5 ms·

As someone who's studied this field extensively and applied it professionally, I'll go ahead and say I wouldn't recommend Accelerated Expertise to anyone. Readi

As someone who's studied this field extensively and applied it professionally, I'll go ahead and say I wouldn't recommend Accelerated Expertise to anyone. Reading it I got the distinct impression that the authors did not understand a great deal of the research they cited, either when supporting or dismissing it. Some good criticism of the book can be found here[0]. If some acronyms confuse you, the main one to know is CLT, Cognitive Load Theory. The idea roughly is that humans have a relatively fixed amount of stuff they can hold in their head and the process by which we become more expert is by making "schemas" that allow us to automate processes and group many small ideas together. When learning you want to create robust, correct schemas quickly. https://3starlearningexperiences.wordpress.com/tag/accelerated-expertise/ https://3starlearningexperiences.wordpress.com/tag/accelerat...

spekcular 5y ago
Do you have recommendations for better references on self-learning? I've read Cognitive Load Theory by Sweller et al., and while a good book, it's not very practically oriented.
- xhevahir 5y ago
  The authors of the linked article seem to think highly of Ten Steps to Complex Learning.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Hermitian909 5y ago
  Sadly I'm not familiar with books that focus on self-learning. If you're struggling to apply the knowledge from CLT it suggests that you're mostly missing skills related to curriculum design like sequencing, scoping, and scaffolding. You might consider an introductory book into curriculum design (apologies, I don't have the name of a good one at hand). You might also benefit from reading something like "How I Wish I'd Taught Maths"[0] which is a great example of someone who understands these theories attempting to transform them into actionable ideas in the classroom. Following that example might help you in managing your own learning. [0] https://www.amazon.com/How-Wish-Taught-Maths-conversations-ebook/dp/B079K3HVMJ/ref=sr_1_3?crid=33UBIR98Z1MSP&keywords=how+i+wish+i+taught+maths&qid=1639357027&sprefix=how+i+wish+i+t%2Cstripbooks%2C219&sr=8-3 https://www.amazon.com/How-Wish-Taught-Maths-conversations-e...
  - spekcular 5y ago
    Just started reading the maths book, and it looks amazing. Thanks so much for the reference.
shadowsun7 5y ago
I disagree with this assessment. (Or, more accurately, I’d like to see a more comprehensive counter argument). The article you link to is essentially a response to 2 pages in the book, where Hoffman et al mention, almost in passing, that CLT is a silly theory when you want to train for real world scenarios (the intuition is that if you’re training marine fire squad commanders to plan on the battlefield, perhaps it helps to simulate shooting at them during training?) Hoffman et al use this as an example of a learning theory that doesn’t seem to map to real world requirements. This reads like a disagreement over one particular dismissal in the book, perhaps because CLT is a pet theory of the article’s authors. The problem: this argument is not core to the book! The article does not, for instance, a) Deal with the many examples of successful real world accelerated training programs with no curriculum design (as is commonly understood; ordering of simulations isn’t really designing a syllabus) in Chapter 9 (some of which were designed by some of the authors) b) Have a rejoinder to the two learning theories presented in Chapter 11 that the authors claim underpins their training approach (if there were something to attack, this would be it!) c) Nor have a rejoinder to a more central claim in the book, (and to my mind a more controversial claim) that atomisation of concepts impedes rapidised training. And, perhaps most surprisingly to me, your claim that > Reading it I got the distinct impression that the authors did not understand a great deal of the research they cited, either when supporting or dismissing it. is remarkable, given that one of the authors of Accelerated Expertise is Paul J Feltovich, one of the founders of the field of expertise research, and a contemporary of Ericsson’s.
wainstead 5y ago
Are schemas the same idea that Barbara Oakley calls “chunking”?

spekcular 5y ago

Do you have recommendations for better references on self-learning? I've read Cognitive Load Theory by Sweller et al., and while a good book, it's not very practically oriented.

xhevahir 5y ago
The authors of the linked article seem to think highly of Ten Steps to Complex Learning.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Hermitian909 5y ago
Sadly I'm not familiar with books that focus on self-learning. If you're struggling to apply the knowledge from CLT it suggests that you're mostly missing skills related to curriculum design like sequencing, scoping, and scaffolding. You might consider an introductory book into curriculum design (apologies, I don't have the name of a good one at hand). You might also benefit from reading something like "How I Wish I'd Taught Maths"[0] which is a great example of someone who understands these theories attempting to transform them into actionable ideas in the classroom. Following that example might help you in managing your own learning. [0] https://www.amazon.com/How-Wish-Taught-Maths-conversations-ebook/dp/B079K3HVMJ/ref=sr_1_3?crid=33UBIR98Z1MSP&keywords=how+i+wish+i+taught+maths&qid=1639357027&sprefix=how+i+wish+i+t%2Cstripbooks%2C219&sr=8-3 https://www.amazon.com/How-Wish-Taught-Maths-conversations-e...
- spekcular 5y ago
  Just started reading the maths book, and it looks amazing. Thanks so much for the reference.

shadowsun7 5y ago

I disagree with this assessment. (Or, more accurately, I’d like to see a more comprehensive counter argument). The article you link to is essentially a response to 2 pages in the book, where Hoffman et al mention, almost in passing, that CLT is a silly theory when you want to train for real world scenarios (the intuition is that if you’re training marine fire squad commanders to plan on the battlefield, perhaps it helps to simulate shooting at them during training?) Hoffman et al use this as an example of a learning theory that doesn’t seem to map to real world requirements. This reads like a disagreement over one particular dismissal in the book, perhaps because CLT is a pet theory of the article’s authors. The problem: this argument is not core to the book! The article does not, for instance, a) Deal with the many examples of successful real world accelerated training programs with no curriculum design (as is commonly understood; ordering of simulations isn’t really designing a syllabus) in Chapter 9 (some of which were designed by some of the authors) b) Have a rejoinder to the two learning theories presented in Chapter 11 that the authors claim underpins their training approach (if there were something to attack, this would be it!) c) Nor have a rejoinder to a more central claim in the book, (and to my mind a more controversial claim) that atomisation of concepts impedes rapidised training. And, perhaps most surprisingly to me, your claim that > Reading it I got the distinct impression that the authors did not understand a great deal of the research they cited, either when supporting or dismissing it. is remarkable, given that one of the authors of Accelerated Expertise is Paul J Feltovich, one of the founders of the field of expertise research, and a contemporary of Ericsson’s.

wainstead 5y ago

Are schemas the same idea that Barbara Oakley calls “chunking”?