This reminds me of one of the first psychology papers Ive read. It was Craik & Tulving (1975), on "levels of processing", and it remains as one of my favorites to this day c: Perhaps it is because memory is one of the basic things psychologists actually got right!
I believe the reason we hold on to old techniques that don't work is because it's easier to deal with than realising we have invested so much time and effort in learning the wrong things. Technically, they weren't wrong when they were first created as they were an improvement on what we had before. The new techniques for learning that we have these days are an improvement on the older techniques, but still not perfect. For example, why do we still forget things eventually? Maybe in the future, when we have learned more about how our brains absorb, retain, and use information and even better techniques are created, people will still want to hold on to the techniques developed now because they don't want deal with the fact they spent so much time and effort learning these new techniques.
What do you think about the practice of: 1. rephrasing a paragraph each time you complete it, then 2. writing a one-sentence summary next the paragraph, then 3. when you finish the page, you summarize all paragraphs on that page, and you check your understanding by reading through the one-sentence summaries? 4. As a last step, you could go back every few pages to summarize the content that came before. This would be a bit time-consuming (although I assume you'd get better at it), and your progress would be slower, but in the long run, wouldn't it be more effective? Because if you can study 10 pages normally but remember only 1 a month later, and with this method you can study only 3 pages, but remember 2 a month later, then don't we have a clear winner? Thanks.
I do something more or less like this, though not as an official "study method" or anything. When i read or hear something that's kind of a mouthful, i kind of repeat it to myself in my head and then try to put it in my own words. But your "method" seems to be more comprehensive, so i think i'll steal some stuff from there. One thing i can't not think of though, is that sometimes information just won't make sense, and you won't be able to make sense of it in the moment. Maybe because there's some missing piece that you've yet to learn, or maybe because you haven't had enough time to reflect on it yet, or maybe because it's not being explained in a way that you can easily understand, and so forcing yourself to summarize and understand things in those situations i feel might be a bit counter-productive if you just can't grasp what is being said. But in a way, this would make this "method" even more useful as it would help you identify those gaps of knowledge and information you weren't able to make sense of (and i guess long-term, it could even help you identify the types of learning resources which harder vs easier for you to follow). Another thing is, and i maybe this is just a me thing, but a lot of times i hear people talking about 1 paragraph, or 1 page, and to me it doesn't make sense to measure things like that. I just don't find that to be a reliable metric to use for "information," or concepts. To me it makes a lot more sense to focus on "units of knowledge" (that's just what i call it, don't know if there's a word for it). What i mean by this is basically that not all information is equivalent. Some paragraphs could contain lot of concepts and information, whereas 3 other paragraphs could be all be saying one thing. Or one paragraph could not even be information, but rather the author expressing his intentions (like saying, "In this unit we are going to focus on X, Y, Z" or something else irrelevant. Some paragraphs might not make sense independently, or might be leading up to another. And similarly for pages. So when i read, and try to make sense of new stuff i focus more on "units knowledge" transmitted, whether it be in 1 sentence, 1 paragraph or 1 page, than the unit of text itself (1 sentence, paragraph, or page). I'm not saying this the "correct" way (if there's such a thing), but it just makes sense for me to approach information like this.
Ok, I'm sorry about making this my third comment. I sware I hit the like button already XD This is about giving info on a structural perspective of my own creation: Two months ago, I was thinking about how to learn something deeply, while also leveraging the effects of spaced repetition. I had read that it is easy for a student to be tricked into perceived mastery just because they are more familiar with the words of the text thanks to re-reading it constantly. I began to wonder - *"what if I use different sources for the same overarching subject?"* - The idea was that by studying from different sources (which I consider different perspectives, since they are from different authors) I would not fall into the trap of knowing what the text says without understanding the actual concept that is trying to be conveyed. By changing the source, and thus the angle, you will gain a deeper insight, since every source employs a different strategy for conveying the concepts that the author most likely picked up from their own idiosyncratic experience, which could range from using a different structure, different exercises, a different order of presentation (say source 1 introduces concept B midway through the text, while source 2 introduces concept B at the very start), different presentation styles, etc. You can also think of this as one of the desirable difficulties, specifically varying the conditions of learning. Robert Bjork spoke about varying the physical context, such as moving to a different location each time you study, but I argue that a single source is in of itself an abstract environment for learning, each source with its own context and characteristics that make it unique and thus a different environment. I believe this way of utilizing perspective does several things: *1* - It forces you to *synthesize* the information and actually create your own idea of the underlying concept or fact that is being presented. Instead of memorizing a single definition from a single source, you would have to create your own definition which in of itself is the synthesis of the (say) four different definitions that you have encountered in the four different texts. *2* - It has spaced repetition built in. Since you would be changing sources constantly, you wouldn't get the chance to go back to a single source every single day and remember the exact phrasing or definition for anything. *3* - Gives you constant "aha!" moments. As you change sources periodically, once you do come back to a specific source, you may re-read something that you did not understand the first time, but now you have the gift of someone else's perspective on said concept; what originally made you scratch your head now makes total sense. *4* - It forces you to see what's *truly* important. If everyone seems to put a lot of focus on a specific concept, then it's a good indicator that it's a foundational topic, even if they don't explicitly say so, which allows you to utilize your limited attention to what'll give you the most bang for your buck. I believe this to be especially useful for autodidacts (like me) since it's common for us to not know where to start, what's foundational, what isn't, etc. *5* - This is an extra benefit that I encountered by accident: By using different resources periodically, you will begin to separate the wheat from the chaff. Interestingly enough, what you may consider wheat could be someone else's chaff. Even though someone may tell you that a certain resource is excellent, in reality what they mean is that it worked for *them*. You begin to cultivate resources or methodologies that work for *you*, essentially personalizing your studies even further. Is all of this effective? I can only rely on myself, and although I may say it works, it's still not perfect in terms of methodology. Not even close. Which is why I'm asking you so many questions hehe. Cheers!
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. Certainly, multiple sources can lead to deeper understanding. One challenge that can come up is finding appropriate good sources that match topics well, although in some areas that’s probably pretty easy (lots of resources with different examples on “how to write loop functions in Python” for instance). There is a rule of thumb that I haven’t talked about much in my videos that I call the “rule of 2”: two examples are better than one. There are many potential benefits of seeing two examples of something over just one (and an explanation). If the examples are contrasting cases, you can discriminate more finely between them. If they’re two examples of the same idea, you can learn the underlying principle more deeply at an abstract level. But I am going to make an analogy to the research on multiple representations, which suggests that multiple representations of concepts helps students to learn more effectively UNLESS the student has low prior knowledge going in. With low prior knowledge, the multiple representations are more confusing than illuminating. I suspect the same thing might happen with multiple sources.
@@benjaminkeep Thank you for replying! Hope to see more videos from you and I appreciate you took the time to read my long-ass comments HAHHAHAHA have a great day my guy!
Weird question, are you psychology student or something, are you trying to learn how to learn, or are you a "productive procrastinator" (like me lol)? Cause i'm pretty sure i've seen you in _several_ other Benjamin videos' comment section lol.
If possible, could I please get some feedback on whether I'm correctly synthesising info from your videos? You've introduced different learning techniques in multiple vids that all seem to either vary the way you process learning materials, or vary the learning materials themselves, i.e., variable encoding, rotating focus and 'reasoning both ways' (11:20 of your vid, 'When Active Learning Goes Right...'): - *Variable encoding* varies the angle you process learning materials from ( _taking different structural perspectives_ ). - *Rotating focus* varies the parts of the learning materials you focus on ( _focusing on different aspects of a skill at a time_ ). - *Reasoning both ways* varies the angle you reason about the learning materials from ( _e.g., reasoning from cause to effect and vice versa_ ). My question is, do these techniques all fall under the same genus? Are they all just forms of interleaved practice?
Again, sorry to bother you so many of these questions hehe: In this video, you talk about having different perspectives can aide in learning something deeply. What is your opinion on the following: 1: Utilizing different sources (perspectives) with interleaving - For example, let's say I want to learn the basics of programming. Instead of sticking with one resource every day for a month (blocking), I instead use four resources throughout the month (say, Monday, Wednesday and Friday will be programming basics day) and each week, I vary the source, or maybe even vary the source for each day. What are your thoughts on this strategy? 2: Utilizing different sources (perspectives) but by blocking the subject matter itself - An example would be to study the same general subject (programming basics as an example) every day for say an hour, but every day you vary the source that you use. What are your thoughts on this attempt at implementing different perspectives? Again, THANK YOU FOR THESE VIDEOS. I truly appreciate you and your work, and I hope you will one day release a book (I'll be the first in line to buy it!) about this subject matter. I believe learning how to learn is what should be first taught in schools. Almost everything else comes second.
Really appreciate your kind words! So... I have said that I'm a fan of using more than one resource. And I think it certainly can be helpful. But sometimes one resource is all you need. For instance, I have some videos (one out now, one coming out in a month or two) on learning mental math. I only use one resource for it. The reason is that the techniques are pretty much the same across different resources and the particular lecture series that I have is pretty good. In the beginning, sometimes it's best just to work with one resource. It can become hard to coordinate multiple resources together effectively, especially in the way that you suggest (like using three or four different programming books throughout the week). Different perspectives are helpful when you have a solid grasp of the basics. Something else to consider is the granularity of the resource. You might be learning from a textbook, but also using a popular treatment of the same material to supplement. I'm thinking of, say, learning from a physics textbook while reading "Six Easy Pieces" (a Feynmann book on basic physics). One doesn't really replace the other. Perhaps some of the conceptual glue you can get from the Feynmann book. But the actual problem solving and details you get from the textbook. That's a good way of using multiple resources together. But mostly, if you can find a really good resource, especially in the beginning, I would just stick to that one for a little while.
@@benjaminkeep Great response! This is something I noticed in my own studies with math. I tried using several sources with math but it turns out that there isn't much to learn with pre-algebra, it's mostly just practice. Thank you again!
I think it's useful to have 1 core resource and others as supplementary. It might be a reference book or one that gives you a basic structure. It can be a book that fits best to your learning style and you have less problems to understand its explanations
From the top of my mind I can tell schools are instutitions maintained to conform people to passive standards. School isn't there to create active independent thinkers. All these good findings science has to offer would work against the core purpose of schools, the core untold purpose of schools. It's the same here in Brazil. Feinman by the way had a couple of words on that.
Ca. 06:54 is an effective segue! [I thought the answer was path dependence, but that is just a fancy way to say inertia, at least for how people teach --- assuming you are talking about university-level instruction]. I suspect some faculty fall back on what worked for them as the default instructional style. Especially in research-intensive universities, this only becomes a problem in low-enrollment programs (even though it might well harm enrollment and retention, though there is something to be said in defense of lower-level courses that gatekeep later courses). I'm less clear for why students would continue to do the same thing. I suppose if the method of instruction has not changed, then the old method of studying might be sufficient enough to pass courses taught that way? A niggling part of my brain keeps wondering to what degree these patterns are the result of learned behavior and to what degree are the a result of default human behaviors (though that veers toward an essentialist argument which squicks me out). In any case, I'm glad I stumbled on your CZcams site. At various times in my career I've attempted pedagogical experiments, and often found them to generate disappointing results. That is probably more a me problem than anything else, but do you have any videos where you discuss approaches to systematically experiment with one's pedagogy in a way that [a] is sustainable, [b] incremental and [c] measureable?
It's really hard to do rigorous experiments in an actual classroom setting. The experimental designs are tricky (though cross-over designs tend to be helpful), the sample sizes are small. I don't have videos on this mostly because very few people are interested in them and it takes a lot of effort to make a video. Successful versions of this include something like the research on ASSISTments (a math homework system), where you can vary a single design element of the homework without students necessarily knowing and automatically collect the data. ManyLabs is another effort (more large-scale) to try to solve the small sample size, heterogenous classrooms problem. Although you can target a single change and focus on a quantitative outcome (a score on a math test or something), I would also consider doing something that would generate rich qualitative evidence. Something like think aloud protocols or categorization/organization tasks can reveal how your students are thinking and/or certain instructional choices are working. From an instructional design perspective, I think more in terms of leveraging the things we do know (through cleaner research environments) to create effective instruction and then using formative assessment throughout to diagnose what students know and what areas to address.
@@benjaminkeep Thank you for the suggestions. I've veered away from formative assessments over the last decade, but I'll reconsider that position. In any case, thank you for the detailed response.
I am not an expert in language learning, but from what I've read, the comprehensible input hypothesis is sound and it seems like people have had success with it. Hadn't heard of Refold, but took a few minutes to sign up and look through the site. They say a lot of the right things: effort, consistency, not just one app. Overall, I like their approach and would give it a shot, especially if I was learning a language from scratch right now. Good luck if you're learning a language - let me know how it goes!
