learning principles. In the light of this theory, we will identify what we think are theimportant implications of psychological research for education. We will also address the issue of why so much of the research on learning and memory falls short of significant educationalapplication. We will devote special attention to the issues of insight, learning withunderstanding, and transfer which are part of the free lunch myth. Finally, we will describe howwe have tried to bring the lessons of this analysis to bear in the design of our cognitive tutors(Anderson, Boyle, Corbett, & Lewis, 1990; Anderson, Corbett, Koedinger, & Pelletier, 1995).
The ACT-R Theory
The ACT-R theory admits of three basic binary distinctions. First, there is a distinction betweentwo types of knowledge -- declarative knowledge of facts and procedural knowledge of how to