We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
That might be good advice. I am not sure. What always worked best for me in college and in law school was a ration of 2hrs/studying in the library to 1/hr discussing and mutual quizzing with somebody in the course.
From the latter, I learned to interrogate my own understanding after I read anything. It's become a habit for me. If I can't explain back what I've read after I have read it, I've gotten nothing from it.
One point the NYT article made was that testing is also a form of learning and reinforcing learning.
My first semester in PChem I had a 70, after acing Organic. Study habits for Organic didn't work for PChem. One adjustment I made was to go over the practice tests the prof had left in the reserve room of the library. I raised my test average by nearly 20 points. To show that was not merely getting accustomed to the prof's tests, I did even better on the standardized test the prof gave us for the final.
The NYT also cites research that shoots down some ed school fads, such as "learning styles."
Study habit effectiveness varies from person to person. I found that my best results were garnered by studying moderately in the week up to a test, then taking a break the day before, going to bed early, and waking up very early to study from about 5am until test time.
Studying late at night or "cramming" was always counterproductive and any knowledge "gained" was easily lost.
One of the things I learned by doing it this was was this - as I studied, if something was still unclear, eventually I'd have a "moment of clarity". I still remember the most significant one, regarding interest rates and Keynesian Economics, as I rode an early morning train to Washington, DC. I'd struggled with the concept of the "liquidity trap" and the problem of "pushing on a string with interest rates". How they played into his macroeconomic framework just baffled me.
Then, that morning, BANG! it hit me like a ton of bricks. I aced the test, and the concept has stuck with me forever....which is why what we're going through now just baffles me even further. I can see we're IN that position - yet politicians don't get it.
I have always thought that old-time teachers had something when they corrected bad habits by insisting that you write something (I will not draw in my history book) 100 times. Richard Mitchell (The Underground Grammarian) has some brilliant insight into the different forms of language--printed, spoken and written. The business of writing, he said, was to stay put on the page so that you could see where you have been stupid.
Writing it down is the basis of much testing. I suspect that multiple-choice tests where you fill in a bubble are useless. And why essay tests are so dreaded?
The Elephant's Child
" If I can't explain back what I've read after I have read it, I've gotten nothing from it." mirrors what I've read of the late Mr. Feynman, especially regarding lay people.
Relative to RF, virtually everyone else was a lay person.
While I was regional instructor during my orchid judging years, I followed the 'rule of three' that my father taught me. He had gone to China right out of college to teach English at Shanghai Baptist College, now called Shanghai university. He trained his students to research the assignment, then to take extensive written notes, then to write an essay answer to the question. By the time the students had completed those three tasks, the information was pretty well embedded in their brains, and they could extrapolate from it into other areas.
I think this is perhaps why the old one-room schoolhouses worked so well. All grades were included in the one room, and when the older students had read about the history, or math, or English assignments, the poor, overworked teacher drafted the older students as teaching assistants for the younger ones. That way the older students further imprinted the information in their memories.
Worked that way with the orchid judging students too.