Is learning an adaptation?

[Eric Schexnayder]

I was thinking about this the other day. If physiological changes in the brain are required for "learning" to happen, then could Selye's GAS model be applied to education? The brain is made of cells just like muscle, bone, tendon, etc.

If, for example, reading a chapter in a book or attending a OTJ training session is a "stress", then recovery from that stress is what is needed to properly facilitate education. Too much stress and not enough recovery time from that stress would lead to exhaustion, rendering the student's capacity to learn the subject matter ineffective. Pulling an all-nighter or cramming would be the equivalent to doing an ID/VD 3 hours before a meet.

I wonder if there'd be a novice effect to account for in such a model. People beginning their educational careers may be able to learn a lot in a relatively shorter period of time, then a sort of educational periodization may be necessary. And obviously there is genetic potential. No matter how advanced or complex the learning process becomes, some people just can't learn Thermodynamics.

It'd be difficult to assess the "Intensity" and "Volume" of such stresses though. But I think it'd be a fair statement that it'd be hard on the brain to do 100 math problems one day, then 100 the next day, then 100 the following day. Plus how do you increase the workload? More problems? Different topic/subject?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Certainly an interesting question. How many of the pieces of the SRA cycle apply to learning, and how closely are they analogous to the physical version?

[Scaldrew]

I think any analogies only hold up in the realm of metaphor, not necessarily in the physical realm. You could rightly argue that learning is like training in that you need to put in a lot of work, repetition, and careful planning, but I doubt that learning new information somehow means your brain is being shaped physically throughout the course of your life. I think it is the case that habits, i.e. repetitive physical behaviour, will impact your brain more than specific bits of information. Skipping the final rep because you fear it might possibly go bad maybe is like repeatedly refusing to read books that make you feel stupid. Both behaviours are insidious in that they make it harder for you to break the cycle in future.

But the brain is far more complex because it needs language to store abstract information. Emotions and sensations may not need to be put into words to be physically there, but cramming knowledge does require one pay close attention to language. Memorising any information is ultimately just memorising linguistic forms and their signifieds, after all. I don't think a squat is anything like language or even specific information. Its general nature makes it much more comparable to a habit or routine. What is a squat, after all, but the sum of several (good) habits one performs simultaneously (such as knees out, big breath, drahve hwips)?

Information is much more specific, as evidenced by the fact that it is essentially far more complex. Some very complex ideas cannot be understood but by reading an entire text around it; attempts to communicate it to others then always becomes necessarily reductionist, as the only proper way for someone to understand it is to read the text, himself. And even then, different readers beget different readings as everyone has a different brain with different information already stored within it. Believe me, if information interpretation and storage was this simple, some meathead would've probably figured that out by now.

[Karl Schudt]

This is an interesting series of videos on this very subject:

Learning and Teaching Strategies | stef bradford

[Mugaaz]

Differences off the top of my head:
While there is similar diminishing returns on specific skill improvement, I don't see any diminishing returns on rate of adaptation to learning. In fact, rate of adaptation seems to increase after you get past the novice stage.
Stress does not need to increase over time in order for the individual to continue adapting.
Adaptations can be kept for very longs periods without further stress events, but not indefinitely.
Recovery seems to be fairly constant (disregarding age) and not particularly trainable.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

I need more volume, I think.

[AndrewLewis]

Rate of performance as a function of learning does decrease. Details provide less incremental benefit than overarching concepts.

[wiigelec]

But I think it'd be a fair statement that it'd be hard on the brain to do 100 math problems one day, then 100 the next day, then 100 the following day.

I read pretty much constantly whether it be researching various topics on the internet, reading textbooks I have on hand, or reading fiction and I have never felt "overtrained." Not sure if reconfiguring neural pathways in the brain is as resource intensive as reconfiguring the relatively much larger physical structures of the musculoskeletal system.

But then again maybe its just me because I can't squat heavy weights for shit...

[Eric Schexnayder]

How many of the pieces of the SRA cycle apply to learning, and how closely are they analogous to the physical version?

The biggest mystery - and probably the furthest deviation from the physical analogy - is the "stress" that is applied. We know that neuroplasticity is a thing; the brain can rearrange itself, forming new neural connections, increasing the "strength" of existing synapses, and proportions of grey matter can change. I do not imagine the brain does this just for the hell of it, and there is likely a stimulus that causes this reconfiguration. The question then is, "what is this stimulus?" Likely it is either perception/sensation or cognition, or maybe a combination of the two. Does the brain's response differ depending on which it is?

And is this stimulus similar to a stress as defined in Selye's original theory, i.e., a does it involve a disruption of cellular homeostasis leading to a systemic response? One would imagine that if that were the case, the cellular disruption in question would be the metabolic well-being of neurons. I'd imagine it takes energy to "strengthen" a synaptic connection, as this would have to mean that ion transport across neuron cell membranes improves to either increase intracellular voltage/potential or to maintain or increase electrical current flow between two cells. Are new ion transporters created to facilitate such a mechanism? Or does the cell just become more metabolically efficient at moving ions?

Does recovery play a factor? Mom knows that bananas make you smart, because bananas have potassium. Electrolyte imbalances are thought to cause delirium, and we've all been sleep-deprived at some point in life and know how that affects awareness the following day. I recall a college professor talking about studies that show that cramming and pulling an all-nighter is basically the same as taking a test drunk (study compared test results of students who studied the same material, slept, and consumed alcohol until taking the test to those who did not sleep and took the test first thing in the morning). Obviously having the right amount of sleep and food plays an impact in cognitive function. The question is does the amount of each of these need to increase to facilitate "stressful" learning processes?

I wonder if an entire course of material could be "periodized" over a semester, having the student learn small quantities of information piecemeal and repeatedly testing their knowledge throughout the course (daily pop quizzes on the previous classes' subject matter). Increasing the "volume" of material to be tested over (number of reading comprehension style questions), and then occasionally testing with "Intensity" using more critical thinking style questions (versus, say, multiple choice / true-false) may be a method to vary the stress applied.

Ultimately there'd have to be studies that show that after a period of "stress", there'd be some breakdown in cognitive function and that would have to be quantified. From my experience I can only read so much before the task and information cause me to lose interest and focus. Maybe this periodization would improve attention span and reading comprehension?

All just thoughts, most of which are probably bullshit.

[dbm77]

Interesting observation.

I always found in college there was no substitute for attending all the classes. No matter what amount of extracirricular activities occurred in life, my grades were most closely correlated to the percentage of classes attended.

Exam studying consisted of mainly reviews of an hour or so. I think the brain, just like many things wants interesting, useful, and easily digestable tidbits that add up to make you an unstoppable force of logic and applied science.

B.S. CE 4 yrs