5 ms·

This article is untethered from the mammoth amounts of research that's been done specifically on how people learn. The answer to this question doesn't lie in an

This article is untethered from the mammoth amounts of research that's been done specifically on how people learn. The answer to this question doesn't lie in anecdotes about various professors' "philosophy", in fact that kind of approach is a huge barrier to actually improving the learning that occurs on college campuses. This is an opinion article, so I understand it's not thorough reporting, but the author should familiarize herself with the literature. A book like https://www.amazon.com/Make-Stick-Science-Successful-Learning/dp/0674729013 https://www.amazon.com/Make-Stick-Science-Successful-Learnin... is accessible and provides a good survey of what we know about how the brain learns and remembers things, and how it relates to existing practices.

anonemouse145 9y ago
This. For instance, we all probably had to go through math classes where the professor writes so fast that it's a hand cramping race just to even scribble together enough notes to follow each gigantic derivation later for learning purposes. Nobody in that class is retaining any of that. The kid who aces that class, is almost invariably someone who likes to to play with the equations in their free time at their own pace, so they get a feel for what process they need to employ toward a solution rather than brute forcing it. (When applicable, sometimes brute force is the only tactic.) Math classes in general really, desperately need to slow down and let students grasp higher-order concepts. The number crunching method is stressful, and all it does is massively discourage bright people who may be geniuses in their field but flee University because the school made Calculus their "breakout" class. Anecdote. When I went to University, I had a professor who graduated MIT tell the class that he'd realized how much pressure we were under in our Calculus class trying to keep up, that this was deeply unfair, and that he was erasing our last test score because they were unreflective of the performance that he knew we were capable of if we had any time for his class. Calculus was a core requirement, his class was elective, so almost every student had been forced to ignore his class, and we were amazingly lucky that he was good enough to sympathize. This man used to work at Bell Labs and swam 200 laps a day to keep fit. And he was telling us we had it rough. I saw people cry out of gratitude.
- Balgair 9y ago
  Anecdata: I didn't grasp any of algebra until 10th grade. From about 7th to 10th grade chemistry class, I was just winging it. Sure, 10x=30, I could get x. But any of the trig or the parabolas, not a chance. It wasn't until chemistry, when I actually had to use algebra to get the molarity, moles, grams, etc, that I was able to grasp it. I remember sitting in class after the bell let out, on my desk, just doing the molarity equations over and over. It was one of the largest smiles of my life. I finally got it. So, math happens when it happens. Maybe, yeah, I was a little retarded from the rest of my peers in grasping this idea of algebra. But I did get it eventually, when I needed to use it, finally. Saying that math is 'hard' isn't the best way of going about it. Everyone is different and learns differently and at different times. Some may not be able to get 3rd year Calc until they are 30, some get it at 15. I tapped out of formal math classes at number-theory at ~22. Diff-eqs, Lagrangians, General Relativity, all fine with me, but number theory was a whole different level of pedantry I was not about to dive into.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    It wasn't until chemistry, when I actually had to use algebra to get the molarity, moles, grams, etc, that I was able to grasp it. There was this study that found this kind of difference in application. People were given a logic problem phrased abstractly. Then other people were given the same logic problem, but phrased in terms of catching someone cheating at something. It was like people's IQ's suddenly greatly increased. I also remember an anecdote about this father coaching his kid through the multiplication tables, which the kid didn't like and had trouble with. They were riding in the car quizzing the kid, who was not doing well, but then the kid asked to do the 7's, which he rattled off with aplomb. Turns out, the kid really liked football. (US football)
