I've been arguing for many months now (not on paper, though) that the quality of the feedback loop is the essential characteristic determining how quickly systems improve. Hence the term virtuous circle that I use whenever talking about it. However, I haven't gone and enumerated the determinants of quality on a feedback loop. Let me try to enumerate that now.
A feedback loop will be better if
The feedback is
Relevant
Actionable
Immediate
Numeric
Complete
Objective
Automatic
Teleological
Ok...I had to spell something...and Ends-focussed didn't do it for me.
I have, until the present, been focused on the Immediacy of the feedback as the primary issue. Largely, I'd been doing that because of both my educational focus, and my focus on the math and software...which are both quantitative.
Once analyzed a little bit...I had to pull out the other features.
I am coming from 3 angles here.
1. Software development...how do you get a good process....
You get good feedback. What does good feedback look like?
2. Education...how do you get good learning...
You get good feedback. What does good feedback look like?
2A. Practice (related to 2)...how do you get good practice?
You get good feedback. What does good feedback look like?
3. Organizational Development...how do you get organizational improvement?
You get good feedback. What does good feedback look like?
Of course Immediacy is my primary concern, but it is can't be the only concern.
Automaticity means roughly that you don't have to go looking for it...it shows up.
Teleological means that we have to have ends-focussed feedback. Means focussed feedback gives finite improvement.
If you're serious about improvement...giving Numeric information so someone can say "I improved from 97.8% to 98.1%" is much better than..."I'm still excellent".
Actionable is only barely in the feedback system...but if you have information listing on the humidity of the shop floor it better well be something the workers can affect by changes in their behavior.
Relevant is related to Completeness. If you measure workers, you should be measuring something that makes $ or costs $. If you're not...improvements won't help.
One of the worst things you can do in an organization (or learning environment) is reward (or even measure) only the wrong things. For example. So Completeness has to be on my list of feedback quality items.
And Objective is probably the wrong word, but I'm talking about an evaluation of specific results, not an evaluation of the general person.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
ADHD and TV
Last weekend I was reading on the topic of widely cited psychologists. Hans Eysenck was near the top of the list and so I read a little bit about him. Among the things I found was this article, which while not exactly complimentary, did talk about the link between cortical under-arousal and ADHD. After some additional research, it seems that at least a many (but not all) instances of ADHD can be explained by a chronic lack of cortical arousal.
That insight triggered something in my memory...a quick google search turned up this rather aggressive post, which coincides with my memory. Essentially...TV watching inhibits brain activity. Overall...that makes for a pretty interesting correlation.
TV watching has gone up as the rate of ADHD has gone up. I would bet someone could get a dissertation out of the correlation (or lack thereof) between TV watching and ADHD. Multi-country studies showing the penetration of TV vs. the incidence of ADHD? Historical data on ADHD vs. TV in the US...in some other countries for which we have the data?
IF the under-arousal theory of ADHD still has adherents
and
IF the TV implies lower brain arousal hypothesis is still supported
then
A. The correlation between ADHD and TV should be evident
B. The causation chain would be ... TV watching --> lower cortical arousal --> ADHD.
Interesting thoughts.
That insight triggered something in my memory...a quick google search turned up this rather aggressive post, which coincides with my memory. Essentially...TV watching inhibits brain activity. Overall...that makes for a pretty interesting correlation.
TV watching has gone up as the rate of ADHD has gone up. I would bet someone could get a dissertation out of the correlation (or lack thereof) between TV watching and ADHD. Multi-country studies showing the penetration of TV vs. the incidence of ADHD? Historical data on ADHD vs. TV in the US...in some other countries for which we have the data?
IF the under-arousal theory of ADHD still has adherents
and
IF the TV implies lower brain arousal hypothesis is still supported
then
A. The correlation between ADHD and TV should be evident
B. The causation chain would be ... TV watching --> lower cortical arousal --> ADHD.
Interesting thoughts.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Effects of Parenting
Bryan Caplan goes to one of his favorite topics ...and the topic of his next book (Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids). And...while Bryan is focussing on one set of research, I'd like to bring up another.
What effects might parenting have?
Personality? According to Harris, apparently not.
IQ? Again...apparently not much (iffy breastfeeding research?).
However, we have a bunch of other research out that indicates a couple other things that align well with the obsessiveness of the modern soccer-gymnastics-TaeKwonDo-and-Piccolo-mom?
Let me posit some claims that I think are supported by research:
1. Skills (All skills) are to be attained almost exclusively via practice.
2. "Talent" is fictional, and mostly skill that comes from extensive practice.
