3 ms·
Anders Ericsson's deliberate practice theory, from which the 10,000 hours idea came, has also been critiqued in other ways. See this special issue of Intellige
by edtechdev 10y ago
Anders Ericsson's deliberate practice theory, from which the 10,000 hours idea came, has also been critiqued in other ways. See this special issue of Intelligence for some articles, and below is a sort of summary: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896/45 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896/45
His work tends to focus on narrow areas of performance: chess, music, etc., where rote learning, memorization, drill, and repetition are the main keys, unlike 'messier' areas like research, engineering, teaching, and the like. But even within those narrow domains, his theory isn't sufficient to explain performance, individual differences, and expertise (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000421 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613...). There are so many exceptions to the rule (like child prodigies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001207 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613... ), so many domain differences (like he is acknowledging now in the target article). He ignores the last 30 years of research in cognitive psychology. For example, persistent misconceptions and bad habits that prevent us from learning and making significant progress in both conceptual and physical domains.
His theory ignores genetic factors that influence performance and expertise (see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613... or just watch a game of basketball), and ignores the role of IQ (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000974 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613...). The data does not support Ericsson's theory, and his arguments have errors and contradictions (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000087 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614...).