Can Everyone Learn Anything They Want? (My Favorite Research From 2023)

Can anyone learn to be good at anything they want … or is talent (like having a knack for math or a gift for language) required?

This weighty question is answered by my favorite – and in my humble opinion the most important – research article from 2023:

** An Astonishing Regularity in Student Learning Rate (Kenneth R Koedinger et al)

This paper speaks directly to a major, long-standing dispute within the Learning Sciences surrounding learning rates.

In this video I break it down.

#LearningRates #LearningResearch #LearnAnything

---

JARED COONEY HORVATH | PhD, MEd

Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath is an award-winning cognitive neuroscientist, best-selling author and renowned keynote speaker with an expertise in human learning, memory, and brain stimulation.

Dr. Horvath has published 4 books, over 30 research articles, and currently serves as an honorary researcher at the University of Melbourne and St. Vincent's Hospital in Melbourne.

His research has been featured in popular publications including The New York Times, WIRED, BBC, The Economist, PBS's Nova and ABC’s Catalyst.

---

LME GLOBAL

LME Global is a mission-driven company aiming to serve teachers, students and educators through applied brain science.

[jojohorvath]

Fascinating stuff. I like the 'covert activation' caveat .... it's easy to overlook how much deliberate practice can take place in the comfort of our own mind.

[tomgething]

I have a some curiosities. The first is about the starting point of student learning prior to the initial instruction (ground zero so to speak) and prior knowledge. How did they take this into account? What about faulty schema where a student's understanding (for want of a better phrase) contains a conceptual misunderstanding? What impact might that have?

I'm also interested in their other premise, which is around the statement '... and given the learner invests effort in sufficient learning opportunities'. Where does motivation, confidence, attention and length of the learning opportunity fit in? Where does these conclusions fit with ideas about spacing and interleaving?

I'm also interested to know if they looked at students in different grades and at different ages? Is the rate of learning the same for a 5 year old as a 16 year old? How doe sit relate to ideas such as the use of standard celeration charts? Is it possible those charts could offer similar indications?

And what about mastery being 80% accuracy? What if you looked for higher levels of accuracy? Take for a pianist memorizing a piece of music for performance. 80% accuracy is no accuracy at all. If mastery was defined as 95% accuracy would the results be similar?

[zaravii]

I have two questions: Did they learn at the same speed or at different speeds? About metaplastic, does a gifted person have the same metaplastic as a normal person?

[Kaynlarch]

I have a question. Why is it some students need to study in order to improve to do well in a classroom but there are cases where other students do not need to study and are able to get full marks or close without studying? Also the students doing well without studying usually will have another hobby that consumes them full time like sports or gaming. So I find it difficult to believe they would be consciously thinking about classroom work.
This may change once they reach higher levels of education but still remains a visible phenonomen in the classroom.
Thanks for the content you put out.

[clemenske]

Interesting paper. But what if the different starting points of the students depend solely on genetic factors and not the environment they were raised in?

[shraddharawat]

Was there differential for people starting at different points or were they going through the same content?
Coz, lack of background knowledge has been found to hinder learning right?

[rnchmeister]

I don't love that quote that you highlighted ("anyone can learn anything they want"), because they're hedging the answer to their own question. They didn't ask whether anyone can learn anything they want, but rather whether anyone can learn to be GOOD at anything they want. My read is that effectively the researchers are actually saying "no" but without doing so explicitly. It's simply not likely that they forgot how they initially qualified their own question. For the sake of argument, though, analyzing the conclusion on its face, it's an overbroad conclusion because they haven't really shown that anyone can learn anything they want, but rather that they can improve their declarative memory on a chosen topic.

Given that intrinsic motivation is a factor in learning rate at each stage, starting with the very initial course, it seems like the best way to answer whether anyone can answer anything they want is by measuring initial learning rates + rates after practice sessions among only the very intrinsically motivated. Perhaps they did do this and you just didn't mention it, but if not, it's a dubious design decision (though to be sure it's possible that if the students could choose the topic they wanted to learn about, then that might at least address intrinsic motivation but it wouldn't be surefire).