    - Balgair 9y ago
      Nice ones! I think application is important, but the diversity of what a child will care about is crazy large. You can't reach them all. My SO is a teacher (of chemistry, ironically) and some kids get the material and some just don't. It's not a lack of trying, it's just that they don't get it. As such, the frustration of the child comes out and makes things worse. Good family lives are very important throughout their lives and help, but some kids just aren't going to get certain subjects. We're all different people.
js2 9y ago
A reviewer of the book mentions this magazine article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-works-what-doesn-t/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-works-what-d... ("What Works, What Doesn't: Some study techniques accelerate learning, whereas others are just a waste of time—but which ones are which? An unprecedented review maps out the best pathways to follow.") Behind paywall, but mirrored at http://tguilfoyle.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/file/view/What_works,_What_doesn't.pdf http://tguilfoyle.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/file/view/What_work... A short summary for the article is: https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~mernst/advice/effective-study-techniques.pdf https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~mernst/advice/effective-stu...
arstin 9y ago
I don't disagree, but to add some additional complexity: cog-sci-y "learning science" literature mostly just captures one (very significant!) part of what goes on in a college course...learning things in the sense of being able to then recall facts (WWI started from an assassination!), perform new tasks (implement a linked list!), develop specific useful habits (cite your sources!), and so forth. I know the headline says the word "retention" and the content deals with this above stuff to some degree, but there's also different goals stated like inspiring students to want to learn, getting students to reflect on their inherited values, and becoming sensitive to experiencing themes in literature. For purposes like these, there's simply no point to covering a lot of material, and it may often be counterproductive. I think one key point is stated in the article: no one thinks "slow teaching" should be the only method. But (anecdotally lol) I personally am glad I had a few seminars with a glacial pace, as those were the ones where I really learned how to write, plus how to think when facts aren't available or directly relevant. Personally I think stepping back and asking what a course is trying to do is the first step. If it's to expose students to as much evo bio as possible, a slow teaching "philosophy" wouldn't be appropriate. If it's to get a group of people who might be hostile to the idea of evolution to consider the possibility ("reflecting on values"), I don't know what other approach could work.
- closed 9y ago
  It seems like you might enjoy the article Stupid Tutoring Systems, Intelligent Humans! It talks about some less commonly thought of factors (e.g.emotional) that are important for teaching processes. http://www.columbia.edu/~rsb2162/STS-Baker-IJAIED-v15.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~rsb2162/STS-Baker-IJAIED-v15.pdf
  - arstin 9y ago
    Thank you for the link! I was actually wanting to read a survey on this topic. I'm obviously sympathetic with the general approach of focusing on augmenting rather than replacing humans in teaching. I confess I'm more skeptical of "data, data, and more data" than the author (from whence it comes? an A/B test of the video widget we wrote last week? the "anecdotes" of a skilled teacher with decades of experience can surely be more informative sometimes!), but I'm certainly eager to incorporate what good data is available!
threatofrain 9y ago
Aside from the fact that pedagogical research is 95% focused on youth and not learning across the lifespan, there is a massive divide between pedagogical research and practice that doesn't look to improve, and the problem is as much political as it is historical.

