I found this interesting. They taught two different groups about scientific reasoning/logic. One group was given contradictory information, at times, and asked to make decisions. The other group was given the information without these contradictory/missing information instances. The first group, the ones who were intentionally confused, did better on a touch post-learning test.
Note the end of the article discusses when confusion is not good and what else needs to be present for confusion to be effective.
This fits gut feelings I have had around confusion and learning to tolerate it. I experience this as something akin to physical exertion or strain - like seeing how far one can swim underwater - holding one’s breath, that is. That if I accept the confusion and my reactions to it, but stay with it, I learn more. I actually would have thought I would learn more LONG TERM since I can navigate tough situations without giving up. But this article suggests that even immediately after learning situations with added confusion, one has learned more.
I like that.
Just associated this with Synectics - which uses metaphors and other really rather confusing exercises for innovation - and Zen Koans.
I imagine this stems from the fact that something with contradictory or highly confusing information requires more attention to figure out than something that’s straight-forward. More attention would result in higher retention/understanding for obvious reasons.
Adding confusion, then, wouldn’t be an all-around good idea. It wouldn’t help you learn any better things you were already highly interested in. And it wouldn’t help you learn better things that you’re not going to be interested in anyway, even if you’re confused, and it could sometimes take your interest away – I know I lose interest in convoluted posts on ILP. It’s a double-edged sword, to be used sparingly, not a fix-all, “LET’S ADD CONFUSION TO EVERYTHING, IT’S GOOD FOR LEARNING!” type deal.
I think that is what they concluded. The learner really has to wrestle with what they are being presented with. They cannot simply memorize. Though it wasn’t more attention, they attended for the same amount of time as the controls, I believe. It was the kind of attention.
I am not sure that is the case. I don’t think it was simply motivational. But another way for me to disagree is that where one has interest one is more likely to undergo confusion and other discomfort. So it might be hard to separate out these two.
yes, I did mention they make clear in the article specific situations where it is not a good idea to confuse people and also what must also be present for confusion to make learning more effective and that degree was an issue. They do not see it as a fix all, but rather a facet that is useful rather than purely negative. I can imagine that teachers, for example, might think they need to have the elimination or minimization of confusion as their goals, but this is not correct. If the research holds, that is.