Learn (work in progress)

In the SAM framework, academic success depends less on the moment of learning itself and more on the smart preparation beforehand and strategic follow-up afterward. Still, the learning phase is critical. If encoding is strong, recall improves; if it’s weak or shallow, you’ll find yourself constantly playing catch-up.

​​

The Two Pillars of Strong Encoding​

The purpose of any learning event is to encode the material effectively, making sense of the material and laying the groundwork for accurate retrieval later on.

​

If you’ve primed your brain beforehand, you’ve already activated relevant schemas and clarified your understanding. You’re not starting from scratch. With lower cognitive load, selective attention, and neural plasticity, you can encode more deeply [11].

Effective encoding has two prerequisites:​​​

1. Attention

2. Deep processing

​

1. Attention: The foundation of encoding

Attention is the first filter for sensory information, meaning that, regardless of how effective our subsequent techniques are, mind wandering can effectively block encoding. If you don't pay attention to something, you can't consciously process it in working memory.

Attention varies widely depending on the individual, but even among highly motivated learners, attention can decline sharply after just 10–15 minutes [2].

​​​

Staying consistent with the theme: preparation is key. We know that priming lowers the cognitive load burden of the material, allowing more mental bandwidth to be dedicated to selective attention. Here's something we didn't discuss: activating prior knowledge also creates implicit expectations before new material is encountered, which drives engagement for longer periods [3, 4].​

​

Sustained attention is an uphill battle, but it's also a malleable cognitive skill. We’ll use clear objectives—like self-explanation—that push your attention intentionally, strengthening and improving it over time.

​​​

It goes without saying that distractions are deleterious to attention. Even a 5-second distraction costs dearly. Beyond any time lost, there are significant costs to task switching in the form of extraneous cognitive load that can persist for several minutes after the distraction [16]. It also demotivates the learner to pay attention: due to a disruptive dopamine spike [14].

​

Meta-analytic data on attentional tactics during learning are limited, but cognitive load theory provides a useful framework. Tasks that impose unproductive processing (like verbatim note-taking) can consume attentional resources and reduce focus. The strategies we discuss below are designed with this distinction in mind.

​

2. Deep Processing

​​

Passive listening and simple memorization don't lead to transferable learning outcomes (that is, knowledge that can be applied to new problems). To process deeply, you need to:

1. make sense of the material

2. connect it to your prior knowledge.

​

According to the Levels of Processing framework, deeper engagement with material through sense-making and connection leads to better memory than surface-level processing like rote repetition [5].​

​

Several techniques facilitate deep processing. They vary in effectiveness among learning styles (like self-paced vs. lecture) and domains (like chemistry vs economics). But some are simply more robust than others: more effective in a much larger variety of styles and domains. Examples include summarization, self-explanation, and drawing.

​

In short, learning is a generative activity: the learner has to generate something to learn, whether it be an explanation of the content in their head or a summarization in the form of a bullet point. On that subject...

​

Note-Taking: Tool or Trap?

​​​

Note-taking is often seen as a default practice for students, but it deserves a more cautious approach. While many assume it’s always beneficial, note-taking can sometimes do more harm than good.

​

Research on its effectiveness is mixed. Generally, taking handwritten notes proves more effective than just listening or observing [8], but outcomes vary widely. Notes taken on laptops are often inferior to handwritten notes in experiments, but this effect diminishes when you control for laptops' potential for distraction or their ease of verbatim note-taking (meaning writing everything exactly as it's stated to you, word-for-word).

Of course, verbatim note-taking is not effective. Remember that learning is generative. When you write down exactly what the lecturer says, or what's written on the slide word-for-word, you're not doing the hard work of summarizing; you're not generating anything.

Good note-taking is, in essence, summarization at very short intervals. I'll argue that the act of note-taking is not the best use of your cognitive resources. This comes down to four main weaknesses:

1. Summarization is not a robust form of deep processing.

2. Summarizing at short intervals is even less effective.

3. ​The act of writing is redundant and distracting

4. Note-taking is often done poorly

​​

Afterwards, I'll pose some more effective alternatives, one tailored to self-paced learning (readings, videos) and the second to synchronous learning (like lectures).​

​

Weakness 1: Summarization​​

​​

Summarizing is not a robust form of deep processing. While summarizing is generally considered more beneficial than not summarizing, a massive meta-analysis of learning techniques, integrating 399 studies (Dunolsky et al., 2013) considered summarizing overall "low-utility". ​

​

This is partly due to summarizing's limited boundary conditions: its benefits don't generally extend to application-type questions. In an undergraduate study (L. F. Annis, 1985), it was found to even worsen performance in synthesis and evaluation questions. For classes that require anything beyond recall and understanding, note-taking will likely be a detriment for this reason.

​

Moreover, effective summarizing generally requires more training than other, higher-utility techniques (A. King 1922).

​

And finally, in direct comparison to more robust techniques like self-explanations (Bednall & Kehoe, 2011) and self-questioning (A. King, 1992), summarization fell short.

