**Abstract**

The call for teacher improvement has long been advocated in educational circles. Hargreaves & Fullan asserted it takes 8 years to reach the highest level. The important direct relationship of teacher effectiveness to student achievement was summarized by John Hattie. Many pathways to developing teacher effectiveness have been explored. A unique body of literature exploring expertise and it acquisition led to the articulation of deliberate practice theory with application in the domains of chess, music, medical training, and professional domains. Although a robust set of reviews have synthesized knowledge of deliberate practice in other domains, a comparable review could not be found in the field of education. Therefore, this chapter synthesizes the literature applying deliberate practice theory to the cultivation of teacher effectiveness.

**Keywords:** teacher effectiveness, instructional expertise, deliberate practice, pedagogy, instructional coaching

### **1. Introduction**

The importance of effective teachers cannot be underestimated. Indeed, stakeholders such as students, parents, and principals wholeheartedly agree on this need. Current literature confirms that the highest levels of effectiveness for teachers come after 8 years and begin to diminish after 23 [1]. Nevertheless, there are some teachers within the profession who "…will still not settle for *relatively effective teaching*. They will deliberately and frequently engage in activities to improve their teaching" [2]. We seek to foster continuous self-improvement of teachers' instructional expertise.

*Instructional expertise* refers to the effective use of pedagogical content knowledge [3] and related skills by teachers resulting in visible learning outcomes for students [4]. A unique body of research has explored elite expertise and its *acquisition* leading to the articulation of deliberate practice theory [5, 6] and subsequent application in multiple domains including chess, music, medical training, and professional domains [7]. Literature reviews have synthesized findings in medical training, music, and psychology [6, 8, 9]; however, no systematic literature review could be found applying deliberate practice theory in the domain of K-12 teaching.

Therefore, this chapter synthesizes current research applying deliberate practice theory to the development of K-12 teacher instructional expertise. The article

describes historical antecedents in the general study of expertise and then explains deliberate practice theory, concluding with three questions pursued in this chapter. Section two describes application of this theory to educational research. Section three describes methodology. Section four synthesizes findings for the characteristics of deliberate practice, constraints to the process, and outcomes found in the literature. Section five discusses the implications for research, policy, and practice. The final section concludes the chapter.

#### **1.1 Historical antecedents in the study of expertise**

Early modern assumptions of expertise were altered in 1869 by Sir Francis Galton. Prior to his study of expertise, it was assumed that eminence in any domain was fully explained by natural ability. Galton's tripartite theory retained a belief in innate talent but added to this the dimension of zeal and the power to do laborious work. In Galton's words, "If a man is gifted with vast intellectual ability, eagerness to work, and power of working, I cannot comprehend how such a man should be repressed" [10].

Alternative scientific accounts of expertise development have been proposed. Study of research scientists found the average age of first publication was 25.2 with greatest work published at age 35.4, a period of 10.2 years [11]. The study of chess grand masters led to a similar specific period of practice to achieve eminence, i.e., ten years practice or more to become a chess grand master [12]. Bereiter and Scardamalia [13] posited expertise as a process, rather than a state of being, something experts do over and over thereby becoming and remaining experts; they look for and take on increasing challenges in their domain. In this context, a theory of deliberate practice was published in 1993 synthesizing nearly a century of research on expertise and reporting data from two new empirical studies in support of this theory [14].

#### **1.2 Deliberate practice theory and educational literature**

Deliberate practice is a unique type of practice that is purposeful, systematic, requires focused attention and is conducted with the specific goal of improving performance. Two studies of musicians found that practicing alone with a focus on self-improvement was the activity rated most relevant by elite musicians as contrasted with performances and playing for fun [14]. Indeed, it is possible to analyze the vital factors that mediate eminent performance in other domains [15]. Eminent scientists have high rates of publication; they deliberately develop and refine ideas through thinking and writing. Manuscripts go through many revisions and the peer review process offers feedback. Elite runners deliberately develop muscle using interval training and less time in long moderate runs that offer the "runners high." In the domain of chess, deliberate practice consists in the hours spent studying published games of chess grandmasters seeking to predict the next move of a master; this type of practice was contrasted with playing games in tournaments or for fun [16]. Another example focused on improving student achievement by applying deliberate practice to students. The critical factor for such practice was structuring students' study activities, so that students obtain specific, timely, and reliable feedback regarding their progress [17]. Moreover, Dunn & Shriner [2] found strong support for using the deliberate practice framework to understand the development of expertise in the ill-structured domain of teaching. In sum, deliberate practice theory has over three decades of research in multiple domains with extensive empirical support for applying deliberate practice to improve teacher instructional expertise [18].

#### *Becoming an Expert* on Purpose*: How Deliberate Practice Informs Teacher Effectiveness DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101734*

Educational research on the development of expertise confirms deliberate practice theory's prediction that it will take much longer than a typical one-year teacher education program to develop expert ability. Shulman's theory [3], pedagogical content knowledge, has greatly influenced generally accepted notions of what instructional expertise ought to be described as for teachers. To be an expert, a teacher must acquire expert knowledge of their content, expert knowledge of pedagogies relevant to their content area, and the expert judgment to apply such knowledge with the student population they are teaching. Indeed, a long-term synthesis of meta-analyses in educational research found effect sizes for a wide range of practices; however, the big idea emerging was that effective teaching is visible to students and student learning outcomes are visible to teachers [4]. Therefore, we include outcomes in the working definition of instructional expertise. Instructional expertise refers to the effective use of pedagogical content knowledge and related skills by teachers resulting in visible learning outcomes for students. Consistent with deliberate practice theory [14], we expect instructional expertise to be the outcome of prolonged intentional efforts by teachers to improve.

Many studies since 1999 sought to apply deliberate practice theory in K-12 teaching. Whereas chess masters study published games, deliberate practice for teachers occurs in an ill-structured domain where many different teacher quality goals are relevant. As such, deliberate practice for teachers is a self-improving approach to goal setting, instructional practice, feedback seeking, evaluation and decision making related to new goals. Often there is a shift from task design by a coach to self-improving goal setting, from directed practice alone to self-improving instructional practice with students, from receiving feedback from a coach to seeking self-improving feedback from multiple sources, and evaluation as reflection for self-improvement.

Four characteristics are essential to deliberate practice. A practice task with a well-defined goal is designed by a coach for self-improvement. The next dimension, feedback, is crucial to positive impact. Feedback needs to be immediate and informative in response to the practice thus enabling the learner to use the information for self-improvement. Third, reflection on both feedback and practice informs future deliberate practice. This cycle of self-improvement is repeated with intensity over time leading to incremental improvements.

Three constraints may limit deliberate practice. This type of practice requires significant motivation and effort as it is not inherently enjoyable, provides little external reward, and is difficult. The continuous cycle of growth requires full concentration, evaluation, and applying new strategies to improve performance. As well, motivation and effort must be supported by a third constraint, environmental factors. Deliberate practice is supported or hindered by availability of resources such as time, tools, and financial costs related to coaches, experts, and training (**Figure 1**).

The following research questions guided this systematic review the literature applying deliberate practice to teacher instructional expertise:


**Figure 1.** *Deliberate practice intensively repeated.*
