I think this hits on the biggest challenge in improving learning: what looks better by the end of a session isn’t what leads to better long-term retention and/or transfer. There’s compelling and counter-intuitive research on motor learning, because “negative transfer” is often a worse problem than simply *no* transfer. Classic Example: people doing “cone drills” in soccer practice getting great at cone drills, but now have been “trained” to pick up visual info by looking down at the ground. Then the coach has to keep yelling at them to look up… We’re in a learning/practice culture still so focused on isolated, “perfect practice”, which makes for fragile learning that falls apart with the tiniest context shift. Have you seen the new book by Dr. Rob Gray, “How we learn to move”? You might enjoy it! It’s a reader-friendly (not textbook) tour of motor learning from a non-linear pedagogy / eco psych POV, but still has tons of research refs.
Now I'm having childhood memories of being yelled at "Look up! Look up!" 🙂 Great example. Cannot agree with you more here. I will check out the book. Thanks!
Your cone drills analogy applies directly to music performance too. I tend to look down at my instruments (drums, percussion, piano) as a visual crutch so that I know where to play (no one told me not to), but if I need to look at a conductor in orchestra, or even other musicians, that context switch can cause more errors than it avoids. The simple solution is to integrate looking up more frequently into my practice, but unlearning over a decade of the opposite is proving a big challenge.
"How to debunk fast learning disadvantages, you gotta ballet, learn french, and do some math" Man, it feels so wholesome to meet another person like me lol. 😂
Omggg the ballet dancer example and also others hits home to me. Because I did this mistake a lot. Not only just dancing but in general studying too. My mind is just blowing away how accurately you put this. This is gonna solve a huge problem for me
This is fantastic - I've been looking for more research on how simultaneous sources of feedback (mirrors) can impede progress in non-beginners, and this video shows up! The musician Molly Gebrian has other fascinating videos on skill acquisition + the advantages of spaced learning.
Glad it was helpful and thanks for the recommendation! Separately, it is amazing what Google/RU-vid can tell about the content of videos. Glad it came in search. : )
@@benjaminkeep love from India I'm new subscriber addicted to ur videos ur the one in yt who deserves many subs for not talking trash things why we can't encode but never saying how to and just saying I have an online course so join it to know 😁(some people do)
4:12 "Giving feedback interrupted how deeply they processed the material" IIRC in some other video of yours you made the claim that learning was more effectively measured in terms of feedback cycles (or something in that vicinity), which seems to contradict this? Is it just a contextual thing where more feedback = more better?
I think being given the chance to apply in higher level or different scenarios of the things learned can make it more permanent and long lasting. Just focusing on understanding and copying does not guarantee improved performance at different scenarios.
I don't think so but it might create brain fog (which in-turn might cause a temporary reduction in active memory). _What is active memory?:_ _a memory that is currently the focus of consciousness or was recently in awareness, as distinct from the vast body of stored memories that are currently inactive._ *active memory - APA Dictionary of Psychology*
@@H3XED_OwO yes i am facing now , even though i am trying to quit ...it wont working ,i failed in compitative exams this is my first failure so due to that pain i adopted porn and started masterbating daily ....
Interesting. This makes me wonder about how to balance feedback. More/quicker/higher quality feedback seems to make for both better and worse learning given what I've come across on this part of RU-vid. I guess maybe it's just that good feedback will make sure you are learning to replicate something at the highest quality, but less feedback means whatever quality you get to in practice, you can stay at when actually being put to the test. This is very confusing because for math, I can see how finding the instructors and tutors who can explain concepts most accurately/clearly, and doing practice problems where I just check the answer if I start to struggle would help me cover a lot very fast and only train good habits, but I have also seen that people learn more from bad lecturers since they have to fill in the gaps themselves, and from not looking at the answer when they are struggling with a problem. The second option seems like it would make you do a lot of deep processing but have you go down a lot of incorrect paths that might clutter up your memory and impair your learning. I guess it's just if your skill level is close enough that you can likely solve the problem/figure out the proof/figure out a visualisation or explanation for the concept at a good quality, opt for the deep processing and do it yourself. If your skill level is far away enough from being able to accomplish your goal well, opt for tutoring so as not to ingrain bad habits. Then again worrying about bad habits too much can cripple you when just throwing a lot of shit at the wall is often the only and/or the best way of having that 'aha' moment or understanding something from new angles
Whats most amazing is that they took pieces of studies without considering more context and the and info. Also if you look at life in a calender or schedule the gap would make more sense (now it's time to go full Imperial Baseball and suck anyway). I think what screw us it's that we dont know how much we dont know and always feels TOO MUCH!!!!! At least for me i feel i dont have lifetime enough and im very deep in this ocean of content insteat of swimming on top. Masterpiece video as always. Now i feel iinclined to try to improve my method at the expense of speed.
