Bjork, R.
A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated
learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual
Review of Psychology, 64,
417-444. http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/rgoldsto/courses/cogscilearning/bjorkdunlosky.pdf
Here
are insights from this interesting paper (with a few additions by me):
We
do not store information in our long-term memories by making any kind of
literal recording of that information, but, instead, we do so by relating new
information to what we already know. We store new information in terms of its
meaning to us, as defined by its relationships and semantic associations to
information that already exists in our memories. Storing information in human memory appears
to create capacity—that is, opportunities for additional linkages and
storage—rather than use it up. I'll
add, that when a piece of information is tied to a broader net of ideas and
concepts, it is learned better. This is
why people with a broad knowledge base and good fluid abilities (that help them
conceptualize links between new and old pieces of information), have an
advantage in learning.
When
we retrieve information from memory, we do not retrieve an exact
"recording" of this information as it existed when it was
learned. We re-edit the memory. When we recall an event, for example, we integrate features
of the event with our assumptions, goals or experiences. I'll add, that the manipulations we perform
on the information we retrieve, like telling it or writing it down, also cause
it to be re-edited and then later re-stored in memory as slightly
different. The context in which we
retrieve the information also changes it and adds aspects that were not in the information
at the time it was first stored.
The
mere act of retrieval strengthens the information retrieved, so it becomes
easier to retrieve it later. Thus, when
we study for a test, it's better to test ourselves and to retrieve the
information from memory than to re-read it time and again. The mere act of retrieval of specific
information weakens our ability to retrieve similar competing information, which
is tied to the same retrieval cues or semantic associations. This phenomenon is called "retrieval
induced forgetting".
We
learn and retrieve information better when we introduce difficulties and
challenges to the learning process. Self
testing (as opposed to passive rehearsals of the information) is an example of
such a "desirable difficulty".
Self testing not only makes sure that we studied the information. It is a part of the learning process
itself. When we answer a question on a
self test, we reorganize the material and elaborate it.
Meta-cognitive
monitoring and control are important parts of the leaning process. During learning we evaluate the situation and
make decisions, like what to learn next, how to learn it, whether we've learned
enough for the information to be retrieved, whether we retrieved the
information correctly, and so on.
It's
recommended to space learning sessions across days, rather than to cram it in
one session. It's better to study two or
three subjects simultaneously and to alternate between them ("interleaving"),
than to study only one subject in depth.
When we study one subject in depth, processing is easier and more fluent
than when we alternate between two subjects .
This is because when we massively study one subject, we hold the same
concepts in working memory. When we alternate
between subjects, we need to re-retrieve the concepts of each subject that we
alternate to from long term memory to short term memory. The act of retrieval helps to learn them
better.
In an
experiment, participants were asked to answer trivia questions. The
participants were told that they would be tested later, and the nature of the
test was made very clear: They would be given a blank sheet of paper and,
without being asked the questions again, they would be asked to free-recall the
answers. During the question answering phase, after each correct answer, the
participants were asked to predict the probability that they would be able to
recall the answer again on the final test. The results were surprising: The
more confident participants were that they would recall an answer, the less
likely they were to recall it. This outcome occurred because participants
predicted they would be able to recall the answer to questions that they
answered quickly, but they were most likely to free-recall answers that they
had thought about for a long time. This
means that efforts to process the questions and look for the answers in memory strengthened
learning and increased the likelihood of retrieving the information later.
In another study,
researchers presented to participants paintings by 12 different artists. Some
artists’ paintings were presented on consecutive trials while other artists’
paintings were presented interleaved with other paintings. As a test, participants
were asked which artist painted each of a set of previously un-presented
paintings. They were more accurate following interleaved (i.e., spaced)
learning than following blocked (i.e., massed) learning. Blocking may have made
it easier to notice similarities within a given artist’s paintings, whereas the
value of interleaving appears to lie, at least in part, in highlighting
differences between categories. The
comparison process causes the mental representation to be more abstract, with
conceptualization of the categories of the differences and the relations
between them.
In the domain of
motor skills there is substantial support for the idea that interleaving
practice on separate skills to be learned, such as the several strokes in
tennis, requires that motor programs corresponding to those skills be
repeatedly reloaded, rather than executed over and over again, which has
learning benefits.
The authors recommend
designing textbooks that don’t mass one topic at a time but periodically return
to prior topics in an effort to promote spaced learning.
What about mistakes and
errors made during learning? Anticipating,
unsuccessfully, a to-be-learned response can enhance learning. If participants are asked to predict what
associate of a given cue word (e.g., Whale) is to be learned before they are
shown the actual to-be-learned target (e.g., Mammal), their later cued recall
(e.g., Whale: __?__) of the target word is enhanced, versus a pure study
condition (e.g., Whale: Mammal), even when the predicted associate differs from the target associate.
Making errors is often an
essential component of efficient learning. Manipulations that eliminate errors can often
eliminate learning. Thus, for example, when retrieval of to-be-learned
information is made so easy as to insure success, the benefits of such
retrieval as a learning event tend to be mostly or entirely eliminated. Introducing desirable difficulties into
learning procedures, for example, such as variation or interleaving, tends to
result in more errors being made during the acquisition process, but it also
tends to enhance long-term retention and transfer. Making errors appears to create opportunities for
learning and, surprisingly, that seems particularly true when errors are made
with high confidence. Feedback was
especially effective when it followed errors made with high confidence versus
errors made with low confidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment