Skill: quochungto/bookforge-desirable-difficulty-classifier (version 1.0.0)

--- name: desirable-difficulty-classifier description: Classify any learning activity, practice structure, or instructional design element as a desirable difficulty (strengthens encoding) or undesirable difficulty (creates friction without learning benefit). Use this skill when an instructional designer, trainer, teacher, or learner wants to audit a course design, training session, study method, or practice regimen for evidence-based difficulty management — even if they don't use the phrase "desirable difficulty." Applies to onboarding programs, corporate training, academic course design, self-study plans, coaching sessions, and skill development programs. Identifies which of six proven difficulty strategies are present or absent (spacing, interleaving, variation, retrieval, generation, elaboration) and generates specific redesign recommendations. Do NOT use this skill to build a full study schedule (use retrieval-practice-study-system), to assess learner readiness or aptitude, or to evaluate content quality unrelated to difficulty structure. version: 1.0.0 homepage: https://github.com/bookforge-ai/bookforge-skills/tree/main/books/make-it-stick/skills/desirable-difficulty-classifier metadata: {"openclaw":{"emoji":"📚","homepage":"https://github.com/bookforge-ai/bookforge-skills"}} status: draft source-books: - id: make-it-stick title: "Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning" authors: ["Peter C. Brown", "Henry L. Roediger III", "Mark A. McDaniel"] chapters: [4, 6, 8] tags: ["learning-science", "cognitive-psychology", "evidence-based-learning", "instructional-design", "learning-difficulty"] depends-on: [] execution: tier: 1 mode: hybrid inputs: - type: description description: "Description of a learning activity, course structure, training program, or study method" tools-required: [] tools-optional: [Read] mcps-required: [] environment: "Any agent environment. No file access required unless the user provides a course document." discovery: goal: "Classify every difficulty element in a learning design as desirable or undesirable, map present and absent strategies from the six-strategy taxonomy, and produce a prioritized set of redesign recommendations." tasks: - "Gather description of the learning activity and learner context" - "Screen each difficulty element against Bjork's two-part classification test" - "Map each desirable difficulty to one or more of the six named strategies" - "Identify which of the six strategies are absent and represent improvement opportunities" - "Generate a difficulty analysis report with bilateral contrast and recommendations" audience: ["instructional designers", "teachers", "trainers", "corporate L&D teams", "coaches", "self-directed learners"] triggers: - "Is this training design effective?" - "Why isn't the learning sticking?" - "Review this course for evidence-based difficulty" - "Are we making it too easy or too hard?" - "Help me redesign this practice session" - "Audit this onboarding program" - "Is this study method actually working?" not_for: - "Building a complete study schedule (use retrieval-practice-study-system)" - "Assessing whether a learner has a learning disability or cognitive limitation" - "Evaluating content accuracy or subject-matter quality" environment: "Can operate on a verbal description, syllabus document, training outline, or practice schedule" quality: completeness_score: accuracy_score: value_delta_score: --- # Desirable Difficulty Classifier ## When to Use You are reviewing or designing a learning experience and want to know whether the difficulty it creates strengthens or weakens learning. Typical situations: - An instructional designer completed a course outline and wants an evidence-based difficulty audit before launch - A trainer notices participants are not retaining material and suspects the difficulty structure is wrong - A learner is working through a study method (e.g., rereading, re-watching lectures) and wants to know why nothing is sticking - A corporate L&D team is redesigning onboarding and wants to know which difficulties to add or remove - A coach wants to evaluate a practice regimen for an athlete, musician, or professional Before starting, verify: - Is a description of the learning activity available? (Enough to understand what the learner does during practice or study) - What is the learner's background and the intended skill being developed? **Mode: Hybrid** — The agent runs the classification analysis and generates the report. The human decides which recommendations to implement. ## Context and Input Gathering ### Required Context (must have — ask if missing) - **Learning activity description:** What does the learner actually do during practice or study? → Check for: course syllabi, training outlines, practice schedules, session descriptions, study method descriptions → If missing, ask: "Describe the learning activity — what does the learner do, in what order, and for how long?" - **Target skill or knowledge:** What must the learner be able to do after learning? → Check for: learning objectives, job competency requirements, exam descriptions → If missing, ask: "What should the learner be able to do after this training? What does success look like?" - **Learner background:** Prior knowledge and skill level of the learner → Check for: prerequisite statements, audience profile, experience level → If missing, assume intermediate (some prior exposure to the domain, not expert) ### Observable Context (gather without asking) - **Practice structure signals:** Any mention of blocked practice, random ordering, massed sessions, or spaced reviews - **Assessment signals:** Whether the design includes tests, quizzes, or performance checks - **Feedback signals:** Whether corrective feedback is provided and when ### Default Assumptions - If no prior knowledge is specified → assume intermediate learner - If no timeline is specified → assume multi-week program (not single-session) - If the description mentions "lecture + notes" with no practice → flag as massed-passive baseline ### Sufficiency Threshold ``` SUFFICIENT when ALL of these are true: ✓ Learning activity is described clearly enough to identify practice structure ✓ Target skill or knowledge is known ✓ Learner background is known or acceptably assumed BLOCK if: the description is so vague (e.g., "we do training") that no structural elements can be identified ``` ## Process ### Step 1 — Map the Learning Activity Structure Read the description and identify all structural elements of the learning design. Extract: - **Practice format:** How content is delivered (lecture, demonstration, reading, video, simulation) - **Practice timing:** How sessions are spaced or compressed (single block, daily, weekly, on-demand) - **Practice order:** Whether topics are blocked (one type at a time) or mixed (interleaved) - **Practice variation:** Whether the same scenario is repeated identically or varied - **Assessment method:** Whether learners are tested, self-quizzed, or never formally assessed - **Learner generation:** Whether learners are asked to produce answers, solve problems, or only receive information - **Elaboration prompts:** Whether learners are asked to connect new knowledge to prior knowledge or to explain in their own words **WHY:** Classification requires knowing the actual structure of what the learner does, not just the topic. A lecture on retrieval practice can be a passive event (low desirable difficulty) or an active one (high desirable difficulty) depending on whether learners are quizzed, asked to generate examples, or simply read slides. The same content can be either desirable or undesirable depending on the surrounding practice structure. Output: A structured list of 5-10 design elements extracted from the description. --- ### Step 2 — Apply Bjork's Two-Part Classification Test For each difficulty element identified in Step 1, apply both tests: **Test A — Does the effort strengthen encoding?** Ask: Does this difficulty require the learner to actively reconstruct knowledge from long-term memory, generate a response, or make discriminations? If yes → potentially desirable. If the effort is purely about overcoming an obstacle unrelated to the skill being learned → undesirable. **Test B — Can the learner overcome this difficulty?** Ask: Does the learner have the prerequisite background knowledge and skills to respond to this difficulty successfully? If yes → desirable. If the difficulty exceeds the learner's current capacity to respond → undesirable. **The critical distinction:** A difficulty is desirable when it triggers encoding and retrieval processes. It becomes undesirable when the learner cannot overcome it, when it does not strengthen the specific target skill, or when it creates anxiety that consumes working memory capacity instead of directing it toward learning. **Undesirable difficulty markers — flag these for removal or redesign:** - Difficulty caused by missing prerequisite knowledge (learner cannot engage because the gap is too large) - Difficulty caused by poor presentation quality (confusing language, broken technology, inaccessible format) that is unrelated to the target skill - Difficulty that induces test anxiety sufficient to disrupt performance (working memory consumed by self-monitoring) - Difficulty that matches learning style preference but has no empirical support (e.g., requiring visual-only delivery for self-identified "visual learners") - Difficulty that requires overcoming a physical or cognitive limitation unrelated to the skill (e.g., requiring dyslexic learners to decode complex text when the target skill is mathematical reasoning) **WHY:** The Bjork framework distinguishes between difficulties that slow apparent progress while strengthening durable learning (desirable) and difficulties that simply impede without cognitive benefit (undesirable). The test of "does the effort succeed?" is the pivotal discriminator: unsuccessful effort in the face of an insurmountable obstacle does not produce learning. Both conditions must hold for a difficulty to qualify as desirable. Output: A classification table: each difficulty element labeled DESIRABLE, UNDESIRABLE, or AMBIGUOUS with the specific test that determined the classification. --- ### Step 3 — Map to the Six-Strategy Taxonomy For each difficulty classified as desirable in Step 2, identify which of the six named strategies it represents. For each strategy, note whether it is PRESENT, ABSENT, or PARTIAL in the current design. See `references/six-strategy-taxonomy.md` for the full bilateral contrast table. Summary: | Strategy | Core mechanism | Counterpart (ineffective) | |----------|---------------|--------------------------| | **Spacing** | Practice sessions separated by time, forcing reconstruction from long-term memory | Massed practice (cramming): draws on short-term memory, rapid improvement, rapid forgetting | | **Interleaving** | Different topics or problem types mixed within a session, requiring discrimination | Blocked practice: one type at a time, feels productive, produces narrow skill that fails to transfer | | **Variation** | Problems, scenarios, and contexts varied across practice sessions | Identical repetition: builds narrow pattern-matching, fails in novel contexts | | **Retrieval practice** | Learner produces answers from memory before checking (testing effect) | Rereading / re-watching: creates familiarity illusion, not actual retrievability | | **Generation** | Learner must produce a response, attempt a solution, or formulate an explanation before being given the answer | Passive reception: information presented without learner output requirement | | **Elaboration** | Learner connects new knowledge to prior knowledge, gives examples, or explains why it is true | Isolated encoding: material presented in isolation without connection to existing knowledge structures | **Presence scoring:** - PRESENT: The design explicitly includes this strategy (e.g., quizzes before feedback = retrieval; randomized problem order = interleaving) - PARTIAL: Some elements exist but inconsistently (e.g., end-of-module quiz but no spacing across sessions) - ABSENT: No elements of this strategy appear in the design **WHY:** Naming which strategy is present or absent converts a subjective critique ("this training seems passive") into a specific, actionable gap. Each absent strategy represents a concrete redesign opportunity. Partial presence is often more actionable than complete absence — it means the design already has the right structural idea but applies it narrowly. Output: A 6-row strategy presence table. --- ### Step 4 — Identify Redesign Priorities Rank the gaps from Step 3 by expected learning impact. Prioritize: 1. **Absent retrieval practice** — highest single-strategy impact on long-term retention. If learners never produce answers from memory, all other strategies are less effective. 