**3.2 Feedback**

Three studies of in-service teachers implied students are a source of feedback to teachers who give attention to the cues. For König et al. [19] feedback can be viewed as cues coming from student displays of motivation or disruptive behavior while Dunn & Shriner [2] find student *learning* outcomes (e.g., teachers test, projects, district assessments) are a source of feedback. However, a key difference in the public lesson study was the salience of informative and critical feedback by "knowledgeable others," focused on three highly specific goals [23–25]. The types of feedback cited in public study included providing rationale, strategies, correction, questions, validation of practice, description, and suggestions for change. Both Dunn & Shriner [2] and Chinese lesson study [23–25] highlighted dialog with peers but public lessons offered greater structure for peer feedback and included expert feedback. Such feedback was informative of strategies and provide corrective input on practices negatively impacting student learning. The Malaysian study had very sparse examples of such feedback [26]. On the other hand, the Netherlands study identified expert articulation of student teachers' theories as unique and important feedback [21]. As well, teacher educators' facilitation of student teacher self-evaluation raised awareness- another important source of feedback. Both studies included student teacher supervisors implying feedback is central to developing instructional expertise; however, the information, strategy, or corrective nature of such feedback was missing. This limited an important connection with the deliberate practice model. In contrast, student responses during the lesson as well as after the lesson were important feedback cues. This type of indirect feedback is similar to findings by Dunn & Shriner [2] and König et al. [19]. Preservice teachers received feedback from context (time was up before they were ready), student reactions (interested, enjoying the lesson), and student outputs (more correct answers) [22]. Student teaching supervisors provided feedback of "already been noticed." The study also included feedback from peers [20].

#### **3.3 Reflection-revision, evaluation and decision making**

Reflection was evident or implied in most studies and, at times, synonymous with evaluation of teaching. However, reflection was not addressed in the German study [19]. Again, public lessons stood out as distinguished from general teacher

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

reflection [2, 24, 25] in that all members of teacher research groups (TRG) participated in the reflection including reflection on teacher performance during the lesson. The reflection characteristic was a salient theme among expert educators [21, 26], which led to revisions of task design, mathematical representations, task sequence, time sequence, and activity design.

Reflection can be inferred from Anderson et al. [22] based on student teacher comments regarding micro-teaching concerns, e.g., initial concerns with pacing. Bronkhorst et al. [20] did not collect data on active reflection of student teachers. Studies provided data supporting *types* of reflection including evaluation of student feedback, dialog on expert feedback, self-evaluation, and exploring revision or improvement possibilities with peers, experts, or supervisors.

#### **3.4 Intense repetition**

Repetition of the planning-evaluation cycle was common to four studies [2, 23–25] and can be inferred from the teaching time variable that predicts interpretive ability of teachers [19]. Public lessons were unique in the focus on rehearsal and repetition. Two studies included three cycles of Chinese lesson study [24, 25]. Rehearsing the lesson with various groups of students with critical feedback was more effortful for teachers and receiving critical feedback was not inherently enjoyable [23]. Repetition was implied in the described practices of expert educators (i.e., design- reflect- evaluate) [21, 26]. Although repetition was a criterion and reported activities included a plan to repeat, it is unclear whether repetition was linked with incremental selfimprovement goals. In contrast, Anderson et al. [22] included an initial micro lesson with three repetitions making its impact more visible.

#### **4. Research question #2 constraints of deliberate practice**

#### **4.1 Environmental constraints**

Findings were context-specific and indicate that teachers who are provided job-embedded opportunities for planning and evaluation have greater opportunity to deliberately improve instructional expertise [2, 23–25]. Environmental factors impact how much teaching time teachers have. Thus, König et al. [19] suggest that leaders secure the maximum teaching time. This makes sense for students implicitly, but study data found that teaching time predicted 10% of expertise in interpreting classroom situations depicted in video vignettes. Chinese lesson study [23, 24] was supported by environmental infrastructure and a long tradition of public lessons in China. All aspects of deliberate practices were job embedded, included in the evaluation system, culturally supported, and for at least one teacher participation was directed. Even when this process was implemented in the United States, there was support from university professors, experienced educators, and time to engage in repeated teaching, reflection, and revision [25]. Such environmental factors deserve careful review prior to implementing in different cultural contexts.

#### **4.2 Motivational constraints**

Motivation was expressed as *mindfulness* and *effort* during planning and evaluation activities; these were found to be the essential difference for teachers optimizing growth in instructional expertise [2]. Although effort and motivation to participate were assumed as part of the cultural context of public lessons, the response to feedback contrasted sharply. For example, teacher one resisted feedback leading to confusion among students in the public lesson while teacher two accepted, applied, and even sought out new strategy feedback leading to noteworthy improvement in the public lesson. Note that teacher two persisted through five rehearsal cycles (compared to one cycle for teacher one), another indication of strong motivation. The study provided thick description of feedback and suggests that response to feedback and feedback seeking may be a proxy for teacher motivation for self-improvement [23]. Two additional studies of Chines lesson study were conducted allowing volunteers [24, 25]. In each study motivation appeared to be strong, a confirmation that this approach is more efficacious with educators who have a mental model of self-improvement.

