I was treated to a lecture a few days ago about the mismatch between the cumulated research in the social science and neuroscience of learning and the traditional 20th century university class organization. It was both confirming of much of the educational innovation occurring at Georgetown and humbling at what more needs to be done.
It began with an attack on a mindset among many of us devoted to our individual fields or professional affiliations. It’s an error, the speaker asserted, to state “this is what one needs to know to be called an X,” where X might be a chemist or an economist or a classicist. Our goal as educators was not to seek among our students a mastery of certain content. Such a goal was inappropriate for two reasons: a) the “content” of the field is constantly changing; disciplines and fields evolve; what is knowable today is not what will be knowable tomorrow, and b) mastering only content cheats the student of the field’s “way of thinking.” By “way of thinking” is meant how the field will incorporate new observations, findings, events, into its cumulative accepted knowledge. Knowing just the content of a field doesn’t inform how a field determines was is new and important versus what is false or trivial.
The problem with thinking of curricula as merely transmitting content to a student is that it overlooks the need for the student to take ownership of their own learning the field’s way of thinking.
The speaker relayed the story of an alumnus returning to campus to visit his favorite college instructor. The student received two top grades in the instructor’s class. Out of curiosity the instructor asked the student what were the most important facts that he learned in the classes. The alumnus was stumped, could not remember a single “fact” reviewed in the class, despite utter mastery of the content at the end of the class. The moral of the story? Humans don’t retain the ability to verbalize content knowledge very long. The distinct belief in the alumnus that the courses were most productive for him had become implicit to his knowledge base – he could not verbalize them even though he knew they would important to him. Instead of a set of recallable facts, the knowledge had become how he approached problems he encountered.
Research on learning appears to have some basic replicated findings:
- Humans appear to do better at learning when the lessons are spread over time. Short intensive bursts of attention, when not reinforced in later encounters, threatened later memory retrieval problems. (This fits surveys of alumni finding that the greatest satisfaction with learning among those who as students spent a whole year working on a topic, for example, in a two-semester integrated course sequence.)
- “Interleaved learning,” where students study multiple topics in a mix appears to generate more lasting learning than an approach where intensive work on one topic exclusively is then followed by intensive work on a separate topic. (Interdisciplinary work, which treats one problems from multiple perspectives, may feature such properties.)
- Learning that requires actions on the part of the students outperforms passive learning consistently. (This fits all the experiences of Georgetown faculty introducing project-based and research-based learning into their courses.)
The 50-minute lecture, followed by out-of-class readings, followed by content-based examinations seems far away from these principles.
Other of the principles suggest more coordination among classes within a program, an intentional layering with designed repetition.
Finally, all the research is pointing in the direction of the superior value of learning through action, under the mentorship of one more deeply knowledgeable. Learning in the midst of problem-solving offers a nature layering of actions that would seem quite well suited to the engaged learning that leads to lifetime learning skills.
We’re living at the time in which designing learning environments can truly be guided by well-established research findings. We’re lucky.
If you’re interested in learning about the research lives and scholarly passions of Georgetown faculty, try a listen to the Provost’s Podcast, “Faculty in Research.” The newest episode is with philosopher/psychologist Nancy Sherman. Listen at https://soundcloud.com/user-267910017/gu-faculty-in-research-nancy-sherman
Emphasis on Active Learning: The emphasis on active learning and the benefits of students taking ownership of their learning is a crucial point. The article effectively highlights the value of project-based and research-based learning, which aligns with current educational trends.
Great commentary on learning. As my wisest Med school professor , Dr. Charlie Rath , said when asked why he gave open book tests in his lab diagnosis course . “ You have to learn to learn. You can always look up values . You need to think . And also 30-40% of the “facts” we teach you will be found to be false in thirty years”. That proved to be so true. Also. The simple method of learning in Med school was. “See one. Do one. Teach one. “Yup you really know something when you are able to teach it.
Very much in agreement
Humans appear to do better at learning when the lessons are spread over time. I strongly agree
A memorizing article. Firstly, thank you. It is true that learning-based trainings are never forgotten. If all education systems are based on learning, it will be easier to train qualified people.
Thank you, Provost Groves, for this thoughtful piece on the science of learning. Another thought I have on the role of “action” in learning relates to the ultimate outcome of Ignatian Pedagogy, which, after experiencing and reflecting, is action. In this sense action could be interpreted as an ultimate learning outcome where someone is trying something (again or in a new way), possibly with a new understanding or connection. A sort-of deepening of procedural or process knowledge that is repeated and learned, that I believe is longer-lasting than fact-based or content knowledge.
Dear Robert:
I much agree with everything in your statement. Had the same experience when asking alumni what they remembered from my course in statistics. Not one detail of the learned material itself but the many stories of my life about various unusual situations they clearly and fondly remembered. Also remembered were the work assignments to do on computers.
Your essay is very valuable for the current teachers in our various departments.
This was a great article. Seriously, I always prefer learning with actions more than just passive learning. What one learns with action and exercises tend stick more than verbal lessons that don’t need any action to be followed.
I also like the fact that you mentioned how things change with time and we all should be prepared educationally to adapt to any changes that will certainly occur.
Also, intensive work on a particular topic for a long time sometimes makes it become boring. With interleaved learning, there’s great enthusiasm in the students because new things are always coming. I really got a lot from this. Thank you, Robert Groves.
Great commentary on learning. As my wisest Med school professor , Dr. Charlie Rath , said when asked why he gave open book tests in his lab diagnosis course . “ You have to learn to learn. You can always look up values . You need to think . And also 30-40% of the “facts” we teach you will be found to be false in thirty years”. That proved to be so true. Also. The simple method of learning in Med school was. “See one. Do one. Teach one. “Yup you really know something when you are able to teach it.
I really liked this piece!