
Everything You Thought You Knew About Learning Is Wrong - rbanffy
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/01/everything-about-learning/
======
Dn_Ab
This is a terrible title to an ok article. Basically it is about spaced
repetition and the contextual interference effect.

The argument for the latter being if you focus on one thing your brain will
rely more on short term memory in working things out. If you vary randomly
_within_ the domain, constant switching of context forces more reliance on
long term memory structures. So you learn slower per session but show better
generalization and retention of material in the long term. Its good if you are
just learning but not useful if you are trying to figure something out.

The mechanisms are little understood but what's really cool is that a similar
effect is seen in machine learning.
[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117...](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.5547&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varied_practice>

<http://jn.physiology.org/content/106/5/2632>

<http://www.cogsci.northwestern.edu/cogsci2004/ma/ma239.pdf>

~~~
replax
I have to agree with you, I generally find those link-bite "everything you
blabla is wrong" titles rather offensive. It a) does not say anything about
the content of the article, b) actually insults the reader in a blatant way
and c) is a very cheap, offensive and apparently "hip" way of ruthlessly
longing for click-throughs. I do not understand how titles like those keep
getting up-votes and I feel quite sorry for authors writing good/ok articles
and their bosses choosing horrible headings. I am sorry for the "off-topic"
rant but it reached a tipping point for me.

~~~
sebkomianos
Well, clearly titles like this one sell a lot more..

------
6ren
This seems to be about memorization as opposed to understanding (or skills).

I've always seen myself as having a poor memory, but found that if I focused
on understanding, I could remember easily. I thought this was because
understanding itself is simpler (so there's less to remember), and one can
reconstruct the facts from this understanding (also, verify them).

This is treating understanding as a theory, in terms of which the facts can be
stated more briefly than without. An abstraction, if you like, that factors
out commonalities/redundancies. If A always implies B, then you can just need
to rememeber "A".

But later, I've realized that in fact, I do remember a great deal of detail
that isn't derived from understanding. Perhaps understanding actually requires
a lot of domain knowledge - facts - that the understanding is about. You can't
"understand" in a vacuum. So, now I think that's it's just that somehow,
causal connections and explanatory relationships stick in my memory more
easily - they are certainly more _interesting_ to me (because meaningful), so
that helps with concentration and therefore memory.

I actually once tested my opinion that I couldn't memorize, for a university
exam, and found - to my amazement - that I could. It really was surprising.
But I didn't score nearly as well as I usually did, since I wasn't focused on
understanding - which is what it is all about, IMHO.

~~~
wisty
Memorization gives you the building blocks of skills.

It has a really bad name amongst certain education commentators. It's
certainly true that you shouldn't try to memorize in a vacuum, or that you
shouldn't test "higher order" skills (like complex questions, which require a
real understanding of the basic blocks), but memorization of connected facts
or processess is essential.

~~~
jacobolus
The point is, for many of us, the best way to “memorize” things is to
explicitly avoid trying to memorize them, and focus instead on understanding
context and connections between things – after you’ve had to call up the same
idea 5 or 10 times because it was related to something else you were learning
about, recall just comes along.

Examples I’ve often seen used by proponents of rote learning include
multiplication tables and spelling lists. I’m better at mental arithmetic than
almost everyone I know, and I almost never misspell words, not because I spent
any effort memorizing lists of them (indeed, I completely refused to do this
as a 9-year-old, because it bored the crap out of me), but because I’ve spent
more time in exploratory play with the relationships between numbers than they
have, and have spent lots of time reading, doing close textual analyses for my
own edification, trying to write tight fluid prose, and playing with various
kinds of poetry, etc.

I’m convinced that rote memorization is promoted as a pedagogical tool because
it is cheap and easy and requires little effort from teachers and schools,
more than because it’s particularly effective. Then again, everyone learns
differently, and I know some people who are incredible at chewing through
lists of facts once quickly and dredging them back up effortlessly months
later. YMMV.

~~~
nialo
This sort of thing seems to me to be just you stumbling on the spaced
repetition effect by accident: you look up the same thing several times, at
varying intervals as you learn it more.

I personally think multiplication is actually a great thing for spaced
repetition if you can get the software to pick random numbers each time. I
also find that things that I don't review regularly just fall out of my head,
spaced repetition software is good for just stopping that relatively easily.

