Soderstrom and Bjork (2015, p. 193) define **learning** as the relatively permanent changes in behavior or knowledge that support long-term retention and transfer. Ideally, learning is **durable**, such that the capabilities remain available for a long period of time, and **flexible**, such that they can be applied in various contexts where they may be relevant. On the other hand, the authors define **performance** as the temporary fluctuations in behavior or knowledge that are observed during training or instruction or immediately thereafter. In other words: Learning is about **acquiring** new capabilities, whereas performance is about **applying** these capabilities. This matches Bjork and Bjork's (1992) distinction between [[The New Theory of Disuse posits that there are two indices of memory strength – storage strength and retrieval strength|storage strength and retrieval strength]]. There's a large body of empirical research that demonstrates that **learning and performance are dissociable**. In particular: 1. **Considerable learning can occur in the absence of changes in performance**. Decades ago, researchers of latent learning, overlearning, and fatigue demonstrated that long-lasting learning could occur without increases in performance during training. This research included studies on humans as well as non-human animals. For example, a classic study by Tolman and Honzik (1930) showed that rats’ learning of a maze could be enhanced by permitting a period of free exploration in which their behavior seemed aimless (i.e., performance was irregular). Conversely, 2. **Gains in performance can fail to yield learning**. More recent research on [[Spaced practice (or spaced repetition) involves stretching out one's practice over time|spaced practice]], [[Interleaved practice (or interleaving, mixed practice) involves practicing several different topics or skills within a learning session|variable practice]], and [[Retrieval practice involves drawing ideas from memory rather than looking up the answer|retrieval practice]] in both motor and verbal learning demonstrated that gains in performance during training often impede learning. For example, in a study by Shea and Morgan (1979), participants learned several different movement patterns by following either a blocked or random practice schedule. Blocked practice lead to better performance during training (as measured by the speed at which participants were able to execute the movement patterns), but random practice lead to better performance when tested again ten days later. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that learning and performance can be **in opposition**: Studies on [[Spaced practice (or spaced repetition) involves stretching out one's practice over time|spaced practice]], [[Interleaved practice (or interleaving, mixed practice) involves practicing several different topics or skills within a learning session|variable practice]], and [[Retrieval practice involves drawing ideas from memory rather than looking up the answer|retrieval practice]] have demonstrated that learning activities and conditions can have **opposite effects on learning and performance**. The activities and conditions that impair performance during training often foster the most durable and flexible learning (see [[Desirable difficulties refer to challenges encountered during practice that lead to stronger and more enduring learning|desirable difficulties]]). Techniques that enhance learning may interfere with performance, and vice versa. Unfortunately, research in **metacognition** has demonstrated that learners (and teachers) often **mistakenly use performance as an indicator of long-term learning** (Bjork, 1999). They [[Learners don't naturally know and apply the most effective learning strategies|interpret a sense of ease and mastery during practice as evidence that learning has occurred]]. Further, surveys on beliefs about learning suggest that students tend to use strategies that yield short-term performance benefits but not long-term learning (Soderstrom & Bjork, 2015). For example, a study that surveyed undergraduate students (McCabe, 2011) found that they overwhelmingly endorsed strategies as more effective for learning that research found to be inferior to available alternatives. 93.33% of students endorsing massed practice over spaced practice, for instance. As a consequence, there is a gap between what the research suggests are effective learning strategies and what our [[Metacognition is the ability to monitor and regulate one's own cognitive processes|metacognitive assessments]] tell us. In Robert Bjork's words, there's a difference between "[how we learn versus how we think we learn](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxZzoVp5jmI)." This gives rise to **illusions of competence and understanding**, and it leads to **suboptimal choice of learning strategies** such as re-reading or massed practice. There are many **implications** of the above findings. One important takeaway is that learners need to override their intuitions about "what works" when learning, and rely more on the strategies that have been shown to be most effective. Along the same lines, they need to endorse [[Desirable difficulties refer to challenges encountered during practice that lead to stronger and more enduring learning|desirable difficulties]] and embrace mistakes as part of the practice. **What matters is your performance when it matters, not during practice**. Doing that requires going against some of your intuitions. --- Created: [[2022-10-01]] Type: #permanent Topics: [[Learning (Index)]] Related notes: - [[How to define learning?]] - [[What are the most effective learning strategies?]] - [[Desirable difficulties refer to challenges encountered during practice that lead to stronger and more enduring learning]] - [[Learning Versus Performance – An Integrative Review]] - [[The New Theory of Disuse posits that there are two indices of memory strength – storage strength and retrieval strength]]