You are absolutely correct; this is a hair worth splitting. I meant “spaced repetition flashcards”, and I have only seen formal spaced repetition algorithms applied to flashcards. In my particular case, I end up with 30 or so “pages” of related information, as opposed to 500 flashcards. I agree that using spaced repetition algorithms to tell me when to study which page is likely better than alternative methods, though I haven’t found an algorithm optimized for that sort of thing, and at the moment my intuition of “when I’m forgetting” is sufficient for the low number of separate objects to study.
[For this comment, I will use the term “page” to mean any collection of related information, be it a list, table, memory palace, notes on a single topic, etc.]
To be explicit: I vote against using spaced repetition (of any sort) to identify specific facts within a “page” of information. When reviewing a page, of course you can go quickly over the parts you know well and dwell on the parts you don’t, but I would encourage the student to not completely ignore the other details “until it’s time.”
As an example: I have a collection of facts that can be represented as a large table or as individual facts. If I study it in a table, then I get the advantage of keeping the “big picture in mind”, plus I can activate spatial memory as well as rote. If I study it as separate facts: the Pro is I can use spaced repetition to greater effect, not reviewing the parts I know better, but the loss of the picture and the spatial memory makes it not worth the cost. (Note that the “big picture” isn’t a single sentence I can write down; it’s noticing trends in the data, how column A and B are similar except in in key areas, etc.)
As always, my experience is only in high volumes of information that can be organized vaguely hierarchically. (That said, I think if you look hard enough, you can find categories or hierarchies for any large volume of information, outside of truly random things like the sequence of a deck of cards.)
Caveat #2: “self testing” is really important! So if you are quitting flash cards, make sure you find some new way to quiz yourself, don’t just read passively.
Conclusion:
-Spaced repetition algorithms might be viable, though I don’t know any suitable to my needs
-I claim that spaced repetition flashcards are not useful for large volumes that have categories and/or relationships between facts.
-benkuhn rightfully points out that my vendetta is mostly against flashcards, or any method focusing on “terminal facts” in random order without also studying closely related facts.
Life application:
1) If you see a table, don’t vaporize it into your flashcards. Rather, study the table.
2) If you see a mass of new data: ask yourself if you can organize it in a way meaningful to you, then study it in the structure you built.
If I study it as separate facts: the Pro is I can use spaced repetition to greater effect, not reviewing the parts I know better, but the loss of the picture and the spatial memory makes it not worth the cost. (Note that the “big picture” isn’t a single sentence I can write down; it’s noticing trends in the data, how column A and B are similar except in in key areas, etc.)
Why not do both? The thing about SRS flashcards is that facts that you have strong recall of are nearly costless to add, because the review schedules get spaced into very large intervals (weeks, then months or even years), and it only takes a split second to see a card and realize it’s easy. So you could learn from tables if that really is more efficient for you, but having the data in SRS card form as well is a good insurance policy.
Frankly, because at the volume I was running, it was far too great an investment of time. When I stopped, I had about 75-100 scheduled (learned) flashcards per day if I added nothing the day before, though I usually added 60-some every day. The cards would take me 1-2 hours, and the amount kept building as I was adding to it faster than I was pushing them “out”.
Additionally, here our mileage may vary, but even with easy flashcards I occasionally find myself staring dumbly at it for ten or more seconds before I realize what it’s asking and smack my head. So I end up trimming out the stupid-easy ones, but that starts to defeat the purpose. Thus, for myself personally, I won’t duplicate in flashcards what I’m already memorizing elsewhere.
I know that everyone is different, so this is just my experience and what I have observed in other people. If others continue to have success with SRS, then far be it from me to insist they fix what isn’t broken.
even with easy flashcards I occasionally find myself staring dumbly at it for ten or more seconds
To me, that suggests that the card is either too complex and should be split up further, or that you simply do not have solid recall of the relevant facts, so you should just flip to the answer and mark the card difficult. It’s quite normal to forget even some basic info over time; the point of SRS is to refresh these memories at the lowest viable cost.
I appreciate the input, truly, but I can confidently state that’s not the case in my situation. This happens even on the simplest questions that I know cold, and is a problem with mental fatigue, monotony, and reading. After the 100th card, I would expect similar results from “what color is the sky” occasionally. I highly doubt I am dyslexic, but I might be a little ADHD. Once again, I do not presume everyone has similar results, but when I did 150 cards per day (and lord help me if I missed a day), easy cards posed a significant drain on my time and mental energy.
Interesting. If you get that kind of mental fatigue from reading, maybe flashcards really are relatively inefficient for you. If it turns out that dyslexia is the problem, there is an open source font that can help with that issue. Some people have set their SRS up to read questions aloud using computer-generated speech. But yes, most of the time it’s a signal that you should take a break and perhaps switch to some other activty.
