Forget What You Know About Good Study Habits


Reprinted from the NY Times

Every September, millions of parents try a kind of psychological witchcraft, to transform their summer-glazed campers into fall students, their video-bugs into bookworms. Advice is cheap and all too familiar: Clear a quiet work space. Stick to a homework schedule. Set goals. Set boundaries. Do not bribe (except in emergencies).

And check out the classroom. Does Junior’s learning style match the new teacher’s approach? Or the school’s philosophy? Maybe the child isn’t “a good fit” for the school.

Such theories have developed in part because of sketchy education research that doesn’t offer clear guidance. Student traits and teaching styles surely interact; so do personalities and at-home rules. The trouble is, no one can predict how.

Yet there are effective approaches to learning, at least for those who are motivated. In recent years, cognitive scientists have shown that a few simple techniques can reliably improve what matters most: how much a student learns from studying.

The findings can help anyone, from a fourth grader doing long division to a retiree taking on a new language. But they directly contradict much of the common wisdom about good study habits, and they have not caught on.

For instance, instead of sticking to one study location, simply alternating the room where a person studies improves retention. So does studying distinct but related skills or concepts in one sitting, rather than focusing intensely on a single thing.

“We have known these principles for some time, and it’s intriguing that schools don’t pick them up, or that people don’t learn them by trial and error,” said Robert A. Bjork, a psychologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Instead, we walk around with all sorts of unexamined beliefs about what works that are mistaken.”

Take the notion that children have specific learning styles, that some are “visual learners” and others are auditory; some are “left-brain” students, others “right-brain.” In a recent review of the relevant research, published in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a team of psychologists found almost zero support for such ideas. “The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing,” the researchers concluded.

Ditto for teaching styles, researchers say. Some excellent instructors caper in front of the blackboard like summer-theater Falstaffs; others are reserved to the point of shyness. “We have yet to identify the common threads between teachers who create a constructive learning atmosphere,” said Daniel T. Willingham, a psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of the book “Why Don’t Students Like School?”

But individual learning is another matter, and psychologists have discovered that some of the most hallowed advice on study habits is flat wrong. For instance, many study skills courses insist that students find a specific place, a study room or a quiet corner of the library, to take their work. The research finds just the opposite. In one classic 1978 experiment, psychologists found that college students who studied a list of 40 vocabulary words in two different rooms — one windowless and cluttered, the other modern, with a view on a courtyard — did far better on a test than students who studied the words twice, in the same room. Later studies have confirmed the finding, for a variety of topics.

The brain makes subtle associations between what it is studying and the background sensations it has at the time, the authors say, regardless of whether those perceptions are conscious. It colors the terms of the Versailles Treaty with the wasted fluorescent glow of the dorm study room, say; or the elements of the Marshall Plan with the jade-curtain shade of the willow tree in the backyard. Forcing the brain to make multiple associations with the same material may, in effect, give that information more neural scaffolding.

“What we think is happening here is that, when the outside context is varied, the information is enriched, and this slows down forgetting,” said Dr. Bjork, the senior author of the two-room experiment.

Varying the type of material studied in a single sitting — alternating, for example, among vocabulary, reading and speaking in a new language — seems to leave a deeper impression on the brain than does concentrating on just one skill at a time. Musicians have known this for years, and their practice sessions often include a mix of scales, musical pieces and rhythmic work. Many athletes, too, routinely mix their workouts with strength, speed and skill drills.

The advantages of this approach to studying can be striking, in some topic areas. In a study recently posted online by the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology, Doug Rohrer and Kelli Taylor of the University of South Florida taught a group of fourth graders four equations, each to calculate a different dimension of a prism. Half of the children learned by studying repeated examples of one equation, say, calculating the number of prism faces when given the number of sides at the base, then moving on to the next type of calculation, studying repeated examples of that. The other half studied mixed problem sets, which included examples all four types of calculations grouped together. Both groups solved sample problems along the way, as they studied.

A day later, the researchers gave all of the students a test on the material, presenting new problems of the same type. The children who had studied mixed sets did twice as well as the others, outscoring them 77 percent to 38 percent. The researchers have found the same in experiments involving adults and younger children.

“When students see a list of problems, all of the same kind, they know the strategy to use before they even read the problem,” said Dr. Rohrer. “That’s like riding a bike with training wheels.” With mixed practice, he added, “each problem is different from the last one, which means kids must learn how to choose the appropriate procedure — just like they had to do on the test.” Continue reading

Nurture Shock: Chapter 5 – The Search for Intelligent Life in Kindergarten

I wonder what would my mother would have said if she read this chapter? I have to say that this chapter and the research cited leaves me cold. What is the benefit of putting a young child – esp. a kindergartner – in a gifted and talented program? I think the benefit is for the parents, not the child.

This is another opportunity for me to talk about the movie The Race to Nowhere: The Dark Side of the Achievement Culture. Our children are under a tremendous amount of stress in this culture. Why add to it? The other side is not pretty – depression, anxiety, eating disorders, dropping out of school. The trend has been to push push push our kids. Those who learn outside of the box and negatively affect the school’s test scores fall thru the cracks. Those children could be our creative geniuses. We need to find ways for those children to succeed. Creativity is lost in the public school system.

Some of our most creative giants in recent history had learning challenges: Walt Disney, Charles Schwab, Greg Louganis, Vince Vaughn, Henry Winkler, Whoopi Goldberg, Jay Leno, Paul Orfalea (Kinko’s), to name just a few. When do our children have time for creative pursuits? They are literally on the race to nowhere taking honors classes, then AP classes, participating in a team sport which means hours of practice and games. Why start the rat race in kindergarten?

One of my favorite books is Smart Parenting Revolution by Dawna Markova. I’ve had the pleasure of participating in two workshops with Dawna, a brilliant woman who completely embraces the different learner. Her book helps parents understand their child’s Thinking Talents and Mind Patterns. Instead of focusing on a child’s IQ, Dawna looks at how your child is smart, what are your child’s strengths and how can you best support those strengths? And her goal is to have a smart card for each child which will follow that child from to school to school. Every teacher would then know how that child is smart and what they would need to do to support that child’s strengths.

My oldest daughter tested into the Gifted and Talented program in 3rd grade. It wasn’t until I read Dawna’s book when she was 18 that I fully understood how her brain worked. Dawna used the research from Ned Herrmann, author of The Creative Brain, to describe the 4 quadrants of the brain: analytic, procedural, innovative and relational. After figuring out your child’s thinking talents and where they fall in the four quadrants, you will have a better understanding of your child’s strengths. It wasn’t until I read this book that I fully understood my daughter’s intellect. She has thinking talents in all four quadrants – only 3 to 4 percent of the population falls into all four.

I went on to map the rest of my family and that information has really helped me be a better parent. I suppose getting that information from a test at age 5 is valuable but it’s what you do with that information that matters. The emphasis should be on discovering the strengths and talents of all children especially those who don’t test well at age 5.

Next week – The Sibling Effect

This Week’s Recipe – Billie’s Tomato and Feta Salad (Billie is a fabulous cook who also introduced me to Dawna Markova)

3 pints cherry tomatoes, halved
12oz feta cheese, crumbled
1 small red onion, cut into 1/4″dice
1/4 c extra-virgin olive oil
3 tbsp white wine or champagne vinegar
2 tbsp minced fresh basil
2 tbsp minced fresh parsley
3/4 tsp salt
1/2 tsp freshly ground pepper

In a serving bowl, gently toss together all ingredients.  Serve immediately or chill, covered until ready to serve.  Makes 8 servings.