D. Rumelhart, D. Norman , Modes of Learning

ID: ed4166ca-2e6a-4c81-b9e2-f612465cafef
ROAM_REFS: @november30thModesLearningRumelhart
REVIEW_SCORE: 2.0
MTIME: [2025-04-03 Thu 14:17],[2024-12-25 Wed 15:54]

Rumelhart & D. Norman (1978) proposed that there are three modes of learning: accretion, structuring and tuning. Accretion is the addition of new knowledge to existing memory. Structuring involves the formation of new conceptual structures or schema. Tuning is the adjustment of knowledge to a specific task usually through practice. Accretion is the most common form of learning; structuring occurs much less frequently and requires considerable effort; tuning is the slowest form of learning and accounts for expert performance.

Restructuring involves some form of reflection or insight (i.e., metacognition) and may correspond to a plateau in performance. On the other hand, tuning often represents automatic behavior that is not available to reflection (e.g., learning procedures).

Rumelhart & Norman (1981) extended their model to include analogical processes: a new schema is created by modeling it on an existing schema and then modifying it based upon further experiences.

Interesting note about this model: two of these modes aren't really fruitful to introspect about. Accretion seems to be like "memory" - you didn't know a thing, and now you do. Tuning is more frustrating in its opaqueness - you're clearly doing a thing with parts and structure, something analytically juicy, but what are you doing?

The relative timescales offered don't make sense to me.

"Analogical processes", despite being a plausible addition, makes me want to hiss - no gears-level understanding to be had here. Is this bad qualitative research or nuanced in a direction I don't yet see? Maybe we actually read the article and find out one day.

This node is a singleton!