Evidence for What counts as learning #

Every substantive claim on the What counts as learning page is checked against current research. Here is each claim, how well today’s evidence supports it, and the sources. The full, de-duplicated source list lives on the references page.

Supported · strong evidence — Learning is commonly classified into broad types including knowledge (declarative facts/ideas) and skills (procedural ability to perform actions), which are acquired and stored by partly different processes.

The declarative/procedural (knowing-that vs knowing-how) distinction is a long-standing, well-replicated organising framework in cognitive psychology and is reflected in dissociations between memory systems (e.g., amnesic patients who cannot form new facts yet still acquire skills).

Sources: Anderson, J. R. (2010), Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, 7th ed. · Squire, L. R. (2004), Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective, Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · full reference ›

Supported · strong evidence — Knowledge (facts and ideas) is retained better through retrieval practice (self-testing) and spaced review than through repeated re-reading.

The testing effect and spacing effect are among the most robust findings in the learning sciences, supported by large meta-analyses across ages and materials.

Sources: Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006), Test-enhanced learning, Psychological Science · Cepeda, N. J., et al. (2006), Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis, Psychological Bulletin · full reference ›

Supported · moderate evidence — Skills are built primarily by repeated, feedback-rich practice of the target activity (deliberate practice) rather than by reading or passive study alone.

It is well established that procedural skill improves with effortful, feedback-guided practice; debate remains over how much of expert performance deliberate practice explains, but its central role in skill acquisition is not contested.

Sources: Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993), The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance, Psychological Review · Macnamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2014), Deliberate practice and performance, Psychological Science · full reference ›

Supported · moderate evidence — Habits are learned behaviours that, through repetition in a consistent context, become automatically triggered by cues and run with little conscious intention.

Habit research consistently shows that repeating an action in a stable context increases automaticity and cue-driven responding; the often-cited ‘21 days’ figure is a myth, with real timelines averaging around two months and varying widely.

Sources: Lally, P., et al. (2010), How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world, European Journal of Social Psychology · Wood, W., & Runger, D. (2016), Psychology of habit, Annual Review of Psychology · full reference ›

Supported · moderate evidence — Attitudes and beliefs are learned and change with experience, and they influence subsequent learning and behaviour.

That attitudes are acquired and revised through experience, and shape behaviour, is a foundational and well-supported claim in social and educational psychology; affective/attitudinal learning is a standard learning-outcome domain.

Sources: Anderson, J. R. (2010), Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, 7th ed. · Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain · full reference ›

Supported · strong evidence — Performance during practice and durable learning are distinct: conditions that boost immediate performance often do not produce the best long-term retention, and vice versa.

The learning-versus-performance dissociation is well documented; ‘desirable difficulties’ that depress short-term performance frequently enhance long-term retention and transfer.

Sources: Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015), Learning versus performance: An integrative review, Perspectives on Psychological Science · Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011), Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way, in Psychology and the Real World · full reference ›

Supported · strong evidence — Massed practice, re-reading and cramming tend to inflate momentary fluency and feelings of learning while producing faster forgetting than spaced/interleaved practice.

Multiple studies and reviews show massing and rereading create fluency illusions and weaker retention than spacing and interleaving, despite often feeling more effective to the learner.

Sources: Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015), Learning versus performance: An integrative review, Perspectives on Psychological Science · Dunlosky, J., et al. (2013), Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques, Psychological Science in the Public Interest · full reference ›

Supported · moderate evidence — Because different types of learning are supported by partly different mechanisms, a technique effective for one type (e.g., facts) can be ineffective for another (e.g., motor skills or habits).

The dissociation of declarative and procedural systems, and distinct optimal conditions (retrieval/spacing for facts, deliberate practice for skills, cue-repetition for habits), supports matching method to learning type; this is broadly accepted though specific transfer boundaries are still studied.

Sources: Anderson, J. R. (2010), Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, 7th ed. · Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015), Learning versus performance: An integrative review, Perspectives on Psychological Science · full reference ›