What I want to say most to start this off is, “Who came up with ten thousand hours, anyway?!” except I know where it came from and to be honest I am sick of hearing about it.
But who's counting?
Ten thousand hours has become common. Journalists have reduced it to nothing. They have beaten it to death. Even when it is not referencing Expertise, you will hear ten thousand hours being bandied about. It. Just. IS.
I hate to break it…no…I love to break it to you. Ten thousand hours means nothing.
The research that spawned this number was performed on 40 violinists and was seeking to find some common experiences and habits among some of the best of them. Those violinists who had achieved the highest levels of skill had accumulated about seven thousand hours of practice by age 18 and about ten thousand hours of practice by age 20.
These data were common among a very small group of musicians from among a small group of subjects. Data on practice time was self-reported. From this article, came our famous misinterpretation by Gladwell who took it upon himself to recognize “experts” in retrospect by attributing ten thousand hours of practice to individuals and groups.
Outliers. Silliness.
Expertise is superlative. It is rare. It is domain specific and its definitions and components do not transfer to other domains. That is to say that those things that contribute to Expertise in violin playing are not likely to contribute to Expertise in another content area.
While some may ask why it is important to make these distinctions I find it compelling. There are other conditions that are necessary for the achievement of Expertise. It is possible for anyone to become competent with enough practice, guidance, and some motivation. It is not possible to become and Expert on these things alone–even with ten thousand hours of deliberate practice.
Many will live out their existence as “experienced non-Experts,” or the more pedestrian “merely competent” despite significant dedication and many hours, weeks, and years of practice. So sorry.
As parents, teachers, and mentors we have a strong influence on children. In their pre-adolescent years, parents are the single most significant influence on the lives of their children. Beyond that, there are competing influences of teachers and friends. Once adolescence kicks in, we all lose out to peer influence. It is arguable about whether parents can retain or regain that ground but we know what we know based on research, experience, and fairly legitimate wisdom.
The legend lives on
All that being said to set the stage for how we, as adults, can shipwreck the development of Expertise.
While the development of Expert level skills must begin at interest, the identification of that interest is a genuine challenge. I have used the example of my daughter and her knack for spotting airplanes. We were looking at pictures with her and one of those was an airplane. Very soon afterwards, we were driving south of the city and she saw an airplane departing from the airport. It was low enough to be seen out of the side windows of the car in the distance. She yelled, “Airplane! There’s an airplane!” and we were delighted that she made that connection from picture to real life and that she remember the name. All very commonplace in the life of a young child, right?
Let us take a simplistic approach to make a point. What if we thought that her recognition of that airplane was based on an inner love of airplanes? What if we then decided to take a turn off the highway and watch airplanes take-off and land for a few hours that day? What if we purchased toy airplanes, constructed paper airplanes, and rented movie after movie about airplanes?
The likely outcome: Our daughter would think that we had a deep love and value of airplanes. She would probably like airplanes because we like airplanes so much. We spent all that time together doing things and talking about airplanes. She might even start initiating activities that revolved around airplanes which would have an entirely new influence.
Let us be extreme.
Fáilte Romhat!
Cut to 20 years later and she is piloting a jumbo jet across the wide Atlantic. She deplanes. She sits in Baile Átha Cliath airport eating her lunch and complaining that she does not really like flying but it is a job and pays well with decent benefits. She is, like many others, a competent pilot. Why not an Expert? She was never really interested.
Many years ago, in another life, I had the distinct pleasure of working as a musician for a dance company. We traveled west to a place called Arcosantiin the Arizona desert not far north of Phoenix close to the semi-well known ghost town of Jerome. For 10 days or so we lived, danced, hiked, and played music on the stage that was held hostage by John Cage one year earlier.
Living and building and learning
There are many remarkable facets of the archology of Arcosanti. Not the least of which is that those who lived in Arcosanti were also building Arcosanti. Those who did not build worked in the shops, made silt-cast bells in the foundry, provided food service, managed tours, and secured outside funding. They also found time to watch us create art. Improvised. Structured. Structured improvisation. Nothing. Nothing is hard. We were reminded of the saying “Dont just do something, stand there.”
Everything about being there was about engaging wholly with the location and the population. Do not get me wrong. This was not a place that, like some kind of Die-Hard/CATERPILLAR/DeWALT football team, required precision implementation and execution of plans otherwise the organization would collapse. All of those requirements were met but they were indicators of a successful ecosystem rather than an organizational structure. This is a context in which activity was meaningful, purposive, and satisfying. Living within that context and interacting and partaking for several days made an impact. I thought of staying. I wept when I returned to my position as ‘cog’ in a machine. The city I loved became ugly upon return. There was a period of mourning for what was lost in leaving. Good mourning, Philadelphia!
In thinking about educational spaces, I often reminisce about my most inspiring spaces. None of those remembrances are spaces that require my simple reaction–like the Grand Canyon–rather, those that require my engagement. Upon arrival I become a participant in the space. And this is how education should be.
Isn't that just super?
