Here's a NYT article shared by a parent in another forum. I don't think I've seen it posted/discussed here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/h...mp;st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=printA couple of topics in the article especially caught my attention.
One is that a using a variety of study areas was better than the traditional approach of limiting to a specific place.
... individual learning is another matter, and psychologists have discovered that some of the most hallowed advice on study habits is flat wrong. For instance, many study skills courses insist that students find a specific place, a study room or a quiet corner of the library, to take their work. The research finds just the opposite. 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.
And another topic covered in the article suggests that providing variety in the study session is better than drilling one concept for an extended period.
Varying the type of material studied in a single sitting � alternating, for example, among vocabulary, reading and speaking in a new language � seems to leave a deeper impression on the brain than does concentrating on just one skill at a time. Musicians have known this for years, and their practice sessions often include a mix of scales, musical pieces and rhythmic work. Many athletes, too, routinely mix their workouts with strength, speed and skill drills.
At first glance, both of these ideas make sense to me, especially the second, and I'd love to know if others have seen this or similar articles and whether the recommendations seem reasonable... and whether or not anyone has experimented with these approaches in their own in-home educational laboratories.
Dandy
