8.Seven principles of learning better from congnitive science(2)7个基于认知科学的学习法则(二)

4.Proficiency requires practice.
4.精通源自练习
The only way to become good at skills is to practice them.Additionally, some basic skils require thorough practice in order to be successful at more complicated skills.
掌握技能的唯一方法就是练习。而且需要反复练习一些基本功，才能成功掌握更复杂的技能。
Math is an excellent example:you may have a conceptual understanding of calculus, but if you aren’t fully fluent with algebra, it will take you hours to do a simple problem.The only way to make algebra automatic is to practice a lot of problems.
数学是一个很好的例子:你可能在概念上理解了微积分，但如果代数掌握得不熟练，解一道简单的题目可能就要花上几个小时。而不假思索地解决代数问题的唯一方法就是练习很多题目。
I’ve certainly been guilty of downplaying the importance of repetitive practice in some of my early writing.But there’s no way I could have completed the MIT Challenge or this language project without extensive time spent practicing the basic tools for each subject.Merely understanding isn’t enough.
在早期的文章中，我肯定错误地低估了重复练习的重要性。但如果没有花费大量时间练习基本技能，我是不可能完成MIT挑战(internal link)和年学习四国语言的项目的。仅仅理解是不够的。
Willinham suggests an alternative to repetitive practice which can be painfuly dull:learn harder subjects that require practicing earlier material.One study showed taht those who took an algebra class showed rapid and predictable decline of their skills.The one group that didn’t?Those who learned calculus.
威廉厄姆还提出另一种代替重复练习的方法，听上去相当无趣:学一门更难的科目，它会用到早先学习的内容。一项研究表明，代数课结束后学生的代数技能表现出预料之中的迅速退步。哪些人没有退步呢?那些学了微积分的。
5.Cognition is fundamentally different early and late in training.
5.新手和专家在学习中的认知过程完全不同
Should you learn physics like Newton?For that matter, should you learn science like a scientist, making hypythesis, testing experiments, revising your theory to fit the data?Willingham offers substantial evidence that the answer is no.
应该像牛顿一样学习物理吗?就此而言，应该像科学家那样学习科学:提出假设、做实验检验、修改你的理论以拟合数据?威廉厄姆用大量数据说明，答案是否定的。
I think there’s merit in understanding how scientists perform their work, but it’s also clear that knowledge creation and knowledge acquisition are very different.Because they are different, the learner needs to weigh them against each other.For most disciplines, understanding scientific facts is more important than scientific process, for the simple rason that scientific facts will inform our lives, but few of us will ever do scientific research.The same applies to history, philosophy and nearly any other discipline of knowledge.
我认为理解科学家如何开展工作是有价值的，但显然创造知识和获取知识是非常不同的，因此学习者需要权衡彼此。对于大多数学科而言，理解科学事实比科学过程更重要。原因很简单，科学事实会影响我们的生活，但我们很少有人会真的做科学研究。 同样的道理也适用于历史、哲学以及几乎任何其他学科。
Another implication of this is that the ideal method for learning a subject and creating knowledge within a subject will be different.Learning calculus and inventing clculus bear little resemblance, so don’t worry if you can’t learn clculus the way Newton did.You don’t have to.
由这条原则得出的另外一点是，学习一门学科和在一门学科内创造知识的理想方法也不一样。学习微积分和发明微积分，二者几乎没有相似之处。因此如果你无法像牛顿那样学习微积分也不要担心，因为你不需要。
6.People are more alike than different in how we learn.
6.人们在学习上的共性多于差异
Learning styles are bunk.There is no such thing as visual, auditory or kinesthetic learners.This is also true for every serious theory of different cognitive styles for learning.
所谓的学习风格是骗人的话，根本没有视觉学习者、听觉学习者或动觉学习者这回事。有关学习的不同认知风格的所有严肃理论也是胡扯。
Defending this conclusion takes a bit of thought, because to most people the idea that people lean differently is obviously true, even though research says otherwise.
要证明这一结论需要一些思考，因为对大多数人来说，人们以不同的方式学习显然是正确的，尽管研究表明并非如此。
Part of the confusion stems from the fact that different abilities can exist while styles do not.Meaning Johnny might be really good at processing visual information and Mary might be good at processing auditory information.Show Johnny a map and he’ll remember whre everything is better than Mary.Play Mary a tune, and she can hum it back a week later.
造成这种困惑，部分是因为尽管不存在不同风格，却仍然可以有能力的差别。意思是说，约翰尼可能非常擅长处理视觉信息，而玛丽也许擅长处理听觉信息。给约翰尼看一张地图，他会比玛丽更清楚地记得图上的位置;给玛丽播放一首曲子，一周之后她就可以哼唱了。
But this isn’t what a theory of learning styles suggests.It suggests that if you taught the same subject to both Johnny and Mary, and played Johnny a slideshow and Mary an audiobook, they would learn better than if Johnny had listened and Mary had watched.The experiments simply don’t find that.
