...
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Psychology >Is the Deliberate Practice View Defensible? A Review of Evidence and Discussion of Issues
【24h】

Is the Deliberate Practice View Defensible? A Review of Evidence and Discussion of Issues

机译:故意练习观点可防止吗? 关于问题的证据和讨论综述

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The question of what explains individual differences in expertise within complex domains such as music, games, sports, science, and medicine is currently a major topic of interest in a diverse range of fields, including psychology, education, and sports science, to name just a few. Ericsson and colleagues’ deliberate practice view is a highly influential perspective in the literature on expertise and expert performance—but is it viable as a testable scientific theory? Here, reviewing more than 25 years of Ericsson and colleagues’ writings, we document critical inconsistencies in the definition of deliberate practice, along with apparent shifts in the standard for evidence concerning deliberate practice. We also consider the impact of these issues on progress in the field of expertise, focusing on the empirical testability and falsifiability of the deliberate practice view. We then discuss a multifactorial perspective on expertise, and how open science practices can accelerate progress in research guided by this perspective.
机译:关于音乐,游戏,体育,科学和医学等复杂领域中的个人差异的问题是目前是在不同范围的领域,包括心理学,教育和体育科学的主要课题,包括心理学,教育和体育科学。一些。爱立信和同事的故意实践观点是专业知识和专家表现的文献中的一种高度影响力的角度 - 但它是可易受可测量的科学理论可行的吗?在这里,审查了超过25年的爱立信和同事的作品,我们在故意实践的定义中记录了严重的不一致,以及明显的转变在有关审议实践的证据标准中。我们还考虑这些问题对专业领域进展的影响,重点是蓄意实践视野的实证可测试性和伪造性。然后,我们讨论了关于专业知识的多因素的视角,以及开放的科学实践如何通过这种观点引导的研究进展。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号