@@benjaminkeep Thank you. I came to this method on my own when I was trying to learn English. I studied it at school + some additional courses. I got very good grades and knew grammar very well but it was very hard for me to read books and watch films and after several years I decided to fix this problem. I didn’t know about comprehensive input, Anki and all of this stuff, I forgot partly my knowledge about grammar and other things that I knew during school time, my speaking and writing skills got terrible, but old learning methods with tons of exercises seemed very boring for me, so I bought and read some bilingual books and then consumed all interesting and useful content I could find on internet using google translate and Cambridge dictionary. It was much more engaging but very hard at the beginning, there even were situtations where I knew all the words, but I didn’t understand whole sentence, but after many months I noticed that my reading skills improved drastically. Then I gradually came across other tools and methods, that made this process more effective and optimized. Now I'm at very good level of reading and listening, I don't translate words in my head to my native languages, however output skill like writing and speaking are at low level, because I didn't practice it since school.
@@benjaminkeep Currently I'm learning German with refold and some other guides. Also, I watched almost all CZcamsrs in language learning comminity (Matt vs Japan, Steven Kaufmann, Luca Lampariello, Elgin the Cat, Olly Richards and others)
@@agersolt818 I think Krashen’s hypotheses works because it is make you elaborate information (such as words, sentences, grammar structures) by the stories, descriptions, action. And then the elaboration make the information more retrievable. Now information stays for long in your brain, till the point when it’ll get natural recall. I wonder why people so hyped about active recall. While the first thing they need is make active recall more successful. In general: information -> your own thoughts -> recall Don’t try recall the information, recall your thoughts (Sorry for my English)
Love your videos! What would you say is an effective mix of output vs input? Say I have a specified amount of time dedicated to furthering my knowledge and skills. Should I utilize 80% of this designated time for output vs 20% of my time dedicated towards input? I may have asked this question in another video, and I apologize for taking up your time like this, but I really appreciate videos like these because of how helpful they are!
It's really hard to say in the abstract - just depends on what you're learning. But if you find yourself in the 90-10 range (90% input, 10% output), I would question whether that is the best use of your time (presuming that learning is the goal). I am almost done reading a long book and trying to think now how much time I will ultimately put into "output". It probably will end up being close to 50-50. Though in a podcast I was learning from, it was probably closer to 80 (input)-20 (output). I mentioned in another comment that the ratio of "studying" to "practicing" is less important - it's really about how one is informing the other. And I think the same thing is going on here. Thanks for the many thoughtful comments - glad you're here!
I think it depends on what you want to do. If you're a non-fiction writer and especially a researcher, I think it can be quite helpful and lead to good things (interesting combinations of ideas - good review of ideas you may have forgotten). I find myself working and reworking material with blank pages rather than working from my slipbox. I can't really say whether this is efficient or effective. All I can say is that for the kind of work that I want to produce, it works for me. If you start a slipbox, I would love to hear more about how it goes for you. I am a little skeptical of the hype around, TBH.
I don't have any secrets here. My one piece of advice is to focus on meaning: what difference would it make to work on these hard things in your life? What difference would it make to do the challenging thing? Would it let you understand the world more deeply? Share experiences with people you care about? Help you accomplish a life-long goal? I think we often lose motivation when it seems like our behavior is meaningless. The other thing is to focus less on mustering all of your willpower to do something hard and more on building consistent habits that can lead to your desired outcome. Good luck!
But, my friend, what we do when what we need to learn and the time we have to learn it are not compatible with more time thinking about a topic rather than reading about it. I´m thinking about our friends in the medical field who need to memory I don´t know how much information in the spam of an semester.
Our educational systems are not, as a general rule, designed to maximize student learning. Personally, I would rather understand some stuff quite well than everything poorly. Another beneficial thing happens when you organize and make sense of what you know: it becomes easier to learn more in that topic.
The follow-up video: czcams.com/video/0rBtAUCSObE/video.html
This reminds me of one of the first psychology papers Ive read. It was Craik & Tulving (1975), on "levels of processing", and it remains as one of my favorites to this day c: Perhaps it is because memory is one of the basic things psychologists actually got right!
I believe the reason we hold on to old techniques that don't work is because it's easier to deal with than realising we have invested so much time and effort in learning the wrong things. Technically, they weren't wrong when they were first created as they were an improvement on what we had before. The new techniques for learning that we have these days are an improvement on the older techniques, but still not perfect. For example, why do we still forget things eventually? Maybe in the future, when we have learned more about how our brains absorb, retain, and use information and even better techniques are created, people will still want to hold on to the techniques developed now because they don't want deal with the fact they spent so much time and effort learning these new techniques.