~~~
jacobolus
Speaking only for myself, learning things rote, via software-driven spaced
repetition or otherwise, is deadly dull. On the other hand, finding new
patterns, reading relevant books and deconstructing their arguments, holding
discussions with other people passionate about a subject, trying to construct
new ideas and relate them to past knowledge, etc. is exciting and
invigorating. Living life as a human rather than a robot may be less than
perfectly efficient relative to some platonic ideal, but really, so what?
Similarly, I’d much rather go on a hike than run on a treadmill, I’d much
rather cook and eat a delicious meal than compute the perfect mixture of
nutrients and blend them into a shake–slurry, and I’d rather make one deep
friend than fill a rolodex with business cards. My personal impression from
having dabbled with spaced repetition software after a friend bugged me about
it for months was that I personally learn better when learning things doesn’t
feel like a visit to the dentist. Call it a character flaw. Again, YMMV.

My point about the multiplication tables and spelling lists though was that
explicitly learning e.g. multiplication tables is pretty much unnecessary,
because multiplying small numbers comes up again and again in doing more
exciting and challenging problems, and by the 20th time you’ve had to multiply
6*8 through some explicit manual method, you’ll just start to remember that oh
yeah, that’s 48 again.

~~~
one-shot
While I agree that rote learning is very dull, it can be fundamental in
situations where you know next to nothing of the subject at hand.

Consider for example two native English speakers, one learning German and the
other learning Chinese. German grammar is way more complex than Chinese's, but
because of the etymological closeness between German and English, the German
student will quickly get to the point where they can easily pick up new words
from the context (obviating the need for vocabulary lists), while the Chinese
student will pretty much never reach that. In this type of situation an SRS is
invaluable.

Regarding multiplication tables, you shouldn't forget that knowing them by
heart is sometimes necessary for understanding the exciting problems. This
comes up all the time in mathematics: to understand the important problems in
a field, you sometimes have to get to know well a lot of seemingly boring
concepts.

~~~
kragen
Knowing multiplication tables by heart is never necessary for understanding
exciting problems; the exciting problems are not dependent on your arbitrary
culturally-contingent choice of numeric base! I had discovered the commutative
and associative properties of multiplication long before memorizing
multiplication tables in fourth grade, and historically speaking, they were
known long before the adoption of place-value numerical systems.

------
laichzeit0
Why has no one mentioned SuperMemo? The software has been around since the
80's. I use it every single day (because you have to) for about 30 minutes to
remember Latin vocabularly. It's based on spaced-repetition. If you feel a
particular piece of knowledge is worth remembering permanently, I would
recommend using it. <http://www.supermemo.com/>

There's actually a Wired article about the author of the software
[http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-05/ff_woznia...](http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-05/ff_wozniak?currentPage=all)
Completely eccentric and totally devoted to using the thing. I mean he doesn't
even decide when he responds to his own mail, Supermemo will "schedule" it for
him. I believe the latest version supports something called "incremental
reading" which Wozniak claims is better than the usual order we read things.
You read till you get bored/tired and them move on and it'll keep track of
where you were, etc.

~~~
JamesNelson
There's actually an open source app which functions similarly to super-memo,
but uses an older spaced repetition algorithm and doesn't quite have the same
feature set. Its called Anki (<http://www.ankisrs.net>), and its been a
godsend for both myself and many friends who learn Japanese.

The thing I found interesting in this article is that switching contexts
actually increases the amount you can learn. From what I understand, this
would mean studying grammar, character reading/production and vocabulary at
the same time would be beneficial. I never quite understood why this was the
case before, even though people have told me it is so.

~~~
replax
I also heavily use Anki for learning (Japanese). Although you can learn all
sorts of things very efficiently with it once you get into the habit of using
it. The program is great, it comes with >free< syncing/online backup, provides
an iOS/Mac/Linux/Win/Android/Maemo client and a slick browser interface.

~~~
laichzeit0
I really like that there are so many clients. Would really like some kind of
cloud-sync + mobile client for SuperMemo. It also only works in Windows which
means I have to run it under VirtualBox.

My only concern with Anki is whether it still uses some variant of the SM-2
algorithm and whether or not the people implementing the software are doing
more than just polishing interfaces, etc. and actively work on improving the
learning algorithm. Looking at the history, SuperMemo on SM-11
<http://www.supermemo.com/english/algsm11.htm> and Wozniak claims that there
is a substantial evidence that this algorithm increases the speed of your
learning.

