1
Teaching and learning learning Make It Stick The Science of Successful Learning by Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roediger III, and Mark A. McDaniel, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014. US$27.95, hdbk (322 pp.), ISBN 978-0-674-72901-8 Ulrich R. Ernst KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Research Group of Functional Genomics and Proteomics, Laboratory of Socioecology and Social Evolution, Department of Biology, Naamsestraat 59, bus 2465, 3000 Leuven, Belgium Universities have two main tasks: research and teaching. Researchers investigate and disseminate their knowledge; students learn facts, concepts, and methods, and develop various skills. While it can be argued that within the research activities the scientific methods employed are largely validated (but see [1,2]), university teaching and learning methods are often less substantiated and are considered to be less efficient. Successful learning and teaching methods have been identified and investigated but are rarely used, according to Make it Stick, a recent book by novelist Brown and psychologists Roediger and McDaniel. The authors ask why this is the case, and provide answers and suggestions, although these answers might be inconvenient for learners of all ages and teachers with years of experience. Most professors are not hired primarily for their teaching skills, and Brown et al. avoid elaborating on political implications that the findings in the field of learning and teaching may have. Instead, they focus on what individual students and teachers can do to improve the performance of their respective tasks. In reviewing the vast literature on human learning the authors conclude that, contrary to widespread belief, count- less repetitions (‘massed’ practice) are not the most efficient way of learning. Rather, learning phases should be spread over time (‘spacing’), and practicing varying jobs (‘interleav- ing’) is more successful than training one specific task over and over. Even so, students prefer the ‘massed’ learning because they perceive more success in the short term. How- ever, retention of such learned material is poor and, after some weeks or even days, most will no longer be accessible to the student. Why does this matter? Because the encoding of information is only half of the learning process. Equally important are the storage and retrieval of learned material, and these processes are best accomplished when the encod- ing process is made more difficult. Thus, instead of rereading a paragraph, one should test oneself and try to summarize and repeat the key points, linking them to previous knowl- edge, visualize them, and connect them to familiar examples. Basically, you quiz yourself to benefit twice: retrieval will strengthen your memory, and it will reveal what you do not know yet, allowing you to go over these items again. Some time later you repeat this test, and include quizzing about material studied earlier on, thereby further strengthening retrieval routes and, if need be, correcting mistakes and gaps in knowledge. This ‘testing effect’ has been examined in the lab as well as in schools, colleges, and sports training, and has proved superior to the traditional learning and teaching methods. It applies to all ages and all environments, and thus is also of relevance for academics, whether they teach or need to learn (and remember) the latest developments in their field. If professors, teachers, and trainers strive to teach more efficiently they will need to rethink the way they design their classes and training sessions; and students will be obliged to adopt different learning styles, which may be perceived, initially, as more strenuous or unpleasant, but which will prove to be more efficient and valuable in the long run. Why are these methods not employed more often? Brown et al. suggest that this is likely because the method appears more difficult and less rewarding for a student: durable learning requires more effort than merely rereading a text or reciting from short-term memory, and retrieval after some time reveals what is no longer accessible, leading to disappointment. Therefore, teachers should help their stu- dents to reach their learning goals by teaching the somewhat unintuitive methods, encouraging students to take control of their own learning, and applying methods that involve fre- quent quizzes and spaced and interweaved practices. Brown et al. dedicate a whole chapter to tools, tricks, and mindsets that help to achieve long-lasting learning and success. The authors seek to make their book broadly readable by using many examples and avoiding technical jargon. As the authors make a point of applying what they try to convey they interleave several topics and repeat frequently the key idea: practice retrieval. These redundancies, how- ever, contribute to a relatively low information density that makes several chapters somewhat lengthy for busy aca- demics. In fact, the authors lay out their claims on five pages leaving more than 300 pages to elaborate on them. Curiously, the authors refrained from what they praise most: there are no quizzes included, nor do they prompt to interrupt reading for a self-test. Wouldn’t that have been helpful? Similarly, the authors declare that ‘Humans re- member pictures more easily than words’, but there is not a single graph in their book. However, the examples of how testing, spacing, and interleaving could be integrated in classrooms and course works are useful. While the book is written for a diverse readership, its content is highly relevant to academic teaching and learn- ing, and it is hoped that its key points will inspire students and lecturers alike. Now, can you recall, connect, and elaborate on three arguments of this review? References 1 Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2, e124 2 Altmann, D.G. (1994) The scandal of poor medical research. Br. Med. J. 308, 283–284 Book Review 0169-5347/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.10.003 Corresponding author: Ernst, U.R. ([email protected]). 654 Trends in Ecology & Evolution, December 2014, Vol. 29, No. 12

Teaching and learning learning

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Teaching and learning learning

