Discussion about this post

User's avatar
shaeda.io's avatar

Always enjoy reading these.

Some related questions, if I may, regarding the retrieval study:

1. I was surprised to see you write that note-taking is a good strategy for studying. I'm not an expert, but most of the research I've read puts this as a quite weak form of study (which makes sense: it's passive)

2. Re "only superior when feedback was provided": This is essentially flashcards, right? As in, with a typical exam/quiz the student will either not find out the answers, or have to wait considerable time. Of course with flashcards, it is provided instantly. If they answer incorrectly, it simply remains in the session's deck.

3. Aren't methods such as "group discussions" or "self-explanations" etc also forms of retrieval? This is something I've had a few discussions with people over and I've never really followed how such methods can not be based upon retrieving from memory.

Thank you.

Expand full comment
Andrew Evans's avatar

It's telling that the GEEAP paper talks a lot about cost effectiveness, and not about devoting more resources to ameliorate this supposed international crisis.

Also, with their recommendations on micromanaging reading instruction, they seem to completely ignore a century-old body of eye-movement research:

"Research on eye movement in reading has shown that reading comprehension is optimal if the reading materials are natural and close to the reader’s cognitive and life experiences. Moreover, readers should be taught to use the information from different textual, nonverbal visual features, and multiple representations and modes to assist comprehension. Comprehension is also optimal if reading instruction is embedded in a wide cross-disciplinary curriculum through which students build up general and specific background knowledge for reading and learning. In the continuous conversations about reading and reading instruction, let’s not forget these very principle understandings about reading and how students read most successfully based on the body of century-old eye movement research."

Hung, Y. - N. (2021). The science of reading: The eyes cannot lie. International journal of education and literacy studies, 9(4), p. 26-31.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1328890.pdf

https://www.emmaforum.org/Biblio

Also, maybe postmortem fish can read human social situations:

https://www.mathematik.uni-rostock.de/storages/uni-rostock/Alle_MNF/Mathematik/Struktur/Lehrstuehle/Analysis-Differentialgleichungen/salmon-fMRI.pdf

Expand full comment
24 more comments...

No posts