~~~
replax
Yes, Anki used to use a slightly modified version of SM-5 but the Lead-
developer decided to revert down to a modified and improved version of SM-2.
Basically he reasons (you can find his explanation on the Anki FAQ) that while
versions newer than SM-2 are supposed to (slightly) increase efficiency, it
only happens if you study every day and at roughly the same time of day. The
reason is, that starting with SM-3 a failure on a certain card changes the
difficulty of (determined by the algo) similar cards. A further explanation by
the lead developer can be found here:
[http://markmail.org/message/u2zfnrg7x53bzp24#query:+page:1+m...](http://markmail.org/message/u2zfnrg7x53bzp24#query:+page:1+mid:gjwn32ntqdfsnors+state:results　and)
I am convinced that it (at least for me) offers much better studying
conditions. (Actually, the mere fact that I can revise on a crowded 30min
commute on my ipod would make up for any efficiency increase).

------
axiom
It's really a shame that almost none of what we know about optimal techniques
for learning is being applied in real educational institutions.

~~~
blahedo
This isn't even approximately true. Almost everything we know about optimal
techniques for learning is being applied in real educational institutions.
But, not every teacher is as effective at applying them, and furthermore, it
takes time to do a full overhaul of all parts of everything.

A more effective lament would be, it's too bad these techniques don't yet have
universal application. But the above comment is just sniping; it's a claim
that educators aren't even trying. Which, aside from being false, is acutely
unhelpful.

~~~
axiom
I think what's truly unhelpful if people claiming that everything is fine,
while the education system completely fails to meet even the most basic
standards of efficacy (while costing a cool trillion dollars a year to run.)

At the most basic level Americans have shockingly low levels of scientific,
mathematical, literary, or financial literacy. About half don't believe in
evolution, about a quarter think the moon landing was a hoax, over two thirds
don't know enough math to pass an 8th grade math test.

At the college level, students retain about 10% of what they hear in lectures.
Forget nearly everything within months of graduation, and generally fail to
improve on basic logic and reading comprehension skills compared to when they
first entered university. Then after graduation the average college grad reads
less than 1 book per year.

If you ask a _typical_ college student (and remember I said typical, not those
who can afford to pay 50k per year to attend an elite liberal arts college)
what their university experience has been like they will tell you that in a
solid three quarters of their classes they had a disinterested prof who showed
up for 50 minutes to read them the textbook and then asked them to mindlessly
regurgitate the content on the exam.

So I'll repeat that I think what's truly unhelpful is guys like you claiming
that everything is hunky dory.

~~~
blahedo
> _So I'll repeat that I think what's truly unhelpful is guys like you
> claiming that everything is hunky dory._

"Hunky dory"? Not to overly pick on your own logic and reading comprehension
skills, but I made no such claim. We have a lot to do, and there's a lot that
is known that doesn't have universal application, and some things aren't even
widely implemented yet. I was, however, disputing the claim that " _almost
none_ " of it is implemented.

~~~
axiom
Did you even read your own comment?

"Almost everything we know about optimal techniques for learning is being
applied in real educational institutions. But, not every teacher is as
effective at applying them..."

I guess my reading comprehension must be totally shot, because I interpret
that as meaning that almost everything we know about techniques for learning
is being applied, but the problem is just that some teachers aren't applying
these techniques correctly. You know, instead of about 80% of teaching not
giving a shit and there being no consequence to that for them.

------
icegreentea
I find that the learning in different places thing is really key. In school I
find that for exams where I've been forced (by schedule) to study everywhere
(my apartment, friends, classroom, different libraries, coffee shops), I find
it easier to recall methods and approaches. For straight up 'facts', I don't
really find a difference, but when tackling various problem solving exercises,
it really has a difference.

I also find that studying while listening to music is always risky, since you
may find yourself craving music during the exam.

Honestly, I've read many books on learning and brain plasticity, and they all
give somewhat contradictory results. Perhaps because cited studies rarely use
the same approaches to learning/testing.

For example, in this article, we are told that 'topic-focused' studying is not
the way to do it. But what they've really established is that in things which
have multiple facets to work away at, an interleaving approach can produce
better results. But what about learning in things in which there is a strong
linear progression, or at least a strong 'prerequisite' relationship. In many
technical courses, courses are often structured in this way, so that each
'topic' builds heavily on the last.

Honestly, the only consistent thread that I can really take out of all of this
is that learning anything takes consistent, long term, DIRECTED work. It is
possible to drop something your memory, and keep it at an 'adequate' level for
a long time through somewhat consistent, more 'relaxed' work, but this
'knowledge' will leave you quickly as soon as you stop. Where as if you have
long term directed work, it will end up embedding into your memory. After you
stop, you may not be able to immediately recall these things, but after a
quick refresher, you'll retain very very large amounts of information.

------
MarkMc
Another article on the same subject:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/opinion/sunday/quality-
hom...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/opinion/sunday/quality-homework-a-
smart-idea.html?pagewanted=all)

According to the article, there are three main ways to efficient learning:

1\. Spaced Repetition - where the information is repeated, but with longer and
longer intervals between each repeat.

2\. Retrieval Practice - where you have to actively recall the answer or
technique rather than being told or shown it.

3\. Cognitive Disfluency - the harder you have to work to read or understand
the material the more you will remember it. (I'm not sure how useful this
point is. The New York Times article refers to research where the text was
blurry, but from this it concludes that interleaving different topics would
give a good results...I'm not convinced that would give the same result).

------
andrewfelix
_Everything You Thought Would Be Referenced Isn't_

Lovely premise, but how am I expected to take this seriously without sources
and references?

~~~
srl
> Really, I recently had the good fortune to interview Robert Bjork, director
> of the UCLA Learning and Forgetting Lab...

That's the source. This isn't a research paper - it doesn't need cited
references to be submitted to the journal of Wired.

~~~
andrewfelix
It doesn't _need_ to be, but it certainly helps expand the conversation.

------
ajuc
Learning hack I've found very effective (not that it is very original, but I
was surprised how effective this is) - study with others, each of you should
try to explain what you read to the others, and argue about what it means, why
others got it wrong, etc.

For me it's best motivation to try hard to understand something, when I can
show off shortly after :) And it gives immediate feedback - if you can't
explain something, you don't really understand it. And when a few people are
learning together, they find most of the patterns quickly, and it makes
learing the rest easier.

------
TechNewb
Does anyone else get tired of Wired's sensational headlines, that come off as
spammy? The logic in their headlines is often faulty. Which thus keeps me from
reading their content, or taking them seriously.

------
Arun2009
Plenty of publications by Robert Bjork here:
<http://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu/RABjorkPublications.php>

------
wccrawford
I've tried SRS's and don't like them. They're only good for memorization, and
if you're memorizing something that you need to use, using it is a -lot-
better than using an SRS.

Plus, memorizing complex things with via SRS isn't easy. Figuring out how to
break down the cards into small enough pieces is really hard for any non-
trivial information.

For instance, I tried to use it to study for the PHP Cert from Zend. I passed
the test, but only because I spent so much time researching to make the cards.
The actual studying of the cards was pretty much useless after having done the
real work of making the cards.

I tried to use it for studying languages, but I've found that the time making
the cards is pretty much wasted (it's copy and paste, no thought involved) and
studying them beyond the first few reps is pointless, too. If I can get
through a few reps, and I'm actively using the language, there's no need to
continue doing reps beyond that. I'm better off letting someone else make the
list, study them like normal flashcards a few times, and then throw them away.
(Better yet is something like iKnow that has the word, translation, picture
and sentence.)

In the end, I've never actually found a use case for an SRS system that wasn't
trumped by something else either because of easiness or just being better.

------
csomar
_Everything You Thought You Knew About Learning Is Wrong_

 _And it turns out that everything I thought I knew about learning is wrong._

These titles kill me. It's like the author has found out the ultimate gold
mine. It's actually my strategy for learning for years. When approaching a
particular topic/field, I start by reading related things to gain domain
knowledge. This helps a bit later and accelerates my learning.

------
tedsuo
Yet another reason to write real code that does real things when you want to
learn a new technique.

------
jcfrei
this is quite contradictory to the way I've been learning (especially in
classes where a lot of memorization was required, eg. law or business
administration). I'll definitely give this a shot the next time I'm cramming
for an exam.

