This seems more like "How Do We Memorize?", as is taught and performed (poorly) in American schools.
In contrast we learn by doing, by manipulating things or concepts.
In contrast we learn by doing, by manipulating things or concepts.
This all makes sense in light of the "human cognitive architecture". Working memory is severely limited while long-term memory is effectively unlimited. Thus, committing things to long-term memory frees up the scarce resource of working memory. In fact, there are many studies which indicate that the key differentiator between experts and novices is that they have a huge long-term store of schemata which can be applied in the problem domain and allow more efficient representation and manipulation in working memory.
"Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching"
> Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert–novice differences, and cognitive load. Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal” guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional design models that support guidance during instruction are briefly described.
> The past half-century of empirical research on this issue has provided overwhelming and unambiguous evidence that minimal guidance during instruction is significantly less effective and efficient than guidance specifically designed to support the cognitive processing necessary for learning.
> Our understanding of the role of long-term memory in human cognition has altered dramatically over the last few decades. It is no longer seen as a passive repository of discrete, isolated fragments of information that permit us to repeat what we have learned. Nor is it seen only as a component of human cognitive architecture that has merely peripheral influence on complex cognitive processes such as thinking and problem solving. Rather, long-term memory is now viewed as the central, dominant structure of human cognition.
> These results suggest that expert problem solvers derive their skill by drawing on the extensive experience stored in their long-term memory and then quickly select and apply the best procedures for solving problems. The fact that these differences can be used to fully explain problem-solving skill emphasizes the importance of long-term memory to cognition. We are skillful in an area because our long-term memorycontains huge amounts of information concerning the area.
> The aim of all instruction is to alter long-term memory. If nothing has changed in long-term memory, nothing has been learned.
I'll quit there, but that's only a few pages in and it's all quite good and definitely worth reading IMO.
Maybe that's OK for philosophy and sociology, but in other fields students will be actually asked to contribute to the world and so must be trained to do rather than to memorize.
Except for scholars (who are primarily historians) what of philosophy and sociology is worth remembering anyway? Most of philosophy was written before Darwin and certainly before any significant brain science research was done. Much of sociology is also questionable:
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=half+of+sociolo...
The only reason education focuses on memorization is because in 1892 a committee chaired by the President of Harvard decided that high school education in the USA should prepare students for collegiate study in particular subjects of his choosing. Should we, today, continue to follow the direction of those professors, who were only interested in ensuring that, when students arrived at their departments, they were sufficiently indoctrinated to be scholars in their fields?
https://kamccollum.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/school-is-profou...
Do reading assignment, discuss/argue about it in class with a TA or professor to mediate and clarify stuff, maybe write a paper afterwards.
Engaging with the content is kind of a universal way to learn by doing.