Read on Twitter
I just finished listening to this for a seconfld time @RethinkingJames @GuyClaxton. I have never been comfortable with cognitive load theory as an explanation as to how we learn. I think it has lead to some good direct instruction techniques, but in 1/ https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRwcm94eS5nb29nbGUuY29tL3JldGhpbmtpbmctZWR1Y2F0aW9u/episode/dGFnOnNvdW5kY2xvdWQsMjAxMDp0cmFja3MvMTAzMjA3OTA2Ng?ep=14
itself does not explain how learning works. Would a better analogy (as opposed to the narrow tube of working memory and boxes of long term memory) be that each new idea we learn being part of a net? With each new piece of information looking for new connnections to this net, 2/
so every time we learn something new, if it is linked or part of an already large net it is easier for the brain to make the connection, compared to something brand new which has no connections? I feel that this links in with the idea that the studies showing we can only hold 3/
seven (+/- a couple) new bits of information (which are not linked to prior knowledge. A colleague of mine and I were discussing this and she was questioning this process to, and we both questioned why it is easier to learn new information if we already have prior 4/
knowledge/understanding. Am I wrong to think of learning (using an analogy) more as nets that get bigger as opposed to tubes and boxes?
Sorry, to finish off... so a large 'knowledge net' can make connections and get bigger by every tome it 'catches' new knowledge it adds to it. I feel that this explains why people with prior knowledge find it easier to learn on a topic than a complete novice.
I am not advocating direct instruction as the only teaching model either, but it does work and has its place....
