News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Harvard and MIT's $800M Mistake: The Triple Failure of 2U... by hilux on Tuesday August 27, 2024 @11:36AM (#41368739)
If the student only watches the content, and doesn't have the chance to be (1) tested on it, and (2) apply it over time, the learning is quickly lost.

That's my personal experience, and that's also the theory nowadays.

I mean, it's not worse than watching reality TV or sports or something. Maybe better - maybe consuming edutainment will inspire you to follow through and apply it.

Re:Harvard and MIT's $800M Mistake: The Triple Failure of 2U... by soperj on Tuesday August 27, 2024 @01:01PM (#41369902)
Is it really the testing that reinforces the learning? or is it the application over time?
Re:Harvard and MIT's $800M Mistake: The Triple Failure of 2U... by authorfly on Tuesday August 27, 2024 @02:12PM (#41370830)
It's true that testing benefits learning (Test Effect).

However the question is increasingly whether simply the cognitive load of feedback is the reason for this is coming up.

i.e. does the Testing effect reduce in efficacy when you apply it to every waking hour, every course? does it just benefit when you study one course?

There are clear links that subjects where students have a stake in the result (i.e. it is mandatory for college) lead to higher attendance and final grades, regardless of study method.

Lots of the predominant psychology applies only to motivated students or those in mandatory courses.. so basically, we can't know the state for free willed learning/edutainment.

Re:Harvard and MIT's $800M Mistake: The Triple Failure of 2U... by lupire on Tuesday August 27, 2024 @03:30PM (#41371881)
Testing and application are the same.
Re:Harvard and MIT's $800M Mistake: The Triple Failure of 2U... by soperj on Tuesday August 27, 2024 @03:37PM (#41371961)
there's no way that's the case.