One of my issues with most of the research on studying is that it’s about discrete facts or items to be memorized. While memorization is part of learning, it’s not always helpful when application of knowledge is what’s being tested (irl, graduate school, etc). Any thoughts on this? Any research on conceptual understanding techniques?
This was also my immediate thought. The ability to do well on a test for word memorization is good but does it translate to a skill or modify problem solving ability. I would think that a test could be constructed to do that, but that's not proven in this study.
Andrew Huberman had a former chess professional on that talked about how focusing on the activity for a while and then relaxing for a while, and long periods of not doing anything helps him discover ideas. It seems like spacing is important at some significant level.
understanding is an emergence phenomena. there're too many variables involved in the process of gaining understanding. But you can improve the chance of gaining understanding by using some technique, like chunking, using focused & diffused mode interchangeably, interleaving, having a dedicated environment for studying, etc.
I know little about research on learning, but three quick things come to mind that I can point you to: 1. Practice how you are expected to apply the knowledge, There's a video from Dr. Benjamin Keep called "everyone misses this problem solving step", which if I remember correctly will help you gain and use conceptual understanding (and importantly connect it with procedural knowledge). 2. "Elaborative interrogation" and "self-explanations" may be worth exploring (and learning and reading actively). 3. And lastly contextual variation
I think "schema building" or some term like this may lead you to info you're interested in. But generally just using and applying the knowledge in the actual scenario you want it for is the most effective for building this. When we talk about memorization, it's a precursor to actual use because for some reason we are constrained (by opportunity, by complexity or danger of the real task etc). In general if you never use the skill for real to some real purpose you never master it. Part of why students are basically still beginners even after graduating.
Need to read the papers but first impression here gives me a few questions. 1. How do we know the 'firming up of list 1 and 2 material in blocks' wasn't simply signaling to participants that they are one done with those can stop trying to remember them? This might also be a way to reduce proactive interference since you expect to not need to bother holding onto that information for the future. What were participants told wrt when they'd be tested ahead of time? 2. What are the details wrt the 'study' actions here? 3. How do we know that the benefit to group B wasn't merely that they became more comfortable with taking tests, hence performing better? I imagine all of these are discussed and accounted for in the actual papers.
What's interesting about this for me is how it relates to ideas about blocked vs interleaved practice. The general intuition is to lean toward blocked practice because we want to firm up our understanding before moving on. But actually interleaving's discomfort gives us a desirable difficulty that improves long term learning and makes us pay more attention. On the other hand, testing ourselves after each chunk of study here falls more in line with our intuition to master things before moving on, because of interference later when we get overwhelmed with possibilities and recency bias isn't so reliable. Not that these techniques are mutually exclusive, it's just interesting to try to account for both effects.
It looks like Group A never got tested on the 1st and 2nd lists. It would have been interesting to see how they fared compared to Group B. I wonder what happens if both groups tested List 1 and List 2 following the List 3 test
you are one of the most informed and scientifically accurate creators on youtube about the science of learning! Love your videos :)) P.S how should i take tests is there a better way like umm overt retrieval by speaking or something something idk lol its super confusing when you get down to studying
Interesting, although I feel like there are other things playing a role here as well. Were group A and B told when and on what they would be tested, for example, was group A aware that only word list 3 would be tested, and etc..? I think there was also a small effect in group b that practiced how to learn for a test, getting feedback twice on whether their studying method was effective.
I really liked your video. But I couldn't find where the reference to the study you describe in the video is. I would really appreciate it if you could tell me where it is.
Hey Benjamin. Great to see a new video from you! I have a question about the pomodoro technique. hopefully you'll see it. You know in Marty Lobdell's video, which you discussed, he says you can start by studying 25 minutes, then rest for 5 minutes and eventually you'll be able to focus for much longer than 25 minutes He even mentions 6 hours.. I was wondering if you knew how long it would take to be able to study for longer. Say, you do the pomodoro technque several times a day, all week. How long would it take to go from 25 minutes of study to, say, a whole hour? Or two hours and so on? Thanks!!
Below: Maybe change the title. Also, I can't see the value of this study at all. I'm disappointed. When I saw the title, I expected that the "good" technique would be the one to "travel through time," not the technique we'd want to avoid. Perhaps the title should be altered to reflect that. You could even ad a bit of fear for views, like, "The poor study technique that HAUNTS YOU THROUGH TIME." That aside, I'm not sure what purpose this really is. Is it not common knowledge that testing immediately after studying will show a good score on the test? After all, the words are still fresh in mind. Don't we already spend all of our education learning how to take tests? Hasn't this been part of the problem, with knowledge kept in memory long enough for the test alone and then abandoned when it's no longer needed for the test? I think this study only shows that practicing taking a particular kind of test makes you better at taking that kind of test.
Join my learning community here: bit.ly/bens-learning-community
One of my issues with most of the research on studying is that it’s about discrete facts or items to be memorized. While memorization is part of learning, it’s not always helpful when application of knowledge is what’s being tested (irl, graduate school, etc). Any thoughts on this? Any research on conceptual understanding techniques?
This was also my immediate thought. The ability to do well on a test for word memorization is good but does it translate to a skill or modify problem solving ability. I would think that a test could be constructed to do that, but that's not proven in this study.
