I see your anecdote, and I raise it and the evidence hierarchy with Ericsson’s correlational research on “deliberate practice”.
I see your bizarre, not-quite-comprehensible retort, assume from your follow ups that you are contradicting the presented claim and raise you a “What the heck? Actually go read Ericsson et al. before you engage in this kind of petty condescension.”
This finding is entirely in keeping with the literature and this outcome is exactly what one would expect to observe in such a situation. Ericsson and other ‘real researchers’ have done extensive related studies on what kind of goal produces the best outcomes depending on level of expertise. The ‘quality’ goal fares consistently poorly for the beginner, across disciplines. (It is better to switch to aiming for quality once already at a reasonably high level.)
‘Deliberate practice!!!’ is an important finding, but it isn’t the only one out there. You have abused the appeal to the authority of Ericsson.
Out there in hypothesis land, I’m wondering whether beginners need something close to play—they can’t do directed practice yet because they don’t know what goals to aim for, but they do need to acquire a large quantity of tacit knowledge.
I have read a number of Ericsson’s papers, and most of the Cambridge Handbook (you may remember that it was my pirated edition that LWers used for a while); where do they say an equal number of hours of indiscriminate practice is best for beginners as compared to the equivalent effort devoted differently?
Certainly I agree that beginners benefit most from lots of time spent practicing (total time practicing was a powerful predictor in the studies), but the anecdote in OP was not about two groups of students, one who studied 1 hour a week and the other studied 1 hour a day...
I have read a number of Ericsson’s papers, and most of the Cambridge Handbook; where do they say an equal number of hours of indiscriminate practice is best for beginners as compared to the equivalent effort devoted differently?
I am not, nor have I ever advocated indiscriminate practice as a preferred form of training.
Certainly I agree that beginners benefit most from lots of time spent practicing (total time practicing was a powerful predictor in the studies), but the anecdote in OP was not about two groups of students, one who studied 1 hour a week and the other studied 1 hour a day...
This isn’t about time spent. This is about what goal the participants have while doing the activity, with all else being equal. ‘Quality’ is, empirically, a terrible goal for beginners to be given.
I am not, nor have I ever, advocated indiscriminate practice as a preferred form of training.
How does the OP’s claim that the pottery students were better off producing as much as possible by weight not constitute advocacy of indiscriminate practice?
‘Quality’ is, empirically, a terrible goal for beginners to be given.
I see your bizarre, not-quite-comprehensible retort, assume from your follow ups that you are contradicting the presented claim and raise you a “What the heck? Actually go read Ericsson et al. before you engage in this kind of petty condescension.”
This finding is entirely in keeping with the literature and this outcome is exactly what one would expect to observe in such a situation. Ericsson and other ‘real researchers’ have done extensive related studies on what kind of goal produces the best outcomes depending on level of expertise. The ‘quality’ goal fares consistently poorly for the beginner, across disciplines. (It is better to switch to aiming for quality once already at a reasonably high level.)
‘Deliberate practice!!!’ is an important finding, but it isn’t the only one out there. You have abused the appeal to the authority of Ericsson.
Out there in hypothesis land, I’m wondering whether beginners need something close to play—they can’t do directed practice yet because they don’t know what goals to aim for, but they do need to acquire a large quantity of tacit knowledge.
I have read a number of Ericsson’s papers, and most of the Cambridge Handbook (you may remember that it was my pirated edition that LWers used for a while); where do they say an equal number of hours of indiscriminate practice is best for beginners as compared to the equivalent effort devoted differently?
Certainly I agree that beginners benefit most from lots of time spent practicing (total time practicing was a powerful predictor in the studies), but the anecdote in OP was not about two groups of students, one who studied 1 hour a week and the other studied 1 hour a day...
I am not, nor have I ever advocated indiscriminate practice as a preferred form of training.
This isn’t about time spent. This is about what goal the participants have while doing the activity, with all else being equal. ‘Quality’ is, empirically, a terrible goal for beginners to be given.
How does the OP’s claim that the pottery students were better off producing as much as possible by weight not constitute advocacy of indiscriminate practice?
Are you going to provide any cites?