Definitely - I certainly think "doing the thing that we've always done" is a big factor. : )
i know that feeling lol, it's really painful
You made it seem very real that you don't know him ;)
But seriously the man got some really interesting things to say and did make good contributions
🙃 Yep - HUGE contributions. Always happy to read his work!
What do you think about the practice of:
1. rephrasing a paragraph each time you complete it, then
2. writing a one-sentence summary next the paragraph, then
3. when you finish the page, you summarize all paragraphs on that page, and you check your understanding by reading through the one-sentence summaries?
4. As a last step, you could go back every few pages to summarize the content that came before.
This would be a bit time-consuming (although I assume you'd get better at it), and your progress would be slower, but in the long run, wouldn't it be more effective? Because if you can study 10 pages normally but remember only 1 a month later, and with this method you can study only 3 pages, but remember 2 a month later, then don't we have a clear winner? Thanks.
I do something more or less like this, though not as an official "study method" or anything.
When i read or hear something that's kind of a mouthful, i kind of repeat it to myself in my head and then try to put it in my own words. But your "method" seems to be more comprehensive, so i think i'll steal some stuff from there.
One thing i can't not think of though, is that sometimes information just won't make sense, and you won't be able to make sense of it in the moment. Maybe because there's some missing piece that you've yet to learn, or maybe because you haven't had enough time to reflect on it yet, or maybe because it's not being explained in a way that you can easily understand, and so forcing yourself to summarize and understand things in those situations i feel might be a bit counter-productive if you just can't grasp what is being said.
But in a way, this would make this "method" even more useful as it would help you identify those gaps of knowledge and information you weren't able to make sense of (and i guess long-term, it could even help you identify the types of learning resources which harder vs easier for you to follow).
Another thing is, and i maybe this is just a me thing, but a lot of times i hear people talking about 1 paragraph, or 1 page, and to me it doesn't make sense to measure things like that. I just don't find that to be a reliable metric to use for "information," or concepts. To me it makes a lot more sense to focus on "units of knowledge" (that's just what i call it, don't know if there's a word for it). What i mean by this is basically that not all information is equivalent.
Some paragraphs could contain lot of concepts and information, whereas 3 other paragraphs could be all be saying one thing. Or one paragraph could not even be information, but rather the author expressing his intentions (like saying, "In this unit we are going to focus on X, Y, Z" or something else irrelevant. Some paragraphs might not make sense independently, or might be leading up to another.
And similarly for pages.
So when i read, and try to make sense of new stuff i focus more on "units knowledge" transmitted, whether it be in 1 sentence, 1 paragraph or 1 page, than the unit of text itself (1 sentence, paragraph, or page). I'm not saying this the "correct" way (if there's such a thing), but it just makes sense for me to approach information like this.
@@guy1234uso summarizing the subtopic/ unit of chaotwr rathee than a paragraoh?
Ok, I'm sorry about making this my third comment. I sware I hit the like button already XD
This is about giving info on a structural perspective of my own creation:
Two months ago, I was thinking about how to learn something deeply, while also leveraging the effects of spaced repetition. I had read that it is easy for a student to be tricked into perceived mastery just because they are more familiar with the words of the text thanks to re-reading it constantly.
I began to wonder - *"what if I use different sources for the same overarching subject?"* - The idea was that by studying from different sources (which I consider different perspectives, since they are from different authors) I would not fall into the trap of knowing what the text says without understanding the actual concept that is trying to be conveyed.
By changing the source, and thus the angle, you will gain a deeper insight, since every source employs a different strategy for conveying the concepts that the author most likely picked up from their own idiosyncratic experience, which could range from using a different structure, different exercises, a different order of presentation (say source 1 introduces concept B midway through the text, while source 2 introduces concept B at the very start), different presentation styles, etc.
You can also think of this as one of the desirable difficulties, specifically varying the conditions of learning. Robert Bjork spoke about varying the physical context, such as moving to a different location each time you study, but I argue that a single source is in of itself an abstract environment for learning, each source with its own context and characteristics that make it unique and thus a different environment.
I believe this way of utilizing perspective does several things:
*1* - It forces you to *synthesize* the information and actually create your own idea of the underlying concept or fact that is being presented. Instead of memorizing a single definition from a single source, you would have to create your own definition which in of itself is the synthesis of the (say) four different definitions that you have encountered in the four different texts.
*2* - It has spaced repetition built in. Since you would be changing sources constantly, you wouldn't get the chance to go back to a single source every single day and remember the exact phrasing or definition for anything.
