Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today, we're really
getting into something core to education, this
whole idea that learners start as a blank slate.
Yeah, it's a huge one, a foundational assumption,
really. And one that, well, science is showing
us is pretty flawed, right? Simply flawed. I
mean, for ages, our schooling, even corporate
training, it was all kind of built on this idea
about the brain that... Well, it just doesn't
hold up anymore. OK, so our mission today, let's
be clear. We want to unpack what cognitive science
actually tells us about real learning, the kind
that sticks and that you can actually use later.
Right. Moving past what we might call the standard
model. Definitely. And finding out what truly
works. And maybe the big takeaway, if you remember
one thing, is probably this. The way we used
to test learning. Using brain science now, we
see it was, well, it was missing the point. big
time. How so? We were basically checking short
-term memory, like inventory. Not really if you
could use the knowledge in a new situation. Okay,
okay. So let's dig into that standard model first
to see where we're coming from. What was it really
about? Well, the standard model, you know, dominant
through most of the 20th century, it really rested
on this belief. Learners arrive empty. blank
slates. It wasn't malicious or anything. It was
just the psychological thinking of the time.
And if they're blank slates, that makes the teacher's
job seem simpler, I guess. Exactly. The main
job was just transfer, get the information across,
cover the curriculum. Just pour it in. Pretty
much. Get the facts into their heads. Delivery
was key. Not necessarily engagement or what the
student already knew. Yeah, that part's critical.
It ignored prior knowledge. Or how someone might
interpret things differently. Largely, yes. How
culture might shape understanding, what connections
they already had. Yeah. That wasn't really part
of the equation. I totally remember that feeling
from school. You just sat there, waiting to be
filled up. Right. Passive. And if it didn't stick,
well, it felt like it was your fault, you know?
The system didn't question the method, just the
student. That passive approach led straight to
how we tested. The proof was just, did you hold
on to the fact? The inventory check you mentioned.
Exactly. Is the info I gave you last week still
there? A quick check if you passed the test.
You move on. Teacher feels they did their job.
Yep, move on. And then what happens three weeks
later when the knowledge is gone? Ah, then you
get the classic teacher complaint. I taught it,
but they didn't learn it. Right. And the blame
falls on the student's memory or maybe their
effort, not the teaching method itself. And applying
the knowledge. That came much later, if at all.
almost always at the very end. Finish the chapter,
finish the course, then maybe try a problem.
Learning first, doing later, if ever. Which puts
huge pressure on that final application moment
if you didn't memorize perfectly. You're stuck,
you can't solve the problem. So yeah, this whole
passive ingestion thing, it really explains why
learning often felt like, well, like a chore.
Not really engaging your mind. Absolutely. Efficient
for covering material, maybe, but not for creating
real usable understanding. Deeply inefficient
for that, yes. Okay, so let's pivot. Because
the science really turns this whole thing on
its head. You mentioned brain science earlier.
New technologies. Big time. The last few decades,
especially with things like fMRI, functional
MRI, we've moved learning from just theory and
observation into actual science. We can see the
brain working. While learning? We can literally
watch it. See the patterns of activity change
as someone learns something new. We can see the
difference between just memorizing and actually
understanding. It directly challenges those old
assumptions. So what did seeing the brain in
action tell us definitively about the blank slate?
It basically demolished it. unequivocally. Yeah.
Students are not blank slates, not even close.
The brain isn't a filing cabinet waiting to be
filled. Absolutely not. It's more like a dense,
interconnected web. Everyone arrives with existing
knowledge, beliefs, neural pathways, a whole
schema. And learning isn't filling it. It's about
actively rewiring it, connecting the new stuff
into that existing web. That changes everything
for education. OK, so if the brain is dynamic,
constantly connecting. That pulls the rug out
from under traditional tests, doesn't it? It
really does. If the goal isn't just passive storage,
then testing for recall is, well, it's testing
the wrong thing. Exactly right. Our old tests
were almost all about recall. Could you dump
the facts back out? Often, right after you heard
them. Right. Cramming for the test. But the second
you realize real knowledge means integrating
it, being able to transfer it to new situations,
The test has to change. Can you give an example?
Sure. Like, if someone can recite Newton's laws
perfectly, word for word, but they can't use
them to figure out, say, roughly where a kickball
will land on a windy day. Have they learned physics?
According to cognitive science, probably not.
No. They've learned the words, the sequence,
not the concept in a usable way. So the failure
of the old model wasn't just ineffective teaching.
It was measuring the wrong outcome entirely,
measuring memory, not mastery. It measured the
easiest thing to measure, which just happened
to be the least useful kind of learning. We need
to shift. Focus on assessing if someone can use
information in unfamiliar situations. That's
the real goal. Transferable knowledge. That distinction
is crucial. So if passive learning and memorization
aren't the path to that transferable knowledge,
what does work? What does the science point to?
Okay, so cognitive science highlights a couple
of key things that really booth that brain rewiring
process. First one, getting learners to grapple
with complex problems. Okay. And here's the kicker,
often before they have all the information, or
even when they only partly grasp the principles.
