Great post, especially this: "As Soderstrom and Bjork point out, there is empirical evidence that 'delaying, reducing, and summarizing feedback can be better for long-term learning than providing immediate, trial-by-trial feedback.'" And not just because it vindicates my approach with my high school students. Thank you!
Lots of ponder here. It seems as if this approach modifies or qualifies that what falls under the "deliberate practice" model, is that correct? I read Karl Anders Ericsson's book Peak last year, and I thought was fascinating but perhaps too focused on high-performing outliers. I wanted more specifics on how and when to deploy feedback, which you've helpfully provided here.
I actually met Anders and discussed this with him before he died. He wasn't aware of the research into desirable difficulties or the differences between performance and learning when he wrote Peak. If he had been, he might have been a little more equicocal about his advice on feedback.
Getting these mental models for learning right is critical for teachers and coaches of all kinds. I am glad to know where this research is headed in clarifying ways.
This is fascinating. As more children have more 1:1 support, I wonder about the impact of having more adults in classrooms. I find as a teacher, that it is a daily challenge to encourage children with additional needs or lower abilities from being helped too much by well-intentioned support staff. This post has given me food for thoughts, thank you!
There's a whole area of research on the often negative impact of classroom assistants for exactly the reason you identify. If we never ask some children to struggle they are unlkely to make progrerss.
Would it be fair to say that you must first go through a successful performance before you can try to reach learning? It seems that you need the particulars of a performance before you can use difficulties like interleaving to move toward learning.
The learning vs performance distinction feels like the hinge everything else turns on. So much classroom feedback is optimised for visible fluency: smoother answers, cleaner work, fewer errors now. But fluency in the moment can be a terrible proxy for durability. Your point that immediate, specific feedback can substitute for thinking — essentially outsourcing regulation to the environment — explains why students can look successful and still remain dependent. They’re navigating with SatNav, not learning the terrain.
Great post, especially this: "As Soderstrom and Bjork point out, there is empirical evidence that 'delaying, reducing, and summarizing feedback can be better for long-term learning than providing immediate, trial-by-trial feedback.'" And not just because it vindicates my approach with my high school students. Thank you!
Lots of ponder here. It seems as if this approach modifies or qualifies that what falls under the "deliberate practice" model, is that correct? I read Karl Anders Ericsson's book Peak last year, and I thought was fascinating but perhaps too focused on high-performing outliers. I wanted more specifics on how and when to deploy feedback, which you've helpfully provided here.
I actually met Anders and discussed this with him before he died. He wasn't aware of the research into desirable difficulties or the differences between performance and learning when he wrote Peak. If he had been, he might have been a little more equicocal about his advice on feedback.
Getting these mental models for learning right is critical for teachers and coaches of all kinds. I am glad to know where this research is headed in clarifying ways.
This is fascinating. As more children have more 1:1 support, I wonder about the impact of having more adults in classrooms. I find as a teacher, that it is a daily challenge to encourage children with additional needs or lower abilities from being helped too much by well-intentioned support staff. This post has given me food for thoughts, thank you!
There's a whole area of research on the often negative impact of classroom assistants for exactly the reason you identify. If we never ask some children to struggle they are unlkely to make progrerss.
Would it be fair to say that you must first go through a successful performance before you can try to reach learning? It seems that you need the particulars of a performance before you can use difficulties like interleaving to move toward learning.
Perhaps better to say that successful performance is an essential component of more durable learning
The learning vs performance distinction feels like the hinge everything else turns on. So much classroom feedback is optimised for visible fluency: smoother answers, cleaner work, fewer errors now. But fluency in the moment can be a terrible proxy for durability. Your point that immediate, specific feedback can substitute for thinking — essentially outsourcing regulation to the environment — explains why students can look successful and still remain dependent. They’re navigating with SatNav, not learning the terrain.