5 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2022
    1. One of my frustrations with the “science of learning” is that to design experiments which have reasonable limits on the variables and can be quantitatively measured results in scenarios that seem divorced from the actual experience of learning.

      Is the sample size of learning experiments really large enough to account for the differences in potential neurodiversity?

      How well do these do for simple lectures which don't add mnemonic design of some sort? How to peel back the subtle differences in presentation, dynamism, design of material, in contrast to neurodiversities?

      What are the list of known differences? How well have they been studied across presenters and modalities?

      What about methods which require active modality shifts versus the simple watch and regurgitate model mentioned in watching videos. Do people do actively better if they're forced to take notes that cause modality shifts and sensemaking?

  2. Dec 2021
  3. Sep 2020
  4. May 2020
  5. Sep 2017
    1. out of 878 potentially relevant studies published between 1992 and 2017, only 36 directly compared reading in digital and in print and measured learning in a reliable way. (Many of the other studies zoomed in on aspects of e-reading, such as eye movements or the merits of different kinds of screens.)