Posts
This is revolutionary.
Of course, that means it will take 20 years for these findings to filter out to the public schools (if they ever filter out at all).
Bob Koegel told us years ago that it takes 20 years for new research to be widely adopted in teaching practice. Ten years for other researchers to confirm the finding, another 10 years for dissemination.
Larry Squire, fyi, is a honcho.
highlights
We learn and remember better when new material can be related to what we already know. Professional athletes can remember details of particular plays that occurred in a long match. Experienced poker players can reconstruct the card distribution and betting sequence that occurred in previous hands. This is possible because these individuals have a rich background of relevant experience and therefore can organize new material into meaningful and orderly patterns.[snip]
Memory consolidation refers to the gradual process of reorganization by which new memories become remote memories (3, 4). Initially, the learning of facts and events (declarative memory) depends on the hippocampus, a structure deep in the temporal lobe of the mammalian brain. As time passes after learning, the importance of the hippocampus gradually diminishes and a more permanent memory is established in distributed regions of the neocortex. This process typically takes a few years in humans and at least a month in rodents. According to one influential model (5), the process is slow because if changes were made rapidly, they would interfere with the preexisting framework of structured knowledge that has been built up from other experiences.[snip]
The most surprising finding by Tse et al., and what connected the schema concept to memory consolidation, was that removal of the entire hippocampus as early as 48 hours after the rapid learning of two new flavorplace associations fully spared memory of the associations... It was not the case that memory of the new associations was never dependent on the hippocampus, nor that memory was somehow formed directly in the neocortex, because hippocampal lesions made 3 hours after learning abolished memory of the new associations. In short, the neocortex was able to incorporate new information rapidly. This is unexpectedly rapid for a process that, on the basis of as many as 20 studies in experimental animals, ordinarily takes at least a month (7). [ed.: a month in rats, years in people][snip]
It is tempting to suppose that memory consolidation proceeded rapidly because new information was fully compatible with what had already been learned—in other words, a good schema was available. If so, questions naturally arise about the minimum requirements for an effective schema. [ed.: yes, they do][snip]
caption:Ericsson, expertise, and "extended working memory"
Good schemas wanted. When a rat learns associations between flavors and spatial locations, as studied by Tse et al. (1), the associations are initially learned as individual facts (left). [ed.: precisely what cognitive science has been finding for at least 20 years] With extended training, the animal develops an organized structure or schema for flavors and places (middle). This organized knowledge structure (bold lines) can then support rapid learning of new associations in a single trial and the rapid consolidation of information into the neocortex (right).
For months now I've been meaning to put up a post about Ericsson's concept of extended working memory.
Around here we've been accustomed to thinking that "knowledge is good" because knowledge and skills learned to the point of automaticity take a load off of working memory.
But it seems there's more to it. From The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance (pdf file):
[E]xpert performers have acquired skills that enable them to circumvent general memory and processing limits. Chase and Simon (1973) originally attributed experts' superior memory to chunking in short-term memory. This account has been revised, and the exceptional memory of experts has been shown to reflect rapid storage in long-term memory (Charness, 1976; Frey & Adesman, 1976; Lane & Robertson, 1979). ....The most important implication of these acquired memory skills is that they enable experts to circumvent the limited storage capacity of short-term memory. Thus these skills eliminate any restrictive influence of individual differences in this basic capacity (Ericsson & Smith, 1991b)I assume Ericsson and his team are talking about the same phenomenon Tse and her team demonstrated in mice: extremely rapid learning that circumvents the normal constraints on working memory and new learning.
(an aside: the terminology researchers use to characterize memory has bewildered me for years, so let me point out that short-term memory and working memory are two different things)
In other words, it's not just that practicing knowledge to the point of automaticity "frees up space" in working memory so you can solve more complicated problems.
