This is a Fantastic article that explains the process of turning short term memory into long term memory (scientifically) in a fantastic way involving a key ingredient which is the passage of time:
Memory consolidation
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
New Ways to Learn
Scientists now know that there really are no particles. Meaning that there is no physical particle, and when you examine those particles closer and closer the only REAL part that exists is a relationship between particles. So a particle would not exist without its relationship to another particle.
This makes complete sense and can be applied to learning. Learning has been studied and debated for hundreds of years, with only marginal victories that are clearly not applied; just think about the question: “is our educational system good?”
Some of you might disagree, but we all know it is still flawed.
Applying the discovery from above, I believe that to learn you need Relevance. You need a relationship to the material or new skill.
Once you make that connection/relationship-true learning can occur.
NOTE: the relationship, just like an ordinary one, must give a positive impression.
It can also give a negative impression but learning will be diminished unless you can salvage and turn into a positive, which is more likely that the worst relationship kind; one which made no impression at all.
This is a Neutral impression-in which no relationship was created because of the poor impression, not even a poor one; just think of meeting a person who gave you neither a good nor a negative impression. You will remember the good and the bad, but you will not remember the floaters, or people that made no impression.
Here is my attempt at relating the science of particles to learning:
Two particles meet:
A and B
A+B is a positive impression= A—B =strong relationship
A-B is a negative impression=A- -B=weaker relationship (but still has one)
A |B is a neutral impression=A B=no relationship created
That’s why language or examples in learning material we can relate to are effective. They bypass the lack of relationship by coming in through the back door, or a different avenue:
Think about this network
New particle Existing Relationships
D 3- -2—1—A—B—C
Let’s say we want to introduce C to D, let’s say that D is Algebra and we want to introduce the subject of algebra to C which is our learner.
We can introduce them directly such as go to school and someone tells you, you have to learn this. Some might make an instant connection but some will definitely not.
A way to create a relationship between C and D would be an example that shows D that there is a relationship between D and 3.
C then makes the association (although a weak one) from C—B….3 and thus creates a new relationship to D.
This would be the equivalent of introducing examples from our daily lives where we would apply 3 (such as when adding numbers in a basketball game) which is related to D.
The more disparity between particles, or the weaker the example and the association of the example to the object, the weaker the relationship.
ALTHOUGH, the relationship is STILL stronger than merely introducing C and D and hope that a relationship might occur.
Think about meeting someone on a blind date, or meeting up with a close friend who brought their friend.
Sparks might fly on a blind date but the chances of that are slim.
However, when you meet your friend’s friend, you create almost instant credibility and hence the relationship occurs.
Our challenge when learning is to bring a strong introduction or bring a strong association when trying to learn something new.
The strongest type of introduction is relevant to the subject.
Let’s say you want to learn architecture.
The best thing to do before you start getting into the technicalities of designing, you would take the student for a tour in an architectural firm where they are directly introduced to their methods, activities, and results.
The learner now has created a new relationship which is strong. It might be negative or positive, but the chances of it being neutral are slim. Let’s name the new relationship Y.
Next in class, when the student starts learning new material, they will associate every bit of information, whether it’s A, B, C or whatever; they will associate it to their strong Y relationship.
Like the friend bringing a friend, now every learning material that is RELEVANT will be associated to Y for easier access, and easier learning.
NOTE: if the subject course gets more complicated, and goes into things like calculus, you need to make a NEW RELEVANT introduction that the student can relate to.
In an ideal world, this would translate into taking all students in every different class, at the beginning, to a location where that class’s material is applied.
A real life meeting makes a much stronger impression than one that is read on paper, and hence is intangible to most students.
The next best thing would be strong examples and associations such as video and hands on interaction, or simulations.
The weaker of these would be academic texts with weak examples that show up sparingly throughout the course. That is why the best teachers related the subject to their students and their interests, a quality which can be learned and developed, but only where interest (or a relationship) is established.
These can be applied to a plethora of subjects as they should. This example came from the most basic natural occurrence (the particles existing only in relationships) and hence can definitely applied anywhere else.
This makes complete sense and can be applied to learning. Learning has been studied and debated for hundreds of years, with only marginal victories that are clearly not applied; just think about the question: “is our educational system good?”
Some of you might disagree, but we all know it is still flawed.
Applying the discovery from above, I believe that to learn you need Relevance. You need a relationship to the material or new skill.
Once you make that connection/relationship-true learning can occur.
NOTE: the relationship, just like an ordinary one, must give a positive impression.
It can also give a negative impression but learning will be diminished unless you can salvage and turn into a positive, which is more likely that the worst relationship kind; one which made no impression at all.
This is a Neutral impression-in which no relationship was created because of the poor impression, not even a poor one; just think of meeting a person who gave you neither a good nor a negative impression. You will remember the good and the bad, but you will not remember the floaters, or people that made no impression.
Here is my attempt at relating the science of particles to learning:
Two particles meet:
A and B
A+B is a positive impression= A—B =strong relationship
A-B is a negative impression=A- -B=weaker relationship (but still has one)
A |B is a neutral impression=A B=no relationship created
That’s why language or examples in learning material we can relate to are effective. They bypass the lack of relationship by coming in through the back door, or a different avenue:
Think about this network
New particle Existing Relationships
D 3- -2—1—A—B—C
Let’s say we want to introduce C to D, let’s say that D is Algebra and we want to introduce the subject of algebra to C which is our learner.
We can introduce them directly such as go to school and someone tells you, you have to learn this. Some might make an instant connection but some will definitely not.
A way to create a relationship between C and D would be an example that shows D that there is a relationship between D and 3.
C then makes the association (although a weak one) from C—B….3 and thus creates a new relationship to D.
This would be the equivalent of introducing examples from our daily lives where we would apply 3 (such as when adding numbers in a basketball game) which is related to D.
The more disparity between particles, or the weaker the example and the association of the example to the object, the weaker the relationship.
ALTHOUGH, the relationship is STILL stronger than merely introducing C and D and hope that a relationship might occur.
Think about meeting someone on a blind date, or meeting up with a close friend who brought their friend.
Sparks might fly on a blind date but the chances of that are slim.
However, when you meet your friend’s friend, you create almost instant credibility and hence the relationship occurs.
Our challenge when learning is to bring a strong introduction or bring a strong association when trying to learn something new.
The strongest type of introduction is relevant to the subject.
Let’s say you want to learn architecture.
The best thing to do before you start getting into the technicalities of designing, you would take the student for a tour in an architectural firm where they are directly introduced to their methods, activities, and results.
The learner now has created a new relationship which is strong. It might be negative or positive, but the chances of it being neutral are slim. Let’s name the new relationship Y.
Next in class, when the student starts learning new material, they will associate every bit of information, whether it’s A, B, C or whatever; they will associate it to their strong Y relationship.
Like the friend bringing a friend, now every learning material that is RELEVANT will be associated to Y for easier access, and easier learning.
NOTE: if the subject course gets more complicated, and goes into things like calculus, you need to make a NEW RELEVANT introduction that the student can relate to.
In an ideal world, this would translate into taking all students in every different class, at the beginning, to a location where that class’s material is applied.
A real life meeting makes a much stronger impression than one that is read on paper, and hence is intangible to most students.
The next best thing would be strong examples and associations such as video and hands on interaction, or simulations.
The weaker of these would be academic texts with weak examples that show up sparingly throughout the course. That is why the best teachers related the subject to their students and their interests, a quality which can be learned and developed, but only where interest (or a relationship) is established.
These can be applied to a plethora of subjects as they should. This example came from the most basic natural occurrence (the particles existing only in relationships) and hence can definitely applied anywhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
