|
|
|
|
|
by cicatriz
4640 days ago
|
|
I've been thinking about this for a while--I created a spaced repetition system to digitize and learn material in college (alas, I don't use it anymore). I have a philosophical approach to the question here (also cited in Gwern's article): http://blog.learnstream.org/2012/08/spaced-repetition-in-nat... Your distinction between learning facts and learning ways of thinking is interesting. Most of the spaced repetition research and design is around fact recall--what's called "paired associates" because you recall some response paired with some stimulus. I don't have any evidence for it, but I'd say that the schema can be lost just as well as facts can be. One thing I will say is that spaced repetition is generally known for the repetition--that you retain something over time, and the spacing is more thought of as convenience. But the truth is that spacing is also part of better learning--when recall is difficult it's learned better (called "desirable difficulties"). I thought of that because Robert Bjork does that research with skills as well as facts. (See http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/01/everything-about-learni... for an overview.) |
|