Differences in teacher response may link with Dunn & Shriner's [2] finding that some teachers are more mindful in planning/evaluation than others indicating that variance in self-motivation creates variance in acquisition of expertise. König et al. [19] found that task demand/challenge by students (i.e., motivating students & managing disruptive behavior) predicted teacher profile with an explanatory power of 20.7%. Analysis generated a paradoxical finding that higher skilled teachers report higher motivational and behavioral challenges from students. Their findings raise the possibility that such problems motivate teachers to experiment with new strategies thus leading to higher levels of expertise [19].

#### **4.3 Linking environmental and motivational factors**

Insights from expert teacher studies offer additional insights. Bronkhorst et al. [21] links individual motivation and environmental factors. The environment described includes active modeling of expert educators for their student teachers, active facilitation for the deliberate practices, alignment of student teacher conceptions with expert educators' conceptions, and a combination of self-evaluation with expert educator evaluation. Thus, an environment with support and aligned accountability fosters conditions for self-improvement of student teachers. Hashim [26] noted essential self-motivation and environmental supports. The environment they worked in included administrative support which led to unique opportunities to further develop knowledge and skills. Experts noted that such support was costly financially and limited to teachers demonstrating self-motivational individual values. Expert educators reported individual values of self-direction, a committed attitude, a firm work ethic and persistence. Experts note they were also socially motivated by peers. Moreover, these supportive learning experiences paved the way to leadership opportunities as trainers, mentors, and eventually to promotion as "excellent lecturer" by the ministry of education. Note the interaction effect of individual motivational factors with environmental factors leading to recognized expertise.

Environmental factors influenced student teachers in both studies of preservice teachers. Small group size (5–7 fourth grade students), varied classrooms, a limit of 35 minutes, and university instruction in social studies pedagogical content knowledge combined to influence repeated lessons [22]. Environmental cues such as "already been noticed" were cited as influential feedback [20]. As well, both studies found student teachers were motivated to self-improve *to improve student outcomes*. Anderson et al. [22] notes dimensions of teacher performance (i.e., pacing, gaining student interest) were important to motivation. These findings are consistent with studies of Chinese lesson study [24, 25]. In contrast, Bronkhorst et al. [20]

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

incorporated "motivated in some way" as a fourth criteria in identifying 308 student teacher activities while only 63 met all criteria as deliberate practice. In sum, preservice and early career teachers may be considered as novices who are influenced by their environmental context and motivated by factors that differ from expert teachers. However, the motivation for self-improvement seems to transcend differences in experience, skill, content area, and culture. More research on the motivation for self-improvement is warranted.

### **5. Research question #3 outcomes of deliberate practice**

Educational studies of deliberate practice build on prior studies of elite performance. Prior studies used retrospective interviews and experience logs to investigate elite and good performers. Analysis of type of practice, frequency of practice, total daily/weekly practice, and total accumulated practice were conducted. Therefore, it was essential that the study of expert performance begin with *true experts*. Researchers could then empirically investigate whether differences in expertise were best explained by innate characteristics, type of practice, amount of practice, or some combination of these factors.

Experts in the domains of chess (i.e., chess grandmasters) and music (i.e., international philharmonic orchestra members) demonstrate elite expertise with clear outcomes. We make the causal assumption that A (deliberate practice) causes B (gain in ability). Studies of instructional expertise reported impact on teachers' instructional practices and on student outcomes. Deliberate practice for teaching (A) improves instructional practice (B), which in turn influences student achievement (C). However, other factors *could* influence student achievement. Thus, while deliberate practice has a direct effect on instructional practice, it has an *indirect* effect on student achievement. Studies reported both types of outcomes, albeit without using statistical methods (i.e., path analysis) which could measure such effects. Such research is recommended.

#### **5.1 Three positive outcomes**

Deliberate practice produced moderate direct qualitative results on a range of teacher instructional practices. Dunn & Shriner [2] found that experts change strategy when students are not learning, learn more from deliberate practice activities due to their *approach*, and make changes based on informal evaluation of student behavior [2]. König et al. [19] predicted the outcome of teaching time to be increased skill in interpreting classroom situations; a form of instructional expertise. As these skills were measured using video vignettes of actual classroom situations, we infer this outcome relates to teacher reflection-in-action [27], consistent with Dunn & Shriner [2]. More specific teacher improvement outcomes occurred in public lessons including improved instructional expertise in task design, teaching difficult math concepts, and using mathematically appropriate language. These outcomes occurred the primary level [24], upper elementary level [24], and high school level [25].

Contrasting outcomes occurred in one study of teacher performance because one teacher resisted feedback leading to confusion for students while another teacher accepted and used strategy-oriented feedback leading to "remarkable improvement in her attempt to teach the difficult idea to the first graders" [23]. Thus, outcomes of deliberate practice resulted in improved teacher performance which impacted positive student learning outcomes.

