Conversation

Of course, it's important to note that the broad term "learning" here is used to refer to "accuracy." Trading off accuracy for not-being-bored may actually be net positive for learning writ large! … though, given the reported behavior, it's not clear that's what was happening.
2
5
It's always hard to know how to interpret attitudinal survey responses in studies like this. The participants were learning Swahili vocabulary provided by the investigators. How would their behavior differ in a personally-motivated setting outside formal education?
1
3
That's one reason why I'm excited about learning from Quantum Country readers: it's a serious context of use, and participants are (so far!) people who've chosen to study quantum computation.
2
1
4
Well, Whitmer and all think the difference is relevant: “We presented preliminary evidence that using mastery criteria as an AT strategy to drop cards promotes long-term retention compared to not dropping cards during study.”
2
I don’t think that conclusion is supported by their data. They find no stat sig difference in delayed retention, delayed transfer test performance, or # of mastered objectives between the two groups. N=47 tho so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1
1
Hm, you're right. Given that you have looked at data with QC that's much larger N, what's your intuition - would this bear out or is it unlikely that there's a difference in the real world?
1