What Tse, Squire, and Ericsson all appear to be saying is that practicing knowledge to the point of automaticity also makes it possible to acquire new knowledge very rapidly.
and see:
why students have to memorize things
20 comments:
From this Scientific American article:
"A position in which extensive, accurate calculation is critical will allow the grandmasters to show their stuff, as it were, and they will then search more deeply along the branching tree of possible moves than the amateur can hope to do. So, too, experienced physicists may on occasion examine more possibilities than physics students do. Yet in both cases, the expert relies not so much on an intrinsically stronger power of analysis as on a store of structured knowledge. When confronted with a difficult position, a weaker player may calculate for half an hour, often looking many moves ahead, yet miss the right continuation, whereas a grandmaster sees the move immediately, without consciously analyzing anything at all.
"De Groot also had his subjects examine a position for a limited period and then try to reconstruct it from memory. Performance at this task tracked game-playing strength all the way from novice to grandmaster. Beginners could not recall more than a very few details of the position, even after having examined it for 30 seconds, whereas grandmasters could usually get it perfectly, even if they had perused it for only a few seconds. This difference tracks a particular form of memory, specific to the kind of chess positions that commonly occur in play. The specific memory must be the result of training, because grandmasters do no better than others in general tests of memory.�
"Similar results have been demonstrated in bridge players (who can remember cards played in many games), computer programmers (who can reconstruct masses of computer code) and musicians (who can recall long snatches of music). Indeed, such a memory for the subject matter of a particular field is a standard test for the existence of expertise.
"The conclusion that experts rely more on structured knowledge than on analysis is supported by a rare case study of an initially weak chess player, identified only by the initials D.H., who over the course of nine years rose to become one of Canada's leading masters by 1987. Neil Charness, professor of psychology at Florida State University, showed that despite the increase in the player's strength, he analyzed chess positions no more extensively than he had earlier, relying instead on a vastly improved knowledge of chess positions and associated strategies."
And, by the way, the reason I found this article is that I knew about de Groot's studies (though I didn't know his name) and I have lots of experience in constructing a search. Without that domain knowledge, no training in "new ways of thinking" would have helped.
I’m not sure if this precisely relates to fast learning, but this post did make me think of how my daughter is doing so well in 4th grade math.
A year ago in 3rd grade she was struggling with long division, word problems, etc. She was using her fingers to do single digit math facts. However, the school told me she was “meeting expectations” because she was learning the concepts and because, “don’t worry, we’ll spiral back to everything next year”. (And, believe me, they have spiraled, spending class time on lots of basic stuff.)
Intervention: Summer schooled using Saxon followed by Kumon this year. Lots of practice within a cumulative sequential format. Mastery, not spiraling.
Today, she’s sailing through fractions and her other lessons. Still has some difficulties with word problems due to comprehension-related issues.
So, for example, because she’s so quick with basic facts she’s manipulating fractions quickly (reduces, finds common factors, converts, multiplies, etc.). She has inflexible knowledge stored in her brain that enables her to move ahead with the next lesson painlessly. This is big for us.
She might be demonstrating something like extremely rapid learning
Another thing, she was diagnosed with Auditory Processing Disorder last year.
How many other kids have what they call “processing problems” because of this insane spiraling exposure curriculum that schools are forcing on us?
Doug -- I loved that article -- I still have a copy floating around. It's by Philip Ross, right?
I was struck by the studies of blind-folded Grand Masters.
It seems that you can blind fold a chess Grand Master and he/she will still beat your pants off playing chess. In 1894, French psychologist Alfred Binet studied chess masters that could play without seeing the board.
They theorized that the chess master did not remember the detail of each piece, instead keeping general relationships supplementing with details in the game at hand. If he can't remember the exact position of the pawn he might "find" it by reconstructing a past move that would explain where the pawn is. "He does not have to remember every detail at all times, because he can reconstruct any particular detail whenever he wishes by tapping a well-organized system of connections."
It is this organizational structure of relationships that allow an expert to perform at such a level. The essential element is the possession of a large store of structured knowledge.
Congrats Tex,
I love hearing stories like that because it makes me feel like my experience with my kids wasn't just a fluke. It's amazing how much you can help your kids if you apply the right remedy.
Now, why the schools can't think of that, I have no idea.
