The NY Times has an article today on scientifically-tested practices that seem to make big differences in studying. Among these are alternating study environments, mixing content, spacing study sessions and self-testing. Alternating study environments and mixing content particularly seem not to make any sense at first, but it seems that they do work.
To quote;
Here's the source article, since a lot of us are still in school (again, in some cases)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/health...7mind.html
It might also be worth noting that in my self-study of Japanese, I've unconsciously (meaning separate from this article) spaced study sessions, do self-testing and mix content. I've found it to be helpful, one way or another.
To quote;
Quote:In one classic 1978 experiment, psychologists found that college students who studied a list of 40 vocabulary words in two different rooms — one windowless and cluttered, the other modern, with a view on a courtyard — did far better on a test than students who studied the words twice, in the same room. Later studies have confirmed the finding, for a variety of topics.
The brain makes subtle associations between what it is studying and the background sensations it has at the time, the authors say, regardless of whether those perceptions are conscious.
Quote:Researchers found that college students and adults of retirement age were better able to distinguish the painting styles of 12 unfamiliar artists after viewing mixed collections (assortments, including works from all 12) than after viewing a dozen works from one artist, all together, then moving on to the next painter.
Here's the source article, since a lot of us are still in school (again, in some cases)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/health...7mind.html
It might also be worth noting that in my self-study of Japanese, I've unconsciously (meaning separate from this article) spaced study sessions, do self-testing and mix content. I've found it to be helpful, one way or another.