2. **Absent spacing** — without time between sessions, retrieval cannot draw from long-term memory, undermining the mechanisms of all other strategies. 3. **Absent generation** — learners who only receive information without producing responses show weak transfer. 4. **Blocked practice / absent interleaving** — blocking creates narrow skill that fails to transfer to real-world variation. 5. **Absent variation** — produces rigid pattern-matching, especially problematic for professional and applied skills. 6. **Absent elaboration** — reduces integration with prior knowledge; new learning remains isolated and less retrievable. For each priority gap, generate a specific redesign suggestion that fits the existing design format. Do not recommend radical structural changes when a small addition achieves the goal. **Redesign suggestion format:** > **Gap:** [Strategy absent or partial] > **Current design element:** [What currently exists] > **Redesign:** [Specific change to add the strategy] > **Effort:** [Low / Medium / High — how much design work is required] > **Expected impact:** [What improves and why] **WHY:** Prioritization prevents the instructional designer from feeling overwhelmed. The redesign suggestions are ordered so that the highest-impact changes are addressed first. Adding retrieval practice to a passive lecture (e.g., three quiz questions at the end of each session) is a low-effort change with disproportionately high impact. The effort estimate helps designers triage. Output: 3-6 prioritized redesign recommendations. --- ### Step 5 — Produce the Difficulty Analysis Report Compile the outputs of Steps 1-4 into a structured report: **Report sections:** 1. **Learning activity summary** — 2-3 sentence description of what was analyzed 2. **Classification table** — all difficulty elements with DESIRABLE / UNDESIRABLE / AMBIGUOUS labels 3. **Strategy presence table** — all six strategies with PRESENT / PARTIAL / ABSENT status 4. **Undesirable difficulty list** — specific elements to remove or redesign 5. **Prioritized recommendations** — 3-6 redesign suggestions in ranked order 6. **Screening questions for ongoing design** — 6 questions the designer can ask about any future learning element (see Step 6) **WHY:** A structured report makes the analysis actionable and shareable. The classification table gives evidence for each finding. The strategy presence table shows the overall difficulty profile at a glance. The screening questions equip the designer to self-assess future designs without re-running the full analysis. --- ### Step 6 — Provide Screening Questions for Ongoing Design Deliver these six questions to the instructional designer for use in future design reviews. They are derived from Bjork's classification framework and the six-strategy taxonomy: 1. **Does the learner produce a response from memory before receiving feedback?** (Tests retrieval practice — if no, add low-stakes quizzing or recall prompts) 2. **Is practice distributed across multiple sessions with gaps of at least one day?** (Tests spacing — if no, redesign the schedule to prevent massed practice) 3. **Are different topics or problem types mixed within sessions rather than blocked?** (Tests interleaving — if no, randomize problem order or alternate topic blocks) 4. **Does the learner encounter varied scenarios, examples, or problem formats across sessions?** (Tests variation — if no, diversify the practice set) 5. **Are learners asked to attempt a solution or generate an answer before the solution is revealed?** (Tests generation — if no, add pre-solution attempts, even for material not yet taught) 6. **Does the design ask learners to connect new material to what they already know or to explain it in their own words?** (Tests elaboration — if no, add reflection prompts or explanation exercises) **Bonus undesirable difficulty screening question:** 7. **Does this difficulty require prerequisites the learner does not yet have?** (If yes → it is undesirable; address the prerequisite gap first) **WHY:** Providing screening questions converts the classification framework into a self-service tool. A designer who has the questions does not need to re-engage the skill for every design decision — they can self-audit in minutes. The questions are written to produce a binary yes/no answer because ambiguous criteria are not used in practice. --- ## Inputs | Input | Required | Description | |-------|----------|-------------| | Learning activity description | Yes | What the learner does during practice or study | | Target skill or knowledge | Yes | What success looks like after learning | | Learner background | No (defaults to intermediate) | Prior knowledge and experience level | | Course document or syllabus | No | File containing the full design structure | ## Outputs | Output | Format | Description | |--------|--------|-------------| | Classification table | Inline markdown | All difficulty elements labeled DESIRABLE / UNDESIRABLE / AMBIGUOUS | | Strategy presence table | Inline markdown | Six strategies with PRESENT / PARTIAL / ABSENT status | | Redesign recommendations | Inline markdown | 3-6 prioritized, specific recommendations | | Screening questions | Inline markdown | 7 questions for ongoing design self-audit | --- ## Key Principles **1. Difficulty is not inherently good or bad — mechanism determines value** The same activity can be a desirable or undesirable difficulty depending on whether it strengthens encoding and whether the learner can overcome it. A hard test given before the learner has any relevant knowledge is an undesirable obstacle. The same test given after initial instruction is a desirable retrieval event. The mechanism — not the felt difficulty — is what matters. **2. Fluency is the enemy of durability** Learning that feels