The neuro-myths of learning: part three
Is it better to master one skill at a time, or, several skills at once?
By Kris White, Behavioural Psychology specialist and Trainer at Train (https://train-people.com), and Adelaide Vinay, Anthropologist and Trainer at Train.
In the race to upskill and keep pace with increasingly competitive environments and new technologies, individuals and organisations risk falling for popular learning tropes that waste limited resources and impair long-term capabilities.
Our previous article It’s not the time taken, but the cadence of training that counts outlined the power of the “spacing effect” in deeply embedding capabilities. In short, spaced learning increases problem-solving capabilities and adaptability of skills — exactly the kinds of skills we now require.
This article explores “blocked learning” and “interleaving learning” — two different approaches to structuring the delivery of training content within a program. We examine what the science tells us about relative effectiveness of each and suggest how we as trainers should be utilising it.
Faced with urgency and filled with enthusiasm, one approach to developing a particular capability is to dive in head first and completely immerse ourselves in the subject.
The intuitive reasoning underlying this approach likely stems from our fear of getting sidetracked and losing our train of thought. These may also be reflected in familiar concepts like single-tasking, deep-work and mindfulness.
This is called “block learning” which involves learning one subject or skill thoroughly before moving on to another.
In contrast to block learning, “interleaving learning” is when the learner studies multiple subjects interspersed and in parallel. We don’t wait to ‘master’ one skill or subject before moving on to another.
While block learning may hold intuitive appeal, the research which we will explore tells us that interleaving learning is significantly more effective for long-term retention of knowledge and ability to practically apply that knowledge.
In a 2013 study, seventh-grade students were assigned to either a block learning schedule or interleaving learning schedule to develop mathematics problem-solving skills.
In the block learning group, students practiced math problems in a fixed sequence e.g. Fraction > Fraction > Fraction > Percentage > Percentage > Percentage > Probability > Probability > Probability.
Students in the interleaving group practiced these math problems with intermixed concepts e.g. Fraction > Percentage > Probability > Percentage > Probability > Fraction > Probability > Fraction > Percentage.
The study found students using interleaving practice achieved higher scores on both immediate (1st day) and delayed tests (30 days later) compared with those using block practice.
In another set of experiments, undergraduates with no expertise in art history were put into either an interleaving or block learning schedule to develop the ability to identify which painters were responsible for creating different paintings. Those in the interleaving learning group (non-sequentially exposed to painters and paintings) outperformed those who developed familiarity with artists’ work sequentially.
There are further studies identifying the superiority of interleaving learning over block learning in different domains such as medical diagnoses, music and baseball. If you want to hit life’s curveballs, it turns out you need to practice facing random pitches.
Many of these studies surmise that interleaving learning is more effective than block learning because it increases our ability to discriminate between concepts and thus learn to identify and apply appropriate problem-solving strategies.
One theory argues that interleaving is effective because it forces the brain to work harder to retrieve information about one subject after having engaged in another subject. In block learning, the brain does not have to work as hard to retrieve information that has recently been encoded (recency effect). As a result, reinforcement is more superficial and retention less enduring.
As we, as individuals and organisations, race to master new skills, we must pause to question if the intuitive approach is backed up by scientific research.
In this case, the science tells us it may be better to master many skills at once.
Organisations the world over continue to invest significant resources in training and, rightly, expect learnings to be embedded for the long-term. However, our investigation into the psychology of learning for our training program Train has revealed a number of pervasive and limiting learning myths.
Fortunately, a strong body of scientific evidence exists which suggests there are more effective alternatives for building capability. Leveraging this evidence to change how teams learn will be the key to more effective use of training budgets.
Let us know if you have any learning questions or science you’d like us to look into as part of our ‘Neuro-myths of Learning’ series, where we’ll continue to debunk sellable (but ineffective) tropes and explore the evidence of how the brain best learns.
