5 ms·

That's not what the research shows, given a properly structured learning environment. Research actually shows the losses are much greater due to context switchi

That's not what the research shows, given a properly structured learning environment. Research actually shows the losses are much greater due to context switching than to saturation.

learc83 7y ago
Please show me the research that says there is no saturation point to learning.
- Smithalicious 7y ago
  The burden of proof is on you for showing that there is one.
  - learc83 7y ago
    I'm not the one who said "The research shows". The status quo is the 4 year degree. If you think that your 9 month degree is better, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    That's not how science or epistemology works. The answer to any question is "I don't know" until you have some kind of research backing an answer. There is no default answer that something does or does not exist or is or is not true.
AstralStorm 7y ago
You still need spaced repetition for actual retention of the skill. Though it is easier to recover a forgotten well learned skill. It's also known in layman terms as practice. 9 months of cramming is not good enough. Neither is 4 years of tests without actually using the taught things in practice and laboratory exercises. And preferably also homework. Source: SuperMemo research, Piotr Woźniak and his citations. No reason why it wouldn't apply to CS or programming. The amount of information useful requires essentially lifelong interleaved focused learning at least hour a day. You can also maybe pick some things up in a job, but these have stricter limits.
- austenallred 7y ago
  Spaced repetition does not necessitate spending few hours learning per day. That’s not what the research says at all.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Even one to two hours is enough of an optimal schedule is used. It takes longer time if the material is badly presented or not practiced.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > You still need spaced repetition for actual retention of the skill. Though it is easier to recover a forgotten well learned skill. This isn’t true. People forget the most advanced skills they learned unless they use them regularly but they don’t forget the ones that are necessary for that last skill. If you ever knew calculus you’ll remember algebra after decades without using it. I haven’t spoken German in most of a decade but I can still read it fine. Spaced repetition is the most efficient way to durably learn something but it’s not necessary.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Do you have any sources for your statement? Especially context switching. Where it is terrible at very short notices (because cohesion is low), it is beneficial for introducing spacing while running maximum allowable workload. People tend to forget unpracticed skills, not oldest, and most complex parts (least compressible, biggest) first, not necessarily hardest. And the forgetting is exponential, depends on how well the material is presented (cohesion specifically). Exponentials flatten a whole lot. You do forget a little still over time. Ask a 40 year old who knew algebra and calculus really well and does not use it often if at all. (I do sometimes, so I don't count.) Stability and accuracy are also separate variables. Algebra is not one thing, it's thousands of memory chunks. As a probe, think if you remember Fundamental Theorem of Algebra which is a keystone, but slightly tricky. Compare to whether you can solve ordinary differential equations of second kind, and whether you can solve an equation involving logarithms of rational non-negative numbers. (I picked random not absolute basics from high school, 101 and 202. Bonus points if you spot the stinker.) -- I always thought of even latest versions of SuperMemo like Antikythera mechanism for learning. It's a great model even if principle is not yet properly researched.

That's not what the research shows, given a properly structured learning environment. Research actually shows the losses are much greater due to context switching than to saturation.

learc83 7y ago

Please show me the research that says there is no saturation point to learning.

Smithalicious 7y ago
The burden of proof is on you for showing that there is one.
- learc83 7y ago
  I'm not the one who said "The research shows". The status quo is the 4 year degree. If you think that your 9 month degree is better, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  That's not how science or epistemology works. The answer to any question is "I don't know" until you have some kind of research backing an answer. There is no default answer that something does or does not exist or is or is not true.

AstralStorm 7y ago

You still need spaced repetition for actual retention of the skill. Though it is easier to recover a forgotten well learned skill. It's also known in layman terms as practice. 9 months of cramming is not good enough. Neither is 4 years of tests without actually using the taught things in practice and laboratory exercises. And preferably also homework. Source: SuperMemo research, Piotr Woźniak and his citations. No reason why it wouldn't apply to CS or programming. The amount of information useful requires essentially lifelong interleaved focused learning at least hour a day. You can also maybe pick some things up in a job, but these have stricter limits.

austenallred 7y ago
Spaced repetition does not necessitate spending few hours learning per day. That’s not what the research says at all.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Even one to two hours is enough of an optimal schedule is used. It takes longer time if the material is badly presented or not practiced.
barry-cotter 7y ago
> You still need spaced repetition for actual retention of the skill. Though it is easier to recover a forgotten well learned skill. This isn’t true. People forget the most advanced skills they learned unless they use them regularly but they don’t forget the ones that are necessary for that last skill. If you ever knew calculus you’ll remember algebra after decades without using it. I haven’t spoken German in most of a decade but I can still read it fine. Spaced repetition is the most efficient way to durably learn something but it’s not necessary.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Do you have any sources for your statement? Especially context switching. Where it is terrible at very short notices (because cohesion is low), it is beneficial for introducing spacing while running maximum allowable workload. People tend to forget unpracticed skills, not oldest, and most complex parts (least compressible, biggest) first, not necessarily hardest. And the forgetting is exponential, depends on how well the material is presented (cohesion specifically). Exponentials flatten a whole lot. You do forget a little still over time. Ask a 40 year old who knew algebra and calculus really well and does not use it often if at all. (I do sometimes, so I don't count.) Stability and accuracy are also separate variables. Algebra is not one thing, it's thousands of memory chunks. As a probe, think if you remember Fundamental Theorem of Algebra which is a keystone, but slightly tricky. Compare to whether you can solve ordinary differential equations of second kind, and whether you can solve an equation involving logarithms of rational non-negative numbers. (I picked random not absolute basics from high school, 101 and 202. Bonus points if you spot the stinker.) -- I always thought of even latest versions of SuperMemo like Antikythera mechanism for learning. It's a great model even if principle is not yet properly researched.