3. Some skills (sensory esp.) are much harder to learn after some age (language after 8? new languages after 10? music? many other sensory items).
4. Habits tend to endure. -- less certain.
Given this...while one may not be able to affect one's child's personality or IQ much at all...one can impact his/her skills...and skill acquisition is tremendously important.
Indeed...one's success in a chosen field may well be almost entirely determined by skill.
That skill may be mathematical, literary, culinary, algorithmic, musical, social, meditative, or any of a scad of others.
Is it not then likely that the proper approach to parenting...if one wishes to support a child's future success is to teach things as skills? And focus less on personality?
Though...as a counterpoint...the question of what falls into the category of skill becomes interesting as well.
IQ has major predictive impact on performance.
However, self-efficacy has a bigger predictive impact on performance.
And...self-efficacy (not the same self-esteem) is modifiable.
Food for thought about parenting.
What effects might parenting have?
Personality? According to Harris, apparently not.
IQ? Again...apparently not much (iffy breastfeeding research?).
However, we have a bunch of other research out that indicates a couple other things that align well with the obsessiveness of the modern soccer-gymnastics-TaeKwonDo-and-Piccolo-mom?
Let me posit some claims that I think are supported by research:
1. Skills (All skills) are to be attained almost exclusively via practice.
2. "Talent" is fictional, and mostly skill that comes from extensive practice.
3. Some skills (sensory esp.) are much harder to learn after some age (language after 8? new languages after 10? music? many other sensory items).
4. Habits tend to endure. -- less certain.
Given this...while one may not be able to affect one's child's personality or IQ much at all...one can impact his/her skills...and skill acquisition is tremendously important.
Indeed...one's success in a chosen field may well be almost entirely determined by skill.
That skill may be mathematical, literary, culinary, algorithmic, musical, social, meditative, or any of a scad of others.
Is it not then likely that the proper approach to parenting...if one wishes to support a child's future success is to teach things as skills? And focus less on personality?
Though...as a counterpoint...the question of what falls into the category of skill becomes interesting as well.
IQ has major predictive impact on performance.
However, self-efficacy has a bigger predictive impact on performance.
And...self-efficacy (not the same self-esteem) is modifiable.
Food for thought about parenting.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
IQ vs. PsyCap/Efficacy vs. Practice
Over the last weekend, I attended a lecture, then read the associated book, and now I have even more questions than I had to begin with.
Over the last 10 years, I've been struggling with a major dilemma in performance prediction.
Roughly...there's huge amounts of data that support the idea that IQ matters.
There's also huge amounts of support for the idea that the only thing that matters is quantity of practice.
And so both IQ and practice are available as explanatory features, but...that leads to something of a conflict in explanation. Should one pay attention to IQ when looking at performance?
How broad is the qty-of-practice result? Does it apply to programming? How narrow of a skill set do we need to consider? Yuck.
So...all of that was fine and good, and I'd successfully resolved to live with the uncertainty/conflict. But then, almost minding my own business, I encounter another result: For explanatory power, IQ < self-efficacy < Psychological Capital
And so now I have 3 things to worry about:
Practice, IQ, PysCap (I'll say PsyCap rather than "self-efficacy or Psychological Capital")
Do we have a careful definition of PsyCap?
Currently, my working definition is "those mental habits and states that lead to success in all endeavors"
Optimism, Resiliency, Confidence, Tenacity, and Planning skill all fall into the same bucket.
Not careful, but kinda measurable.
IQ is measurable nicely, easily, and informally as well.
Practice is also interesting...number of years doing is a good proxy, but not a great proxy.
See: Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods.
No solutions...just questions.
Over the last 10 years, I've been struggling with a major dilemma in performance prediction.
Roughly...there's huge amounts of data that support the idea that IQ matters.
There's also huge amounts of support for the idea that the only thing that matters is quantity of practice.
And so both IQ and practice are available as explanatory features, but...that leads to something of a conflict in explanation. Should one pay attention to IQ when looking at performance?
How broad is the qty-of-practice result? Does it apply to programming? How narrow of a skill set do we need to consider? Yuck.
So...all of that was fine and good, and I'd successfully resolved to live with the uncertainty/conflict. But then, almost minding my own business, I encounter another result: For explanatory power, IQ < self-efficacy < Psychological Capital
And so now I have 3 things to worry about:
Practice, IQ, PysCap (I'll say PsyCap rather than "self-efficacy or Psychological Capital")
Do we have a careful definition of PsyCap?
Currently, my working definition is "those mental habits and states that lead to success in all endeavors"
Optimism, Resiliency, Confidence, Tenacity, and Planning skill all fall into the same bucket.
Not careful, but kinda measurable.
IQ is measurable nicely, easily, and informally as well.
Practice is also interesting...number of years doing is a good proxy, but not a great proxy.
See: Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods.
No solutions...just questions.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Techne Empeiria and Episteme in Education
I've been chasing this idea for years now, and I suppose I now have some words for it, so I'm writing them down.
The ancient Greeks had a bunch of words around knowledge, learning and such, and a history that dwarfs that of modern states. As such, the words' meanings drifted over time, and so the distinctions are not as clear as I will draw them. However...y'all should be getting used to that, as I like to draw careful distinctions where the actual distinctness is much fuzzier.
Episteme -- Knowledge of the True. Theory.
Techne -- Theoretically informed knowledge of how.
Empeiria -- Theory-free knowledge of how.
Gnostike -- related to knowledge
Praktike -- related to practice
Now...in the academic side of our education system...we tend to try to teach primarily Episteme...then hope it trickles down to Techne. On the other hand, the invisible portion of the education system in america...technical schools and corporate education, has half of a different approach.
The goal of the students (and those paying for classes) is usually measurable Empeiria. The approaches of the teachers is highly variable, but a great deal of the teaching approach (and even more so, the assessment approach) comes from an assumption that knowledge is all Techne (on a good day) or Episteme (on a bad day). And that approach needs correction. In an awful lot of learning, the empeiria is nearly sufficient...and the techne may be a bit more than is necessary. The 3 R's all fall into this category, especially at a younger age. To DO is the goal...to understand the doing is a great deal less important.
In other words, in academia, what is taught is gnostike episteme, whereas the rest of the country is somewhat dismissive of that, and wants praktike episteme.
This is an unsustainable position. The situation is much like the issues surrounding the media in the first decade of the 21st century, where the consumer preferences and producer offerings did not line up to an extent that a new kind of producer (blogs, vlogs, etc.) were able to pop up. In the educational space, the issue is the same. Producer supply and consumer need are not aligned. Until recently, entry into the educational marketplace was relatively limited. However, barriers to entry are breaking down, and we will see a great deal of entry into the market of delivering learning to people who wish to learn.
Much like Blogs specialize in delivering information of kinds that are overlooked by the MSM, and in particular, more varied and penetrating analyses...so too will the new educational approach begin by delivering educational solutions that are poorly handled by standard educational approaches. And the start should appear in the techne/empeiria space, and move away from episteme.
The ancient Greeks had a bunch of words around knowledge, learning and such, and a history that dwarfs that of modern states. As such, the words' meanings drifted over time, and so the distinctions are not as clear as I will draw them. However...y'all should be getting used to that, as I like to draw careful distinctions where the actual distinctness is much fuzzier.
Episteme -- Knowledge of the True. Theory.
Techne -- Theoretically informed knowledge of how.
Empeiria -- Theory-free knowledge of how.
Gnostike -- related to knowledge
Praktike -- related to practice
Now...in the academic side of our education system...we tend to try to teach primarily Episteme...then hope it trickles down to Techne. On the other hand, the invisible portion of the education system in america...technical schools and corporate education, has half of a different approach.
The goal of the students (and those paying for classes) is usually measurable Empeiria. The approaches of the teachers is highly variable, but a great deal of the teaching approach (and even more so, the assessment approach) comes from an assumption that knowledge is all Techne (on a good day) or Episteme (on a bad day). And that approach needs correction. In an awful lot of learning, the empeiria is nearly sufficient...and the techne may be a bit more than is necessary. The 3 R's all fall into this category, especially at a younger age. To DO is the goal...to understand the doing is a great deal less important.
In other words, in academia, what is taught is gnostike episteme, whereas the rest of the country is somewhat dismissive of that, and wants praktike episteme.
This is an unsustainable position. The situation is much like the issues surrounding the media in the first decade of the 21st century, where the consumer preferences and producer offerings did not line up to an extent that a new kind of producer (blogs, vlogs, etc.) were able to pop up. In the educational space, the issue is the same. Producer supply and consumer need are not aligned. Until recently, entry into the educational marketplace was relatively limited. However, barriers to entry are breaking down, and we will see a great deal of entry into the market of delivering learning to people who wish to learn.
Much like Blogs specialize in delivering information of kinds that are overlooked by the MSM, and in particular, more varied and penetrating analyses...so too will the new educational approach begin by delivering educational solutions that are poorly handled by standard educational approaches. And the start should appear in the techne/empeiria space, and move away from episteme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
