7.Seven Principles of Learning Better From Cognitive Science(1)7个基于认知科学的学习法则(一)

I just finished one of the best books I've read on the science of learning.Daniel Willingham is a Harvard educated cognitive scientist who writes books and articles about how to learn and teach better.

我刚刚读完一本丹尼尔·威廉厄姆(DanielWillingham)的著作，这是我读过的关于学习科学最好的书之一。 威廉厄姆是一位认知科学家，毕业于哈佛大学，他写了许多关于如何更好地学习和教学的著作和文章。


The title of his book, Why Don’t Students Like School?, is a tad unfortunate, I think, because the book isn’t really about bored students.Instead, the book is divided into principles of learning.In order to make the cut, these principles needed to fulfill a strict set of scientific criteria:
在我看来，这本书的书名–《为什么学生不喜欢上学?》–起得有一些不好，因为这本书其实并不是关于厌学的学生的，而是分别讲解不同的学习的原则。为了做到这一点，这些原则需要满足一系列严格的科学标准:


Robust scientific support. In Willingham’s words,“Each principle is based on a great deal of data, not only one or two studies.If any of these principles is wrong, something close to it is right.”

1.坚实的科学基础。 用威廉厄姆的话说，"每条原则都建立在大量数据的基础上，而不是一两项研究。哪怕这些原则中的任何一个是错误的，那么它也非常接近正确了


Doesn’t depend on circumstances. These are facts about how human brains learn, so they don’t change whether you’re learning Spanish or mathematics.

2.不依赖于环境。 这些原则描述的是人类大脑如何学习的事实，因此不因你学的是西班牙语还是数学而改变。

Ignoring it would be costly.Using the principles versus not using them showed a big difference in results.The principles aren’t just theoretical concerns but practically significant.
3.忽视这些这些原则的代价是高昂的。运用这些原则与不用这些原则在结果上有巨大差异。这些原则不仅仅是理论上的考量，而且有其重要的实际意义。

Suggests non-obvious applications.The final criteria was that the implications of the principle should suggest new ways of teaching and learning.
4.启示新颖的实际运用。最后这个标准是，这些原则应当能够启发新的教学或学习方式。

The book is excellent, and I highly recommend getting a copy for yourself as Willingham explains many of the details and implications of each of these principles.I wanted to discuss each principle briefly, to share the implications it has for learning better.
这本书非常棒，我强烈建议你买一本，因为每一条原则威廉厄姆都详细阐述了很多细节与启示。我想简单地讨论一下每条原则，及其对如何更好地学习的启示。

Side note: The book lists nine principles, but two were more related to teaching, so I omitted them here.
注:这本书一共列出了九条原则，但其中两条是和教学有关的，因此这里就省略了。


1.Factual knowledge precedes skill.
1.事实性知识先于技能

Einstein was wrong.Knowledge is more important than imagination, because knowledge is what allows us to imagine.There is considerable research showing the importance of background knowledge to how well we learn. Without background knowledge, the kinds of insights Einstein praised are impossible.
爱因斯坦错了。知识比想象更重要，因为是知识使想象成为可能。有大量研究表明背景知识对学习效果的重要性。如果没有背景知识，爱因斯坦所高度称赞的那种洞见是不可能的。

Careful studies show that having more background knowledge on a topic means we can read faster, understand more when we do and remember more of it later.This means knowledge is exponential growth, with past knowledge becoming a crucial factor in the speed at which more knowledge is acquired.
严谨的研究表明，拥有更多背景知识意味着我们可以读得更快、理解得更多，日后记住的也更多。这意味着知识是指数增长(内链)的，过去的知识量是决定学习新知快慢的重要因素。

This means that you cannot teach someone “how” to think, without first teaching them a considerable amount of “what” to think.Thinking well first requires knowing a lot of stuff, and there’s no way around it.
这就是说，在没有大量地教一个人去思考“什么"之前，没法教一个人“怎样"思考。好的思维首先需要知道许多知识，这是无法逃避的。

2.Memory is the residue of thought.
2.记忆是思考的遗留物

Whatever aspect of what you’re learning your mind dwells on, will be the part that it is likely to be retained.If you, inadvertently, spend your studyihng time thinking about the wrong aspects of your studies you won’t remember much of use.
不论你学习时思绪在哪些内容上停留，那都将是最终留在你头脑里的一部分。如果你在学习时不经意间思考的都是不重要的方面，那最终记住的有用的东西也不会太多。

