"Forget What You Know About Good Study Habits"

[Perry]

From NYT:

 

Forget What You Know About Good Study Habits

[oldskool]

Really interesting article. I will have to ponder it for awhile.

 

Lesley

[Lilymax]

Oh, geez...and just as I decided to start working more with DS1 on building traditional study habits! :lol:

 

No time to read the full article now, but I will later. It'll be interesting to hear other HS'ers takes on it.

[mycalling]

I like the idea of studying in different places. That makes sense. Also, studying mixed sets and not one type before moving on. That fits with what we did using Math on the Level and was the biggest idea I took away from that curriculum. It worked extremely well for the son I used it with.

[Laurie4b]

There is some interesting stuff in there for homeschoolers.

 

The article repeats a research conclusion that's been around for years, but which homeschoolers (and other educators) seem to miss: there is not much, if any, support for the idea of "learning styles" among normal learners. (There is when there are learning disabilities present.)

 

It also contains some research about testing being good for retention. I know that as a homeschooler, I've often not done testing because I viewed it solely as assessment and I have other ways to do that. This article said testing actually aids learning. Hmmm.

 

Something easy for homeschoolers to do that was suggested in the article is to switch up the place where studying is done: it helps in retention.

[Garga]

Hmm. I might try breaking up the grammar lessons into smaller ones.

 

And move around the house more.

[Teachin'Mine]

Great article Perry! Thank you so much for sharing it with us.

 

This is exactly why I didn't like Easy Grammar. My dd did well with each page assigned, but each page practiced only one concept. It was easy to do, but it made memory of what was learned very difficult. I mixed up the order of the book, but I think I would have done even better having her do one page from different sections consecutively by days. Then she'd get back to one of the concepts once every one or two weeks and there would need to be long term recall.

 

I think this also highlights why we've found Saxon to work so well. It does exactly what this study suggests and "tests" with each set of problem lessons what's been already learned during the year. We still needed to do a lot of review in prep for standardized tests, but that was mostly on topics from two years before.

 

I will be sharing this info with my dd as it will probably encourage her to study places other than at her desk. It will be interested to see if there's a noticeable improvement. Last year, for finals, I encouraged her to study one subject at a time and really concentrate on it before taking the test. Seems that's not the best way to go, so we'll give the varied approach a try - or at least that's my plan. :lol:

 

This really has me thinking on the way we do a lot of things ... I'm really looking forward to reading others' insights on this.

[Greta]

Thanks for posting this! Great article. I resisted the idea of testing for years, thinking that was a classroom tool, and not needed for homeschooling. I learned last year that I was very wrong about that, because testing really helps my dd remember things better. I test her weekly now.

 

The article also made me feel good about my math choices: MEP because it always covers multiple concepts within a lesson, and MOTL because of the 5-A-Day review (constant testing!).

 

I have made the mistake, though, of insisting that school always take place in our school room, thinking that limiting the distractions would help her concentrate. She'll be glad to know that we can mix it up, have school on the couch, in the back yard, and maybe even at Starbucks occasionally. ;)

[Giraffe]

Interesting! I've always had to move around when studying, so it rings true for me.

[cathmom]

Interesting! I've always had to move around when studying, so it rings true for me.

 

See, and I don't move when studying, but learning styles don't exist LOL. :001_smile: Rrrright.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

From NYT:

 

Forget What You Know About Good Study Habits

 

I wonder if some of the sucess of a "new" curriculum is simply that it is presenting the material in a new way. So it isn't that one method was bad and the new way is better but that the new pick reenforces the older learning to some extent.

 

Or as my midwife used to say, "A change is as good as a rest."

 

The mention of learning styles is interesting. I think that there is value in saying that we use different modalities to leaning, but that the idea that a person learns dominantly in one way is a limiting perspective. Especially when the emphasis on learning styles swerves away from thinking about presenting material in a couple of different ways and moves into only working with a child's perceived strength. (I have similar reservations about the multiple intelligences theory, which has always struck me as an attempt to make everyone special so that no one is.)