Teaching and learning learningMake It Stick – The Science of Successful Learning by Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roediger III, and Mark A. McDaniel, Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press, 2014. US$27.95, hdbk (322 pp.), ISBN 978-0-674-72901-8

Ulrich R. Ernst

KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Research Group of Functional Genomics and Proteomics, Laboratory of Socioecology and Social

Evolution, Department of Biology, Naamsestraat 59, bus 2465, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

Book Review

Universities have two main tasks: research and teaching.Researchers investigate and disseminate their knowledge;students learn facts, concepts, and methods, and developvarious skills. While it can be argued that within theresearch activities the scientific methods employed arelargely validated (but see [1,2]), university teaching andlearning methods are often less substantiated and areconsidered to be less efficient. Successful learning andteaching methods have been identified and investigatedbut are rarely used, according to Make it Stick, a recentbook by novelist Brown and psychologists Roediger andMcDaniel. The authors ask why this is the case, andprovide answers and suggestions, although these answersmight be inconvenient for learners of all ages and teacherswith years of experience. Most professors are not hiredprimarily for their teaching skills, and Brown et al. avoidelaborating on political implications that the findings inthe field of learning and teaching may have. Instead, theyfocus on what individual students and teachers can do toimprove the performance of their respective tasks.

In reviewing the vast literature on human learning theauthors conclude that, contrary to widespread belief, count-less repetitions (‘massed’ practice) are not the most efficientway of learning. Rather, learning phases should be spreadover time (‘spacing’), and practicing varying jobs (‘interleav-ing’) is more successful than training one specific task overand over. Even so, students prefer the ‘massed’ learningbecause they perceive more success in the short term. How-ever, retention of such learned material is poor and, aftersome weeks or even days, most will no longer be accessible tothe student. Why does this matter? Because the encoding ofinformation is only half of the learning process. Equallyimportant are the storage and retrieval of learned material,and these processes are best accomplished when the encod-ing process is made more difficult. Thus, instead of rereadinga paragraph, one should test oneself and try to summarizeand repeat the key points, linking them to previous knowl-edge, visualize them, and connect them to familiar examples.Basically, you quiz yourself to benefit twice: retrieval willstrengthen your memory, and it will reveal what you do notknow yet, allowing you to go over these items again. Sometime later you repeat this test, and include quizzing aboutmaterial studied earlier on, thereby further strengtheningretrieval routes and, if need be, correcting mistakes and gapsin knowledge. This ‘testing effect’ has been examined in thelab as well as in schools, colleges, and sports training, and hasproved superior to the traditional learning and teaching

0169-5347/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.10.003

Corresponding author: Ernst, U.R. ([email protected]).

654 Trends in Ecology & Evolution, December 2014, Vol. 29, No. 12

methods. It applies to all ages and all environments, andthus is also of relevance for academics, whether they teach orneed to learn (and remember) the latest developments intheir field. If professors, teachers, and trainers strive to teachmore efficiently they will need to rethink the way they designtheir classes and training sessions; and students will beobliged to adopt different learning styles, which may beperceived, initially, as more strenuous or unpleasant, butwhich will prove to be more efficient and valuable in the longrun.

Why are these methods not employed more often? Brownet al. suggest that this is likely because the method appearsmore difficult and less rewarding for a student: durablelearning requires more effort than merely rereading a textor reciting from short-term memory, and retrieval aftersome time reveals what is no longer accessible, leading todisappointment. Therefore, teachers should help their stu-dents to reach their learning goals by teaching the somewhatunintuitive methods, encouraging students to take control oftheir own learning, and applying methods that involve fre-quent quizzes and spaced and interweaved practices. Brownet al. dedicate a whole chapter to tools, tricks, and mindsetsthat help to achieve long-lasting learning and success.

The authors seek to make their book broadly readableby using many examples and avoiding technical jargon. Asthe authors make a point of applying what they try toconvey they interleave several topics and repeat frequentlythe key idea: practice retrieval. These redundancies, how-ever, contribute to a relatively low information density thatmakes several chapters somewhat lengthy for busy aca-demics. In fact, the authors lay out their claims on fivepages – leaving more than 300 pages to elaborate on them.Curiously, the authors refrained from what they praisemost: there are no quizzes included, nor do they prompt tointerrupt reading for a self-test. Wouldn’t that have beenhelpful? Similarly, the authors declare that ‘Humans re-member pictures more easily than words’, but there is not asingle graph in their book. However, the examples of howtesting, spacing, and interleaving could be integrated inclassrooms and course works are useful.

While the book is written for a diverse readership, itscontent is highly relevant to academic teaching and learn-ing, and it is hoped that its key points will inspire studentsand lecturers alike. Now, can you recall, connect, andelaborate on three arguments of this review?

References1 Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2005) Why most published research findings are false.

PLoS Med. 2, e1242 Altmann, D.G. (1994) The scandal of poor medical research. Br. Med. J.

308, 283–284