In a message dated 8/27/98 10:25:31 PM, Dale wrote:
>We have some tradeoffs to make when we choose which kind of practice to
>use. To some extent, I find I learn more if I can practice in a safe
>environment, where mistakes are not too costly. That way, I can try lots
>of variations of my new skill, to find which ones work and which ones
>don't. I can also try the skill in slightly different contexts, to find
>out where the skill works, and where it doesn't. Part of my goal is to
>find the limits of my skill, and the only way to do that is to make enough
>mistakes to know that I'm outside the limits. If mistakes are too costly,
>I don't feel as free to test the limits, and that limits my learning.
>
>On the other hand, the "practice field" is never exactly like the real
>thing, which limits my learning in a different way.
Dale,
Thanks for your comments. I don't want to leave the group with the
impression that I don't value "safe" practice fields. I do, and I use
them often!! There is definitely a place for practice where we can
explore the edges of our limits and a place for practice where we can
minimize the cost of mistakes so we can learn, improvise and innovate
without fear. Also, as you say, practice fields never truly replicate the
real thing. So, both forms of practice are needed.
I just wanted to point out another interpretation is possible that might
help with the issues being discussed in this thread. It must be the
contrarian in me showing up again! ;)
Margaret McIntyre
MargMcI@aol.com
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>