**2. Methodology**

The purpose of this study was to synthesize research findings of deliberate practice for K-12 teachers. Search terms were derived from a review of the literature on deliberate practice theory. Final criteria included (1) peer reviewed studies utilizing deliberate practice with K-12 teachers, (2) studies in which deliberate practice was the interpretive lens, (3) and studies that made a unique contribution to deliberate practice knowledge in the ill-structured domain of K-12 teacher expertise. These criteria excluded non-peer reviewed works, editorials, essays. This filter also excluded studies and literature reviews of DP in other domains (medical, music, sociology, human resources, higher education, students, etc.). The primary search term was deliberate practice which combined with secondary terms (goals, feedback, motivation, education, and instruction). The following databases were searched: ERIC, Academic Search Premier, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson), and Google Scholar.

Initial search of peer reviewed studies with deliberate practice in the abstract produced 644 citations. "Deliberate practice" and "education" produced 325 citations. Combination searches were conducted with "deliberate practice" and "motivation," "goals," "instruction," and "feedback," producing 79 citations. New citations were added to the list and duplicates were eliminated.

All titles were reviewed to ensure relation to deliberate practice and K-12 teachers. Articles by Ericsson and literature reviews not directly focused on K-12 teachers were removed. Articles were eliminated that were editorial, essay, or specific studies in other domains. Literature reviews of DP in other domains were removed. This process resulted in 46 citations. Abstract analysis was employed to determine if deliberate practice was the theoretical framework for design and interpretation. Articles advocating deliberate practice strategies for teachers that were not empirical studies were removed. There were seven studies remaining that met all criteria. Google Scholar was used to identify and review studies citing these seven, a forward-looking check for articles meeting criteria. Two additional articles were found meeting all criteria. All articles were read through for confirmation. The final sample included nine studies published from 1999 to 2019.

Each study was read a second time for systematic analysis. Factors of deliberate practice were used to code relevant details of each study. Findings for each factor were comparatively analyzed for similarities, differences, and insights informing the research questions for this study. An overview of studies is provided below, followed by result of analyses presented in an integration of findings.

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

#### **2.1 Overview of studies 1999: 2019**

Nine studies since 1999 studied instructional expertise for teachers through the lens of deliberate practice including a third from Europe, North America, and Asia, respectively. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method designs were employed. Studies as a group confirm the empirical usefulness of deliberate practice.

Dunn and Shriner [2] found planning and evaluation to be core deliberate practices. In contrast, although Hashim and Ahmad [19] confirmed the importance of preparing and evaluation, their study of expert educators reported two activities not associated with deliberate practice including number of hours in daily teaching and extracurricular activities. As well, König, J., Blömeke, S., & Kaiser, G. [19] cited teaching time alone as deliberate practice. Although teaching time is prerequisite to instructional practice, deliberate practice theory predicts teaching time alone is an insufficient explanation for eminent ability. Other researchers noted that since all teachers engage in most or all of these activities, a factor unique to self-improving teachers must explain the difference; this difference was termed teacher approach [2]. Adding support, Bronkhorst et al. [20] identified 63 activities meeting designated criteria for deliberate practice but found no significant difference between these activities relative to other activities. However, differences were found for the outcomes of these activities. Thus, the study supports Dunn & Shriner [2] in suggesting approach, rather than mere participation in the activity, distinguished teacher activities as deliberate practice. Bronkhorst et al. [21] found stronger descriptions of teacher deliberate practice reporting one group of experts who described deliberate practice as the enactment of teaching (i.e., put into practice one's intentions) while other experts described deliberate practice as regulation, (i.e., reflection on one's own learning process & seek self-improvement). Another study focused on instructional practice using micro lessons [22]. Finally, public lesson study highlighted teacher lesson planning with specific goals, rehearsal of instructional practice, feedback (from students, peers, and experts), and active evaluation with decision making [23–25]. Thus, public lesson study provided the most complete explication of deliberate practice.
