Training versus learning or mastery

Elias Canetti in his book, Crowds and Power, writes about the differences between training and learning or mastery. The discussion and distinctions seemed worth sharing here.

One trains a dog or a horse to perform a particular behavior with food and repetition.

One trains a child to perform a particular behavior with grades and repetition.

But neither the grade nor a successfully trained behavior demonstrates real mastery of a matter.

Training demonstrates varying degrees of ability to respond to externally generated commands. Mastery demonstrates an ability to operate successfully through a series of increasingly difficult and varied challenges or externally generated circumstances.

Here are some examples to illustrate:

  • spelling versus writing a short story or essay or play
  • 2+2=4 versus what is a ‘marginal tax rate’ or Return On Investment
  • naming colors versus exploring and creating an artistic painting
  • copying versus experimenting and inventing
  • practicing pitching versus playing an actual baseball game

Training as an end in itself only begins to prepare someone for the human game of life and all its challenges and possibilities.

Supporting an individual student to actually experience a level of mastery in response to externally generated circumstances supports them in continuing to approach their life with greater appreciation, creativity and satisfaction.

Without saying how to do that, it may still be worthwhile to both teacher and student to explore how to do that.

 

Time: 10 Questions for Andre Agassi

The tennis legend turned school founder talks about regrets, crystal meth and German habits

By Belinda Luscombe Monday, Oct. 21, 2013

Some interesting quotes:

“I look at the circumstances of these kids, and without education, I know exactly where we’ll be – we’ll be building prisons instead of schools.”

“I eventually realized, you can make systemic change.”

“The single greatest impediment to the growth of best-in-class charter schools is not the software but the hardware – the actual facilities. We come in with private capital and allow schools time to incubate.”

Read the complete article here.

Research on Grit and Self-Control Recognized in “Genius Grant”

JTF Grantee Awarded 2013 MacArthur Fellowship

As an associate professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Angela Duckworth’s work focuses on studying competencies beyond general intelligence and opportunity that predict academic and professional achievement. She is perhaps best known for her work surrounding the concepts of self-control and grit, and how those personality traits are better indicators of success than factors such as IQ and socioeconomic opportunity.

Click here to see 5 videos of Dr. Duckworth answering these 5 questions about her work and findings:

What is grit?

Are there virtues that are precursors or closely associated with grit?

What role does humility play, if any, in cultivating grit?

How has your personal story been a window into your research on grit?

What advice would you give to a parent who wanted to cultivate grit in their children?

Two upcoming meetings of interest:

On Sept 11th, 2013, more than 9,000 participants from around the state joined in a telephone town hall to express their concerns and aspirations for New Mexico Public Education. Their responses show New Mexicans are ready for change. Here is a summary.

  • 65% of participants feel students undergo too much standardized testing
  • 68% of participants indicated a greater need for student support services at school
  • 71% of participants thought class sizes are too large
  • 94% of participants thought it was important that schools teach students how to problem solve
  • 80% of participants  feel they do not have a say in education policy.

It is Time to Change the Status Quo for New Mexico’s Public Education!

Click here to RSVP TODAY

Keep The Promise For New Mexico’s Future

in partnership with
New Mexico PBS and The Corporation for Public Broadcasting
presents:

Central Region –  Keep The Promise Education Town Hall


on Wednesday, October 16th, 2013

This is the first of 4 town halls across the state and will be focused on developing a community based vision for education in New Mexico. These Town Halls are opportunities for parents, students and educators to share YOUR vision for public education.

Together we can create real community-driven solutions to ensure a great education for all of New Mexico’s children.

Central Region Town Hall:

Wed, Oct. 16 from 6-7pm at the

UNM Continuing Education Conference Center Auditorium
1634 University Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, NM

Click here to RSVP!

Back from the polls with interesting article

Whew! Sixteen hour election day poll work took a couple of days recovery time. Definitely not as young as I used to be.

Because this article on reverse engineering in healthcare seemed to have a number of interesting parallels with Education I thought I’d pass it on in the blog. Just substitute “education” for “healthcare” in the article. Here’s a summary:

Reverse innovation works because the different conditions in higher- and lower-income settings change the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors that drive innovation.

What happens when you create health care solutions specifically for patients in low-income settings? It turns out that learning from and investing in these settings can be powerful ways to tackle problems at home that require out-of-the-box thinking. These differences include:

  1. Higher volume for lower price. Radical approaches are often needed to achieve acceptable performance at ultra-low price points.
  2. Less developed infrastructure allows rapid implementation of new solutions.
  3. Sustainability is important in resource-limited areas, favoring “green solutions.”
  4. Fewer regulations quicken the pace of innovation.
  5. Preferences are different, inspiring creative design.
  6. Overwhelming need increases the ‘purpose motive,’ fueling innovators who want to make a difference.

These six attributes make lower-income settings appealing places to create, test, and scale new ideas (In ABQ/BERNCO, think ABC Community Schools Partnership for pre-K-12 and Mission Graduate: 60,000 for K-12 and beyond).

So, just how do ideas move through a reverse innovation pipeline?

  1.  Identify a high priority problem shared between lower- and higher-income settings. For example, affordable, user-friendly diagnostics, or a mobile health information technology solution to a pressing health care issue.
  2. Innovators in lower-income settings must create a solution that spreads to the first 15% of the population, or the “early adopters.” This usually happens only if the idea is better, relevant, simple, easily tested, and visible to others. Endorsement by early adopters pushes an innovation past its tipping point, where it is then likely to spread to the population at large.
  3. The idea must cross-pollinate from lower- to a higher-income settings. Here the critical link is between lower-income early adopters and higher-income innovators. Whether these parties connect in-person or online, the quality of the interaction must facilitate sufficient trust to allow the idea to cross over. Building relationships over time helps create “spannable social distances,” such that the two parties find each other credible enough to take a risk on the other’s idea.
  4. The idea has to spread in the higher-income setting. Again the innovation must be better, relevant, simple, easily tested, and visible to others. It must also overcome the resistance of existing infrastructure and other established solutions. If the idea is clearly effective in lower-income settings, this can help lower the barrier to adoption.

The article provides three very interesting real-world examples in Diagnostics, Health IT, and Service Delivery.

In short, reverse innovation has tremendous potential to align incentives and disrupt existing systems and technologies. We’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg (or, as their African colleagues like to say, the ears of the hippopotamus – I just love that analogy).

Also … beware the resistance inherent in disrupting existing systems.

What can we do to increase the pace of reverse innovation? For starters, we can:

  • Identify high-priority problems that could potentially be solved in lower-income settings.
  • Empower lower-income innovators and early adopters through seed funding, competitive “innovation awards,” or other mechanisms.
  • Bring lower-income early adopters and higher-income innovators together through conferences or learning collaboratives (live or virtual).
  • Track reverse innovation activity globally, identifying and removing barriers to spread.

Many intractable problems in health care could be solved if we accelerated the spread of ideas through the reverse innovation pipeline. To do this, we will need to think differently, invest in reverse innovation, and work together to solve common problems.

Again, think of the work being done today by ABC Community Schools Partnership for pre-K-12 and Mission Graduate: 60,000 for K-12 and beyond.

Read the complete article here.