[DarlaS]

Something easy for homeschoolers to do that was suggested in the article is to switch up the place where studying is done: it helps in retention.

 

I get antsy when I read something that requires any concentration. I have to move once or twice per chapter. I always thought I was just weird. :tongue_smilie:

[forty-two]

See, and I don't move when studying, but learning styles don't exist LOL. :001_smile: Rrrright.

I've read other stuff that Willingham (one of the cognitive scientists quoted in the article) has written about learning styles. His point isn't that learning styles, per se, don't exist - but that fitting the subjects studied to the dominant learning style of the student isn't necessarily the best way to learn a given subject. He says it is better to present the material in the way best suited for the subject itself to achieve the best results.

[TechWife]

(I have similar reservations about the multiple intelligences theory, which has always struck me as an attempt to make everyone special so that no one is.)

I'm glad I'm not the only one!

[BeckyFL]

Well I guess I'm glad I chose Saxon over Lial's this year.

[regentrude]

Interesting article - but I don't quite buy the thing about different learning styles not being existent.

I know for a fact that, if somebody is introduced to me orally, I will forget the name within two minutes. However, if the person is wearing a name tag and I see the name written, I will remember for weeks. I can not retain any information that I just hear (audio lectures are the worst)- but I can recall after twenty years that the formula for centripetal acceleration was in a left lower quarter of a right notebook page and was boxed in red because I see it in front of my eyes.

Anybody who tells me that visual learners do not exist - please explain this to me.

[forty-two]

Interesting article - but I don't quite buy the thing about different learning styles not being existent.

I know for a fact that, if somebody is introduced to me orally, I will forget the name within two minutes. However, if the person is wearing a name tag and I see the name written, I will remember for weeks. I can not retain any information that I just hear (audio lectures are the worst)- but I can recall after twenty years that the formula for centripetal acceleration was in a left lower quarter of a right notebook page and was boxed in red because I see it in front of my eyes.

Anybody who tells me that visual learners do not exist - please explain this to me.

It's not that learning styles are non-existent, but that catering to them might not lead to the best learning outcome in all subjects.

 

I'm right with you with the visual learning - everything you said is true for me, too. Two things, though. *Preferring* to learn visually than auditorially is one thing. Being *unable* to learn auditorially is quite another.

 

(I don't know if you were exaggerating for effect, but I'm just this side of being truly unable to learn from purely aural information. It's never been much of a problem b/c there are so few auditory-only environments - slides, handouts, captioning, body language - I even partially lip-read during conversations to have a visual hook.)

 

If one's preferred learning style is always catered to, and they are never taught how to use their weaker modalities, that can be very crippling. In fact, for a long time I missed that I likely have auditory processing issues because I just thought I "wasn't an auditory learner" :glare:.

 

Because (and this is point two), some subjects really can't be taught equally well in all learning modalities. If I want to learn about music, the primary means is going to have to be auditory, because *music* is primarily auditory. If I want to learn a sport, that's going to be primarily kinesthetic. If I want to learn about visual art, that's going to be primarily visual.

 

Right now I'm having a hard time learning foreign languages, b/c the easiest, most convenient way to do so is, you guessed it, via auditory means. But as I can barely comprehend unfamilar spoken English without some sort of visual clue, comprehending a spoken new language, which is *all* unfamilar, just isn't going to happen :glare:. And so my path to foreign language learning is just that much more laborious - I've had to add remediating my aural comprehension skills (truly atrocious) to my self-ed list (as if there wasn't enough on it already :tongue_smilie:).

 

Learning styles certainly exist to some extent - but imo catering to the dominant style without building up the weaker styles is just asking for trouble.

[Peela]

Interesting article - but I don't quite buy the thing about different learning styles not being existent.