The problem with this principle is that knowing about it is not enough.We can’t constantly self-monitor our own cognition, noticing what we’re noticing.So even if you try to pay attention to the right things, it can be easy to accidentally focus on less important details which will take precedence in memory.
这条原则的问题在于，仅仅知道它还不够。我们无法不断地自我监督对自己的认知，留意自己的注意力正在何处。因此即使你试图注意正确的内容，也很容易一不留神关注到不那么重要的细节，而这些细节将优先被记住，

This is a reason why highlighting is often a lousy tactic.When you highlight, you’re not focusing on underlying meaning, but observing bolded words or particularly emphasized sentences.So you don’t remember much.
这也是为什么划重点通常是一种糟糕的学习策略。因为当划了重点后，你关注的就不是深层的含义，而是加粗的字词或特别强调的句子，因此不会记住多少。

I recommend tactics like paraphrasing with sparse notes while reading , the Feynman technique or taking pauses during a reading session to quickly recap what you just read.These are orienting tasks that encourage you to spend more time thinking about underlying meaning, which is almost always what you want to be learning.
我推荐类似下面的技巧:阅读时记少量笔记转述文意、费曼技巧，或在阅读时暂停，扼要复述刚刚读过的内容。这些是引导性任务(orientingtask)，鼓励你花更多时间思考句子的含义，这几乎总是你想要学习的东西。

This also shows one of the weaknesses I’ve seen in students who misuse analogies.If the analogy you make causes yu to think about a surface detail of a concept, and not the underlying structure, you’ll only remember surface details on the test.A metaphor for voltage that uses vlcanoes because they both start with “V” won’t help you with problems.The metaphor that vltage is analogous to height is useful because you’re forced to think about what voltage means(in this case the relation between gravitational and electric potential).
这条原则也表明了我在滥用类比法的学生身上看到的一个缺点。如果你的类比让你想到的是概念表层的细节，而不是深层的结构，那么考试时你记住的也只是表层的细节。为电压(voltage)想一个包含火山(volcano)的比喻–因为它们都以“V"开头–对解决问题没有帮助。将电压比作高度则是有用的，因为这迫使你思考电压是什么含义(这个例子中是重力势与电势的关系)。

Interestingly, this also has implications for languages.The reason the “sounds like” method for memorizing vocabulary words can work is because if forces you to think about how a word souds more exactly.Having to come up with an image that links to the sound forces you to spend a couple seconds thinking about what the word actually sounds like.
有趣的是，这条原则在语言学习上也有启示。“听上去像"的方法之所以对记单词有效，就是因为它迫使你更仔细地思考一个词如何发音。必须为发音想出一个图像迫使你花几秒钟思考这个词的发音究竟像什么。

3.We understand new things in the context of what we already know.
3.我们根据已有的知识了解新事物

Abstract subjects like math, physics, finance or law, can often be hard for people to learn.The reason why is that the we learn things by their relation to other things we already know (sound familiar?).Willingham here suggests using many examples to ground a particular abstraction in concrete terms before moving on.
抽象的科目，例如数学、物理、金融和法律，通常很难学。原因在于我们是通过它们与其他已知事物的联系来学习的。威廉厄姆在此建议用大量的实例为特定的抽象概念提供具体的基础，然后再学习下一个概念。

I would also add that I believe people overestimate their ability to learn abstract things.As such, we tell ourselves we understand an idea without first grounding it in numerous examples or analogies.Smart learners correctly understand the brains weakness for abstraction and build scaffolding to support new ideas before they fully set.
我还要加上一句，我认为人们高估了自己学习抽象事物的能力。例如，没有经过大量实例或类比的训练，我们就告诉自己已经理解了某个观点。聪明的学习者正确地认识到大脑在学习抽象事物方面的不足，为新的观点搭建支架，直到完全理解。

Occasionally when I recommend to students metaphors or analogies for learning a subject, they come up blank, I admit, it can be a tricky technique.But I believe part of the difficulty is that it points out when you don’t really understand a concept.If you understand a concept but can’t put it into a single example or analogy, you don’t really understand it at all(and should first do something like the Feynman technique to get that understanding).
偶尔，当我建议学生用比喻或类比的方法学习一门科目时，他们一脸茫然。我承认这个技巧有难度，但我认为难点部分源于它会指出你没有真正理解一个概念。如果你理解了一个概念却没法用一个例子或类比表达，你就根本没有真正理解(因此需要首先借助类似费曼技巧等方法获得理解)。