easy, smooth, and productive is often the least durable. Rereading produces fluency (the text feels familiar) without retrievability (the learner cannot recall it without the text in hand). Massed practice produces performance gains (rapid improvement in the session) without long-term retention. Instructional designs that prioritize participant comfort consistently produce poor retention outcomes. **3. The effort that succeeds is the effort that teaches** Effortful retrieval that results in correct recall (with or without struggle) strengthens the memory trace. Effortful retrieval that fails because the difficulty is unsurmountable does not. The key is to calibrate difficulty to the learner's current level: enough to require reconstruction from long-term memory, not so much that the reconstruction fails entirely. **4. All six strategies are additive** The six desirable difficulty strategies are not mutually exclusive — they stack. A practice session that includes retrieval (quizzing from memory), spacing (scheduled one week after initial learning), interleaving (mixing problem types), and elaboration (explaining answers in own words) is dramatically more effective than any single strategy alone. Instructional designs should aim to incorporate multiple strategies rather than optimizing for one. **5. Structure building requires difficulty** Learners who are given information passively develop superficial familiarity. Learners who are required to generate, retrieve, and elaborate develop mental models — connected knowledge structures that enable transfer to new problems. The difficulty of constructing meaning cannot be shortcut; it is the mechanism of learning. --- ## Examples ### Example 1 — Corporate Onboarding Audit **Input:** A new-employee onboarding program: Day 1 is a full-day lecture with slides covering company history, culture, and processes. Employees are given a manual to read. No assessment. Employees shadow a senior colleague for Day 2 and Day 3. Week 2 is independent work. **Classification results:** - Full-day lecture: UNDESIRABLE — passive reception with no retrieval requirement; massed (one day), no spacing - Read-only manual: UNDESIRABLE — rereading analog; creates familiarity, not retrievability - Shadowing: PARTIAL — observational, not generative; no retrieval or elaboration required - Independent work (Week 2): DESIRABLE — real-world variation; generation required; implicit spacing from Day 1 **Strategy presence:** - Retrieval practice: ABSENT - Spacing: ABSENT (Day 1 lecture never revisited before independent work) - Interleaving: ABSENT - Variation: PARTIAL (Week 2 provides it) - Generation: PARTIAL (Week 2 only) - Elaboration: ABSENT **Top recommendation:** Add three retrieval prompts at the end of Day 1: "Without looking at your notes, write down the three things from today that you'll need to do in your first solo task." Low effort, high impact. --- ### Example 2 — Medical Training Workshop **Input:** A one-day continuing education workshop for physicians: Morning session is two hours of case presentations (attending presents, residents watch). Afternoon is small-group discussion of cases. Participants complete a satisfaction survey at the end. **Classification results:** - Case presentations (passive): UNDESIRABLE — observation only; no retrieval, no generation - Small-group discussion: DESIRABLE — elaboration present (connecting to prior cases); generation partial (if participants must propose diagnoses before attending reveals it) - Satisfaction survey: UNDESIRABLE difficulty marker (not a learning assessment) **Strategy presence:** - Retrieval practice: ABSENT - Spacing: ABSENT (single-day event, no follow-up) - Interleaving: PARTIAL (cases are varied topics) - Variation: PRESENT (diverse cases) - Generation: PARTIAL (discussion may require it, but not consistently) - Elaboration: PARTIAL (discussion context encourages it) **Top recommendation:** Restructure case presentations as retrieval events: present the case with findings, pause, ask participants to write their diagnosis before the attending reveals it. Same content, same time — but changes passive observation to active retrieval. --- ### Example 3 — Self-Study Method Audit **Input:** A software developer studying for a certification exam: studies by watching tutorial videos twice through, then reads the official guide once. Exam is in four weeks. **Classification results:** - Re-watching videos: UNDESIRABLE — rereading analog; repeated exposure creates familiarity, not retrieval strength - Reading official guide: UNDESIRABLE alone — passive encoding with no retrieval requirement **Strategy presence:** - Retrieval practice: ABSENT - Spacing: ABSENT (all material consumed in a compressed initial period) - Interleaving: ABSENT (one topic fully before moving to next) - Variation: ABSENT (single source format) - Generation: ABSENT - Elaboration: ABSENT **Assessment:** This method has zero desirable difficulty strategies. High effort with low expected retention. The learner will feel prepared (familiarity illusion) and underperform on the exam. **Top recommendation:** Replace re-watching with self-quizzing. After watching each video once, close it and write down the five most important concepts from memory. Check against the video. Repeat for missed items only. This single change introduces retrieval practice, generation, and implicit spacing — three strategies at once. --- ## References - `references/six-strategy-taxonomy.md` — Full bilateral contrast table for all six strategies with definitions, mechanisms, evidence summary, and counterpart descriptions - `references/bjork-classification-criteria.md` — Detailed source notes on the Bjork framework for desirable vs. undesirable difficulty, with direct chapter citations ## License This skill is licensed under [CC-BY-SA-4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Source: [BookForge](https://github.com/bookforge-ai/bookforge-skills) — Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning by Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roediger III, Mark A. McDaniel. ## Related BookForge Skills This skill is standalone. Browse more BookForge skills: [bookforge-skills](https://github.com/bookforge-ai/bookforge-skills)

