Conversation

Aug 12, 2021

1/ Let's talk a little about how people learn in the real world. No, I'm not going to talk about classroom instruction, or pedagogical development, or enrolling in a cohort based course. None of that. Just a simple question: how do people ACTUALLY learn from doing?

Show this thread

Sorry, I got the earlier thread on Accelerated Expertise wrong, see here instead:

Quote Tweet

Decision-Forcing Cases: Gaining experience without the hurt

Sep 8, 2021

1/ Let's talk about accelerating expertise. You want to get good. You want to get good fast. How do you do this? In 2008 and 2009 the US Department of Defence convened two meetings on this very topic. Here's what they found. (Hint: the answer is NOT deliberate practice).

Show this thread

Also see

’s article on adapting the US Marine’s Tactical Decision Games to product management training.

medium.com

Learning about learning from the USMC, applied to product teams

And check out these shadowbox training exercises: shadowboxtraining.com/news/2022/02/0 shadowboxtraining.com/news/2022/04/2

What do all of these resources have in common? The answer: they’re drawn from the Naturalistic Decision Making branch of applied psychology. NDM does a lot of work for the military and healthcare. The researchers overlap quite a bit with human factors and resilience engineering.

The Oxford Handbook of Expertise (Oxford Library of Psychology)

So my first piece of advice is to look at NDM. The single resource that’s probably the most fruitful to dig into is The Oxford Handbook of Expertise:

amazon.com

The study of expertise weaves its way through various communities of practice, across disciplines, and over millennia. To date, the study of expertise has been primarily concerned with how human...

But really the general recommendation to look at training systems or training research that’s been funded by the military is probably a good heuristic.

DARPA Digital Tutor: Four Months to Total Technical Expertise? - LessWrong

For instance: the DARPA digital tutor. Millions of dollars. Result: 16 weeks of technical training -> students outperformed practitioners with years of experience in the field.

lesswrong.com

DARPA spent a few million dollars around 2009 to create the world’s best digital tutoring system for IT workers in the Navy. I am going to explain their results, the system itself, possible limitatio…

But of course military funded research doesn’t just result in better training methods in the military. Sometimes it funds results in sports science. Like Peter Fadde’s work on accelerating pitch recognition in baseball (later applied to tennis): peterfadde.com/projectspitchb

Quick summary: - You show tennis players video of a serve. - You black out the serve right before it connects. - You ask the player to identify the serve - Repeat 100s of times. - The tennis player gains expert level serve recognition quickly. - They can do this on iPhone.

GIF

read image description

ALT

3:59 PM · Jul 9, 2022Twitter Web App

Anyway, my main point: - Want to learn how to learn in your career? Don’t pay as much attention to classroom based education research. - Unless it’s been applied in vocational training settings - Focus mostly on research that’s been done in applied domains

Replying to

- The military has funded a huge amount of work into better training methods. - And they tend to not care as much about performance on tests. (They really care about transfer to real world performance) - So that’s one fruitful area to dig for ideas.

But perhaps my biggest point: When you next read a meta-analysis or paper, ASK: “What context is this technique intended for? What context was this research performed in?” Many articles and threads on ‘learning to learn’ tend to draw on classroom-based research.

There’s nothing bad or wrong about classroom-based education research. But you should be very careful when applying it to vocational skills training. Whereas there may be more useful, easier to apply ideas elsewhere. Ok that’s all I have to say for now. The end.