GM. This is The Great Unlock, your weekly cheat sheet for the AI revolution. We filter out the noise, red pen fake news, and give out stickers to those deserving.

Today’s deep dive: how trying to instil grit and teaching content are two different objectives with two different lesson plans. Trying to do both at the same time serves neither.

Let’s unlock it.

You cannot serve two masters

There is a loud and persistent voice in education that says students need to struggle more. That the problem is softness. That parents have coddled a generation into fragility. That teachers need to make lessons harder to build grit, perseverance, and character.

This voice is wrong. Not because grit does not matter. It does. Not because perseverance is unimportant. It is essential. The voice is wrong because it conflates two fundamentally different objectives and assumes a single lesson can accomplish both.

It cannot. And the research is unambiguous about why.

Lev Vygotsky introduced the Zone of Proximal Development in 1978. The concept is elegantly simple. Every learner sits on a spectrum. Below them is what they can already do independently. Above them is what they cannot do even with support. In between is the ZPD: the narrow band of tasks a learner can accomplish with guidance but not yet alone. This is where learning happens. Nowhere else.

The ZPD is a Goldilocks Zone. If the content is too easy, the student is bored. The brain disengages. No new neural pathways are built. If the content is too hard, the student is overwhelmed. Cortisol spikes. Working memory shuts down. The student does not “push through.” The student gives up. Or worse, the student internalizes a false identity: “I am bad at math.”

John Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory confirms this at the neurological level. Human working memory holds 3 to 5 items at a time. Overload it and the system crashes. Not because the student lacks character. Because the brain has a bottleneck. Making content artificially harder does not build resilience. It clogs the bottleneck.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow research adds a third dimension. Flow, the state of total immersion where learning is deepest and most durable, requires a precise match between challenge and skill. Too much challenge relative to skill produces anxiety. Too little produces boredom. Only the match produces Flow.

Three independent research traditions. Three decades apart. The same conclusion: learning requires calibration, not escalation.

So where does grit fit?

Angela Duckworth defines grit as the combination of passion and perseverance toward long-term goals. Her research is clear that grit matters. But here is what the “make it harder” crowd misses: Duckworth herself has said that grit is best developed through sustained commitment to challenging activities, not through artificially inflating the difficulty of content. Sports. Music. Debate. Maker projects. Long-term undertakings where failure is frequent, feedback is immediate, and the student chose to be there.

The distinction is structural. When you design a lesson to teach content, the difficulty must sit inside the ZPD. That is not optional. That is how the brain learns. When you design an experience to build grit, the difficulty should be high, the path should be long, and the student should face real setbacks in pursuit of a goal they care about.

These are two different design briefs. Two different psychological mechanisms. Two different outcomes.

When a teacher makes a math lesson deliberately harder “to build character,” they have not served either master. The content is now outside the ZPD, so the student does not learn math. And the struggle is not voluntary or passion-driven, so the student does not build grit. They build learned helplessness.

The “students are lazy” argument mistakes a design failure for a character flaw. A student zoning out during a lesson pitched two years above their ability is not lazy. They are cognitively overloaded. A student refusing to engage with material pitched two years below their ability is not lazy either. They are bored. In both cases, the problem is calibration, not character.

AI changes this equation entirely. Adaptive AI can hold each student inside their personal Goldilocks Zone in real time. This is what I describe in The Great Unlock as the resolution of the Competence problem: when content is perfectly calibrated to the student’s ability, it creates dopamine, Flow, and the intrinsic motivation that grit advocates claim to want.

Two goals. Two designs. Two time slots. Not two masters crammed into one lesson.

“Not harder lessons. Better design.”

Sources: Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press. · Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. · Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper & Row. · Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance. Scribner. 

Every lesson you deliver lands in one of three zones. Two of them waste the student’s time. Only one produces learning. Vygotsky, Sweller, and Csikszentmihalyi all drew the same map. Here it is.

The next time someone in your district says “students just need to push through,” ask them which zone the lesson is landing in. If they cannot answer, the problem is not the student.

Not lazy students. Miscalibrated content.

You hear it in staff meetings. You read it in op-eds. You see it on LinkedIn. “We’ve gone too soft. Students need to struggle. That’s how they build grit.”

This sounds like wisdom. It is not. It is a category error dressed up as common sense.

The claim assumes that academic difficulty and character development share the same mechanism. They do not. Cognitive Load Theory tells us that when content exceeds working memory capacity, the brain does not “toughen up.” It shuts down. The student does not emerge grittier. The student emerges believing they are incapable.

Duckworth’s own research is instructive here. Grit develops through what she calls the “Hard Thing Rule”: choose something difficult, commit to it for a sustained period, and see it through. The key ingredients are choice, sustained effort, and personal meaning. None of those ingredients are present in a lesson plan the student did not choose, delivered at a difficulty level someone else set, measured by a test they dread.

The real danger of the “make it harder” crowd is not just bad pedagogy. It is moral deflection. When you blame the student’s character for a design failure, you absolve the system of responsibility.

Grit is real. Perseverance matters. Build those things in the gym, on the stage, in the maker lab, through the yearlong project that demands everything a student has. Do not build them by making the math worksheet harder and then blaming the 12-year-old who cries.

Not a character flaw. A design flaw.  

Ms. Reyes teaches 7th grade in a Title I middle school. She runs what her students call “the two-clock classroom.” In the morning, the first clock runs. Content block. Every student works through adaptive modules in math and reading, each calibrated to their individual ZPD. The pace is different for each student. The difficulty adjusts in real time.

Ms. Reyes walks the room with her tablet. She sees the heat map. Three students are stuck on proportional reasoning. She pulls them for a focused 10-minute session. Two students have finished the module and are ready for a stretch challenge. She sends them to the extension station.

At 11:30, the second clock starts. Afternoon block. This is the studio. The class is building a community garden proposal for the school board. The project is hard. The math in the budget is real. The persuasive writing in the proposal is real. The failures are real. Two weeks ago, the school board sent the proposal back with questions the students could not answer. They had to regroup, revise, and present again.

That is where the grit lives. Not in an artificially difficult worksheet. In a real project with real stakes where giving up means the garden does not get built.

Ms. Reyes does not conflate the two clocks. The morning is calibrated. The afternoon is challenging. The morning builds competence. The afternoon builds character. Neither one would work without the other.

Her principal asked her once why she does not just “make the morning harder to toughen them up.” She said: “If I make the morning harder, they will not learn the math. And if they do not learn the math, they cannot build the garden budget. I am not serving one goal by sabotaging the other.”

 ________________________________________________________

That's all the unlock for today. Tune in next week.

Stay awesome, you unlockers!

Want more? Order The Great Unlock here.