"The Slate authors and Macnamara et al. dismiss the 10K hour rule too lightly, and their explanation of genetic/innate basis for expertise is too simple. Practice is not the same as deliberate practice, or practice with a teacher. Expertise is learned, and we start learning at birth with expertise developing sometimes in ways not directly connected to the later activity. The important part is that we are able to learn to overcome some genetic/innate disparities with good teaching. We shouldn’t be giving up on developing expertise because we don’t have the genes. We should be thinking about how we can teach in order to develop expertise."
- - By April H.
- The first is that practice is not the same as deliberate practice
- second is that the fallback position can’t be genetics/innate talent
- Simply putting in 10,000 hours of practice in an activity does not guarantee expertise
- They tested a weak form of the “10,000 hour rule” (that it’s just “practice,” not “deliberate practice”) and found it wanting.
- They cite two studies that show that identical twins seem to have similar music and drawing talent compared to fraternal twins.
- To start counting hours-towards-expertise anything later than birth is discounting the impact of learning in the pre-school years on up.
- Hours spent in practice with a good teacher are going to contribute more to expertise than hours spent without a teacher.
- We should be thinking about how we can teach in order to develop expertise.
E-Learning and Blended Learning
- - By Syed Amjad Ali
Posted from Diigo. The rest of Classroom 2.0 group favorite links are here.
No comments:
Post a Comment