4 ms·

Differences are mostly attributable to prior knowledge.

Psyladine 4y ago
That should likewise account for variations in rate of learning, since you can't predict what prior knowledge they possess of the subject matter. If the rate is consistent, there must be more than existing knowledge bases, or there would be clear staggered tiers or leapfrogging reflecting different accumulative advantage.
- apwheele 4y ago
  Agree with this, the data is consistent with small, additive, effects of learning over time. (And those additive effects don't show much variance between students, at least for these short courses.) I have a pet theory in general for noisy social science data -- the best we can do is often find additive effects (there is a boutique subset of social science showing "simple models" do almost just as well as more complicated machine learning models). Here there is variance in each of the test stages, maybe I am guessing standard deviation of 5 percent points within person (e.g. if you could have a person retake the entry exam, one time 65, another time 70, another 60, etc. would not surprise me). The variance likely swamps any ability to identify different rates of growth over the shorter course period. (Also for course instruments, truncation of 100% makes it more difficult as well.) Just a pet theory anyway!
seaners 4y ago
"Prior knowledge" is a strange way to write IQ.
- scotty79 4y ago
  IQ has barely anything to do with learning.
  - ryan93 4y ago
    ???? Smarter people require less exposure to the same concept to "get it". You might actually just be lying and there is no reason for me to engage.
    - scotty79 4y ago
      They can understand faster. But not learn (remember) faster. I think higher IQ people might in some cases learn faster because if they understand the thing they are trying to remember, they can "replay it" in their heads bumping up the number of exposures which might help remembering. But not everyone with high IQ does that.
      - naasking 4y ago
        Learning isn't just remembering, it's also reflective of skills. Someone with considerably higher IQ can arguably understand how to program computers faster, and thus start writing programs on their own sooner. Would we not say they learned programming faster?
      - barking_biscuit 4y ago
        The real difference appears to be they simply cover more ground in aggregate over the long run on their own steam because their physiology makes it calorically cheaper for them to do so compared to their peers. IQ seems to correlate most strongly with working memory, though ones capacity for working memory doesn't seem to have much bearing on the mechanism behind the formation of new memories themselves. Building semantic memory requires repeated exposure. What really matters is the rate at which the individual exposes themselves to learning opportunities. This appears to be a function of how rewarding it is to you, how expensive it is for you, and how much (or in some cases little) executive control you have.
        scotty79 4y ago
        > Building semantic memory requires repeated exposure. I think the point of this research is that this requirement is pretty consistent in humans regardless of their other capacities or prior knowledge.

That should likewise account for variations in rate of learning, since you can't predict what prior knowledge they possess of the subject matter. If the rate is consistent, there must be more than existing knowledge bases, or there would be clear staggered tiers or leapfrogging reflecting different accumulative advantage.

apwheele 4y ago
Agree with this, the data is consistent with small, additive, effects of learning over time. (And those additive effects don't show much variance between students, at least for these short courses.) I have a pet theory in general for noisy social science data -- the best we can do is often find additive effects (there is a boutique subset of social science showing "simple models" do almost just as well as more complicated machine learning models). Here there is variance in each of the test stages, maybe I am guessing standard deviation of 5 percent points within person (e.g. if you could have a person retake the entry exam, one time 65, another time 70, another 60, etc. would not surprise me). The variance likely swamps any ability to identify different rates of growth over the shorter course period. (Also for course instruments, truncation of 100% makes it more difficult as well.) Just a pet theory anyway!

seaners 4y ago

"Prior knowledge" is a strange way to write IQ.

scotty79 4y ago
IQ has barely anything to do with learning.
- ryan93 4y ago
  ???? Smarter people require less exposure to the same concept to "get it". You might actually just be lying and there is no reason for me to engage.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    They can understand faster. But not learn (remember) faster. I think higher IQ people might in some cases learn faster because if they understand the thing they are trying to remember, they can "replay it" in their heads bumping up the number of exposures which might help remembering. But not everyone with high IQ does that.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Learning isn't just remembering, it's also reflective of skills. Someone with considerably higher IQ can arguably understand how to program computers faster, and thus start writing programs on their own sooner. Would we not say they learned programming faster?
    - barking_biscuit 4y ago
      The real difference appears to be they simply cover more ground in aggregate over the long run on their own steam because their physiology makes it calorically cheaper for them to do so compared to their peers. IQ seems to correlate most strongly with working memory, though ones capacity for working memory doesn't seem to have much bearing on the mechanism behind the formation of new memories themselves. Building semantic memory requires repeated exposure. What really matters is the rate at which the individual exposes themselves to learning opportunities. This appears to be a function of how rewarding it is to you, how expensive it is for you, and how much (or in some cases little) executive control you have.
      - scotty79 4y ago
        > Building semantic memory requires repeated exposure. I think the point of this research is that this requirement is pretty consistent in humans regardless of their other capacities or prior knowledge.