4 ms·

Committing things to long-term memory is an absolutely essential component of any sort of learning. There are many studies talking about how doing doesn't neces

Committing things to long-term memory is an absolutely essential component of any sort of learning. There are many studies talking about how doing doesn't necessarily imply any learning at all and only implies learning insofar as it leads to committing information to long-term memory. Furthermore, there are studies talking about how problem-based/inquiry-based learning (what it sounds like you might be thinking of) generally produces worse outcomes than direct instruction (which places substantial emphasis on committing things to long-term memory). This all makes sense in light of the "human cognitive architecture". Working memory is severely limited while long-term memory is effectively unlimited. Thus, committing things to long-term memory frees up the scarce resource of working memory. In fact, there are many studies which indicate that the key differentiator between experts and novices is that they have a huge long-term store of schemata which can be applied in the problem domain and allow more efficient representation and manipulation in working memory.

philipps 9y ago
It would be helpful if you would cite the studies that allegedly support your statements about the poor results of learning-by-doing. As previous poster points out “committing things to long-term memory” is memorization, a small part of learning.
- pseudonom- 9y ago
  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_... "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching" > Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert–novice differences, and cognitive load. Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal” guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional design models that support guidance during instruction are briefly described.
  - pseudonom- 9y ago
    Choice quotes include: > The past half-century of empirical research on this issue has provided overwhelming and unambiguous evidence that minimal guidance during instruction is significantly less effective and efficient than guidance specifically designed to support the cognitive processing necessary for learning. > Our understanding of the role of long-term memory in human cognition has altered dramatically over the last few decades. It is no longer seen as a passive repository of discrete, isolated fragments of information that permit us to repeat what we have learned. Nor is it seen only as a component of human cognitive architecture that has merely peripheral influence on complex cognitive processes such as thinking and problem solving. Rather, long-term memory is now viewed as the central, dominant structure of human cognition. > These results suggest that expert problem solvers derive their skill by drawing on the extensive experience stored in their long-term memory and then quickly select and apply the best procedures for solving problems. The fact that these differences can be used to fully explain problem-solving skill emphasizes the importance of long-term memory to cognition. We are skillful in an area because our long-term memorycontains huge amounts of information concerning the area. > The aim of all instruction is to alter long-term memory. If nothing has changed in long-term memory, nothing has been learned. I'll quit there, but that's only a few pages in and it's all quite good and definitely worth reading IMO.

philipps 9y ago

It would be helpful if you would cite the studies that allegedly support your statements about the poor results of learning-by-doing. As previous poster points out “committing things to long-term memory” is memorization, a small part of learning.

pseudonom- 9y ago
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_... "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching" > Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert–novice differences, and cognitive load. Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal” guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional design models that support guidance during instruction are briefly described.
- pseudonom- 9y ago
  Choice quotes include: > The past half-century of empirical research on this issue has provided overwhelming and unambiguous evidence that minimal guidance during instruction is significantly less effective and efficient than guidance specifically designed to support the cognitive processing necessary for learning. > Our understanding of the role of long-term memory in human cognition has altered dramatically over the last few decades. It is no longer seen as a passive repository of discrete, isolated fragments of information that permit us to repeat what we have learned. Nor is it seen only as a component of human cognitive architecture that has merely peripheral influence on complex cognitive processes such as thinking and problem solving. Rather, long-term memory is now viewed as the central, dominant structure of human cognition. > These results suggest that expert problem solvers derive their skill by drawing on the extensive experience stored in their long-term memory and then quickly select and apply the best procedures for solving problems. The fact that these differences can be used to fully explain problem-solving skill emphasizes the importance of long-term memory to cognition. We are skillful in an area because our long-term memorycontains huge amounts of information concerning the area. > The aim of all instruction is to alter long-term memory. If nothing has changed in long-term memory, nothing has been learned. I'll quit there, but that's only a few pages in and it's all quite good and definitely worth reading IMO.