The Most Important Factor in Learning
What is the MOST important factor in learning? Here are a few possibilities:
A. Your intention and desire to learn
B. Paying close attention to the material
C. Learning in a way that matches your personal style
D. How much time you spend studying/practicing
E. What you think about while learning
So, which one do you think is the most important?
Many people would argue that all of these are fundamental, and at the extremes that’s certainly true. For example, if you spend no time at all on learning, you probably won’t learn much. However, Samford University professor Stephen Chew argues that one factor is much more vital than the others, and the answer may surprise you.
Your intention and desire to learn are important, but, as it turns out, people often learn even when they have no intent to learn. And many students have had the experience of wanting to learn and working hard to learn, but still not being able to learn.
Paying close attention to the material on its own does not help learning, and may in fact impede learning. More on that below…
The evidence doesn’t support learning styles as an important factor in determining how well a student learns, although learning styles may affect other aspects of learning.
Amount of time spent is obviously relevant. But if the time is spent poorly, then, no matter how long you study, you won’t see much benefit.
So that leaves what you think about while learning as the most important factor. More specifically, in order to learn, you need to think in a deep way about the material. This can mean comparing and contrasting concepts, making personal connections to the material, or applying the concept to a real-world situation, among others. On the other hand, paying close attention to trivial details about the material will actually hurt learning, because it replaces deep processing.
Here’s a video in which Chew explains an experiment that elegantly demonstrates this principle.
There are a lot of fascinating implications of this research. These follow up points are especially relevant to me:
- This is a primary reason why classes centered on lecturing are ineffective. During a lecture, the teacher has little to no influence on how deeply a student is actually processing the material. Nearly all of the impetus is on the student to process the material independently. Consequently, only students with strong metacognition (awareness of their own thinking) learn well, and these are the types of students who would learn well in almost any circumstance.
- There are no substitutes for skilled teachers and well-designed curriculum. Strong teaching in particular is crucial because skilled teachers are able to guide students to process information deeply, through questioning, feedback, and reinforcement.
- We should be cautious about what we expect from educational technology. For example, iPads are wonderful tools, and new interactive textbooks might replace traditional textbooks. But these things will not help students learn more on their own, because they can be used either effectively or ineffectively. Technology is new, exciting, and fun to use, but, unless it is applied to leverage fundamental principles of teaching and learning, it will not result in greater student achievement.
Which of these implications stand out for you? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Trackback from your site.
Related Posts
Loading ...
I’ll offer some slightly contrarian views, if only for fun. I do agree that factors A-E are important and “what you think about while learning” would seem a necessary if not somewhat circular condition. Just the word ‘learning’ feels extremely broad to me, as “learning to ride a bike” seems worlds apart from “learning my times tables,” much less “learning to resolve conflict.” I’ll set that aside, though. I think two factors are under-examined here, and those are difficulty and confrontation. There’s a great deal of rote material, relational maps or operational processes and so forth that can be learned with dedicated attention to the material. I sometimes think, though, that what we really have trouble facing is how much learning comes from struggle and even doing things we don’t want to do, don’t want to think about. This is one thing the classroom – even a lecture classroom – can offer that many technological solutions don’t. (Not that they cannot, but vaunted carrot/stick promises of gamification sometimes seem more carroty to me.) Some of my biggest learning moments have been moments of great difficulty, even pain. I don’t know if would have chosen to go through them, and certainly not in that form, had I known. I’m not talking about the pain of an hour-long calculus problem or all-nighter in the library; I mean moments when the verities of life were turned upside down, or someone asked questions I couldn’t answer because there were none, or the catharsis of an idea I wish I had known years ago, All this probably doesn’t count because it doesn’t fit with what we’re supposed to call curriculum anymore. Don’t get me wrong – I love EdTech, I use quite a bit in my college classroom, but when I’m at my best I think I’m using it as an avenue to teachable moments that are less about rote learning, the intent of the student, their attention or “processing,” or even contact, and more about confronting them with very tough material, but in a way that keeps them going, keeps their spirits up, through the challenge and difficulty.
You have to teach metacognition along with the “material.” One of Marzano’s early works, Tactics for Thinking, is a useful tool.