From my experience the third step is doing more work than the other two, and it rarely gets separated out.
Teaching is the only one where you have to produce the thing rather than re-encounter it. Reading again and doing it again both leave the material in front of you. Explaining it to someone removes the page.
Which is why I write these up rather than keeping notes. Not to have the record, but because putting it in front of someone else is the cheapest way to find out I cannot actually reconstruct the argument.
You're actually describing the difference between information passing through a system and a system reorganizing itself to integrate the pattern. I think it's the retrieval that changes the structure. When an idea has to be used, tested, connected, and applied, the system has to reconfigure to remain coherent. That’s why direction matters: it gives the structure something to organize around so the learning can actually become part of the person. And that is the education every human should have!
Agreed, retrieval is the mechanism, and I would add one thing to it. The retrieval has to be hard.
Easy recall confirms the structure without changing it. That is why rereading feels productive and does almost nothing. The reconfiguration happens on the retrieval attempts that fail, where you have to rebuild the thing rather than recognise it.
Good point. Easy recall just confirms the existing pattern; nothing has to reorganize. But when retrieval breaks, the system has to rebuild the idea from partial traces, and that reconstruction is the act that changes the structure. The "hard" part is the pressure that forces the system to re‑establish coherence rather than rely on recognition. Great conversation!
I relate to your distinction between passing exams and building knowledge you can actually use. As a data scientist and longtime programmer, I’ve found that knowledge becomes much more durable when I have to apply it to a real problem or explain it clearly to someone else. How are you planning to measure whether this new approach to education is actually working for you?
That’s a great question. I’m measuring it by output rather than hours spent: Can I recall the key ideas without notes? Explain them clearly in my own words? Connect them to ideas from other books and courses? Most importantly, can I use them to make better decisions or change my behaviour?
I also write publicly about what I learn, which quickly exposes whether I genuinely understand something or have merely remembered the vocabulary.
I recently learned in order to really know and understand something you must learn about it, do it, and then teach it.
From my experience the third step is doing more work than the other two, and it rarely gets separated out.
Teaching is the only one where you have to produce the thing rather than re-encounter it. Reading again and doing it again both leave the material in front of you. Explaining it to someone removes the page.
Which is why I write these up rather than keeping notes. Not to have the record, but because putting it in front of someone else is the cheapest way to find out I cannot actually reconstruct the argument.
You're actually describing the difference between information passing through a system and a system reorganizing itself to integrate the pattern. I think it's the retrieval that changes the structure. When an idea has to be used, tested, connected, and applied, the system has to reconfigure to remain coherent. That’s why direction matters: it gives the structure something to organize around so the learning can actually become part of the person. And that is the education every human should have!
Agreed, retrieval is the mechanism, and I would add one thing to it. The retrieval has to be hard.
Easy recall confirms the structure without changing it. That is why rereading feels productive and does almost nothing. The reconfiguration happens on the retrieval attempts that fail, where you have to rebuild the thing rather than recognise it.
Good point. Easy recall just confirms the existing pattern; nothing has to reorganize. But when retrieval breaks, the system has to rebuild the idea from partial traces, and that reconstruction is the act that changes the structure. The "hard" part is the pressure that forces the system to re‑establish coherence rather than rely on recognition. Great conversation!
I relate to your distinction between passing exams and building knowledge you can actually use. As a data scientist and longtime programmer, I’ve found that knowledge becomes much more durable when I have to apply it to a real problem or explain it clearly to someone else. How are you planning to measure whether this new approach to education is actually working for you?
That’s a great question. I’m measuring it by output rather than hours spent: Can I recall the key ideas without notes? Explain them clearly in my own words? Connect them to ideas from other books and courses? Most importantly, can I use them to make better decisions or change my behaviour?
I also write publicly about what I learn, which quickly exposes whether I genuinely understand something or have merely remembered the vocabulary.