Join me LIVE on Zoom later this month (July 22-26th, 2024) as I teach a metacognition course for teens (13-19). Give your teenager a mental advantage that will help them succeed in school and beyond as they discover how to step into the driver's seat of their own mind. Sign up here: www.lmeglobal.net/summer-academy
Fascinating stuff. I like the 'covert activation' caveat .... it's easy to overlook how much deliberate practice can take place in the comfort of our own mind.
I have a some curiosities. The first is about the starting point of student learning prior to the initial instruction (ground zero so to speak) and prior knowledge. How did they take this into account? What about faulty schema where a student's understanding (for want of a better phrase) contains a conceptual misunderstanding? What impact might that have? I'm also interested in their other premise, which is around the statement '... and given the learner invests effort in sufficient learning opportunities'. Where does motivation, confidence, attention and length of the learning opportunity fit in? Where does these conclusions fit with ideas about spacing and interleaving? I'm also interested to know if they looked at students in different grades and at different ages? Is the rate of learning the same for a 5 year old as a 16 year old? How doe sit relate to ideas such as the use of standard celeration charts? Is it possible those charts could offer similar indications? And what about mastery being 80% accuracy? What if you looked for higher levels of accuracy? Take for a pianist memorizing a piece of music for performance. 80% accuracy is no accuracy at all. If mastery was defined as 95% accuracy would the results be similar?
All wonderful questions - essentially, what you're getting at is the concept of 'moderators' - how do different things influence the ability or willingness of people to go through the learning process. As you can guess, all the moderators you've mentioned have huge impacts on learning: this research was simply trying to get to the question of whether or not, all things being equal, learning RATES would be constant or different. This is what makes the Science of Learning so fun: there is no way to address the entirety of learning in a single study (or even a single field!), so we must become detectives and always be linking different papers and findings together. So you're spot on with your thinking - now we can dig into more work to address those thoughts!
Was there differential for people starting at different points or were they going through the same content? Coz, lack of background knowledge has been found to hinder learning right?
I have a question. Why is it some students need to study in order to improve to do well in a classroom but there are cases where other students do not need to study and are able to get full marks or close without studying? Also the students doing well without studying usually will have another hobby that consumes them full time like sports or gaming. So I find it difficult to believe they would be consciously thinking about classroom work. This may change once they reach higher levels of education but still remains a visible phenonomen in the classroom. Thanks for the content you put out.
@@Kaynlarch Great question - one we've gotta address to account for this new data. I see four options: 1) Extensive prior knowldge / 2) Covert activation, including echolaloa (as you suggested) / 3) Tacit learning / 4) Good at school. I favor this final option: school is primarily about learning: its about performance (on HM or exams). If it's performance based, then it becomes a skill just like any other. Some people explicitly or implicitly learn that skill and apply it, while others do not. That's why it's tricky sometimes to separate school-ability from learning: they are linked but subtly different.
@@JaredCooney I believe you are right about school-ability and learning being different to each other. My observable phenonomen is that students can excell in other practices outside of school even if they are not doing well in school. My next question would be is there any data on how cognitive flexbility plays a role? Does cognitive flexbility predict how students may pick up new concepts more quickly? Is there any data on this? Maybe a video?.
Interesting paper. But what if the different starting points of the students depend solely on genetic factors and not the environment they were raised in?
Interesting. Two responses - first, I'd urge you to watch the nature/nurture series I published a couple months back. Second - even if the starting point was 100% genetic (whatever that might mean), it would be irrelevant. If learning rate is the same, than even a person starting at 0% could reach 100% - they would simply require several more practice sessions on average than someone who started 'genetically' higher. With identical rates, starting points will differ depending upon many factors, but ending points differ only according to practice.
Have you ever missed a night or two of sleep and realized you can't retain information as easily as you normally can? If so, then learning rates depend on things other than genetic factors. (And to preempt an expected objection: there is no one who performs as well under conditions of sleep deprivation than they do after a full night's sleep.)
I have two questions: Did they learn at the same speed or at different speeds? About metaplastic, does a gifted person have the same metaplastic as a normal person?
@@JaredCooney How would this work in the case of someone like terrance tao? Fringe example but nonetheless his experince is just as valid zipping past everyone in education. Also big fan of the content and your video keep up the good work!