I know for a fact that, if somebody is introduced to me orally, I will forget the name within two minutes. However, if the person is wearing a name tag and I see the name written, I will remember for weeks. I can not retain any information that I just hear (audio lectures are the worst)- but I can recall after twenty years that the formula for centripetal acceleration was in a left lower quarter of a right notebook page and was boxed in red because I see it in front of my eyes.

Anybody who tells me that visual learners do not exist - please explain this to me.

 

I think I am primarily visual, also, and I relate to what you are saying. I am a good speller but I have to "see" the word first- my visual memory is good. And, my husband reads me things out of the newspaper and I dont like it much because if it is interesting to me, I want to read it myself- and see it.

However...I do wonder if we just start to lose our capacities as we get old (er :) ) and revert to what might be our naturally predominant or simply easiest one. That doesnt mean that as a kid we mightn't benefit from receiving informaiton and learning to retain it, through various methods. I am sure i learned a lot listening to my teachers in school...but as an adult, I have spent years learning visually rather than aurally.

My kids love to be read to, yet are both quite visual. I cant stand being read to, but its more because I myself read very quickly and to hear someone's voice, I always feel I am wasting time because I could read it so much faster than they are saying it :) Still...sometimes I deliberately listen to audios and make myself slow down and listen..and I enjoy it.

[Rosie_0801]

Right now I'm having a hard time learning foreign languages, b/c the easiest, most convenient way to do so is, you guessed it, via auditory means. But as I can barely comprehend unfamilar spoken English without some sort of visual clue, comprehending a spoken new language, which is *all* unfamilar, just isn't going to happen :glare:. And so my path to foreign language learning is just that much more laborious - I've had to add remediating my aural comprehension skills (truly atrocious)

 

Funny that. I have a rotten time trying to learn vocab, particularly in other languages, but it sticks in my brain better if I sign while I'm saying it.

 

Rosie

[Virg]

I thought this article was very interesting! I plan to try out some of the ideas :) The twins always want school in the backyard... unfortunately we are in OR lol. I think we will try moving around the house more though. I was afraid to admit on this board that I love testing :) I'm a little nervous about moving to MFW without any next year! Now I have an excuse :lol:

[Hannah]

Wouldn't doing narrations and summaries have the same purpose as testing - retrieving the information and having to present it?

Or is it more that the testing takes place a while after the material has been presented the first time and therefore has to be 'retrieved' from deeper memory? Just wondering.

[Giraffe]

I've read other stuff that Willingham (one of the cognitive scientists quoted in the article) has written about learning styles. His point isn't that learning styles, per se, don't exist - but that fitting the subjects studied to the dominant learning style of the student isn't necessarily the best way to learn a given subject. He says it is better to present the material in the way best suited for the subject itself to achieve the best results.

 

I like this - do what works for the student, not what everyone else is doing, right?

 

Cathmom needs to stay put. I need to wander (as does DH). DD - too soon to tell.

[Angela Beshears]

Wouldn't doing narrations and summaries have the same purpose as testing - retrieving the information and having to present it?

Or is it more that the testing takes place a while after the material has been presented the first time and therefore has to be 'retrieved' from deeper memory? Just wondering.

 

I just started a new thread on this article because I didn't see this one already started- I have also read the book mentioned in the article, and from what I understand, it is BETTER not to wait- and testing could certainly include summarizing, narration, basically whatever it is that you would want them to be able to do in the long-term, do it in smaller chunks, more often, as you go- that's what I took away from it.

[Angela Beshears]

The article also made me feel good about my math choices: MEP because it always covers multiple concepts within a lesson' date=' and MOTL because of the 5-A-Day review (constant testing!). [/quote']

 

Sorry I don't know this, but what is MOTL ? I tried to look it up...

 

Thanks!

[forty-two]

Sorry I don't know this, but what is MOTL ? I tried to look it up...

 

Thanks!

Math on the Level :).