但这不是学习风格理论所要表达的意思。学习风格理论是说，如果教约翰尼和玛丽同样的内容，给约翰尼播放幻灯片，让玛丽听有声书，这样的学习效果会比让约翰尼听有声书而给玛丽播放幻灯片更好。 实验并没有发现这一点。
This suggests that the ways we learn are more similar than different.Some people might be better at learning certain types of things than others, but given a particular subject, science hasn’t different ways of learning it that are consistently better for some people but not others.
这表明我们在学习方式上的共性多于差异。有些人可能比其他人更擅长学习某些类型的内容，但对于一个特定学科，例如科学，并不存在不同的学习方式，让一些人始终比其他人学得更好。
Side note:Willingham also debunks holistic versus linear thinkers.However the ongly thing it shares with my idea of “holistic” learning is the name.My version of holistic learning is not a learning style in the sense Willingham debunks here,but a strategy and one that happens to closely correspond with the third cognitive principle listed above.The nomenclature is my mistake, owing to my being unaware of the other learning theory that used the same name at the time .I’ve since used tried to use the word less, preferring “learning by connections” to avoid confusion.
附注:威廉厄姆还揭示了区分整体思维和线性思维的谬误。但他所说的整体思维与我的整体性学习唯一的共同点就是名字相同。我所说的整体性学习并不是威廉厄姆在此批驳的学习风格，而是-种与上述第三个原则(我们根据已有的知识了解新事物)密切相关的学习策略。这样命名是我的误，归咎于我不了解当时使用同一个名字的其他学习理论。从那之后我就尽量少用整体性学习这个词，而更倾向于使用“通过联系学习"以避免混淆。
7.Intelligence can be changed through sustained hard work.
7.智力可以通过持久的努力而改变
This was probably my favorite part of the entire book because it validates much of what I said here.Intelligence is partially genetic and partially environmental.Innate differences do matter and some people are born with more talent than others.
这可能是整本书中我最喜欢的部分，因为它验证了我在这里所说的大部分内容(internal link)。智力部分由基因决定，部分受后天环境影响。先天差异确实重要，有些人生来就比其他人更有天赋。
However, Willingham argues that intelligence is malleable.Psychologists used to believe that intlligence was mostly genes.Twin studies and other natural experiments seemed to bear that out.Adopted children trun out more like their biological parents than their adoptive parents in many dimensions.
但威廉厄姆认为，智力是后天可塑的。心理学家曾经认为智力主要由基因决定。双胞胎研究和其他自然实验似乎证明了这一点。 被收养的孩子在很多方面表现得更像亲生父母而不是养父母。
However,now the consensus has turned far more towards nurture, rather than nature.One of the biggest pieces of evidence is the Flynn Effect, which is the observation that people, over the last century, have gotten smarter (and the effect is too large to be from natural selection).Genes may have an important role in intelligence, but most of that role is played out through the environment, not inidependent of it.
然而，现在人们的共识已经转向认为智力更多取决于后天培养，而不是天生的。一个最重要的证据是弗林效应，即观察到人们在过去一个世纪中变得越来越聪明(而且效果过于明显，不可能是自然选择的结果)。基因或许在智力中扮演重要角色，但主要是通过环境起作用的，而不是独立于环境。
If you re-read the first principle I listed, that shouldn’t be surprising.Knowledge being exponential growth means that a small initial advantage can quickly compound.If genes gave you a 5% headstart in math in kindergarten, there may not be much difference bwtween you and a similar child.Howere, expand that small initial advantage over thirty years and you may have someone who has done a PhD in physics and someone who stopped at high-school.
如果你再看一遍我列出的第一条原则，则不会对此感到惊讶。知识指数增长意味着最开始一点小小的优势可以迅速扩大。如果幼儿园阶段基因让你在数学上有 5%的领先优势，你和其他孩子之间可能看不出太大差别。但这点小小的领先优势经过三十年的扩展，产生的差异或许就是有人拿到了物理学博士学位，而有人高中就止步不前了。
From a population standpoint the difference between these two people may be “explained” by differences in genes.However, genes only created a small hadstart.Sustained hard work can help set off your own exponential gorwth of learning in a domain as well.
从人口的角度看，这两个人的差距也许可以用基因的差异来“解释"。但基因仅创造了一点点领先。持续的努力也可以帮你在一个领域引发自己的指数型学习增长。
Concluding Thoughts
总结性思考
I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and don’t let my brief summary and insights spoil it for you.It’s a fairly easy read while still being smart and insightful.What’s more, the book is based on robust research and science.
我非常喜欢这本书，不要因为我简短的摘要和见解令你对它失去兴趣。这本书很容易读，但同时彰显智慧而有见地。更重要的是，这本书以坚实的研究和科学为基础。
In terms of my own, more informal, writing about learning, I was happy that most of the priinciples discussed in the book reflected my own thinking .It’s comforting to see when the experience I’ve gained from my own learning challenges converges on the serious work scientists are doing to understand the brain and how we learn.
相较我自己平时关于学习的写作而言，我很开心书中讨论的大部分原则都反映了我自己的思考。看到我从自己的学习挑战项目中获得的经验与科学家为理解大脑和我们如何学习所进行的严肃研究不谋而合，我感到很欣慰。