If you'd like to hear my career (and life) story in a detailed one-hour interview, here's an interesting conversation that I had with Deepak Jayaraman (author of Play to Potential book). He used the conversation as part of his research for the book.

Do listen to the other conversations too. And pick up Deepak's book, especially if you are a mid-senior professional!

And now, on to the newsletter.

Welcome to the ninety-second edition of '3-2-1 by Story Rules'.

A newsletter recommending good examples of storytelling across:

3 tweets
2 articles, and
1 long-form content piece

Let's dive in.

𝕏 3 Tweets of the week

What can we achieve if we don't know what has 'never been done'?

Great example of perspective!

Another way to look at the word 'perspective'.

📄 2 Articles of the week

a. 'Trump’s Return Is an Opportunity for India' by Arvind Subramanian

Former Chief Economic Advisor, Arvind Subramanian has some thought-provoking points on how India can leverage the political transition in the US.

He says that if Trump institutes blanket higher tariffs, it could be challenging for India:

This spells trouble for India, which maintains some of the world’s highest tariffs and has a growing trade surplus with the US (nearly $46 billion in 2022). Trump’s trade czar, Robert Lighthizer, has already labeled India the world’s “most protectionist” country, suggesting that heightened trade tensions are all but inevitable.

Another potential risk could be to the growing security partnership:

The security partnership between India and the US, rooted in a shared interest in countering China’s territorial ambitions, cannot be taken for granted under Trump.

Subramanian's recommendation on the trade front: explore an FTA, like Vietnam:

A more principled response would be to initiate talks with the US on a bilateral deal or free-trade agreement (FTA). India stands to gain from trade liberalization. Its garment and footwear industries, for example, are at a significant disadvantage compared to Vietnamese competitors, which benefit from FTAs, and several African countries that enjoy duty-free access under the US African Growth and Opportunity Act. A bilateral FTA could reduce US tariffs on labor-intensive Indian exports, thereby leveling the playing field.

He believes that we wouldn't have to worrry too much about US imports into India, while we would have a fair bit to gain on the exports side:

Admittedly, market liberalization could encounter political resistance. But while trade reforms often face domestic opposition, India’s reforms may prove less contentious, as its imports from the US are dominated by energy-related products and gold – sectors with few vocal constituencies opposing liberalization. On the export side, major industries such as gems and jewelry, pharmaceuticals, apparel, and machinery would all benefit from stronger trade ties with the US. Indian apparel exporters, for example, have long decried the preferential access to US markets enjoyed by countries like Vietnam.

It would be interesting to see how the situation pans out.

b. 'Hands' by Sarthak Dev

This is a lovely, touching tribute by Sarthak to the world's most lovable and admirable rivalry: Federer and Nadal.

Sarthak makes a key point - this kind of an exemplary respect between long-time rivals is special. This is not normal. Too much of sports (especially sports media) is focused on the war-like framing of the competition between players and teams.

... and the snarlers who need to be guided away by calmer teammates, their rage still rising like smoke from their hair after ninety minutes of perceived injustice.

The cameras love these moments. They catch them from every angle, package them into bite-sized outrage for Instagram and longer feasts for YouTube. Television studios stretch these seconds into hours of debate, while newspapers turn them into week-long sagas of character analysis.

These clips spread like wildfire on social media, usually accompanied by the cold emoji - apparently the digital badge of a Boss Move™. Eventually, they become proof of “passion” and “hunger”.

I'm not a football fan, so I had no clue about the intense vitriol in this epic rivalry:

Growing up, Manchester United vs Arsenal was the hottest game in the English Premier League. Two exceptional teams, the finest in England, among Europe’s elite. The football was cutting-edge, but the sideshows made it blockbuster. Two midfielder-captains, Roy Keane and Patrick Vieira, who’d rather snipe each other out with bricks than shake hands. The younger teammates, fully doing their captain’s bidding, going at their opponents as if this was a war, not a game of football. Their coaches, Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger, meant to be the adults in the room, instead traded barbs like schoolyard rivals. Both found creative ways to tell the press how the other was stealing a living.

Sarthak argues that it does not always have to be like this. As a vivid example, he refers to Virat Kohli (no one would accuse him of not being combative) and how his off-field behaviour (and sometimes even on-field) is far more gracious that we assume:

During the post-match ceremony, as medals waited to be distributed, cameras caught Kohli sharing a laugh with Pakistan's coach Azhar Mahmood and batter Shoaib Malik. The media took him apart. An Indian captain, finding humour after such a humiliating defeat, that too in a final against Pakistan?

It wasn’t his first such 'transgression', and it wouldn’t be his last. During a World Cup match against Australia in 2019, Kohli walked up to the Indian crowd and asked them, sternly, to stop booing Australian batter Steve Smith. More recently, after a 10-wicket lashing against Pakistan, Kohli was the first to walk up to Babar Azam and Mohammad Rizwan for a congratulatory hug. They too, filled with admiration, respect, and genuine warmth, hugged him back.

Unfortunately, he says, the media likes conflict. And if it does not find it, it is happy to manufacture it to the best of its ability. But can we blame the media, when we are the ones consuming it?

