The next few posts will be on the contrast between "intuitive declarative" learning and "blind procedural" learning. Hopefully, they should help you further clarify the difference between the two knowledge types, as well as give some ideas as to the best modes of learning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this post, I ask “What is the ideal outcome of declarative study?” in order to contrast it with procedural study
According to Bloom’s taxonomy, the ideal outcome should be to:
1. Know simply facts and be able to bring them to mind when necessary
2. Understand these facts in context and be able to explain them
3. Apply them in problem solving or when learning another concept
4. Analyse them, explain them in terms of other concepts, and arrange them into a structure
5. Be able to synthesise them into new ideas
6. Be able to evaluate them and decide on their worth and relevance, according to some framework
From my personal experience, the best outcome of declarative study has been to provide me with strong intuitive understanding of my subjects. By intuitive, I specifically mean “learned intuition”. Not the type of intuition that allows you to know something without thinking, but the type that is based on experience.
For example, if I spell a word wrong, it feels wrong. If someone asks me whether the USA or New Zealand has a larger population, I don’t just automatically answer “USA”. It feels like the right answer because everything that I know agrees with it – global politics, Hollywood, history, geography, currency conversions, etc. I wasn’t born with “English spelling flashcards” or “country population items” installed in my brain. However, by associating meaningful examples to my learning, I have developed an emotional connection with my knowledge that allows me to internally evaluate such responses.
Some subjects are generally considered non-intuitive. For example, Richard Feynman famously said, “If you think you understand quantum physics, you don’t understand it”. Likewise, Arnold Sommerfeld said of thermodynamics, “[It] is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn't bother you anymore.”
I have studied both thermodynamics and rudimentary quantum physics and I have found that what these statements really mean is not that you can’t understand them - if no one could understand anything, there would be no one studying these fields! The point they make is that you can’t associate knowledge from inside these subjects to the other things that you know. You can’t, for example, say that light is made of little particles, like matter. Nor can you say that it is made of waves. The term “wave-particle duality” that is used to describe how light actually works illustrates perfectly our inability to connect its behaviour with something we are familiar with. Almost everything in these subjects is a completely new concept, which makes it difficult to make analogies to the outside world.
Despite all this, I have achieved a considerably strong intuitive grasp of the topics I have covered in these subjects. After much study, it no longer makes sense to me to think of light as a wave or a particle. Nor does it make sense to think of perpetual motion machines that violate the laws of thermodynamics. I have learned a new sense of what is reasonable and what is possible. This is what I mean by intuition. Through the learning process I have changed the way I look at the world, the way I think about things, and what I am capable of understanding.
Therefore, my answer to the initial question is that the ideal outcome of declarative study is to build strong intuition. The links between ideas should be clear. Their applicability should be understood. You should be able to explain the same ideas in a variety of ways.
In the next post I will continue describing this "Intuitive declarative" idea, so that I can ultimately contrast it with the idea of "blind procedural" learning.
Thank you for support on the previous post! All comments are welcome.
Posts
Your previous posts on the cut and vary methods have allowed me to really "get" how I can use SuperMemo to build keyboard fingering routines and practice them afterwards. I have now built a solely procedural collection.
ReplyDeleteI have one little request - could you please fill the "about me" section? I'm not asking for personal details or academic credentials (they are irrelevant), but I'm curious about who writes any material I learn from. In particular, what are your fields of expertise and experience with SuperMemo.
Thanks!
There you see, many people are interested on this kind of application of supermemo. I could considered my self very knowledgeable on declarative learning with supermemo. As this is the main requirement in my life. But procedurally learning is something not even the creator though about, I have changed many of the questions I'm putting into supermo specially to learn "how to" about softwares. Thanks,
ReplyDeleteSo, what you are saying here that you believe that the ultimate goal of declarative knowledge mastery should be this kind of feeling we feel when you know your good at doing something, only applied to declarative knowledge? IMO this intuitive declarative knowledge refers to the schema build trough expertise in any field. This kind of schema not only allow us to understand the world better and faster, but also further ace3llerates subsequent learning. How does this compare to expertise in procedural learning?
@thesupermemoblog Yes, I do see there is some interest and I am glad:) I have written a lot of this material for my own benefit over a couple of years, and it is great if others can also benefit.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, schema is a very good word for this. I tend to use my own terms so that I have the freedom to define them differently, but this is the basic concept it came from.
However, I did not mean to say that we should aim for the feeling that we know we are good at something - that feeling would be confidence. Although that is also desirable as it promotes further learning, I actually meant the feeling that something "makes sense". The 'aha!' moment. This is the feeling that a piece of knowledge has found a good fit in your mental schema because it has some strong associations.