path: references/bjork-classification-criteria.md
content: # Bjork Classification Criteria — Desirable vs. Undesirable Difficulty

Source: *Make It Stick* (Brown, Roediger, McDaniel), Chapter 4: "Embrace Difficulties," Chapter 6: "Get Beyond Learning Styles."
Original framework: Elizabeth Bjork and Robert Bjork.

---

## The Core Definition

Desirable difficulties are conditions that "trigger encoding and retrieval processes that support learning, comprehension, and remembering. If, however, the learner does not have the background knowledge or skills to respond to them successfully, they become undesirable difficulties."

*— Elizabeth and Robert Bjork, quoted in Make It Stick, Ch. 4*

This definition contains both conditions:
1. The difficulty must trigger encoding or retrieval processes (mechanism test)
2. The learner must have the background to respond successfully (capacity test)

Both conditions must hold for a difficulty to be classified as desirable.

---

## The Two-Part Classification Test

### Test A: Mechanism Test — Does the effort strengthen encoding?

A difficulty is potentially desirable if it requires the learner to:
- Actively reconstruct knowledge from long-term memory (rather than reading it from a source)
- Generate a response, solution, or explanation
- Discriminate between similar cases or problem types
- Connect new material to prior knowledge
- Slow down and engage in deeper processing than passive reception would require

A difficulty is undesirable on mechanism grounds if it requires effort that:
- Is purely procedural (navigating a poorly designed interface, decoding unclear instructions)
- Is unrelated to the target skill (e.g., the difficulty is in the language of the material when the skill being learned is mathematical)
- Induces anxiety that occupies working memory without directing it toward learning

### Test B: Capacity Test — Can the learner overcome this difficulty?

A difficulty is potentially desirable if:
- The learner has sufficient prerequisite knowledge to engage with the challenge
- Increased effort can produce a successful response
- The difficulty can be overcome within the session or with reasonable persistence

A difficulty is undesirable on capacity grounds if:
- The learner lacks the prerequisite knowledge or skills to respond successfully
- The gap between the learner's current level and the difficulty level is too large for effort to bridge
- The difficulty induces a failure state rather than a productive struggle

---

## Named Undesirable Difficulties from the Source

The following are explicitly named as undesirable in the text:

### 1. Anxiety During Testing
"These studies point out that not all difficulties in learning are desirable ones. Anxiety while taking a test seems to represent an undesirable difficulty." (Ch. 4)

Mechanism: Anxiety consumes working memory capacity through performance self-monitoring ("How am I doing? Am I making mistakes?"), leaving less capacity available for the cognitive work the test requires. The difficulty is internal and competes with learning rather than directing it.

### 2. Prerequisite Gaps
"Difficulties are desirable because they trigger encoding and retrieval processes that support learning. If, however, the learner does not have the background knowledge or skills to respond to them successfully, they become undesirable difficulties." (Ch. 4)

Mechanism: A learner who cannot construct a bridge from current knowledge to the new material experiences the difficulty as an obstacle, not as a learning event. No encoding or retrieval process is triggered because there is no relevant prior knowledge to activate.

Example from the text: "Outlining a lesson in a sequence different from the one in the textbook is not a desirable difficulty for learners who lack the reading skills or language fluency required to hold a train of thought long enough to reconcile the discrepancy. If your textbook is written in Lithuanian and you don't know the language, this hardly represents a desirable difficulty."

### 3. Mismatched Learning Style Requirements
"While some kinds of difficulties that require increased cognitive effort can strengthen learning, not all difficulties we face have that effect. If the additional effort required to overcome the deficit does not contribute to more robust learning, it's not desirable." (Ch. 6)

This applies to the widely believed but empirically unsupported learning styles framework. Requiring a learner to receive instruction in a non-preferred modality (e.g., visual-only for a self-identified auditory learner) is not an undesirable difficulty because the evidence does not support the premise that modality matching matters for learning outcomes. However, presenting content in a format that genuinely exceeds the learner's decoding capacity (e.g., complex text for a learner with severe dyslexia when the target skill is unrelated to reading) is an undesirable difficulty.

### 4. Dyslexia and Reading Difficulties
"An example is the poor reader who cannot hold onto the thread of a text while deciphering individual words in a sentence. This is the case with dyslexia... the difficulty is a genuine impediment rather than a productive challenge." (Ch. 6)

Mechanism: When decoding consumes working memory capacity, no capacity remains for comprehension and conceptual processing. The difficulty does not strengthen the target learning; it prevents it.

---

## The Overarching Rule (Provisional)

From the text: "Is there an overarching rule that determines the kinds of impediments that make learning stronger? Time and further research may yield an answer."

The authors offer this provisional principle: "Intuitively it makes sense that difficulties that don't strengthen the skills you will need, or the kinds of challenges you are likely to encounter in the real-world application of your learning, are not desirable."