*3* - Gives you constant "aha!" moments. As you change sources periodically, once you do come back to a specific source, you may re-read something that you did not understand the first time, but now you have the gift of someone else's perspective on said concept; what originally made you scratch your head now makes total sense.
*4* - It forces you to see what's *truly* important. If everyone seems to put a lot of focus on a specific concept, then it's a good indicator that it's a foundational topic, even if they don't explicitly say so, which allows you to utilize your limited attention to what'll give you the most bang for your buck. I believe this to be especially useful for autodidacts (like me) since it's common for us to not know where to start, what's foundational, what isn't, etc.
*5* - This is an extra benefit that I encountered by accident: By using different resources periodically, you will begin to separate the wheat from the chaff. Interestingly enough, what you may consider wheat could be someone else's chaff. Even though someone may tell you that a certain resource is excellent, in reality what they mean is that it worked for *them*. You begin to cultivate resources or methodologies that work for *you*, essentially personalizing your studies even further.
Is all of this effective? I can only rely on myself, and although I may say it works, it's still not perfect in terms of methodology. Not even close. Which is why I'm asking you so many questions hehe. Cheers!
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. Certainly, multiple sources can lead to deeper understanding. One challenge that can come up is finding appropriate good sources that match topics well, although in some areas that’s probably pretty easy (lots of resources with different examples on “how to write loop functions in Python” for instance).
There is a rule of thumb that I haven’t talked about much in my videos that I call the “rule of 2”: two examples are better than one. There are many potential benefits of seeing two examples of something over just one (and an explanation). If the examples are contrasting cases, you can discriminate more finely between them. If they’re two examples of the same idea, you can learn the underlying principle more deeply at an abstract level.
But I am going to make an analogy to the research on multiple representations, which suggests that multiple representations of concepts helps students to learn more effectively UNLESS the student has low prior knowledge going in. With low prior knowledge, the multiple representations are more confusing than illuminating. I suspect the same thing might happen with multiple sources.
@@benjaminkeep Thank you for replying! Hope to see more videos from you and I appreciate you took the time to read my long-ass comments HAHHAHAHA have a great day my guy!
Insightful
Can't wait for the next upload
Me too
Study tips from Robert Bjork
1. Spaced repetition
2. More time on input, less on output
3. Variable encoding
Weird question, are you psychology student or something, are you trying to learn how to learn, or are you a "productive procrastinator" (like me lol)? Cause i'm pretty sure i've seen you in _several_ other Benjamin videos' comment section lol.
yo, 2 is opposite from the video
Enjoy your videos. More content that can be put into practice would be great
Great - working on it! : )
How do we introduce ourselves to new information?
If possible, could I please get some feedback on whether I'm correctly synthesising info from your videos?
You've introduced different learning techniques in multiple vids that all seem to either vary the way you process learning materials, or vary the learning materials themselves, i.e., variable encoding, rotating focus and 'reasoning both ways' (11:20 of your vid, 'When Active Learning Goes Right...'):
- *Variable encoding* varies the angle you process learning materials from ( _taking different structural perspectives_ ).
- *Rotating focus* varies the parts of the learning materials you focus on ( _focusing on different aspects of a skill at a time_ ).
- *Reasoning both ways* varies the angle you reason about the learning materials from ( _e.g., reasoning from cause to effect and vice versa_ ).
My question is, do these techniques all fall under the same genus? Are they all just forms of interleaved practice?
I love watching your vids they are amazing and really interesting thank you so much for making them!!!
Thanks, glad you like them!
Again, sorry to bother you so many of these questions hehe:
In this video, you talk about having different perspectives can aide in learning something deeply. What is your opinion on the following:
1: Utilizing different sources (perspectives) with interleaving -
For example, let's say I want to learn the basics of programming. Instead of sticking with one resource every day for a month (blocking), I instead use four resources throughout the month (say, Monday, Wednesday and Friday will be programming basics day) and each week, I vary the source, or maybe even vary the source for each day. What are your thoughts on this strategy?
2: Utilizing different sources (perspectives) but by blocking the subject matter itself -
An example would be to study the same general subject (programming basics as an example) every day for say an hour, but every day you vary the source that you use. What are your thoughts on this attempt at implementing different perspectives?
