Every morning we drag ourselves out 
of bed 
to come to school for one reason.
Learning. (Hopefully.)
 Especially from the perspective
of students and teachers in 
a program 
like the IB that strives even in our mission
statement to cultivate lifelong learners,
how we learn is always a pertinent question.
 
There is a body of knowledge surrounding this,
including my real life situation for today,
the book Make it Stick:The Science 
of Successful Learning, 
 only recently published by Harvard University Press.
So the main arguments
of this book is that retrieval information
or recalling a concept from memory without
looking at material is better than the 
repetition of ideas, which is re-reading or highlighting.
So naturally what we're concerned with is
is how cognitive scientists gather such evidence
to come to this conclusion. 
So my knowledge issue 
for today is: 
What role does the methodology of the human sciences play in substantiating
claims over the effectiveness of different learning strategies? 
There are different research
methods used in the 
human sciences, such 
as introspection, case studies, surveys. 
Our scientist, Roediger conducted an experiment
so he asked american students to learn
70 swahili word pairs
-english word pairs - and after a week 
he asked them to recall the English word
from the Swahili word in a quantitative test.
So there were four groups of students
Two groups practiced retrieval learning once
and two groups practiced retrieval learning
several times. And the dark blue
bars represents students
that were allowed to reread the words
as many times as they liked
As you can see there is virtually no improvement when
they were allowed to reread the words as many
times as they liked. So Roediger
came to the conclusion that retrieval
learning is indeed better than repeated study.
So we have to look at the methodology
that they adopted in this experiment
So, um, firstly, the hypothesis
and the observation was inextricably
interlinked, over many years 
Roediger made a number of observations
through his sensory perception - he
could see that his subjects reacted
to different methods of learning which
led him to develop his hypothesis
that retrieval practice is 
indeed better than repetition
However, what scientists
like Roediger perceive in their
observations is subject to quite a few
limitations, which I will briefly outline
For example, confirmation bias
From the perspective of Roediger, he will be looking for
data that supports retrieval learning.
The motivation for observing
will colour his observations.
This is closely linked to the problem of
demarcation. Roediger is limited by his
tendency to draw a line and limit his
experiment such that only data
that supports his thesis is considered.
Also, there's the problem that Roediger is human.
That's the paradox of the human sciences.
Humans are studying humans
In the study of ourselves, it's hard to 
detach some sort of emotion or cultural
perspective that is typically
eschewed in the human sciences
when they seek to emulate the 
objectivity of the natural sciences.
which i will explore later
So that is not to say that these
observations are invalid
but it does highlight the importance of
measurements and experiments to support them
So there's an attempt at systemisation
in the human sciences that provides
some sort of consistency or
objectivity, which leads us on to the
measurement or experiment.
So um the experiments
that Roediger conducted were
controlled
there were 70 swahili word pairs
there were groups of college students of 
similar calibre, and they were measured 
by a final standardised test of their
ability to match words
and there was a repeated study 
of over a hundred students. However,
there are still methodological flaws
that cannot be overlooked - the
issue is with the parameters critical
to the experiment. So firstly
controllability.
The human sciences have many variables to
control, and some of these cannot be controlled
and can be difficult to identify.
for example, there are other factors that affect
the effectiveness of learning, like
genetics, the current intellect of the 
students, whether they attempted to study
the words within that week, and
also, the test isn't a representative
measure of long term memory retention.
After all they were tested only
after one week, which is hardly long
term. And um, the test
is arguably simplified in this case
but the complexity of studying human behaviour
often
renders simplification imperative to understanding.
So, repeatibility
Scientists like Roediger cannot repeat the same test
with the same student using different
modes of learning, so there's this
compromise between controllability and
repeatability. From the perspective
of natural scientists like Ernest
Rutherford, arguably
experiments in the human sciences cannot
be repeated. He says: "The only possible
conclusion the social sciences can draw
is: some do, some don't."
Although there is some truth 
in this, I believe that the conclusions are still
revelant, so the question is really
bridging the gap between
experimental conclusion and practical
application. So, in this
we can look at reasoning.
Roediger's results are then applied 
To the general population through inductive reasoning.
Because it's effective for Roediger's X test studies
It means it extends to the rest of the population
But of course this can be a problem in
making generalisations based on the aggregate.
So these are American students - how about the 
different students around the world?
And also we have to emphasise the difference between
laws and trends. 
There are limitations to controllability, measurability,
and repeatability as I mentioned before
inherent in the human sciences.
So that makes the formulating of laws difficult.
Which suggests that evidence may be indequate, so
this is induction with the proviso that it's about trends.
So if we look back at the graph that Roediger provided,
it's very telling that even he acknowledges, 
and emphasises that it's about trends
in the cognitive sciences.
Because he's
very cautious in affirming a definite causal link,
as can be established in the natural sciences.
So, there are gaps in the method in theory
But Ilike to believe that it does not completely
compromise scientific application
Inevitably, there'll be variation and anomalies
but conclusions can be drawn within a certain
margin of error. So that's another knowledge issue
we could explore. Um, which is the
role of mathematical reasoning in aiding 
the generating of knowledge claims in the 
human sciences, but I can't go into that today
because of time constraints *laughter*
And so, looking at this issue from a wider perspective
there have been many different experiments that produce results
proving that retention practice is indeed better.
In this way, there's some form of independent testimony
- these results were obtained separate from each other
and the coherence of these results
overcomes some limitations, like the problem of confirmation bias.
I also found it very interesting
that praise for the book was "evidence-based"
- this exhibits our paradigm - the scientific paradigm
and we put a lot of trust in what science presents to us.
Therefore it's of paramount importance that we keep in
mind some of the limitations of the human sciences.
Similar to one of my best comic artists
Gary Larson, I uh personally believe
that retrieval learning is more effective. 
It works better intuitively for me, and I think we
have this emotional tendency to believe in it
We're more ready to believe in these conclusions
because we would like to believe that we do 
better as learners who find connections in knowledge
and not in mechanical repetition.
and that we hit the limit of what we can retain -
Our brain is full.
And we're not robots! So, this
has further implications on learning, especially to educators. 
Learning is usually thought to occur during episodes of
studying, whereas the retrieval of information on testing
simply serves to assess what we have learnt. 
So putting it into a larger context, 
we have to change the way we look at learning,
and the role of testing, which affects
how we connect ideas in our understanding of the world.
So everyone has a perspective on education.
When it comes to education, we all call ourselves experts.
But it doesn't take an expert to tell you
that there are large differences in learning styles 
and different cultural perspectives on what is best. 
There are grounds to believe that certain methods
of learning tend to work in a  
particular environment or culture.
So, for example the difference between individualist
and collectivist perspectives on education.
The individualist perspective is adopted by
more Asian societies, 
where students are encouraged to work independently.
And the collectivist perspective is encouraged in Western societies
where students engage in discussion and argument to
learn to think critically.
which is what the IB adopts
So, as an Asian student studying the IB curriculum
there are large differences in learning styles
and views on education even compared to my parents
Obviously, there would be
no homogenous agreement of what is effective
or how to achieve it, but
cultural differences do lend themselves to different 
conclusions. So, in conclusion
the process of human sciences provides evidence
to support our knowledge claims.
There are limitations to this, but some of these
limitations can be overcome by doing different 
experiments, and uncertainties and anomalies
are unavoidable, but the conclusions are critical, 
especially since we're so concerned with ourselves as
humans. So, experiments, case studies, and so on
in the human sciences are undeniably useful
in supporting our knowledge claims.
Thank you.
