Recovery of 3 Learning Secrets

Confession: I am a hopeless learning junkie. I read the newsletters, view the websites, and subscribe to the hard science in the Journal of Neuroscience. But I am also a student of the history of learning. I was digging around the research and found amazing (but ‘buried’) research that is quite relevant today, years later.

Research

The study’s title, “The Learning Strategies Project,” got my attention. For one, the author Emanuel Donchin, was a pioneer the field of learning. Second, the project was funded by the US Department of Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which later funded the original Internet as we know it today. Finally, the mission of the DARPA Learning strategies project was to test the assumption that “there are learning strategies that do make practice more efficient.”

To test which learning strategies were the best, they did something that no other project in history has done. They created a standard project model (“Here is the activity, and here is how much time you have to accomplish your goals.”)

Then they sent their request for proposals to cognitive scientists all over the country. The model ensured that every single strategy would be fairly evaluated against the exact same standard, using the same learning conditions in the same time frame. Whew! It was an exhausting research model, so let me summarize the results for you.

Practical Applications

The task was designed so that anyone could get started; no prior knowledge was needed. It was sufficiently complex, so there was plenty of room for improvement. Each researcher was given 10 hours of task time for their participants. There were three primary “winning” learning strategies, each with a strong effect on learning (pre-training, immersion training, and parts training.)

The first strategy was pre-training. Take 10-30 minutes, over one to three weeks, do before an upcoming skill training, teaching what needs to happen before the skill training. Students can rehearse the skill mentally, as well as walk through the steps physically. Focus on a particularly hard or complex area of the upcoming skill. When focused on the cognitive skills needed, pre-training is effective (Millner, Jaroszewski, Chamarthi, Pizzagalli, 2012).

Doing this well allows your students to get immediate acceleration in any task. For example, teach working memory first in math or reading tasks (an 8 to12-week process). This strategy, the analysis, and the teaching of a task based on its smaller components lead to high task success in the exact learning challenge.

The second was an immersion (learning the “whole”) strategy, simply beginning the process with NO advanced training or skill-building at all. What made this work (and what reduced failure rates) were in the instructions. Students were doing the full skill-building, but the instructions varied to focus on different aspects of the task. In this way, they were getting exposure to the ‘big picture’ without the usual overwhelm of information. For example, you say to your students, “In this reading passage, notice how often the author uses adjectives and adverbs to clarify and amplify the meaning.” This strategy leads to greater task durability over time and resistance to distractions. It also has high transfer to other tasks, especially in medicine (Zink, Halaas, Finstad & Brooks, 2008) and language learning (Linck, Kroll & Sunderman, 2009 and Stein, Winkler, Kaiser & Dierks, 2014).

The third strategy that worked was to build micro-skills (learning in “parts”) in parallel with the task (vs. before) that were essential for the overall task. For example, one researcher deducted that smooth and rapid eye movements were critical. They trained these skills as students participated in the tasks. In fact, each key skill area was taught and found successful for skill-building. This strategic approach is called hierarchal, since it posits that teaching core skills will support multiple other task skills. (Ahissar, Nahum, Nelken & Hochstein, 2009).

How do we make this practical?

First, I checked the research to find if there had been any conflicting evidence. Second, I had to check the study design and procedures to determine if and how this translates to the classroom.

Here’s the bottom line: All three strategies are good. The choice you make depends on your students.

1. If you want high task success with less transfer, stick with the “parts” at a time model.
2. If you have disadvantaged students, use the “pre-training” model.
3. For more typical students, use the “immersion” model with targeted instructions for attentional focus.

Skills-building is an essential part of your teaching. You cannot afford to have a broken model or unsuccessful students. Please review each of the three models and choose the one best for you. Rock on!

CEO, Jensen Learning
Brain-Based Education