Sandboxes or Archery Ranges?

A quick framework for learning.

Monday, November 30, 2020

Learning is, in many ways, a lot more accessible that it was in the past. There are experts, courses, tutorials ready to establish that conduit of knowledge from them to us learners. And this proliferation of educational content has created its own hurdles.

There’s no good way to filter by teaching style. There’s no good way to check if the course is too easy or too hard according on our previous experience before starting it.

This means we are ultimately responsible for making sure we’re actually learning and making progress. And there are so many ways to do that. But what we do is as important as how we approach these activities. Going at this on our own raises an interesting question: do we want to learn in a sandbox, or do we want to learn in an archery range?

This analogy needs some explaining.

It sure does. Think of how we’d play in a sandbox. We could show up with no goal in mind. We could show up with a lofty goal in mind, but could easily abandon it for something else that comes along. Castles, roads, bottomless pits—we could work towards anything. There’s no mark to hit, and we learn things by fixing problems as they arise. It’s no wonder popular video games, like MineCraft, have done so well with this kind of environment at their core.

Now what’s an archery range? Well-defined targets, measured distances, a points system—it’s all the things that were missing in our sandbox. There is a clear mark to hit, and we learn things by missing that mark, and making adjustments according to that instant feedback. There is no shortage of games with this kind of environment either. We’re not making up a process from scratch. We’re making refinements to the way we execute a pre-defined process.

So what should I do?

I thought I would do some learning activities in a sandbox, and others in an archery range. Whether that mix is 50/50, 70/30, 90/10, or something else—I thought this depended on the subject. While that’s not entirely wrong, it’s also not the whole picture. The ability to study well is often the ability to correctly switch between these two styles as needed, sometimes during the same learning activity. It’s tough for me to think of an example where you would exclusively use one of these styles, although I’m sure there are exceptions. Here’s what I get from each of them:

I spend some of my time in a sandbox-style environment. A leisurely curiousity can work wonders, especially for beginners. It keeps the subject matter approachable, because failure isn’t really a thing in sandboxes. The bootcamp has already told me the tools I’ll be using. All I need to do is explore. If something sparks my interest, I can chase that as far as I’d like. I might come across something I wouldn’t have otherwise encountered. I may end up confused, but at least it’s creating questions for me to answer. The next time I study, I’ll be looking out for those answers in the back of my mind, as opposed to being unaware that they even exist.

That being said, I’m glossing over the actual tools of web development, like they’ll just magically show up when I need them. Early on, the ways I use these tools will be inaccurate, ineffective, or inefficient. I’ll lack clarity. There is value in breaking down larger ideas and processes into smaller and simpler ones, and then drilling them until they are second nature. This is where I choose an archery-range environment. By understanding what these tools are and how to use them, it makes my time the sandbox-style studying more interesting, because I can explore with insight and direction, as opposed to wandering around in circles.

If you’d like an example of applying these styles, I write about reluctantly using flashcards here.