<p>There is currently a <a href="https://math.stackexchange.com/q/459972/188">popular question on math.SE on whether it is effective to learn math top-down</a>. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>By top-down I mean finding a paper that interests you which is
  obviously way over your head, then at a snail's pace, looking up
  definitions and learning just what you need and occasionally proving
  basic results. Eventually you'll get there but is this a bad idea? Is
  learning each required math area by textbook the better way?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I thought that cognitive science might have something to contribute to this discussion.
Specifically:</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>What would cognitive science have to say about the pros and cons of learning from the ground up versus taking a difficult mathematical text and following up on the details?</strong></li>
<li><strong>What decision rules would cognitive science have for deciding whether to adopt a given a approach?</strong></li>
<li><strong>Has any empirical research explicitly dealt with this question?</strong></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-06T04:30:02.647Z
@Skippy Great. I look forward to seeing you around the site.
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-06T06:25:33.743Z
Might be related: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/221/38 (especially *your* answer ;) )
Ofri Raviv
<cognitive-psychology><learning><performance><mathematical-ability>
What does cognitive science say about whether to learn mathematics top-down from research papers?
Jeromy Anglim
# What does cognitive science say about whether to learn mathematics top-down from research papers?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-08-06)

There is currently a [popular question on math.SE on whether it is effective to learn math top-down](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/459972/188).

> By top-down I mean finding a paper that interests you which is
> obviously way over your head, then at a snail's pace, looking up
> definitions and learning just what you need and occasionally proving
> basic results. Eventually you'll get there but is this a bad idea? Is
> learning each required math area by textbook the better way?

I thought that cognitive science might have something to contribute to this discussion.
Specifically:

* **What would cognitive science have to say about the pros and cons of learning from the ground up versus taking a difficult mathematical text and following up on the details?**
* **What decision rules would cognitive science have for deciding whether to adopt a given a approach?**
* **Has any empirical research explicitly dealt with this question?**

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, learning, performance, mathematical-ability

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @Skippy Great. I look forward to seeing you around the site.  
> **username_1**: Might be related: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/221/38 (especially *your* answer ;) )  

---

## 0 answers