I shall outline the contrast for procedural learning in the coming weeks so that I can explain myself fully:)
@anonymous that's great! By "keyboard fingering routines" do you mean touch typing or keyboard shortcuts? Touch typing will require a lot more creativity for formulation:)
ReplyDeleteI filled in my profile with as much as I could. In fact, I wrote a lot more, but they only allow 1200 characters:)
(Hey - I am no longer anonymous)
ReplyDeleteI was referring to keyboard, as in a musical instrument (e.g. piano). Musically, I am self-taught, and since my repertoire usually ranges from Early to Baroque, I avoid using the word "piano". Naturally, the cut&vary method called home. :)
Now that you mention touch-typing...I taught myself the Colemak layout. I went through it "cold turkey"...and the first couple weeks were terrible. I didn't put any effort in inputting procedural material to my collection; this need was solely fulfilled by enforced daily practice. However, I did input declarative material consisting of dozens of occlusion tests. It helped me recall key positions faster. A couple months afterwards I could touch-type Colemak - something I could do in the Qwerty layout, but always with the wrong fingers due to bad typing habits carried from early childhood.
Thanks for providing more information.
@thesupermemoblog Nice to see you here.
@Alex I see:) yes, cut & vary is very intuitive for musicians, who normally learn like this anyway.
ReplyDeleteI was unaware of QWERTY alternatives until I looked up Colemak... Was it worth the effort learning?
Interestingly, I had jotted down the following on my notebook, on October 31st, 2009: “... leverage knowledge on procedural learning and incrementalism (SuperMemo) - how to systematically identify troublesome passages in performing a musical score. Segment the score and study the finger movements, difficulty of figures, etc. and design sets of exercises for each of them.” This note remained untouched till after I discovered this blog. :)
ReplyDeleteColemak was worth the effort learning. Unlike Dvorak (another popular Qwerty alternative), it keeps letters often used in shortcuts untouched (ZXCVBMQAW), plus the layout includes typographical symbols, and symbols belonging to the orthography of languages I use as dead keys (not relying on ‘charmap’ saves me time)... not to mention the layout switch has allowed me to finally type with the right fingers. Typing with the right fingers (and possibly less finger travel with Colemak) has removed an intermittent discomfort in my fingers previously triggered by prolonged typing. [Caveat: I can no longer reach acceptable speed when I Qwerty my brain around.]
Well yeah Alex, switching afterward is difficult, I tried alternative keyboard layouts in the past, but I have to use more then on computer so I was not productive, besides we use Spanish in my country, although I use English for all my personal notes, I don't feel any stress associated with QWERTY. I wonder if using Colemak is really that comfortable, how will it feel like, definitively tempting to test. Do you know if there is a Spanish colemak layout?
ReplyDelete"I have written a lot of this material for my own benefit over a couple of years, and it is great if others can also benefit."
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing, your ideas certainly open up my mind a bit more, which is never a bad thing. Its fairly common, I see, to use our own terminology, it makes concepts easier to remember, I also do it all the time. As to the confidence factor versus that epiphany moment, now I understand what you say. Will be waiting that next post.
@thesupermemoblog Short answer: I didn't look up a Spanish layout for Colemak. As for using multiple computers, there is a tiny app available at the Colemak site that can be loaded from a USB-connected unit that switches layouts upon a keystroke (but you miss a few dead keys); the best use is installing it properly, with batteries charged (downside: switch layouts through Control Panel, or the fishy "language bar", which is designed to associate a keyboard layout with an application window, instead of globally).
ReplyDeleteLong answer: Being South American, I surely get to type Spanish text often, so I didn't only consider English when I decided to switch to Colemak. I thought I would need some sort of 'Spanish' layout to feel more at home, but in fact I didn't (Caveat: my decision wasn't based on letter usage by language with typing speed in mind, but mere ergonomics - my fingers were suffering. Also, note that typing with the right fingers might play a significant role in my improved typing comfort, not just the new layout).
Compared to the Latin American keyboard layout (which already forces you to use a dead key to get diacritics such as áéü) Colemak makes it even easier, as the most common are actually a RightAlt combination away (using a dead key as modifier requires two keys with a two-key sequence; RightAlt combination requires two keys, but a single step, or "key combo"). Examples: I type RightAlt+vowel to get a vowel with acute accent; Have you tried to type ü often? The dead key in the Latin American layout is reachable with a Shift combination, and *then* you must press U - with Colemak, it's simply AltGr+Y. However...ñ is no longer a key, but RightAlt+N...but everything else feels very comfortable. I occasionally need to get symbols belonging to the orthographies of Swedish, German, and French, and I've never felt the need to make any modifications to the standard layout.
More information: http://www.colemak.com/Multilingual
P.S.: Sorry for the OT!
Thank, Alex.
ReplyDelete