Learning – Page 4 – Planet Numeracy

We all know individuals who do well in school, especially in "tough" subjects like math. Those who do exceptionally well with tough subjects are often thought to be lucky or smart. But that's a blue pill deception. The red pill truth is that good students work harder than bad students. Talent is overrated. Attributing good grades solely to intelligence implies that students with bad grades are victims of the genetic lottery. Furthermore, the belief is dismissive of the hard work of successful students. Truth #1: There are no naturals. Although it's easy to dismiss academic success as the result of being born under a lucky star, there are no naturals according to the data. Yeah, there was that Good Will Hunting guy... but that's focusing on extremely low probability, high impact scenarios. (Our students seem to be great at that!) After teaching high school and college math students for over 20 years, I can tell you with 100% certainty that no one -- no matter his or her level of intelligence -- is born knowing how to do arithmetic or solve math problems. What makes the difference? So what separates the cream of the crop from and a middle of the pack kid, or the middle of the pack kid from a drop-out risk? The real secret is the number of hours (usually unseen) of deliberate practice. As the parent of four top-notch students -- 4 NHS members, 3 Top Tens, and even a Val -- I can testify to the countless hours that my four daughters spent outside the classroom acquiring their skills. Is it easier for someone with a higher level of intelligence? Being in the NBA is be easier for tall people. But everyone can all learn to dribble a ball. The research indicates that the number of hours of deliberate practice is the chief predictor of success. There are no prodigies. The number of hours of deliberate practice is the chief predictor of success. Share on X In his Book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell transforms the way we think of success. He relates a study by Anders Ericsson on violinists. In that study, a pattern emerged. The merely competent violinists had practiced about 4000 hours. Really good violinists had practiced around 8000 hours. And the truly masterful violinists had practiced at least 10,000 hours. The 10,000 Hour Rule gained popularity. Although quality instruction matters, Ericsson's studies confirm that there are no virtuosos. That is no one who became a master without about 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. This means the path to success is doing the work and putting in the hours. 10,000 hours under the guidance of a teacher is the key. A Fitness Analogy Learning is like fitness. There are no hacks to getting physically fit. That is, there are no gym newbies who in a matter of a few weeks are going to be as muscular and powerful as someone who has been training steadily for years. No one trains for an athletic contest, say a marathon, by running a few wind sprints the night before. Top athletes have "done their homework," and so have top students. In both cases, mastery is hastened by having a good instructor. Truth #2: There are no grinders. The research also goes on to say that there are no grinders. That is, there are no people who put in 10,000 hours of deliberate practice and do not achieve mastery. The researchers found no individuals that did the work and put in the hours, yet still performed poorly. Isn't that how it is with school work? Especially an acquired skill like math? I have never seen a student work hard consistently and keep failing (barring an organic brain disorder) . I've seen them keep making excuses (e.g., math is hard). But the only failures I have seen simply quit before approaching 10,000 hours. Back to the Fitness Analogy There are no gym grinders either. Anyone who exercises on a regular basis for months, and then years, is going to build muscle and gain fitness. Like intelligence in the classroom, there are individuals in the gym who will build muscle faster than others. They're the mesomorphic type. But every individual (including ectomorphic types) will eventually build muscle as long as he or she sticks with it for 10,000 hours. Final Analysis The research shows that there is a cumulative effect for not only deliberate practice, but for slacking. If one student continues with deliberate practice while another laments over their perceived deficiency of luck, the former will always outdistance the latter. Admitting this -- that talent is over-rated -- means you have taken the red pill. The red pill is harder to swallow for adults, much less adolescents. We live in a microwave, fast-food, instant-fix society. Delayed gratification means working hard now for something yet to come... like investing for retirement. (I also have a conjecture that school slackers risk becoming the broke 60-somethings who can't afford to retire.) Admitting that talent is over-rated means doing some soul-searching. Laziness can be ugly, and looking in the mirror at it can be tough. Acknowledging that we may not be where we want to be is the result of our own decisions -- not our lack of intelligence -- is the beginning. Simple, yes. But not easy. Learning is 80% behavior, and only 20% head knowledge! In the meantime, few are willing to do the work and put in the hours. That shawl of victimhood feels so reassuring in times of stress. To acknowledge that talent is overrated means shedding that victim mentality. Only by accepting responsibility for our choices can we touch the cloak of excellence. In this manner, we see achievers continue to thrive while the slackers continue to survive. Bottom line? Do you want to thrive, or merely survive? Learning is one of the few things that we cannot get someone else to do for us. Learning cannot be outsourced. The good news is that if you take the red pill, learning is an all-you-can eat buffet. And I'm not just talking about formal education. You can learn as much as you like to achieve any goal you set your mind to.

Mark Noldy - Planet Numeracy

Category: Learning