This points to a third test, beyond mechanism and capacity:

### Test C (Provisional): Relevance Test — Does the difficulty exercise the actual target skill?

A difficulty may be desirable mechanically (it requires effortful cognitive work) and within capacity (the learner can respond to it), but if it exercises a skill that is not the target of the learning, it adds work without benefit.

Examples from the text:
- "Having somebody whisper in your ear while you read the news may be essential training for a TV anchor. Being heckled by role-playing protestors while honing your campaign speech may help train up a politician. But neither of these difficulties is likely to be helpful for Rotary Club presidents or aspiring YouTube bloggers who want to improve their stage presence."
- A baseball player might practice with a weighted bat to strengthen swing mechanics, but teaching football players golf technique during balance training is not a desirable difficulty for football performance.

---

## Classification Summary

| Test | Question | Fail → Classification |
|------|----------|----------------------|
| Mechanism | Does the effort strengthen encoding or retrieval? | No → Undesirable |
| Capacity | Can the learner overcome this difficulty? | No → Undesirable |
| Relevance (provisional) | Does the difficulty exercise the target skill? | No → Likely undesirable |

A difficulty must pass all three tests to be classified as desirable.

---

## Practical Screening Heuristics

Derived from the source framework for rapid classification:

**LIKELY DESIRABLE if:**
- The learner must produce an answer without access to the source
- The learner encounters the material after a delay (not immediately after encoding)
- The learner must choose among problem types without contextual cues about which applies
- The learner must connect the material to something else they know
- The difficulty requires the learner to do something they find frustrating but not impossible

**LIKELY UNDESIRABLE if:**
- The learner has not been taught the prerequisite material
- The learner's anxiety about performance is consuming their attention
- The difficulty is in the delivery format, not in the cognitive task
- The learner is being required to overcome a limitation (reading disability, language gap) that is not the target of the training
- The difficulty makes performance feel hard without requiring any deeper cognitive engagement with the material


path: references/six-strategy-taxonomy.md
content: # Six Desirable Difficulty Strategies — Bilateral Contrast Table

Source: *Make It Stick* (Brown, Roediger, McDaniel), Chapters 4 and 8.
Bjork classification framework: Elizabeth and Robert Bjork, coined "desirable difficulties."

---

## Overview

A desirable difficulty is a learning condition that slows apparent short-term progress while producing stronger, more durable, and more transferable long-term learning. The term was coined by psychologists Elizabeth and Robert Bjork, who defined desirable difficulties as conditions that "trigger encoding and retrieval processes that support learning, comprehension, and remembering."

The six named strategies below are supported by empirical research across laboratory and applied settings. Each has a bilateral contrast — a counterpart practice that feels more productive but produces weaker long-term outcomes.

---

## Strategy 1: Spacing

**Definition:** Distributing practice sessions across time, with gaps between sessions long enough that the learner must reconstruct the material from long-term memory rather than working memory.

**Mechanism:** When a memory has partially faded and is retrieved again, the act of reconstruction strengthens the memory trace and its retrieval routes more than immediate re-exposure does. Spaced practice triggers reconsolidation — the memory is made pliable, updated, and re-stored with stronger encoding.

**What it feels like:** Slower, frustrating. Progress within each session appears less impressive than massed practice. The learner may feel they have forgotten what they previously knew and interpret this as failure.

**Evidence:** Research consistently shows 50% faster forgetting after massed practice compared to spaced practice over a one-week period. Spaced retrieval practice can "immunize" learning against forgetting — three spaced sessions dramatically outperform three massed sessions.

**Application signals (present):** Multi-session programs with days between sessions; follow-up quizzes weeks after initial instruction; review sessions built into later modules.

---

**Counterpart: Massed Practice (Cramming)**

**Definition:** Concentrating all practice into a single block or short period, typically just before a test or performance event.

**Why it feels better:** Within the session, performance improves rapidly. The learner experiences clear, satisfying progress. Short-term recall is high immediately after massing. This produces a fluency illusion — the learner believes they have learned the material because they can recall it right now.

**Why it fails:** Massed practice draws on short-term memory, not long-term memory. The brain is looping the information through working memory without consolidating it into long-term storage. Within 24-48 hours, 50-70% of massed learning is lost. The improvement seen in massed sessions is not an indicator of durable learning.

**Detection in course designs:** Single-day intensives; "read the chapter and take the quiz immediately"; bootcamps with no follow-up; one-time lecture series with no spaced review.

---

## Strategy 2: Interleaving

**Definition:** Mixing different topics, problem types, or skills within a practice session, rather than completing all practice on one type before moving to the next.

**Mechanism:** Interleaving forces the learner to identify which type of problem is being presented and select the correct approach before executing — this discrimination process builds a richer and more conditional representation of the skill. The learner cannot rely on context (the last ten problems were all curveballs) to make the response automatic; they must actively identify and retrieve the appropriate response.

**What it feels like:** Clunky, inefficient. The learner never develops a rhythm with any single problem type. Progress within each type seems slow. Learners and instructors often prefer blocked practice because it produces faster visible improvement.

