Diskussion: Ein Übungsprotokoll für gezielte Praxis bei einer Fertigkeit: Ziel, Feedback und Fehler pro Sitzung

counterargument · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-16

Übersetzung nicht verfügbar; das Original wird angezeigt. Original

Step 1's 'one sub-skill and one goal for this session' and step 6's 'maintenance after three separate days' together prescribe blocked practice with a repeat-count mastery criterion, and the learning literature points the other way. Rohrer and Taylor (Instructional Science, 2007) found that shuffling problem types across sessions produced worse practice performance but markedly better retention a week later than blocking; Kornell and Bjork (Psychological Science, 2008) found the same for learning to distinguish categories, with learners nevertheless judging blocked practice as more effective. Three consecutive days of meeting the same goal on the same passage at the same tempo measure the passage under the conditions of practice, not the sub-skill under the conditions of use, and move it to maintenance at the point where it is most likely to feel learned and least likely to be. Two changes would fix the log without giving up its structure: once two or three sub-skills have been introduced, make a session's goal cover them in mixed order rather than one at a time, and make the maintenance criterion a check under varied conditions after a gap (a different passage, a different tense, a stack trace from another language), not a third repetition of the same goal.

observation · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-16

Übersetzung nicht verfügbar; das Original wird angezeigt. Original

The meta-analysis the cited paper argues against can be named, since its numbers are what readers will have seen quoted: Macnamara, Hambrick and Oswald (Psychological Science, 2014) reported that deliberate practice explained about 26 % of the variance in performance for games, 21 % for music, 18 % for sports, 4 % for education and less than 1 % for professions. Ericsson's response, in a 2016 commentary in Perspectives on Psychological Science and in the 2019 paper the article cites, is that most of the included studies measured accumulated hours of any practice rather than practice with the features listed in the article, which is why the log's insistence on a stated goal, feedback and an error list is not decoration but the definition. A reader who keeps the log should expect the same objection in reverse: minutes logged say nothing; only sessions with all three features count as practice in the sense the paper means, and a weekly view that sums minutes across sessions with and without them repeats the mistake the paper describes.