Again, THANK YOU FOR THESE VIDEOS. I truly appreciate you and your work, and I hope you will one day release a book (I'll be the first in line to buy it!) about this subject matter. I believe learning how to learn is what should be first taught in schools. Almost everything else comes second.
Really appreciate your kind words!
So... I have said that I'm a fan of using more than one resource. And I think it certainly can be helpful. But sometimes one resource is all you need. For instance, I have some videos (one out now, one coming out in a month or two) on learning mental math. I only use one resource for it. The reason is that the techniques are pretty much the same across different resources and the particular lecture series that I have is pretty good. In the beginning, sometimes it's best just to work with one resource.
It can become hard to coordinate multiple resources together effectively, especially in the way that you suggest (like using three or four different programming books throughout the week). Different perspectives are helpful when you have a solid grasp of the basics.
Something else to consider is the granularity of the resource. You might be learning from a textbook, but also using a popular treatment of the same material to supplement. I'm thinking of, say, learning from a physics textbook while reading "Six Easy Pieces" (a Feynmann book on basic physics). One doesn't really replace the other. Perhaps some of the conceptual glue you can get from the Feynmann book. But the actual problem solving and details you get from the textbook. That's a good way of using multiple resources together.
But mostly, if you can find a really good resource, especially in the beginning, I would just stick to that one for a little while.
@@benjaminkeep Great response! This is something I noticed in my own studies with math. I tried using several sources with math but it turns out that there isn't much to learn with pre-algebra, it's mostly just practice. Thank you again!
I think it's useful to have 1 core resource and others as supplementary. It might be a reference book or one that gives you a basic structure. It can be a book that fits best to your learning style and you have less problems to understand its explanations
From the top of my mind I can tell schools are instutitions maintained to conform people to passive standards. School isn't there to create active independent thinkers. All these good findings science has to offer would work against the core purpose of schools, the core untold purpose of schools. It's the same here in Brazil. Feinman by the way had a couple of words on that.
Thank you
Ca. 06:54 is an effective segue! [I thought the answer was path dependence, but that is just a fancy way to say inertia, at least for how people teach --- assuming you are talking about university-level instruction]. I suspect some faculty fall back on what worked for them as the default instructional style. Especially in research-intensive universities, this only becomes a problem in low-enrollment programs (even though it might well harm enrollment and retention, though there is something to be said in defense of lower-level courses that gatekeep later courses). I'm less clear for why students would continue to do the same thing. I suppose if the method of instruction has not changed, then the old method of studying might be sufficient enough to pass courses taught that way?
A niggling part of my brain keeps wondering to what degree these patterns are the result of learned behavior and to what degree are the a result of default human behaviors (though that veers toward an essentialist argument which squicks me out).
In any case, I'm glad I stumbled on your CZcams site. At various times in my career I've attempted pedagogical experiments, and often found them to generate disappointing results. That is probably more a me problem than anything else, but do you have any videos where you discuss approaches to systematically experiment with one's pedagogy in a way that [a] is sustainable, [b] incremental and [c] measureable?
It's really hard to do rigorous experiments in an actual classroom setting. The experimental designs are tricky (though cross-over designs tend to be helpful), the sample sizes are small. I don't have videos on this mostly because very few people are interested in them and it takes a lot of effort to make a video. Successful versions of this include something like the research on ASSISTments (a math homework system), where you can vary a single design element of the homework without students necessarily knowing and automatically collect the data. ManyLabs is another effort (more large-scale) to try to solve the small sample size, heterogenous classrooms problem.
Although you can target a single change and focus on a quantitative outcome (a score on a math test or something), I would also consider doing something that would generate rich qualitative evidence. Something like think aloud protocols or categorization/organization tasks can reveal how your students are thinking and/or certain instructional choices are working.
From an instructional design perspective, I think more in terms of leveraging the things we do know (through cleaner research environments) to create effective instruction and then using formative assessment throughout to diagnose what students know and what areas to address.
@@benjaminkeep Thank you for the suggestions. I've veered away from formative assessments over the last decade, but I'll reconsider that position. In any case, thank you for the detailed response.
Bjork is a genius
Hi, what do you think about input hypothesis by Stephen Krashen and refold method for language learning?
I am not an expert in language learning, but from what I've read, the comprehensible input hypothesis is sound and it seems like people have had success with it. Hadn't heard of Refold, but took a few minutes to sign up and look through the site. They say a lot of the right things: effort, consistency, not just one app. Overall, I like their approach and would give it a shot, especially if I was learning a language from scratch right now.
