Okay, I admit it, I’m an avid Strictly Come Dancing watcher and my Saturday evenings are just not the same at the minute…
One of the many things I enjoy about the show is the progress made by the celebrity dancers over the course of the programme; in many cases, it’s phenomenal. What I find even more amazing is the work of the professionals aka the experts.
The professionals have been selected due to their expertise in a repertoire of dance disciplines. Each week, not only are they required to train a novice (celebrity) how to dance a particular routine, but they are also involved in at least one other routine during the show, which they perform with gusto and grace. In order to reach this standard, they have acquired thousands of hours of practice over a number of years and, as a result, have highly organised and fine tuned schema in their long term memories, which allows them to access new routines with efficiency and ease (I’ve discussed cognitive architecture in previous posts, so don’t intend to dwell on it here).
The work of Ericson and colleagues found that for individuals to become experts in their respective domains, it generally takes about 10 years of deliberate practice.
‘Simon and Chase (1973) observed that nobody had attained the level of an international chess master (grandmaster) “with less than about a decade’s intense preparation with the game”.’
They found similar results when reviewing other domains (teaching not included of course) and concluded that:
‘the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain.’
What does an expert teacher look like?
Whilst it is acknowledged that there is currently little consensus as to what constitutes an expert teacher, one could argue that as it currently stands, it is one that gains the highest value added achievement that is likely to be considered an expert. The often discredited work of Hattie and Marzano, along with studies in the domain of cognitive science provide us with many examples of methods and approaches that have greater impact on achievement. For example, we know that feedback which looks forward and is task-centred is more effective than no feedback or ego-centred feedback. We know that testing learners on material supports their ability to retain and retrieve knowledge. We know that spacing practice supports retention better than massed practice.
Using these (and the many other research informed approaches) as a barometer for expertise is arguably a starting point for all teachers in their deliberate practice towards expertise.
What is the difference between deliberate practice and normal practice then?
Ericsson et al inform us that ‘deliberate practice includes activities that have been specifically designed to improve the current level of performance’. They go on to state that key conditions for deliberate practice include: intrinsic motivation, feedback, and focused practice on specific areas of weakness. Unlike deliberate practice, normal practice is generally unstructured and feedback-free.
As a teacher, what can I do with this information?
This blog is timely in light of the recent Deans for Impact – Practice with Purpose release for teacher educators, and using the framework suggested will provide trainees with a good foundation for deliberate practice. For those already teaching, there are many aspects of this report that you might use, but as Ericsson et al point out, practice is not inherently motivating, requires time and is effortful. Therefore, it might be something you discuss with colleagues in order to cooperatively agree targets, structure practice opportunities, and monitor and provide feedback to one another to make progress towards ‘expertise’, or rather, a 10 from Len!