​

Weakness 2: Frequency​

​​​​​

Research finds that more frequent summarization leads to worse learning outcomes. In a study (Foos, 1995) where college students read and summarized a passage, the group that performed one summary modestly outperformed the control group (d = 0.42), whereas the group that performed two summaries did not (d = 0.08).

​

​The theoretical basis for this finding is that information that you just finished learning, or are even still in the process of learning, requires less effort to summarize than waiting longer and allowing a controlled amount of forgetting.​​​

​

In the above study, summarizing once is moderately effective, while summarizing twice yielded no benefit. Think about how many bullet points you make during a typical learning event: summarizing that many times is certainly a detriment.​​

​​​​

Weakness 3: Redundancy and distraction​

​

Note-taking is frequent, written summarization. In a lecture context, the task of writing hinders attention. This is common sense: you can't pay attention (at least, nearly as well) to what your professor is saying when you're still summarizing what she just said. 

In experiments, note-taking can hinder comprehension in fast-paced lectures [15]. ​​It doesn't make much sense to default to a strategy that only works for the easy lectures: they aren't the ones you have to worry about.

​

It also has a significant fatiguing effect compared to simply observing (Locke, 1977; Scerbo et al., 1992). It's no secret that fatigue hinders processing.​

​

The act of writing has a couple of theoretical benefits:

1. Cognitive offloading: allows you to store information on an external medium, leaving your working memory with more capacity to process information (since it doesn't have to hold on to the information while it's written) (Kiewra, 1985).

2. Multi-modal encoding: While writing, your hand's movement creates an additional retrieval pathway. It gives you another "pathway" to access the information later. (Longcamp et al., 2006).

​

But later on, I'll argue that there is a strong way to leverage both of these effectors without any of the redundancy.

​

Weakness 4: It's often done poorly

Research finds that college students frequently take notes in ways that reduce the learning benefit. I mentioned verbatim notes and distractions above. 

​

Balancing both tasks, note-taking and attention, isn't easy: it requires much more physical and mental effort than observing. Knowing this, it makes sense that the benefits of note-taking are so inconsistent in research.

​​​

It's not all bad...​​

That all being said, note-taking does have a very important practical use case: it's almost always the best option when there are no other sources to refer back to. For instance, some professors refuse to allow you to access lecture slides. We'll need comprehensive information to check our understanding when we study later on; otherwise, we could have a false or incomplete understanding without even knowing it. The importance of having accurate information handy outweighs the cons. In these cases, you should take comprehensive notes.

​

And this comes from my own painful experience. As I was building and testing SAM, I always paid the price when I didn't take notes in the classes that didn't provide materials.

​

In any other case, note-taking has some major flaws. But what else is there?

​

Self-explanation

Self-explanation is an incredibly robust learning technique. It involves the explanation of "what?" and "why?" (most effectively: in your own words). According to a meta-analysis of learning techniques (Dunolsky 2013), self-explanation is both effective and broadly applicable.

​

In experiments representative of real-life learning, self-explanation significantly improves learning outcomes (Schworm and Renkl, 2006; Berry 1983).

Self-explanation effects are significant in a wide range of...

1. Learning formats: both instruction and self-paced learning (Rittle-Johnson, 2006). 

2. Domains: including logical reasoning, various math and physics problems, narrative texts, and expository texts, just to name a few. 

3. Testing measures:  including free recall, cued recall, fill-in-the-blank, matching, multiple choice, problem solving, etc. Importantly, it also has robust effects on transfer questions (which are the tricky types of questions that test you on a deep, flexible understanding)

​

Essentially, it enhances performance on every type of test for any class, regardless of lecture-based or self-paced learning, which is excellent news for you.

​

Here are a few theoretical reasons it works:

​​​

Semantic Encoding: Making Sense

​

Semantic encoding means processing information based on meaning rather than surface details (like exact words or formulas). When you use the self-explanation, you translate jargon and textbook language into simplistic language.

​

By doing this, you create deeper, more meaningful memory traces. Your brain stores the essence of the concept, which is easier to retrieve and apply later.

​

Beyond strong encoding, explaining in your own words also prevents the "illusion of understanding"—a false sense of mastery that often arises when information is merely observed but not actively reproduced [6]. Forcing yourself to explain it in your own words makes it abundantly clear what you actually understand and what you don’t.

​

Elaboration: Connecting and Expanding

​

So far, we've created a mental representation that makes sense, but the self-explanation doesn't stop there.

​

Effective encoding requires linking that mental representation to your existing schemas (what you already know). You can create these links through any number of ways: examples, analogies, logical connections, etc. Self-explanation connects the representations to your strongest schemas: the ones concerned with your understanding of how things work (a consequence of answering "why?")

​​

Your memory traces are now more interconnected with both themselves and existing schemas. Self-explanation transforms isolated facts into a living, adaptable framework of knowledge that grows richer with each new connection you make.

Metacognition

Finally, self-explanation makes any gaps in your knowledge very clear. This metacognition (knowing what you know) is extremely valuable​​​ for finding gaps in your knowledge and guiding your learning efficiently. Other techniques, like regular summarized note-taking, might promote an "illusion of understanding" where it feels like you know something, but really you just recognize it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​