I don’t focus on the research literature on this site, but I want to make an exception. I encourage those of you interested in educational research make the effort to read the article by Rohrer & Pahler in the June/July issue of Educational Researcher (2010, 39(5), 406-412).
The article argues that researchers have made a number of concrete suggestions that would improve student learning and that these suggestions are often ignored. The three examples offered include – learning through testing (increasing retrieving), spacing of practice, and interleaving. These examples were selected because the basis for the suggestion are quite solid AND because the suggestions are about studying differently rather than studying more.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the review was a speculative addition at the end of the presentation which asked the question “Why are inferior strategies so popular?” It is this focus I think should receive wider consideration because it may extend to many current topics in education. The authors pose the question in an interesting fashion. Since some of these suggestions could have developed as common practice simply as a function of student trial and error, why do students typically spend their time in inferior strategies? Remember these proposals are about a different way of doing things and not about the expectation that students spend more time. The authors suggest that these strategies tend to produce a higher error rate during study which may be more discouraging for students. It appears students prefer passive strategies because there is less challenge to their illusion of understanding. I wonder. Perhaps students do understand that a technique is less effective, but still persist because it is what they know and it is easier.
Powered by ScribeFire.