Same here. Since liearning math facts to some sort of fluency, math seems to have become easier for my son. Pretty interesting to hear him say, "this is easy, I'm good at it."
Granted, I am cleaning up teaching from a special ed teacher who seems to have gone off script (Connecting Math Concepts).
Math has become easier for my son as well. Kumon has helped tremendously.
Tex, did the school recommend having your daughter tested for an auditory processing problem or was it your idea?
Tex, did the school recommend having your daughter tested for an auditory processing problem or was it your idea?
Starting in first grade, I kept telling the school that my daughter was exhibiting typical APD behaviors and was told that diagnostic testing is not advisable until age 7 or 8, which is also what I have read. I kept bringing it up, and last year in third grade the school agreed to recommend testing.
It’s funny, but I would never have researched learning disorders and pressed for testing except for the fact that she was struggling so much with math. If the school had been using a more traditional curriculum, maybe it would not have become an issue and she would not have been diagnosed.
It makes me wonder how teaching practices and diagnosed learning issues are related. For instance, is sitting students at tables facing each other a good thing for kids with ADD?
Tex,
Thanks for the information. I have two sons, one in kindergarten and one in third grade. At the beginning of third grade, I was told he had trouble following multi-step directions and he was not fluent in basic math facts.
Not one word from the school about a possible learning disability. However, he was placed in a special ed class without an IEP. I mean, most of the children either had IEPs or were under a child study.
I took him to Kumon and his pretest indicated he was a year behind. My husband and I were stunned.
He obviously learned nothing in second grade.
His math fluency has definitely improved since attending Kumon. He seems to be doing better with following directions. There hasn't been any comments from his teacher. I keep in close contact with her.
Second scenario: I have a kindergartner at the same school. On my son's report card, it states, "He continues to not follow through when directions are given and gives the same reasons as he always does." The reasons are he forgot or he didn't hear them.
I volunteer in both my sons classes and I can tell you the directions that are given are vague. The children must infer a lot. All the children sit in groups facing each other.
So is it possible that both my children have an auditory processing disorder or is it the school's methods of teaching?
Frankly, I tend to believe it is the school curriculum and the appalling lack of direct instruction.
In any case, my kindergartener has an appointment with an ENT on Monday. I do not trust the school to administer any sort of test on my child.
wow -- what an interesting thread
These findings are SO important, and of course they're of no interest whatsoever to the administrators at my school who believe that "slow" is good -- and see the very idea of "acceleration," in all its manifestations, as a sign of a) pushy parents or b) ignorant and ill-informed parents.
(I've mentioned several times that I've been copied on emails from the principal saying it's "not a priority" to him for kids to "rush" through the curriculum.
You know ----- this reminds me.
One of the CORE principles of ABA teaching for autism, back when we had Jimmy & Andrew in ABA programs, was speed.
It was critically important to keep them moving along rapidly. They learned more and got more answers right.
The other night I had an experience like this.
I've gotten very slowed down in Algebra 2 because it's all new material and the problems have a lot of working parts, most of which are also all new material.
So I'm working slowly.
The other night I decided to "tear through" the problems; I decided to act as if these problems are as easy for me as simple equations.
I made this decision simply because I'm sick of taking hours to get through 1 problem set.
The upshot?
I did much better!
I needed the speed.
Doug
I remember that article!
I have to re-read.
Apparently there was a fair amount of research in the 90s looking at whether domain knowledge could make up for IQ.
I haven't been able to pull the articles, so I don't know what kind of consensus people reached, if any.
One researcher found that a "low-aptitude" (no idea how low-aptitude was defined -- I don't think we're talking special ed-low) person with lots of domain knowledge was as fast at picking up new knowledge in the domain as a high-aptitude novice (which is close to what Engelmann says, I believe).
I'll check that abstract again.
She might be demonstrating something like extremely rapid learning
You should start watching for this.
We all have to add "rapid learning" to "easier learning."
Knowledge:
* frees up working memory so students can solve more difficult problems
AND
* produces much more rapid acquisition of further knowledge
"It makes me wonder how teaching practices and diagnosed learning issues are related. For instance, is sitting students at tables facing each other a good thing for kids with ADD?"
That's a good question, Tex.
My husband's grandmother (77 years of teaching in Ukraine) that there WAS NO students with learning disabilities in Soviet school up until 5 years from now when the schools stated to use group work models in earlier grades. Yes, teachers studied psychology and abnormal psycology, they were taught to recognize such things as autism, but she says there were no students with learning problems that couldn't be corrected with proper discipline. Jumpy and inattenite, shy and slow - direct instruction and common discipline probably did their job. All kids by the second marking period of grade 1 were able to sit straight for 45 minutes and follow teacher's directions without speaking up.
As from my personal experience in middle school, I violate my principle's order of having kids in groups, and I refused tables in my classroom. I like desks in rows, all facing forward. I would love individual desks even more, but well... At least I have desks) And they pay much more attention to the lesson (again, I compared the results of tests and oral testing after group works and workshop model and close to direct instruction model lessons) if they don't face each other.
I volunteer in both my sons classes and I can tell you the directions that are given are vague. The children must infer a lot. All the children sit in groups facing each other.
I'm in a lot of grade school classes and I have to agree with you.
I think, again, some of this is coming from the idea that teachers are supposed to be teaching "thinking."
The techniques I'm seeing are what you describe and seriously slow down the classroom. You can see a good number of the children are completely checked out just by their facial expressions, but the teachers just keep on going.
Many of the instructions, and even basic discipline, seem to be a carried out like a full-scale Socratic dialogue with the goal being that the child discovers the all-mysterious point the teacher is trying to make.
"Many of the instructions, and even basic discipline, seem to be a carried out like a full-scale Socratic dialogue with the goal being that the child discovers the all-mysterious point the teacher is trying to make."
Yes, yes! LOL!
My third grader has complained about how his teacher goes on and on and really he has absolutely no idea what she is discussing or why. He asked me, "Why can't she just get to the point and let us do our work?"
LOL! I hadn’t considered the time wasted in “discovery discipline”.
Discovery discipline:
Teacher: “Now, Susie, why do you think Mary cried when you said she sounded like a cat when she sings?”
Susie: “Uh, because she likes dogs better than cats?”
“No, maybe it’s another reason. How would you feel if someone said that to you?”
“I love my kitty, her name is Fluffy. She purrs when I pet her.”
“Uh, but maybe some children don’t want to sound like a cat, they want to sound like a songbird?”
“What’s a songbird?”
“A bird that sounds beautiful when it sings. Wouldn’t you like to sound like a songbird?”
“I like parrots because they can talk. Mary sounds like a parrot when she talks. Is that a nice thing to say?”
Etc., etc, etc.
Direct discipline:
Teacher: “Susie had her feelings hurt because she thought you meant her singing sounded like a cat screeching. She misunderstood.”
Susie: “That’s not what I meant, cats sound so cute to me.”
“Would you apologize to Mary?”
“Okay.”
I find direct usually works better with my kids. One child gets distracted and goes off on tangent easily, and the other one says, “Mom, get to the point, please.” Come to think of it, that’s probably how they behave in class.
Tex,
Lol! That is perfect, and much funnier than what I would have come up with.
This usually happens several times before the teacher actually gets to the instructions or book to be read.
Little Mary and little Johnnie have now reached the end of their ability to sit perfectly still and quiet due to waiting for the non-answer of little Susie who has long since forgotten why she was called out in the first place.
Next will be the multi-step discovery instructions for the multi-step discovery project where there are no wrong ways to do it, unless, of course, you miss one of those very important steps.
Along the way to learning about the upcoming project are questions concerning why the children might do such a step. Followed by more long-winded misunderstandings of the all-important steps.
Thus, requiring the teacher to guide the confused children back to the point of the step in question.
Dinosaurs trying to escape tarpits had it easier.
Heh, just read my own comment ("77 years of teaching..."). It's 47. Sorry.
Post a Comment