Good luck if you're learning a language - let me know how it goes!
@@benjaminkeep Thank you. I came to this method on my own when I was trying to learn English. I studied it at school + some additional courses. I got very good grades and knew grammar very well but it was very hard for me to read books and watch films and after several years I decided to fix this problem. I didn’t know about comprehensive input, Anki and all of this stuff, I forgot partly my knowledge about grammar and other things that I knew during school time, my speaking and writing skills got terrible, but old learning methods with tons of exercises seemed very boring for me, so I bought and read some bilingual books and then consumed all interesting and useful content I could find on internet using google translate and Cambridge dictionary. It was much more engaging but very hard at the beginning, there even were situtations where I knew all the words, but I didn’t understand whole sentence, but after many months I noticed that my reading skills improved drastically. Then I gradually came across other tools and methods, that made this process more effective and optimized. Now I'm at very good level of reading and listening, I don't translate words in my head to my native languages, however output skill like writing and speaking are at low level, because I didn't practice it since school.
@@benjaminkeep Currently I'm learning German with refold and some other guides. Also, I watched almost all CZcamsrs in language learning comminity (Matt vs Japan, Steven Kaufmann, Luca Lampariello, Elgin the Cat, Olly Richards and others)
@@agersolt818 I think Krashen’s hypotheses works because it is make you elaborate information (such as words, sentences, grammar structures) by the stories, descriptions, action. And then the elaboration make the information more retrievable. Now information stays for long in your brain, till the point when it’ll get natural recall.
I wonder why people so hyped about active recall. While the first thing they need is make active recall more successful.
In general:
information -> your own thoughts -> recall
Don’t try recall the information, recall your thoughts
(Sorry for my English)
@@Ramz_914 О, не ожидал тут встретить русскоязычных
this erasing memory is in every country now even our naber dog know that tecnic
Love your videos!
What would you say is an effective mix of output vs input?
Say I have a specified amount of time dedicated to furthering my knowledge and skills.
Should I utilize 80% of this designated time for output vs 20% of my time dedicated towards input? I may have asked this question in another video, and I apologize for taking up your time like this, but I really appreciate videos like these because of how helpful they are!
It's really hard to say in the abstract - just depends on what you're learning. But if you find yourself in the 90-10 range (90% input, 10% output), I would question whether that is the best use of your time (presuming that learning is the goal).
I am almost done reading a long book and trying to think now how much time I will ultimately put into "output". It probably will end up being close to 50-50. Though in a podcast I was learning from, it was probably closer to 80 (input)-20 (output). I mentioned in another comment that the ratio of "studying" to "practicing" is less important - it's really about how one is informing the other. And I think the same thing is going on here.
Thanks for the many thoughtful comments - glad you're here!
@@benjaminkeep Thank you for responding!!! Definitely some food for thought for me! Have a great day bro
The background music is a bit too high
Thanks for the feedback. : )
can I ask you? is "Building a second brain" book by Tiago forte is good method?
I think it depends on what you want to do. If you're a non-fiction writer and especially a researcher, I think it can be quite helpful and lead to good things (interesting combinations of ideas - good review of ideas you may have forgotten). I find myself working and reworking material with blank pages rather than working from my slipbox. I can't really say whether this is efficient or effective. All I can say is that for the kind of work that I want to produce, it works for me.
If you start a slipbox, I would love to hear more about how it goes for you. I am a little skeptical of the hype around, TBH.
How can I increase motivation to work hard on things that are challenging ??
I don't have any secrets here.
My one piece of advice is to focus on meaning: what difference would it make to work on these hard things in your life? What difference would it make to do the challenging thing? Would it let you understand the world more deeply? Share experiences with people you care about? Help you accomplish a life-long goal? I think we often lose motivation when it seems like our behavior is meaningless.
The other thing is to focus less on mustering all of your willpower to do something hard and more on building consistent habits that can lead to your desired outcome. Good luck!
But, my friend, what we do when what we need to learn and the time we have to learn it are not compatible with more time thinking about a topic rather than reading about it. I´m thinking about our friends in the medical field who need to memory I don´t know how much information in the spam of an semester.
Our educational systems are not, as a general rule, designed to maximize student learning. Personally, I would rather understand some stuff quite well than everything poorly. Another beneficial thing happens when you organize and make sense of what you know: it becomes easier to learn more in that topic.
Where is the next video?
Yikes, never added it to the end: czcams.com/video/0rBtAUCSObE/video.html