This puts words to something I realized just recently: When I take courses, e.g. Feldenkrais movement classes, I get often frustrated because the outside instruction is disrupting my focus on my internal feedback. This comes in two main flavors: pacing and focus. Pacing: I may need more time for certain things to click than the instructor allows or be faster and get bored (or start experimenting on my own.) Focus: The instructor telling me to where to put my focus might not jibe with where I know I need to put my focus.
The study mentioned at 2:59 - to make sure I understood it correctly: 3 Groups undertook 2 study sessions ('S'), at different intervals, with different test results: Group 1: Day 0 - S1; Day 0+3 hours - S2 ; Day 30 - Group 1 Tested : Worst result. Group 2: Day 0 - S1; Day 1 - S2; Day 31 - Group 2 Tested : Slightly better than Group 1 Group 3: Day 0 - S1; Day 30 - S2, Day 60 - Group 3 Tested : Best result by a huge margin. This result seems so counterintuitive (30 days seems an extraordinary gap of time between the only 2 study intervals), I wonder if the study results have been replicated?
It's only counter-intuitive when you have the wrong intuition. 😉 I doubt if this particular study has been exactly replicated. But there's been a fair amount of research exploring time-lags like this (essentially conceptual replications). You might be interested in this piece: Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological science, 19(11), 1095-1102. escholarship.org/content/qt0kp5q19x/qt0kp5q19x.pdf It's a little math-y because they are trying to describe the effects of study interval and test delay as a surface to show when remembering and forgetting occur. But the main point is that optimal delays are MUCH longer than is typically assumed. For instance, if you want to remember something for several years a gap of several months (at least) seems to be optimal. There's an earlier meta-analysis by the same team coming to basically the same conclusion (although with data more clustered around shorter time intervals). Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological bulletin, 132(3), 354.
I should have added that there's a way of looking at this that can make it more intuitive. Think about how much effort that 3rd group exerted the second time and (comparatively) how little effort the first two groups exerted. Also, keep in mind that even if we have "forgotten" something, it tends to remain in long-term storage somewhere (the problem is more that we can't access it): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uv7uhI8nsbs.html All that said, the exact mechanisms at play are still murky, at least as far as I know.
Fascinating! I had a brief-ish look through the paper you linked. I'm not sure I fully understood its reasoning (or perhaps I didn't read closely enough). It begins its discussion of results by noting that final performance initially rises with increasing gap, reaches a optimum 'maximum', and then decreases with further increases of the gap. This seems to be consistent with intuition (that the spacing gap can't be continually increased without a tradeoff in performance). There was a confusing discussion of Theoretical Implications - whereby the above observed effect could be understood to constrain previous thinking on the mechanisms of spacing (not sure I fully understood what was being discussed in this section). And then the final remarks around Educational Implications note (per your comments) that increasing the spacing gap leads to better retention. This appears to suggest that there is a trade-off between the quantity of information remembered, and how long information is remembered (although this doesn't appear to be explicitly stated, so perhaps I'm on the garden path?) In any case, my original question was an allusion to the Replication Crisis (you have clearly addressed that the concept has been well researched). As a final note - can I say, thank you for taking the time to write a detailed response!
@@benjaminkeepwith respect to all your knowledge on the science of learning, you should do advice videos about how you would learn different sciences from scratch if you suddenly decided to, i.e. coding, engineering etc. Would be an interesting series.
this is the fact, i learns a lot of difference things in the same time and almost forgetting them all after less than 2 weeks. pushing to fast is arecipe of forgetting
I do hope they tested each group with the same time gap between learning the material and testing because Surely testing the 30 day group after they had just learnt the material means they will obviously do better because the other groups learnt it 30 days further in the past ROFLOL
What happens if I don’t have 30 days to space out my learning because my professor only gives the class a week to understand 191 pages (6 chapters) of a medical textbook?
Yeah this advice is kind of impractical and against our nature. We don't have that much patience nor do we have that much time. Maybe we should increase the gap as much as is possible .