Response to feedback appears to mediate the effects of deliberate practice with expert feedback. Pre-service teachers using deliberate practice improved efficiency of instruction and increased pedagogical content knowledge for social studies [22]. Expert teacher educators reported that student teachers increase their efforts for selfimprovement, instructional effectiveness, and experience greater success when they engage in deliberate practice [21].

Student outcomes varied significantly, and studies provided mainly qualitative support for the influence of deliberate practice on student achievement. Anderson et al. [22] found students produced more correct answers because pre-service teachers used deliberate practice. Expert educators reported that deliberate practice for student teachers resulted in improved student outcomes [21] but specific data demonstrating this connection was absent from the study. One clear example of student achievement outcome was improved student learning on a government geography exam resulting from expert use of a new strategy [26]. Evidence to date suggest that a clearly defined outcome for students is likely to be impacted through deliberate practice, but such outcomes are micro in nature. It may be possible to improve outcomes that are tangential or of secondary importance. More research is needed to investigate the indirect effects of deliberate practice on student achievement outcomes, including quantitative measures which can be allow inferences to a larger population.

The evidence from the study of deliberate practice with K-12 teachers demonstrate its potential to produce improvements for self-selected skills deliberately practiced by teachers. However, the decision of *which* skills are practiced and improved may alter significantly whether student achievement is improved.

#### **6. Discussion**

Each unique characteristic (task design, feedback, reflection, sustained repetition) and constraint (environmental resources and individual motivation) of deliberate practice theory is empirically supported in research literature and all characteristics were demonstrated in the Chinese public lesson. Challenging goals (task design) increase the effectiveness and need for feedback [28]. When goals are too easy, feedback is not needed. However, when goals are designed with sufficient challenge, feedback is essential to success. This process was illustrated well by the Chinese public lesson process. Feedback by a knowledgeable other, related to these goals, influences reflection, revision, and outcomes. Indeed, meta-analyses demonstrate that the effect size for feedback with students was 0.72 [4, 29]. Given the support for each factor of the deliberate practice model, I suggest that deliberate practice provides a useful heuristic for continuous-improvement of instructional expertise by K-12 teachers. Future research will be needed to confirm and quantify such value in developing teacher quality.

Several limitations emerged in this systematic review spanning 1999–2019. First, studies in this review used number of years (i.e., 10, 24) and recommendations of others (peers, ministry of education) as a key indicator of expert status. These measures are not trustworthy predictors of student achievement and, therefore, of elite performance. Second, sample sizes of most studies were very small, and none were randomly selected. The sample selection limits generalizability of findings. In addition, only two studies explored deliberate practice with in-service teachers at the secondary level and there were no studies of secondary teachers with the minimum experience of ten years suggested by deliberate practice. Finally, this study *Becoming an Expert* on Purpose*: How Deliberate Practice Informs Teacher Effectiveness DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101734*

consistently found teacher *approach or self-motivation* to be the difference between teachers engaging in deliberate practice compared with those who do not, or who resist the process. However, no scale was developed to measure the construct of self-improvement motivation.

Therefore, several research recommendations may help in the process. First, I recommend investigating the indirect effects of deliberate practice on student achievement outcomes. Second, research is needed to explore the deliberate practices of *self-improving secondary tenured teachers.* Specifically, researchers need to explore teacher practices for those who *do not need to improve* yet aggressively seek self-improvement. Third, future research needs to develop and test a scale that can measure the construct of *teacher self-improvement motivation*. Research can then study factors that predict the construct in K-12 teaching as well as outcomes that can be predicted by the construct.

Policy makers may aid this journey in a few strategic ways. First, recent research on integrated leadership identified practices that foster "community learning," one of two functions predicting teachers with high effectiveness and high morale [30]. Evidence from 20 years of research on deliberate practice for teachers provides complementary evidence for how we cultivate teacher instructional expertise. Therefore, policy makers should fund and support policies and regulations that institutionalize job-embedded professional learning communities. In addition, policies for teacher professional development need to consider additional small-scale implementation of Chinese lesson study as a means of deliberate practice.

Professional practice begins in our schools of education and continues into our schools and districts. Therefore, teacher training programs need to embed deliberate practice as a means to develop and sustain improvement in teaching instructional expertise. Principal training programs need to guide principals in how to support community learning as the primary work of teachers and staff in a school. Finally, instructional coaches, mentors, and specialists need to apply the principles of deliberate practice as they seek to support ongoing improvement of teachers in schools.

#### **7. Conclusion**

This chapter presented a challenge, an invitation to teachers into a long-term journey toward the highest levels of expertise. In a profession in which large numbers leave the profession or promote within five years, we are not experiencing the highest levels of performance for all teachers. Concurrently, the pressure on teachers for results has invited resistance. It remains for leaders, teachers, policy makers, and researchers to collaborate on improving the conditions in which all of us work while simultaneously taking the next step to motivate teachers within our respective contexts.

*Pedagogy - Challenges, Recent Advances, New Perspectives, and Applications*