Andrew Huberman had a former chess professional on that talked about how focusing on the activity for a while and then relaxing for a while, and long periods of not doing anything helps him discover ideas. It seems like spacing is important at some significant level.
understanding is an emergence phenomena. there're too many variables involved in the process of gaining understanding. But you can improve the chance of gaining understanding by using some technique, like chunking, using focused & diffused mode interchangeably, interleaving, having a dedicated environment for studying, etc.
I know little about research on learning, but three quick things come to mind that I can point you to:
1. Practice how you are expected to apply the knowledge, There's a video from Dr. Benjamin Keep called "everyone misses this problem solving step", which if I remember correctly will help you gain and use conceptual understanding (and importantly connect it with procedural knowledge).
2. "Elaborative interrogation" and "self-explanations" may be worth exploring (and learning and reading actively).
3. And lastly contextual variation
I think "schema building" or some term like this may lead you to info you're interested in. But generally just using and applying the knowledge in the actual scenario you want it for is the most effective for building this. When we talk about memorization, it's a precursor to actual use because for some reason we are constrained (by opportunity, by complexity or danger of the real task etc). In general if you never use the skill for real to some real purpose you never master it. Part of why students are basically still beginners even after graduating.
Need to read the papers but first impression here gives me a few questions.
1. How do we know the 'firming up of list 1 and 2 material in blocks' wasn't simply signaling to participants that they are one done with those can stop trying to remember them? This might also be a way to reduce proactive interference since you expect to not need to bother holding onto that information for the future. What were participants told wrt when they'd be tested ahead of time?
2. What are the details wrt the 'study' actions here?
3. How do we know that the benefit to group B wasn't merely that they became more comfortable with taking tests, hence performing better?
I imagine all of these are discussed and accounted for in the actual papers.
What's interesting about this for me is how it relates to ideas about blocked vs interleaved practice.
The general intuition is to lean toward blocked practice because we want to firm up our understanding before moving on. But actually interleaving's discomfort gives us a desirable difficulty that improves long term learning and makes us pay more attention.
On the other hand, testing ourselves after each chunk of study here falls more in line with our intuition to master things before moving on, because of interference later when we get overwhelmed with possibilities and recency bias isn't so reliable.
Not that these techniques are mutually exclusive, it's just interesting to try to account for both effects.
Ambitious video topic
This content is gold! Thanks for generously sharing your knowledge.
Ive watched the video and was the title was actually what I watched. Good content
What theories account for this observation?
What is the difference between the test and active recalling the info here? Both groups are recalling info
Very useful 😊
It looks like Group A never got tested on the 1st and 2nd lists. It would have been interesting to see how they fared compared to Group B. I wonder what happens if both groups tested List 1 and List 2 following the List 3 test
Nice quality 👍
how would a third group that only studies list 3 and is tested on list 3 do against group B?
The intermediate tests seem to help the brain sort out the information in distinct chunks.
you are one of the most informed and scientifically accurate creators on youtube about the science of learning! Love your videos :))
P.S how should i take tests is there a better way like umm overt retrieval by speaking or something something idk lol its super confusing when you get down to studying
Interesting, although I feel like there are other things playing a role here as well.
Were group A and B told when and on what they would be tested, for example, was group A aware that only word list 3 would be tested, and etc..?
I think there was also a small effect in group b that practiced how to learn for a test, getting feedback twice on whether their studying method was effective.
Hey benjamin, Great video man! I have a question about how to conduct test about any topic to learn or physical skill by yourself or a mentor
I really liked your video. But I couldn't find where the reference to the study you describe in the video is. I would really appreciate it if you could tell me where it is.
I really need some conclusion here
which group learned more words cumulatively? Learn more, not discretely in separate lists your boss tells you to
Hey Benjamin. Great to see a new video from you! I have a question about the pomodoro technique. hopefully you'll see it.
You know in Marty Lobdell's video, which you discussed, he says you can start by studying 25 minutes, then rest for 5 minutes and eventually you'll be able to focus for much longer than 25 minutes He even mentions 6 hours..
I was wondering if you knew how long it would take to be able to study for longer. Say, you do the pomodoro technque several times a day, all week. How long would it take to go from 25 minutes of study to, say, a whole hour? Or two hours and so on?
Thanks!!
We wanr a go stream
This only seems applicable to learning a fact-based or method-based subject.
Which subjects are not?
@ Philosophy, literature, writing, et al.
do you have a better technique you may suggest
@@CondorAHLS Oh yeah, that's a good point.
@ Repetitio est mater studiorum. See Antonin-Gilbert Sertillanges, O.P., “The Intellectual Life” (nb: Cal Newport references this in his “Deep Work”).
Below: Maybe change the title. Also, I can't see the value of this study at all.
I'm disappointed. When I saw the title, I expected that the "good" technique would be the one to "travel through time," not the technique we'd want to avoid. Perhaps the title should be altered to reflect that. You could even ad a bit of fear for views, like, "The poor study technique that HAUNTS YOU THROUGH TIME."
That aside, I'm not sure what purpose this really is. Is it not common knowledge that testing immediately after studying will show a good score on the test? After all, the words are still fresh in mind. Don't we already spend all of our education learning how to take tests? Hasn't this been part of the problem, with knowledge kept in memory long enough for the test alone and then abandoned when it's no longer needed for the test? I think this study only shows that practicing taking a particular kind of test makes you better at taking that kind of test.
old advice.