The second task – Critical review

Course name: English Composition I: Achieving Expertise.

The second task was to make a draft critical review of the first chapter – The Sweet Spot – form the Talent code /Written by Daniel Coyle/

One of the hardest thing was not to be very critical about the book title, about is this something new or not. This is how I ended up. Thank you for Alies Jordan Dalton and Mark Lee correcting me, giving some free English lessons. /They are also attendants on this course/

Since this is a draft I will change It in order to the other advice I’ll get, or any idea I want to integrate. Share your thoughts as well!

There need a support

Science always increasing and trying to expand and share thoughts. These thoughts appearing from time to time. Spartan soldiers were practicing with weapons. They were scary and killed thousands of people, because they had the good strategy, and a well working ritual. (They dropped down the weak babies from a hill)

You can find word “practise” in Coyle writing a lot of times[1] One of his main argument is you have to practice to being good.[2]

But there is a difference between my example than Coyle’s one. He don’t want to drop down the weak babies from the hill. He say a fitful, struggling[3] people can be great too. While I read these lines I was wondering, is there a limit? What do you need in order to being a talent?

However Coyle does giving us nice examples, he isn’t answering my main question, is there a limit? I think there is, and I don’t even have to go so far, so I’ll pick the examples from “The sweet spot”[4]:

In order to increase yourself you have to do mistakes – he said[5]. We know that everyone doing mistakes and you can learn from it usually by your own. If you jump from a high place and you broke your leg, you’ll never try to jump from that high again, because you learnt it. In my example there was a notification about your failure. If you make a mistake you have to notice it. Coyle brings examples, about noticing those mistakes.[6] What happens if you can’t notice your mistakes? What happens if you believe you doing this good? One weak point of Coyle’s argument is this part. In order to notice all of your mistakes you need a mentor, tutor, a guidance.

The other thing Coyle talking about analysing[7] those mistakes. Even you recognise your mistake, do you can analyse it? Maybe you can do it in football by yourself, but what happens if you write something? If you read trough your work again and again, you go “deep” in your writing, there will still remain lots of mistakes, what you think correct or what you not even recognise. Who will recognise those? Your analysing skill are also limited. What I suggest here is the same: you need an other people.

Sometimes you are not eligible to recognise your mistakes, so you need a hand to help. Analysing your mistakes a skill you have to learn and you can learn only if someone tells you how to do it.

Answering to my second question: What do we need to being a talent? Coyle answer is simple: deep practice.[8] You have to go deep in your task in order to increase your knowledge, and to be more professional. In order to being a talent you need the following method: You play, you miss, you stop, you repeat, you start over till you are perfect.[9]

Another thing you need is time. He wrote down two tests, one you can try it, the other one based on Henry Roediger’s work[10]. I found these examples bad, when we want to talk about deep practice and time.

He describe a test[11] where you could check “deep practice”. You spent the same amount of time for the two column, but you remembered column B more because your brain worked harder. (not because you spent more time on a word, because he asked us to spend the same amount of time on both lines[12])

The other test based on Henry Roediger’s work[13] I found the following interesting things:

In the Group A, you might consider a deep practice. Why I telling you this? You working with one paper for four sessions. So you could read, discuss learn from it more deeply. Group A situation remembering me the situation of the two short examples, what Coyle wrote down himself (Where I could meet Brunio and Jennie).[14]

In Group B they worked on the paper only once, but they wrote test three times. You couldn’t discuss and talk about that paper you only prepared for the result of the task. Is this one we call deep practice?

You can remember better about what that paper contains, if you let people test they knowledge about it. Group B were prepared for test anytime, but Group A weren’t. Coyle not even talking about how they checked the two group knowledge about that paper. He wasn’t wrote about what Group A did out of the process, what Group B did. (Although brought a live example from a school, where they could study lesser, but remembering more.[15])

What Group A did after one session? Probably nothing, moved forward, they brain weren’t focused on the paper afterwards. What the other one did? Nothing, until they realised they will be tested. After that they learnt at home. They were thinking about it more. Group A learned only those parts what the person itself thought was important, Group B learned the whole because of the realisation, he need to know this, in order to compete in the test.

These two Group were training deeply, just they used different method, they learnt different things from the same paper. And I’m not certain which Group knowledge is better…         As you can see this example telling us a methodology Coyle not writing this down, he describes it so every single people understand what this word means: “…Brazilian players have trained in a particular way…”[16] It means they used different methodology, and It’s important, because that’s why Brazilian football players are better.

Summarising Coyle’s argument I found it true and viable, but he brought it to me weakly. Especially the tests were wrong. He not telling us, this is a methodology you have to go through. He want us to believe that everyone alone is capable to repair they own mistakes, but that is not true. You need guidance in order to compete, even if you are talented.

[1] You can find word practice 20 times – Simon Lozzio: Credibility. URL:

[2] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, pages: 13,17,18

[3] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, page 12

[4] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot

[5] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, pages: 12,13,17,18

[6] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, pages: 12,13,17,18

[7] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, pages: 12,13,19

[8] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, pages: 16-20,24

[9] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, page: 12,13,14,17,18,19

[10] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code: Sweet Spot, page: 16

[11] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, page: 16

[12] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, page: 17

[13] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code: Sweet Spot, page: 16

[14] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, page: 13

[15] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, page: 19

[16] Daniel Coyle: The Talent Code-The Sweet Spot, page: 15


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s