Remember - the human brain does not differentiate between what we do and what we think - it treats both as equal and valid forms of 'practice' and 'learning'. Someone like Terence Tao has what's called 'the rage to master' - basically, he is THINKING about his field constantly - and the brain treats this as constant and continual practice. A reporter once asked Carl Magnusen (best chess player ever) how often he 'thinks' about chess - he answered 'I'm thinking about it right now; only about 20% of my brain is here with you, 80% is working on chess right now.' Same speed - just pushing the machine harder - we just don't see all the practice going on inside.
@@JaredCooney Good answer. What would this thinking look like for most students typically doing well in a classroom? Would this be an unconscious repition of thought in the background of a students mind or would a student be actively thinking about it? I imagine it would be unconscious typically as activities happen right after dismissing of class room. What are your thoughts?
I don't love that quote that you highlighted ("anyone can learn anything they want"), because they're hedging the answer to their own question. They didn't ask whether anyone can learn anything they want, but rather whether anyone can learn to be GOOD at anything they want. My read is that effectively the researchers are actually saying "no" but without doing so explicitly. It's simply not likely that they forgot how they initially qualified their own question. For the sake of argument, though, analyzing the conclusion on its face, it's an overbroad conclusion because they haven't really shown that anyone can learn anything they want, but rather that they can improve their declarative memory on a chosen topic. Given that intrinsic motivation is a factor in learning rate at each stage, starting with the very initial course, it seems like the best way to answer whether anyone can answer anything they want is by measuring initial learning rates + rates after practice sessions among only the very intrinsically motivated. Perhaps they did do this and you just didn't mention it, but if not, it's a dubious design decision (though to be sure it's possible that if the students could choose the topic they wanted to learn about, then that might at least address intrinsic motivation but it wouldn't be surefire).
I appreciate this comment (even if I fear you're playing with semantics a bit) - I'd encourage you to read the paper to get a better sense of what they did and what they're saying - that's why I include the paper at the start. If you're going to form an opinion about a bit of research, it's important to use the primary source rather than a translated version like this.
Join me LIVE on Zoom later this month (July 22-26th, 2024) as I teach a metacognition course for teens (13-19). Give your teenager a mental advantage that will help them succeed in school and beyond as they discover how to step into the driver's seat of their own mind. Sign up here: www.lmeglobal.net/summer-academy
Thank you for this video! Can you make a version of this video that I could show my elementary-aged students?
Fascinating stuff. I like the 'covert activation' caveat .... it's easy to overlook how much deliberate practice can take place in the comfort of our own mind.
I have a some curiosities. The first is about the starting point of student learning prior to the initial instruction (ground zero so to speak) and prior knowledge. How did they take this into account? What about faulty schema where a student's understanding (for want of a better phrase) contains a conceptual misunderstanding? What impact might that have?
I'm also interested in their other premise, which is around the statement '... and given the learner invests effort in sufficient learning opportunities'. Where does motivation, confidence, attention and length of the learning opportunity fit in? Where does these conclusions fit with ideas about spacing and interleaving?
I'm also interested to know if they looked at students in different grades and at different ages? Is the rate of learning the same for a 5 year old as a 16 year old? How doe sit relate to ideas such as the use of standard celeration charts? Is it possible those charts could offer similar indications?
And what about mastery being 80% accuracy? What if you looked for higher levels of accuracy? Take for a pianist memorizing a piece of music for performance. 80% accuracy is no accuracy at all. If mastery was defined as 95% accuracy would the results be similar?
All wonderful questions - essentially, what you're getting at is the concept of 'moderators' - how do different things influence the ability or willingness of people to go through the learning process. As you can guess, all the moderators you've mentioned have huge impacts on learning: this research was simply trying to get to the question of whether or not, all things being equal, learning RATES would be constant or different.
This is what makes the Science of Learning so fun: there is no way to address the entirety of learning in a single study (or even a single field!), so we must become detectives and always be linking different papers and findings together.
So you're spot on with your thinking - now we can dig into more work to address those thoughts!
Was there differential for people starting at different points or were they going through the same content?
Coz, lack of background knowledge has been found to hinder learning right?
I have a question. Why is it some students need to study in order to improve to do well in a classroom but there are cases where other students do not need to study and are able to get full marks or close without studying? Also the students doing well without studying usually will have another hobby that consumes them full time like sports or gaming. So I find it difficult to believe they would be consciously thinking about classroom work.
This may change once they reach higher levels of education but still remains a visible phenonomen in the classroom.
Thanks for the content you put out.
@@Kaynlarch Great question - one we've gotta address to account for this new data. I see four options: 1) Extensive prior knowldge / 2) Covert activation, including echolaloa (as you suggested) / 3) Tacit learning / 4) Good at school. I favor this final option: school is primarily about learning: its about performance (on HM or exams). If it's performance based, then it becomes a skill just like any other. Some people explicitly or implicitly learn that skill and apply it, while others do not. That's why it's tricky sometimes to separate school-ability from learning: they are linked but subtly different.
@@JaredCooney I believe you are right about school-ability and learning being different to each other. My observable phenonomen is that students can excell in other practices outside of school even if they are not doing well in school.
My next question would be is there any data on how cognitive flexbility plays a role? Does cognitive flexbility predict how students may pick up new concepts more quickly? Is there any data on this? Maybe a video?.
Interesting paper. But what if the different starting points of the students depend solely on genetic factors and not the environment they were raised in?
Interesting. Two responses - first, I'd urge you to watch the nature/nurture series I published a couple months back. Second - even if the starting point was 100% genetic (whatever that might mean), it would be irrelevant. If learning rate is the same, than even a person starting at 0% could reach 100% - they would simply require several more practice sessions on average than someone who started 'genetically' higher. With identical rates, starting points will differ depending upon many factors, but ending points differ only according to practice.
Have you ever missed a night or two of sleep and realized you can't retain information as easily as you normally can? If so, then learning rates depend on things other than genetic factors. (And to preempt an expected objection: there is no one who performs as well under conditions of sleep deprivation than they do after a full night's sleep.)
I have two questions: Did they learn at the same speed or at different speeds? About metaplastic, does a gifted person have the same metaplastic as a normal person?
Hey Zara - lesrned at same speed, and no: barring a diagnosis, gifted have same plastic mechanisms as everyone else - they simply push it much harder!
@@JaredCooney How would this work in the case of someone like terrance tao? Fringe example but nonetheless his experince is just as valid zipping past everyone in education.
Also big fan of the content and your video keep up the good work!
Remember - the human brain does not differentiate between what we do and what we think - it treats both as equal and valid forms of 'practice' and 'learning'. Someone like Terence Tao has what's called 'the rage to master' - basically, he is THINKING about his field constantly - and the brain treats this as constant and continual practice.
A reporter once asked Carl Magnusen (best chess player ever) how often he 'thinks' about chess - he answered 'I'm thinking about it right now; only about 20% of my brain is here with you, 80% is working on chess right now.'
Same speed - just pushing the machine harder - we just don't see all the practice going on inside.
@@JaredCooney Good answer. What would this thinking look like for most students typically doing well in a classroom? Would this be an unconscious repition of thought in the background of a students mind or would a student be actively thinking about it? I imagine it would be unconscious typically as activities happen right after dismissing of class room. What are your thoughts?
I like those spaghetti plots 😄
I don't love that quote that you highlighted ("anyone can learn anything they want"), because they're hedging the answer to their own question. They didn't ask whether anyone can learn anything they want, but rather whether anyone can learn to be GOOD at anything they want. My read is that effectively the researchers are actually saying "no" but without doing so explicitly. It's simply not likely that they forgot how they initially qualified their own question. For the sake of argument, though, analyzing the conclusion on its face, it's an overbroad conclusion because they haven't really shown that anyone can learn anything they want, but rather that they can improve their declarative memory on a chosen topic.
Given that intrinsic motivation is a factor in learning rate at each stage, starting with the very initial course, it seems like the best way to answer whether anyone can answer anything they want is by measuring initial learning rates + rates after practice sessions among only the very intrinsically motivated. Perhaps they did do this and you just didn't mention it, but if not, it's a dubious design decision (though to be sure it's possible that if the students could choose the topic they wanted to learn about, then that might at least address intrinsic motivation but it wouldn't be surefire).
I appreciate this comment (even if I fear you're playing with semantics a bit) - I'd encourage you to read the paper to get a better sense of what they did and what they're saying - that's why I include the paper at the start. If you're going to form an opinion about a bit of research, it's important to use the primary source rather than a translated version like this.