Wanna Learn? Take the Test

Taking a practice test beats studying -- even cramming -- when it comes to learning.

A NYTimes story on this research is all about efficient retrieval of information, a topic near and dear to the heart of this blog.  It's based on a pair of careful experiments that pit four approaches to learning.  Rather than spend the words here repeating the methodology, you can check out the links yourself.

But for me here's the really cool part:

In the experiments, the students were asked to predict how much they would remember a week after using one of the methods to learn the material. Those who took the test after reading the passage predicted they would remember less than the other students predicted — but the results were just the opposite. 

 I love this -- people who took the practice test perceived themselves as learning the least when, in fact, they did the best when it came to learning the material.  This gets into projection, into expectations, and probably a little bit of obsessive-compulsive behavior due to a lack of good, solid cramming.  When we take a practice test, we recognize gaps in what we know and at the subconscious level perhaps we take care of business, figuring it out.  There's a lot to be explored here.

This isn't easy to translate into the real world of media, politics, and knowledge -- I just find it fascinating -- but it does get at our ability to underestimate, and overestimate, what we know depending on the kind of "news" we consume.  I've written at length about how certain "news" or media content can lead more to the perception we are informed rather than actually informing us (entertainment programs such as The Daily Show, talk radio, etc.).  I'm certain this recent study is getting at the same or a similar mechanism.  And that's heartening.

Take a Hike

This NYTimes piece does a nice job of summing up research on multitasking (it doesn't work) and learning (it does, if you reduce stimuli for a period so your brain can engage in long-term learning).  My favorite part?  "At the University of Michigan, a study found that people learned significantly better after a walk in nature than after a walk in a dense urban environment, suggesting that processing a barrage of information leaves people fatigued."  Neato.  So go take a hike!

Take a Nap

An article in the recent The Economist discusses research on how siestas, that little nap, helps kick the brain into learning mode.

We already know that an afternoon nap reduces the likelihood of heart disease.  This experiment gave people a memory test, randomly assigned them to nap or not nap, and then tested them again.  It all has to do with episodic and procedural memory and the length of the nap.  As you reach a certain deep sleep, the brain works to make all kinds of useful connections between new memories and existing ones.  In other words, you learn, or are prepared to learn.

So pull up a pillow, get comfy, and get your brain in learning mode.

Learning Online

Short piece in today's NYTimes suggests that learning online may be superior to face-to-face instruction. Obviously there are a lot of methodological and self-selection issues in play here, yet an interesting if brief article. The actual report, if you feel brave enough to take on 93 pages of pdf, can be found here. It's a meta-analysis, meaning statistical tests from 46 studies (out of a thousand studies on this topic). It's a powerful tool. You have to wade through the methods section to see the criteria for studies to be included, but basically they find -- within the studies that meet their criteria -- that web-based studies work better than face-to-face in K-12 learning. BUT ... the authors caution the small number of studies that meet their criteria makes it difficult to generalize to the K-12 population as a whole. Though important, this kinda gets lost.

Direct and Indirect Info

Are there differences in how people evaluate and learn from politicians directly versus mediated versions of what a politician said through journalists?

Kinda. Sometimes. In certain ways.

Direct accounts from politicians are more convincing and inspire greater optimism about the political process, according to a spanking new study in American Politics Research. No doubt those pesky journalists create problems and conflicts, raise difficult questions, or simply quote the other side. The end result is rather obvious, I think. Instead of one side, one clear message, journalists try to round out the story and even raise criticism of the message. Can't say I'm overly surprised by this, but still it verifies what we all suspected.

While subjects in the experiment found arguments by a politician more convincing in the unmediated version, little overall persuasion was seen. I find this fascinating in and of itself, because you'd expect more.

Also little difference was seen in learning from the two messages.

But let's look at this last one more carefully. It's a self-report of learning, not an objective measure of what they took away from the stories. Below is the info drawn from the study methodology:

From reading this article, would you say that you have learned anything new about (the policy) controversy? That is to say, have you encountered novel or interesting ideas and facts? A good number of new ideas and facts, A few new ideas and facts, Not much new here.

As I've discussed before, this is more a measure of self efficacy or perceived knowledge than one of actual learning from a stimulus, so I don't think we learn a great deal here and we certainly can't say there is a difference in what people know about these issues depending on whether journalists mediated the message or a politician got to provide the message without dealing with those annoying journalists.

The study by Brian J. Fogarty and Jennifer Wolak is interesting and seeing an experimental approach is always welcome. At the end they say:

We expected that balance and objectivity connected to journalistic accounts would promote learning in a way political accounts would not. However, we do not find such normative benefits. Instead, the unique effects of media interpretation tend to be negative, boosting cynicism and weakening the perceived persuasiveness of claims.

They seem to act like this is a bad thing. Obviously I disagree, and "promote learning" is a huge leap given the way they measured learning. If there is a flaw in an otherwise good, solid study, it's this.