Let us create spaces that inspire action instead of verbal reaction. Invite students, teachers, and visitors to create the space that they want and that they need. Even where the curricula may seem rigid, you would be surprised how flexible it becomes when the learning environment engages you as if it were participating in the process–because it is.
Measurement is a curious thing. Everyone is talking about it. A lot of people are doing it. With all that talk and all that measurement, it causes even more people to do it. I mean, it must be important, right?
Contagious shooting.
Offsides. They jumped first. We all jumped.
Strong words. Actions. Open doors. Imply permission.
Just don't.
Buzz. Some are testing because everyone else is doing it and they do not know why they are doing it themselves. It is contagious and it is killing us.
There are a few problems that are typical of assessment culture. They differ in severity. Jim Croce used to talk about causing trouble in Chester, PA where they would cut you four kinds of bad: long, deep, wide, and often. Who would think that I would ever talk about assessment and Jim Croce in the same paragraph? I like Jim Croce. I like assessment. I do not like the abuse of assessment and data. It gives an essential part of education a bad name. Yes I said essential. When it is done well and done correctly, it is good stuff. Don’t mess around with Jim. Errr, Slim.
The effect of non-educational and non-assessment pertinent information on our students is referred to in the testing field as “unintended consequences.” We need to consider them. Seriously.
1. Long
Rather, length. Any assessment that causes the facilitation of learning to be interrupted is too often long and disruptive. It is important for the assessor to consider what is actually being tested when distributing a test with 120 items. My first assumption is that they are assessing attention and fortitude. Stubborn constitution? While it may be clear to the test creator that each of these items has a clear purpose, I pose this question–has the need for coverage been obscured by the other challenges that are presented before those questions are asked?
The length of a test is one of the first things that a student checks when it is delivered to their desk. Flip through and count the pages. See if they are multiple choice, short answer, long answer, or essay. Matching? True/False?
2. Deep
It is often that the coverage of an assessment is haphazardly accounted for by length. Oops. Depth of an assessment can be addressed with a shovel or with a scalpel. Do you investigate like an excavator or a surgeon? While there are several questions that could get to the bottom of a student’s understanding of a novel, mathematical concept, or science theory; is it possible that there is one question that could be used to demonstrate understanding of the larger constructs? The answer is usually yes and the rationale that is usually defended is depth.
When quality inquiry includes necessary skills, we begin to scratch the surface of depth. A complex skill often trumps less complex skills–not always the case but often the case. You have heard the saying, “You have to crawl before you can walk.” If your child went straight to walking without crawling, would you intervene? Neither did I. It is not a completely common phenomenon but it happens and aside from toddler locomotion, there are not really any good reasons to crawl. Either way, I would bet that you could learn it later.
3. Wide
Breadth of assessment is key. It probably means something completely different than what you think, though. The wideness of assessment does not have to include every aspect of what is being taught. Variations in the width of coverage is often a factor of interests that our students have that either narrow or widen their take on the material. That is fine.
As educators, we must widen our assessment in order to provide every opportunity for our students to demonstrate competence and understanding. If this goal is achieved by one student through a presentation and another through various and typical testing procedures, why should that prove an issue? BECAUSE in college, they will get scantron tests so they need to get used to it! That is not a reasonable answer. I do not care who says so, either.
If you want students to get better at scantron tests because that is what they will encounter, that is fine and in some contexts a reasonable goal. There is, however, no reason to restrict a student in their demonstration of competence and understanding in the process.
You will often hear about differentiated instruction but I am telling you that the need for citizens of our age is to be given the opportunity for differentiated assessment. You see, differentiated instruction is an appealing concept but its goals are achievement on typical assessment procedures–if you teach them differently, they will all be able to achieve in the same way!
No. The teaching is probably not the issue. I will put myself out there and say that you are probably a good enough teacher. It is more likely that a student is capable of demonstrating understanding in a way that is not being assessed.
If I hear “they know the material but they cannot pass the test” one more time I will scream. Twice.
4. Often
The frequency of assessment is not simply a problem of testing too often. It is also a problem of failing to assess often enough. Notice that I am referring to testing specifically and assessment in general. The “movement” to get rid of testing and assessment and measurement and grades aside, please understand that we are constantly assessing, judging, and measuring. After all that we act, stop acting, or change the methods and manner of acting to meet the assessed need. If you want to attach a letter, number, or whatever to that–fine. Do not think that by doing away with scantrons, letters, and numbers that you have put the assessment monster out of the room. It is still there. Boo.
Ecological validity is an issue that is at the forefront of research these days. Developing methods of observation and assessment that fit and make sense in the context of the learning scenario can be challenging. Is it possible to measure some aspect of learning within the context of that learning using tasks that make sense within that domain? If not, that is an issue of ecological validity. Think about the NFL combines that are used by professional teams to assess the viability of future draft picks. These sets of skills are supposed to be indicators of the athletes’ ability to do well in an NFL game. We know, though, that the only way to know if an athlete is capable of playing professional football is to have them play professional football. Ecological validity.
Slightly more than a rant.
Pt. 1 coming soon!
Yeah, Jim got his hat. Find out where it’s at. Not hustlin’ people strange to you. Even if you do have a 2-piece custom-made pool cue.
