Optimization. The twenty-first century can be categorized as a race for optimization. People are increasingly intrigued by how to do activities more efficiently and optimally. The quality of increased optimization is, of course, present in learning as well. People have a desire to become more time-efficient. This post will discuss current research on developing techniques for learning. There are two scientific articles of interest for this post. One focused on the quality of interleaved learning to mitigate interference caused by consolidation. The second paper will focus on utilizing an interweaving vs blocked study technique in college-age students to determine if interleaved learning increases performance.
A study published under the title Evidence that anterograde learning interference depends on the stage of learning of the interferer: blocked versus interleaved training explored if learning from one task causes interference in learning the subsequent task. Additionally, this paper explored whether interleaved learning, as opposed to block learning, mitigated the negative effects of interference in the subsequent task. This paper dials in on the idea of anterograde learning interference. This is the concept that learning a task, referred to as task A, affects one’s ability to effectively learn the following task: task B. To test if anterograde learning interference was present in the participants, the researchers developed two similar tasks for them to undertake. Task A can be described as distinguishing between differences in the timing of sounds being played into each ear. Task B is distinguishing loudness differences between the sounds plated into the ear. Participants underwent 4 different training regimens. First, 300 trials of task B with no other training. Second, blocked learning by doing 300 trials of task A and then 300 trials of Task B. Third, slow interleaved training in which the tasks were rotated after 180 trials each for a total of 360 trials for A and B. Fourth, rotating the blocks between A and B after ever 60 trails, fast-interleaved training. The effectiveness of these different methods was assessed in 3 ways: across-day, offline, and within-session learning.
Moving onto the results of this study. It found that the blocked training induced interference in the participants. Subjects that completed two large blocks of trials, 300 of task A and then 300 of task B, scored significantly worse across all measures: across-day, offline, and within-session. This indicates that learning in large blocks causes anterograde learning interference. Another important consideration is that there is a threshold that must be met for the learning interference to occur: 300 trials. This indicates that anterograde learning interference is more connected to consolidation than acquisition. Essentially, once a large enough sample size of trials is done, the brain must use resources to consolidate the information. If the amount of trials reaches the threshold for consolidation, anterograde learning interference is observed. However, this effect of anterograde learning interference can be mitigated. Results indicated the group undergoing fast-interleaved training eliminated the interference and scored statistically significantly better than the full block group across all tested metrics: across-day, offline, and within-session learning.
This data is promising as it indicates anterograde learning interference can be entirely mitigated by using an alternative technique. However, the task utilized is not conducive to a traditional learning environment. The two tasks are based on distinguishing audio played in the ears. Traditional learning in a school setting may not reflect the same findings as the study above, so the following paper focused on a student population titled: Interleaved practice enhances memory and problem-solving ability in undergraduate physics. This paper tested the effects of block vs interleaved practice in college-age undergraduate students studying physics. The design was fairly simple; the students were split into groups, and one group was given block-based, one-topic-at-a-time questions. The other group was given interleaved practice questions, which alternated the topics. These questions were split into 3 homework assignments across the 8 weeks of the study. To test the effectiveness of each technique, the study was split into 2 stages; 2 surprise tests were given to the students, one in the first 4 weeks and the second in the last 4 weeks of the study. However, the students undergoing the blocked learning in the first 4 weeks switched to interleaved learning in the second stage for the last 4 weeks and vice versa.
The results were staggering: the students who completed interleaved training scored 50 percent better than the block training students' median for the first surprise criteria test. The second surprise test had an even larger disparity; the interleaved training group was 125 percent better than the block training group. These results clearly indicated the benefits of interleaved training compared to block learning as the nature of surprise tests forces the student to rely on learned information, and the interleaved training students performed much better, which demonstrates interleaved studying as a superior technique when compared to traditional topic-based block learning. Additionally, the results of the second stage indicate the beneficial approach of interleaved learning, as the difference in median block test scores was much higher than in stage 1. The students who received block learning in stage one got interleaved training in stage 2. So, the stage 2 findings not only represent the benefit of students transitioning from a block to an interleaved learning style but also how the group in stage 1 was negatively impacted by losing out on interleaved learning. These factors likely play into the reasoning behind the wide gap shown in stage 2 of the study between the interleaved and block groups. The findings of this study validate the previous one, as interleaved training is shown to be better than block learning.
These studies indicate that interleaved training is a scientifically validated approach to increasing information optimization and retention. Understanding and implementing these practices are highly beneficial for student populations, specifically, as the data suggests. Interleaved practice mitigates the negative effects of anterograde interference and allows the learner to internalize and then use the information more effectively than traditional block techniques. These insights offer a path for educators and students to incorporate more interleaved learning into their schedules for sustained long-term mastery of a subject. To those looking to optimize their learning, interleaved training is the future.
References
Ning, R., & Wright, B. A. (2023). Evidence that anterograde learning interference depends on the stage of learning of the interferer: blocked versus interleaved training. Learning & Memory, 30(5-6), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.053710.122
Samani, J., & Pan, S. C. (2021). Interleaved practice enhances memory and problem-solving ability in undergraduate physics. Npj Science of Learning, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00110-x
No comments:
Post a Comment