anonemouse145 9y ago

This. For instance, we all probably had to go through math classes where the professor writes so fast that it's a hand cramping race just to even scribble together enough notes to follow each gigantic derivation later for learning purposes. Nobody in that class is retaining any of that. The kid who aces that class, is almost invariably someone who likes to to play with the equations in their free time at their own pace, so they get a feel for what process they need to employ toward a solution rather than brute forcing it. (When applicable, sometimes brute force is the only tactic.) Math classes in general really, desperately need to slow down and let students grasp higher-order concepts. The number crunching method is stressful, and all it does is massively discourage bright people who may be geniuses in their field but flee University because the school made Calculus their "breakout" class. Anecdote. When I went to University, I had a professor who graduated MIT tell the class that he'd realized how much pressure we were under in our Calculus class trying to keep up, that this was deeply unfair, and that he was erasing our last test score because they were unreflective of the performance that he knew we were capable of if we had any time for his class. Calculus was a core requirement, his class was elective, so almost every student had been forced to ignore his class, and we were amazingly lucky that he was good enough to sympathize. This man used to work at Bell Labs and swam 200 laps a day to keep fit. And he was telling us we had it rough. I saw people cry out of gratitude.

Balgair 9y ago
Anecdata: I didn't grasp any of algebra until 10th grade. From about 7th to 10th grade chemistry class, I was just winging it. Sure, 10x=30, I could get x. But any of the trig or the parabolas, not a chance. It wasn't until chemistry, when I actually had to use algebra to get the molarity, moles, grams, etc, that I was able to grasp it. I remember sitting in class after the bell let out, on my desk, just doing the molarity equations over and over. It was one of the largest smiles of my life. I finally got it. So, math happens when it happens. Maybe, yeah, I was a little retarded from the rest of my peers in grasping this idea of algebra. But I did get it eventually, when I needed to use it, finally. Saying that math is 'hard' isn't the best way of going about it. Everyone is different and learns differently and at different times. Some may not be able to get 3rd year Calc until they are 30, some get it at 15. I tapped out of formal math classes at number-theory at ~22. Diff-eqs, Lagrangians, General Relativity, all fine with me, but number theory was a whole different level of pedantry I was not about to dive into.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  It wasn't until chemistry, when I actually had to use algebra to get the molarity, moles, grams, etc, that I was able to grasp it. There was this study that found this kind of difference in application. People were given a logic problem phrased abstractly. Then other people were given the same logic problem, but phrased in terms of catching someone cheating at something. It was like people's IQ's suddenly greatly increased. I also remember an anecdote about this father coaching his kid through the multiplication tables, which the kid didn't like and had trouble with. They were riding in the car quizzing the kid, who was not doing well, but then the kid asked to do the 7's, which he rattled off with aplomb. Turns out, the kid really liked football. (US football)
  - Balgair 9y ago
    Nice ones! I think application is important, but the diversity of what a child will care about is crazy large. You can't reach them all. My SO is a teacher (of chemistry, ironically) and some kids get the material and some just don't. It's not a lack of trying, it's just that they don't get it. As such, the frustration of the child comes out and makes things worse. Good family lives are very important throughout their lives and help, but some kids just aren't going to get certain subjects. We're all different people.

js2 9y ago

A reviewer of the book mentions this magazine article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-works-what-doesn-t/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-works-what-d... ("What Works, What Doesn't: Some study techniques accelerate learning, whereas others are just a waste of time—but which ones are which? An unprecedented review maps out the best pathways to follow.") Behind paywall, but mirrored at http://tguilfoyle.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/file/view/What_works,_What_doesn't.pdf http://tguilfoyle.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/file/view/What_work... A short summary for the article is: https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~mernst/advice/effective-study-techniques.pdf https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~mernst/advice/effective-stu...

arstin 9y ago

I don't disagree, but to add some additional complexity: cog-sci-y "learning science" literature mostly just captures one (very significant!) part of what goes on in a college course...learning things in the sense of being able to then recall facts (WWI started from an assassination!), perform new tasks (implement a linked list!), develop specific useful habits (cite your sources!), and so forth. I know the headline says the word "retention" and the content deals with this above stuff to some degree, but there's also different goals stated like inspiring students to want to learn, getting students to reflect on their inherited values, and becoming sensitive to experiencing themes in literature. For purposes like these, there's simply no point to covering a lot of material, and it may often be counterproductive. I think one key point is stated in the article: no one thinks "slow teaching" should be the only method. But (anecdotally lol) I personally am glad I had a few seminars with a glacial pace, as those were the ones where I really learned how to write, plus how to think when facts aren't available or directly relevant. Personally I think stepping back and asking what a course is trying to do is the first step. If it's to expose students to as much evo bio as possible, a slow teaching "philosophy" wouldn't be appropriate. If it's to get a group of people who might be hostile to the idea of evolution to consider the possibility ("reflecting on values"), I don't know what other approach could work.

closed 9y ago
It seems like you might enjoy the article Stupid Tutoring Systems, Intelligent Humans! It talks about some less commonly thought of factors (e.g.emotional) that are important for teaching processes. http://www.columbia.edu/~rsb2162/STS-Baker-IJAIED-v15.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~rsb2162/STS-Baker-IJAIED-v15.pdf
- arstin 9y ago
  Thank you for the link! I was actually wanting to read a survey on this topic. I'm obviously sympathetic with the general approach of focusing on augmenting rather than replacing humans in teaching. I confess I'm more skeptical of "data, data, and more data" than the author (from whence it comes? an A/B test of the video widget we wrote last week? the "anecdotes" of a skilled teacher with decades of experience can surely be more informative sometimes!), but I'm certainly eager to incorporate what good data is available!

threatofrain 9y ago

Aside from the fact that pedagogical research is 95% focused on youth and not learning across the lifespan, there is a massive divide between pedagogical research and practice that doesn't look to improve, and the problem is as much political as it is historical.