One thing that’s relevant to this discussion is that the latest SRS versions can actually cope quite well with missed reviews. Yes, you’ll still be presented with a backlog of suggestions, but the system gives you improved credit if you can recall a card easily even after the increased delay. Because that implies your memory of it was quite good in the first place, so it can be refreshed less often in the future.
You are absolutely correct; this is a hair worth splitting. I meant “spaced repetition flashcards”, and I have only seen formal spaced repetition algorithms applied to flashcards. In my particular case, I end up with 30 or so “pages” of related information, as opposed to 500 flashcards. I agree that using spaced repetition algorithms to tell me when to study which page is likely better than alternative methods, though I haven’t found an algorithm optimized for that sort of thing, and at the moment my intuition of “when I’m forgetting” is sufficient for the low number of separate objects to study.
[For this comment, I will use the term “page” to mean any collection of related information, be it a list, table, memory palace, notes on a single topic, etc.]
To be explicit: I vote against using spaced repetition (of any sort) to identify specific facts within a “page” of information. When reviewing a page, of course you can go quickly over the parts you know well and dwell on the parts you don’t, but I would encourage the student to not completely ignore the other details “until it’s time.”
As an example: I have a collection of facts that can be represented as a large table or as individual facts. If I study it in a table, then I get the advantage of keeping the “big picture in mind”, plus I can activate spatial memory as well as rote. If I study it as separate facts: the Pro is I can use spaced repetition to greater effect, not reviewing the parts I know better, but the loss of the picture and the spatial memory makes it not worth the cost. (Note that the “big picture” isn’t a single sentence I can write down; it’s noticing trends in the data, how column A and B are similar except in in key areas, etc.)
As always, my experience is only in high volumes of information that can be organized vaguely hierarchically. (That said, I think if you look hard enough, you can find categories or hierarchies for any large volume of information, outside of truly random things like the sequence of a deck of cards.)
Caveat #2: “self testing” is really important! So if you are quitting flash cards, make sure you find some new way to quiz yourself, don’t just read passively.
Conclusion: -Spaced repetition algorithms might be viable, though I don’t know any suitable to my needs -I claim that spaced repetition flashcards are not useful for large volumes that have categories and/or relationships between facts. -benkuhn rightfully points out that my vendetta is mostly against flashcards, or any method focusing on “terminal facts” in random order without also studying closely related facts.
Life application: 1) If you see a table, don’t vaporize it into your flashcards. Rather, study the table. 2) If you see a mass of new data: ask yourself if you can organize it in a way meaningful to you, then study it in the structure you built.
Why not do both? The thing about SRS flashcards is that facts that you have strong recall of are nearly costless to add, because the review schedules get spaced into very large intervals (weeks, then months or even years), and it only takes a split second to see a card and realize it’s easy. So you could learn from tables if that really is more efficient for you, but having the data in SRS card form as well is a good insurance policy.
Frankly, because at the volume I was running, it was far too great an investment of time. When I stopped, I had about 75-100 scheduled (learned) flashcards per day if I added nothing the day before, though I usually added 60-some every day. The cards would take me 1-2 hours, and the amount kept building as I was adding to it faster than I was pushing them “out”.
Additionally, here our mileage may vary, but even with easy flashcards I occasionally find myself staring dumbly at it for ten or more seconds before I realize what it’s asking and smack my head. So I end up trimming out the stupid-easy ones, but that starts to defeat the purpose. Thus, for myself personally, I won’t duplicate in flashcards what I’m already memorizing elsewhere.
I know that everyone is different, so this is just my experience and what I have observed in other people. If others continue to have success with SRS, then far be it from me to insist they fix what isn’t broken.
To me, that suggests that the card is either too complex and should be split up further, or that you simply do not have solid recall of the relevant facts, so you should just flip to the answer and mark the card difficult. It’s quite normal to forget even some basic info over time; the point of SRS is to refresh these memories at the lowest viable cost.
I appreciate the input, truly, but I can confidently state that’s not the case in my situation. This happens even on the simplest questions that I know cold, and is a problem with mental fatigue, monotony, and reading. After the 100th card, I would expect similar results from “what color is the sky” occasionally. I highly doubt I am dyslexic, but I might be a little ADHD. Once again, I do not presume everyone has similar results, but when I did 150 cards per day (and lord help me if I missed a day), easy cards posed a significant drain on my time and mental energy.
Interesting. If you get that kind of mental fatigue from reading, maybe flashcards really are relatively inefficient for you. If it turns out that dyslexia is the problem, there is an open source font that can help with that issue. Some people have set their SRS up to read questions aloud using computer-generated speech. But yes, most of the time it’s a signal that you should take a break and perhaps switch to some other activty.
One thing that’s relevant to this discussion is that the latest SRS versions can actually cope quite well with missed reviews. Yes, you’ll still be presented with a backlog of suggestions, but the system gives you improved credit if you can recall a card easily even after the increased delay. Because that implies your memory of it was quite good in the first place, so it can be refreshed less often in the future.