Wait a second, that feels backwards, doesn't
it? Like if I'm teaching math, shouldn't I give
them all the rules first, then the problems?
Giving them hard problems early sounds... frustrating,
maybe even demoralizing. It sounds that way and
it goes against that standard model instinct
for sure. But that initial struggle, wrestling
with a problem you can't quite solve yet, it
serves a vital purpose. It builds the schema.
It makes the brain realize what it doesn't know
and why it needs the information that's coming.
It creates mental hooks. Ah, so when the actual
facts or rules arrive? They slot right in. They
have context, they have relevance, they stick
longer, and crucially, they're much more transferable
later on. So the initial confusion isn't failure,
it's the brain building the scaffolding needed
for the new info. You got it. The problem creates
the purpose for the facts. The second big factor
is social interaction. Talking with others, peers.
Yes. talking about the problems, kicking ideas
around, trying to explain your thinking to someone
else. That's not wasted time. It's essential
cognitive work. How so? When you have to articulate
something that's maybe fuzzy in your own head,
you're forced to organize it, to clarify it,
to structure the knowledge for yourself in order
to explain it. And the research shows these two
things together, tough problems, talking about
them, lead to better results. Much better. You
get the information transfer, sure. People remember
things longer, more accurately. That satisfies
the old way of thinking. But the real win, the
power part, is the transferability. The ability
to use that knowledge in totally new, unfamiliar
contexts down the road. That makes sense. If
you learned history by debating causes of wars,
not just memorizing dates, you're better equipped
to analyze a new conflict later. Precisely. You
learned how to think about those systems, not
just what happened. This shift from learning
being this purely internal solo activity to something
active, social, messy, it leads to another big
idea, right? Distributed cognition. Exactly.
The standard model really pushed learning as
an independent thing. Your grade showed what
you knew inside your head with no help. Yeah,
getting help was often seen as cheating. Collaboration
was suspect. Because the assumption was competence
had to be demonstrated completely alone. unaided.
That's not how humans actually achieve big things,
is it? Building cities, science, art. It's almost
always collaborative using tools. That's the
fundamental reality cognitive science is catching
up with. We are tool users. We are social. And
we've effectively downloaded huge parts of our
thinking into our environment for millennia.
Downloaded cognition. Like how I rely on my phone's
calendar. I've basically outsourced my scheduling
memory. That's a perfect everyday example, or
think about older tools, books. What are books
but our collective external memory? Right, we
don't all have to memorize the entire history
of medicine. We can look it up. Writing itself
was a massive step in distributing cognition.
Pencil and paper let us do complex math far beyond
what our unaided brain can reliably handle. So
the environment, the tools, the people around
us, they aren't distractions. They're actually
part of our thinking process. Cognitive multipliers.
That's a great way to put it, multipliers. And
this leads to what some call the efficiency paradox.
OK, what's that? When we embrace this distributed
cognition, when we use tools effectively, whether
it's a calculator, the internet, a textbook,
or collaborating with another person, we become
vastly more powerful thinkers and problem solvers.
More powerful with the tools than without. Exponentially
so. The measure of intelligence starts to shift.
It's not just what's inside your head. It becomes
how effectively can you leverage all available
resources, internal and external, to solve this
challenge. And the flip side, if you only value
what someone can recall internally without tools
or context, then you are, maybe unintentionally,
training them to be less powerful thinkers in
the real world. Wow. Less powerful. Yeah. Think
about it. Pure rote memorization, the old way.
He uses up so much mental energy just storing
stuff you could instantly access externally.
Leaving less brain power for the actual thinking,
analysis, creativity. Exactly. You overload the
working memory with raw data instead of using
it for higher order processing. Insisting on
internalizing everything can actually cripple
problem solving. The goal isn't to be a slow,
error -prone, walking database. It's to be an
agile, effective user of knowledge and tools.
Precisely. An expert tool user and collaborator.
What a huge shift. So wrapping this deep dive
up, we've gone from seeing the mind as this passive
blank slate. Right. Waiting to be filled. To
understanding learning as active, social. based
on tackling real problems and fundamentally distributed.
It happens both inside our heads and with the
tools and people around us. It really reframes
everything. The skills that matter aren't just
about recall. They're about analysis, synthesis,
collaboration, knowing how to find and use information
effectively with all the resources available.
That's where the focus needs to go. Which brings
us to a final thought for you, our listener.
We've heard how tackling complex problems and
using external tools, books, tech, other people
makes us way more powerful thinkers. So take
a second and think about your own life, your
work. Are there habits or systems you're sticking
to that feel Well, a bit like that old blank
slate solo effort model. Are you maybe trying
to juggle every detail internally, insisting
on figuring everything out alone when collaboration
or a simple tool could amplify your efforts?
What external tools, people, resources, technologies
might you be underutilizing right now, simply
out of habit or this outdated feeling that you
should handle it all yourself? Think about it.
Embracing those external supports, that distributed
way of thinking. Could that be the key to unlocking
your next big insight or solving that really
tough challenge?