**Evidence:** In a Cal Poly baseball study, batters who practiced with randomly interleaved pitch types (fastball, curveball, changeup) outperformed those who practiced the same pitches in blocked sets of 15 — despite the blocked group showing better within-session performance. Similarly, interleaved study of bird species or artist styles produced superior discrimination on tests, even though learners preferred blocked study.

**Application signals (present):** Random problem ordering in practice sets; mixed-topic quiz banks; training sessions that alternate between skills rather than completing one before starting the next.

---

**Counterpart: Blocked Practice**

**Definition:** Practicing one topic, skill, or problem type in full before moving to the next (e.g., 15 fastballs, then 15 curveballs, then 15 changeups).

**Why it feels better:** Within each block, the learner gets progressively better. The improvement is visible and motivating. The instructor can easily see that learners are mastering the content within each block. Practice feels organized and efficient.

**Why it fails:** Blocked practice builds a narrow skill that works when context signals which response is needed but fails when the context is ambiguous. In real-world application, the learner rarely has the luxury of knowing which type of problem they're about to face. Blocked practice builds conditional competence (can hit a curveball when I know it's a curveball coming) rather than unconditional competence (can hit a curveball when I don't know what pitch is coming).

**Detection in course designs:** Topic-by-topic course structures where each module is completed before the next begins with no revisitation; practice sets organized by problem type; training programs that fully complete one module before introducing any content from another.

---

## Strategy 3: Variation

**Definition:** Presenting the same underlying skill or concept through varied examples, scenarios, formats, and contexts across practice sessions.

**Mechanism:** Variation forces the learner to abstract the underlying principle that applies across different surface presentations. This produces more robust mental models that can be applied in novel situations. Without variation, the learner learns a narrow pattern-match (this specific type of question, in this specific format) rather than the underlying principle that determines the correct approach.

**What it feels like:** Less focused. The learner may feel they never get to truly "master" any single format because the format keeps changing. Instructors may feel the curriculum lacks consistency.

**Evidence:** Students who practiced tossing beanbags at baskets of varied sizes (two-foot and four-foot) later outperformed students who only practiced at the target size (three-foot) when tested at the target size. Varied exposure builds a flexible skill that performs better in the actual target context than practice at exactly the target.

**Application signals (present):** Different case examples for the same concept; multiple problem formats testing the same principle; cross-domain application of a technique; examples drawn from varied industries or contexts.

---

**Counterpart: Identical Repetition**

**Definition:** Practicing the same skill in the same format, context, and difficulty level in every practice session.

**Why it feels better:** Improvement is fast and clear. The learner develops strong performance on the practiced format. Drill-based identical repetition creates smooth, automatic execution.

**Why it fails:** Identical repetition builds pattern-matching to the specific stimulus, not the underlying skill. When the context changes (a different type of exam question, a different client situation, a novel presentation format), the learner's performance degrades because the narrow pattern they practiced does not match the new surface form. Expert performers who use varied practice transfer their skills more readily to novel contexts than those who use identical repetition.

**Detection in course designs:** Practice exercises that use the same template for every session; standardized case studies that are always the same industry; drills that never change the scenario or problem format.

---

## Strategy 4: Retrieval Practice

**Definition:** Requiring the learner to produce an answer or recall information from memory before checking it against the source — the testing effect.

**Mechanism:** The act of pulling a memory from long-term storage strengthens the memory trace and the retrieval routes more than re-exposure to the same material. Retrieval also triggers reconsolidation — the memory is updated and re-stored with new connections. Failed retrieval followed by corrective feedback is more effective than not having tried, because the gap in knowledge becomes salient and the correct answer is encoded in a context of motivated attention.

**What it feels like:** Harder and slower than rereading. Learners encounter gaps in their knowledge and experience discomfort. Early attempts at retrieval feel unproductive because answers are missing or wrong. This discomfort is frequently misread as evidence that the method is not working.

**Evidence:** A single retrieval session (no reread) outperforms three rereading sessions on one-week retention tests. Producing an answer (short-answer) outperforms selecting an answer (multiple choice) in retention. Writing a short essay produces stronger retention than either. The advantage of retrieval over rereading increases over time: immediately after study, the difference is small; after one week, it is large.

**Application signals (present):** Quizzes administered before the answer is revealed; practice problems with answers checked afterward; self-quizzing from memory before reviewing notes; flashcard systems that require producing the answer.

---

**Counterpart: Rereading / Re-Watching**

**Definition:** Revisiting source material (text, video, slides) as the primary study or review method.

**Why it feels better:** Familiarity increases with each pass. The material feels clearer and more comprehensible. The learner experiences a feeling of understanding that is indistinguishable (in the moment) from actual knowledge. Rereading is easy, comfortable, and appears to produce clear progress.

**Why it fails:** Rereading creates familiarity, not retrievability. The learner can read the text fluently and recognize correct answers but cannot recall the information in the absence of the text. This is called the fluency illusion or illusion of knowing. After rereading, learners consistently overestimate how much they will be able to recall without the source material — a bias called the Dunning-Kruger effect on a local, topic-specific scale.

