‘Sneaky Learning’
Students come to college armed with some really misguided ideas on how to study. Cramming before an exam is a classic one. So is rereading the same passage over and over in hopes of understanding what it means. But what’s the best way to get them to think differently and study more successfully?
Colorado State University has been experimenting with the role that science and technology can play in breaking those bad habits. Anne M. Cleary, a psychology professor who studies human memory, has helped develop a number of these efforts, including the creation of a course called “The Science of Learning,” which is open to all undergraduates. The primary message, says Cleary, is don’t trust your gut. Learning is not intuitive. Research shows a disconnect between what people think are the best ways to learn and the habits that actually lead to true understanding and retention.
“Those strategies that are most effective may feel least effective,” she says. “Part of the goal is to help them appreciate science as a valuable source of information.”
To that end, students study the research behind different learning strategies. Take cramming, for example. Students learn that, while people estimate they learn better studying all at once versus spacing out their learning, studies show the opposite. Similarly, people perform better when they test themselves on what they know while they are studying, as opposed to reading the same material over and over.
Students are encouraged to put these strategies into practice in their other classes as they take the course, which has been open to all students since 2015. Cleary says one particular comment from a student perfectly encapsulates its approach: “I’ve been implementing these techniques & it doesn’t feel like it is going to have any effect,” the student wrote. “Then I take a quiz or a test & realize how much I’ve learned, & it’s almost like the learning just sneaks up on you. It’s like, I would call it, sneaky learning.”
Cleary loves that phrase: sneaky learning. So far, she says, the course has been successful. Evaluations show that undergraduates come away with a much better understanding of what works. “Where we still struggle is implementing the strategies,” she says. “Knowing is half the battle.”
Students may intend to space their studying out over several days, for example, but find themselves cramming yet again for a big exam because they have trouble juggling their schedules.
That’s where the second leg of her strategy comes in: technology. She and her colleagues are experimenting with a program that, when fed relevant questions, can ping students at random times throughout the week. While watching Netflix one night, for example, a student may see a question pop up on her smartwatch: How many plates make up the earth’s crust? A minute later, the answer appears.
The strategy builds on the idea that “downhill changes,” as Cleary calls them — those that can be easily incorporated into your life — are more likely to stick than major changes in behavior. It also uses the concept of nudges, popularized by the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, which holds that you can prompt positive changes in behavior through small incentives.
Of course the investment needed to make this work on a large scale is considerable. After testing out the technology on a dozen people with good results, her team is now working with the campus Center for the Analytics of Learning and Teaching to scale up the experiment to an entire course.
Other experiments include a one-credit recitation session for a biomedical-science course, in which instructors give students exercises tailored to the class — like having them write a letter to their grandmother explaining a concept they learned that week. Cleary has also brought her message to a campuswide initiative called the First Four Weeks, a workshop in which faculty members who run large-enrollment, first-year courses are taught about the science of learning, among other things.
Her goal, ultimately, is to develop enough venues for this work so that all students and instructors will have exposure to practical applications of the science of learning. She’d love to see the “Science of Learning” class offered to every first-year student, for example. “I mentioned this idea to administrators, and always get an enthusiastic response,” she says, noting that the course wouldn’t have been possible without support from the provost’s office. “But pushing things through is a whole other challenge.”
In January, Oxford University Press is releasing a book written by Cleary and her colleagues Matthew G. Rhodes and Edward L. DeLosh. It’s called A Guide to Effective Studying and Learning: Practical Strategies From the Science of Learning, and is based on their work to date.
