Page 247 - A Mind For Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science

Chapter 7: Chunking versus Choking: How to Increase Your Expertise and Reduce
Anxiety
1 One important point is that much of the literature on experts involves individuals who have trained for
years to attain their level of expertise. But there are differing levels of experts and expertise. For
example, if you know the acronyms FBI and IBM, it’s easy to remember the sequence as a chunk of two
rather than a disparate grouping of six letters. But this easy chunking presumes that you are already an
expert, not only with the meaning of FBI and IBM, but with the Roman alphabet itself. Imagine how
much more difficult it would be to memorize a Tibetan sequence like this:
When we are learning math and science in the classroom, we are starting with some degree of
expertise, and what we are expected to learn through the course of a semester is nothing like the vast
jump in expertise experienced as a novice becomes a grand master at chess. When you are taking a class
in some subject, you’re not going to see a dramatic neural difference occurring in one semester, similar
to the dramatic difference between a novice and a grandmaster. But there is some indication that neural
differences in how you process the material can show up even in a period of a few weeks (Guida et al.
2012). More specifically, Guida and colleagues note that experts preferentially make use of the temporal
regions, which are crucial for long-term memory (2012, p. 239). In other words, when we steer students
away from building structures in long-term memory, we are making it more difficult for them to acquire
expertise. Of course, concentration on memorization alone without creative application is also a
problem. Again—any teaching method alone can be misused; variety (not to mention competence) is the
spice of life!
2 We’ve talked about interleaving the study of different techniques while you are studying a topic. But what
about interleaving the study of completely different subjects? Unfortunately, there’s no research
literature available on that as yet (Roediger and Pyc 2012, p. 244), so what I’m suggesting about varying
what you are studying is simply common sense and common practice. This will be an interesting area to
watch for future research.
3 Kalbfleisch 2004.
4 Guida and colleagues (2012, pp. 236–237) note that chunks in working memory and therefore in long-
term memory (LTM) “get larger with practice and expertise . . . the chunks get also richer because more
LTM knowledge is associated with each one of them. Moreover, several LTM chunks can become linked
to knowledge. And eventually, if an individual becomes an expert, the presence of these links between
several chunks can result in the creation of high-level hierarchical chunks. . . . For example, in the game
of chess, templates can link to ‘. . . plans, moves, strategical and tactical concepts, as well as other
templates’. . . . We suggest that the functional reorganization of the brain can be detected in expertise
acquisition when LTM chunks and knowledge structures exist and are effective in the domain of
expertise.”
5 Duke et al. 2009.
6 For a good review of the circumstances when deliberate practice is most effective, see Pachman et al.
2013.
7 Roediger and Karpicke 2006, p. 199.
8 Wan et al. 2011. This study sought to define the neural circuits responsible for rapid (within two seconds)
intuitive generation of the best next move in spot games of shogi, an extraordinarily complex game of
strategy. The part of the brain associated with quick, implicit, unconscious habit (the precuneus-caudate
circuit) appeared central to the rapid generation of the best next move in professional players. See also
McClain 2011.
9 Charness et al. 2005.
10 Karpicke et al. 2009; McDaniel and Callender 2008.
11 Fischer and Bidell 2006, pp. 363–370.
12 Roediger and Karpicke 2006, citing William James’s Principles of Psychology.
13 Beilock 2010, pp. 54–57.