**Detection in course designs:** Post-session review listed as "re-read chapter 3"; study guide says "review slides before the test"; no quizzes or practice tests in the design; assessment only occurs at end-of-course (no low-stakes practice tests before the high-stakes exam).

---

## Strategy 5: Generation

**Definition:** Requiring the learner to produce a response — attempt to solve a problem, formulate an answer, or generate an explanation — before being given the correct answer, even when the material has not yet been formally taught.

**Mechanism:** When a learner attempts to generate an answer, they activate related knowledge structures and prime the encoding pathways. When the correct answer is then provided, it is encoded in the context of the learner's active search — creating connections to the related knowledge that was fresh during the attempt. Even incorrect generation followed by corrective feedback produces better learning than passive reception of the correct answer.

**What it feels like:** Uncomfortable. Learners feel uncertain, sometimes frustrated. Being asked to attempt a problem before being taught how feels unfair or premature. Learners may resist, saying "just tell me the answer."

**Evidence:** Students who were asked to attempt a problem before seeing the solution retained the solution better than students who were shown the solution first. The same effect applies to fill-in-the-blank (stronger than multiple choice), short-answer (stronger than fill-in-the-blank), and essay (strongest). Unsuccessful generation attempts produce better learning than no attempt when corrective feedback follows.

**Application signals (present):** Pre-lesson problems before instruction; role-playing before debriefing; "attempt this before we show you how" prompts; learner-generated examples of a concept; requiring learners to formulate their own summary before seeing the instructor's summary.

---

**Counterpart: Passive Reception**

**Definition:** Presenting the correct information, procedure, or solution to the learner without requiring any prior generative attempt.

**Why it feels better:** Efficient and clear. No time wasted on wrong attempts. The learner receives accurate information immediately, avoiding the "errors-lead-to-learning-the-wrong-thing" concern that some instructors hold.

**Why it fails:** Passive reception produces weaker encoding because it does not activate prior knowledge or prime retrieval pathways. The learner's attention is not focused by the specific gap that generation reveals. Errorless learning — the philosophy that preventing errors prevents them from being learned — has been empirically disproven. Errors followed by corrective feedback are not learned; they are corrected. The attempt is what produces the benefit, not the error itself.

**Detection in course designs:** Lecture-only formats; tutorials that walk through solutions step by step before the learner attempts them; "watch how I do it" without "now you try before seeing the answer."

---

## Strategy 6: Elaboration

**Definition:** Requiring the learner to connect new material to prior knowledge, explain why something is true, give examples, or describe how it relates to other concepts they already know.

**Mechanism:** Elaboration integrates new knowledge into existing memory structures, creating more retrieval pathways to the new material and strengthening the mental model in which it is embedded. Meaning is constructed by the learner, not delivered by the instructor. The more connections a piece of knowledge has to other knowledge, the more ways it can be retrieved later.

**What it feels like:** Slower and more cognitively demanding than passive encoding. Learners must do mental work to make connections, not just receive content. Some learners resist because they feel they do not yet understand the material well enough to explain it.

**Evidence:** Students who wrote their own summaries of lecture content (restating in own words and generating examples) scored half a letter grade higher on exams than students who copied slides verbatim — using the same time, same content. Elaboration benefits persist over two months. The benefit is not from exposure to the content but from the constructive act of meaning-making.

**Application signals (present):** "Write to learn" exercises (summarize in own words); reflection prompts after each session ("how does this connect to what we covered in week 1?"); explaining a concept to a peer; generating personal examples of an abstract principle.

---

**Counterpart: Isolated Encoding**

**Definition:** Presenting new material as a self-contained unit without prompting the learner to connect it to prior knowledge or to other concepts.

**Why it feels better:** Content is clearly delineated. Learners can focus on one thing at a time. Module-by-module structure feels organized and manageable.

**Why it fails:** Without elaboration, new knowledge is encoded in isolation and has fewer retrieval pathways. It is less durable and less transferable because it is not woven into an existing knowledge structure. Transfer of learning — applying knowledge in new contexts — depends on having a rich, interconnected mental model. Isolated encoding produces factual knowledge without the conceptual scaffolding needed for application.

**Detection in course designs:** Modules that are designed to be fully independent with no reference to prior content; no reflection exercises; no "how does this relate to X?" prompts; assessment only tests recall of isolated facts without requiring connection or application.

---

## Summary Table

| Strategy | Core action | Counterpart | Failure mode of counterpart |
|----------|-------------|-------------|---------------------------|
| Spacing | Distribute practice across time with gaps | Massed practice | Short-term memory use; rapid forgetting |
| Interleaving | Mix topics and problem types | Blocked practice | Narrow skill; fails in novel context |
| Variation | Vary examples, formats, and contexts | Identical repetition | Pattern-matching; fails with surface change |
| Retrieval practice | Produce from memory before checking | Rereading / re-watching | Fluency illusion; familiarity without recall |
| Generation | Attempt before being given the answer | Passive reception | Weak encoding; no activation of prior knowledge |
| Elaboration | Connect to prior knowledge; explain why | Isolated encoding | Fragile; few retrieval pathways; poor transfer |


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)