Sarthak uses a lovely contrasting example and asks the reader - which one would they prefer? The mild, sober cricketing description or the spicy, emotional dramatic arc:

We want battle music and hero arcs, redemption stories and demons being slayed. While describing the first day’s play from the current Perth Test, I could tell you that Jasprit Bumrah bowled a spell that roared Indian cricket to life. He restored respect and voice to a team that was down in the dumps and struggling to breathe, after a 0-3 bashing at home and getting shot out for 150 within two sessions on day one of the Australian tour. Or I could tell you that Bumrah is an exceptional bowler with the skill and accuracy of a Korean archer. He is unplayable on most days. This day, he was able to execute his plans to near perfection on a helpful pitch, and the Australian batters, already in suspect form, were no match.

Hand on heart, which one is making you lunge closer to the screen?

(For me, it is the first one. I'm an emotional cricket-watcher)

Sarthak then shares another lovely example of the reaction of Neeraj Chopra's mother after he lost the javelin gold to Arshad Nadeem, a Pakistani athlete.

Finally, after all this context, he comes to the heart-warming letter written by Federer to Nadal on his retirement. And we understand the reason behind the title of his post:

In 2022, when Federer played his final match, Nadal stood beside him. The tennis that evening was footnote; the most unforgettable sight was these two titans of the game, who’d pushed each other for nearly two decades, bawling their eyes out while holding hands.

📘 1 long-form read of the week

a. 'Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom' - paper published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

This eye-opening paper is an absolute must-read for anyone who is into teaching. It evaluates the impact of two broad types of teaching/learning - active and passive.

Passive learning is the more traditional form of learning, which involves one-way lectures by faculty. In active learning the students are asked to work on problems or issues in the classroom itself by applying the concepts taught by the instructor.

This paper set out to solve a key mystery in college teaching

Despite active learning being recognized as a superior method of instruction in the classroom, a major recent survey found that most college STEM instructors still choose traditional teaching methods.

Why were STEM teachers still persisting with passive teaching when active was proven to result in better learning? To investigate this question, the researchers conducted a fascinating experiment by randomly assigning students to each method:

We compared students’ self-reported perception of learning with their actual learning under controlled conditions in large-enrollment introductory college physics courses taught using 1) active instruction (following best practices in the discipline) and 2) passive instruction (lectures by experienced and highly rated instructors). Both groups received identical class content and handouts, students were randomly assigned, and the instructor made no effort to persuade students of the benefit of either method.

Their key finding? Students in active learning actually learn more, but the passive learning students feel that they have learnt more.

Students in active classrooms learned more (as would be expected based on prior research), but their perception of learning, while positive, was lower than that of their peers in passive environments. This suggests that attempts to evaluate instruction based on students’ perceptions of learning could inadvertently promote inferior (passive) pedagogical methods.

Why do students give higher ratings to passive learning? In part because of 'superstar' lecturers, and also because active learning is more hard work!

For instance, a superstar lecturer could create such a positive feeling of learning that students would choose those lectures over active learning. Most importantly, these results suggest that when students experience the increased cognitive effort associated with active learning, they initially take that effort to signify poorer learning. That disconnect may have a detrimental effect on students’ motivation, engagement, and ability to self-regulate their own learning.

An important distinction the paper makes is between 'feeling of learning' (FoL) and 'test of learning' (ToL). Often after listening to a great, engaging lecture, the student might feel, "gosh, that was interesting. And easy - I understood it all!". And the same student in an active learning class might struggle with a problem that they have to work on themselves. So when it comes to FoL, the passive learning student does much better than the active learning one.

But we are learning not to feel that we know, but to know that we know. And so when the researchers tested the students for actual understanding using the Test of Learning, the active students did better. Check this graph out - the first set of columns (shaded) measures ToL while the other four measure FoL. Passive trumps active in FoL, but active is better in ToL.

The result was replicated across other topics too.

The key implication? Active learning works, but the students may not know that. So, tell them!

These results point to the importance of preparing and coaching students early in the semester for active instruction and suggest that instructors should persuade students that they are benefitting from active instruction. Without this preparation, students can be misled by the inherent disfluency associated with the sustained cognitive effort required for active learning, which in turn can have a negative impact on their actual learning.

Personally speaking, I had come to this realisation about two years back and had significantly revamped by course content. There's still a long way to go though!

That's all from this week's edition.

Ravi

PS: If you found this thought-provoking or useful, please consider forwarding it to a friend or colleague.

And if you got this email as a forward, you can get your own copy here.

Access this email on a browser or share this email on WhatsApp, LinkedIn, or Twitter. You can access the archive of previous newsletter posts here.

You are getting this email as a part of the 3-2-1 by Story Rules Newsletter. To get your own copy, sign up here.

Ravishankar Iyer

How to Teach so Students Actually Learn (3-2-1 by Story Rules #92)

𝕏 3 Tweets of the week

📄 2 Articles of the week

📘 1 long-form read of the week

Bye-bye productivity, hello creativity! (3-2-1 by Story Rules #91)

The Fascinating Story of Oil (3-2-1 by Story Rules #90)

India's Centre-State Fiscal Schisms (3-2-1 by Story Rules #89)