Mastery=unconscious (contd.)

by | Sunday, October 25, 2009

Robin Revette Fowler sent me a message on Facebook regarding my recent posting(s) about moving from incompetence to mastery (see the two previous posts here and here). She took issue with my idea that mastery requires some kind of meta-level, self-awareness. She said

It seems like the issue is with either the meaning of “mastery” or perhaps with the types of skills you’re talking about.

Conscious/unconscious knowledge is especially interesting to me re: linguistics. Most native speakers have only unconscious competence of their language– I used to hear Writing Center tutors telling ESL students, “you need an ‘a’ here; I don’t know why” all the time. Many NNSs, on the other hand, have much stronger conscious competence– they often know “rules” about how to use determiners much better than Native English speakers, for example. At the same time, I’m not sure they would be said to have “mastery.”

And I don’t know that the conscious competence is the important thing here. Would you argue that only linguists who can describe their determiner choices have “mastery” of English grammar?

At first blush Robin seems to be making a good point. Do writers need to know how and why they do what they do they do as long as they get it right? There is a surface plausibility to the argument but I am not sure that it stands muster if we dig deeper.

I think we may need to distinguish mastery over grammar from mastery over language. One is not essential for the other. Second, native speakers who do not explain the rules of grammar they so effortlessly apply in their everyday speech are not necessarily masters of the domain either. Most people have a difficult time articulating precisely what it is that they want to say. This explains the need for remedial writing classes at schools and high schools.

For me mastery is about more than knowing the rules. It is about knowing when the rules apply and when they don’t. It is about being creative – and knowing when not to be. And to me this demands a “stepping out of the box” so to speak. Douglas Hofstadter had a special word for it “Joots” (which was an acronym for “Jumping Out Of The System”). So a master writer may not know the rules of grammar but will know (and will be able to explain) why in certain contexts one more is more appropriate than another. The reasons given will have to do the mood being established, the context within which the word appears, the character saying it, the nature of the sound etc. etc. Grammar may be one of the reasons but I can bet that a good author can and does have lots of nuanced thoughts about this – and can articulate them. Similar comments can be made about other artists – such as film makers and musicians as well. For instance see an earlier posting about A different language, where a musician describes his goal was to achieve a “mossy, woody, decaying kind of sound”

One of the best places to see this articulation is in the director’s commentary that comes with most DVD’s these days. I remember Sam Mendes talking about the kinds of compositional choices made for the movie American Beauty, whenever the Kevin Spacey character came on screen, particularly during the early scenes. The intention was to externalize his internal feelings of being “trapped” though this was never verbally articulated on screen. So the first scene shows Kevin Spacey staring out through the bars of window, and so on. The most interesting use of this effect was where they show his face reflected onto a computer screen. Mendes mentions how they deliberately designed the “stuff” on the screen to look like bars as well. Now can Mendes talk about the technicalities of film editing, how lighting can be managed, how the stedicams work. Sure he can. But the commentary is not about these technicalities (the “grammar” so to speak). The commentary is about the real stuff, the important stuff, how meaning is constructed through images, time, sound and rhythm. That is mastery.

A few randomly selected blog posts…

Happy Valentine’s Day: Old/New ambigram

Happy Valentine’s Day: Old/New ambigram

I had made this design a while back, just hadn't posted it online. (Actually a hand-drawn version is on this website somewhere.) Have a great day, everyone!

Website problems

My website has been facing all kinds of problems over the past few weeks. We have been working on figuring out what went wrong and trying to ensure that it doesn't recur - but it has taken a while and it's not clear to us whether we have it all figured out. So the...

Information is beautiful

Anybody who knows me (and/or reads this blog) will know of my love of issues related to representation (see all postings under that category). So I am always looking out for new and interesting representations. An lovely example sent to me by Patrick Dickson is...

Research to practice : 3 articles

Matt Koehler and I are co-editors for an ongoing series of articles "From Research to Practice" for Education Matters, an educational magazine published by Educational Technology & Management Academy (ETMA). ETMA is non-profit organization based in New Delhi...

Of teaching & cooking

Elizabeth Helfant over at Digital Learning Environments Blog has an interesting posting titled The Pancake principle. She makes a connection between technology integration and making pancakes, and offers three tenets of the Pancake principle. This posting is inspired...

The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade

The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade

The evolution of the TPACK image (1999 - 2017) Note: Apologies in advance for the long post. This has been festering / brewing for a while and I wanted to get it right. In essence this post offers a tweak to the canonical TPACK image, explained in greater detail...

Call: Failure and Creative Risk in Technology-Enhanced Learning

Call: Failure and Creative Risk in Technology-Enhanced Learning

I am excited to announce a call for articles on Failure and Creative Risk in Technology-Enhanced Learning for a special section in the journal Tech Trends, edited by Danah Henriksen, Punya Mishra, Edwin Creely, and Michael Henderson. You can download the the...

Creativity in teaching, a workshop

The Office Faculty and Organizational Development at MSU conducts an annual Spring Institute on College Teaching and Learning every summer. The past week was their 15th such event (details here) and I was asked to conduct a workshop on Creative Teaching. I was...

Oh Wow! Oh Wow! Oh Wow!

Much has been written about Steve Jobs in the past few weeks since his passing but the best piece I have come across is the eulogy by his sister Mona Simpson. Mona Simpson is an author and professor of writing and delivered this eulogy on Oct. 16 at his memorial...

2 Comments

  1. Punya Mishra

    Dan, to be fair to Robin, she had just shot off a quick note to me (via fb, as I said) so it is not surprising that she didn’t have the time to put forth a more definitive position. So my longer response may be a bit of overkill. That said, I did find her posting to be thought provoking.

    Reply
  2. Dan McGuire

    I don’t think Robin ever actually established a reasoned and supported position to counter your position, Punya. Mastery is certainly different than getting it right. A monkey can get the right answer every now and then. An incompetent can get it right, occasionally.

    This makes me think of Keats’ Negative Capability-“being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.”

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *