deliberate practice in teaching: what teachers do for self...

Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 631}651

Deliberate practice in teaching:what teachers do for self-improvement

Thomas G. Dunn!,*, Constance Shriner"

! Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA" The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA

Received 18 June 1998; received in revised form 30 September 1998; accepted 5 December 1998

Abstract

Two studies investigated teacher activities that may lead to the development of competence, if not expertise. In Study I,136 teachers indicated in a questionnaire that evaluation and planning activities (informal and formal) best paralleldeliberate practice activities that Ericsson and colleagues report as accounting for expertise in other domains. In Study II,log data and interviews from eight experienced teachers indicated that these activities provide opportunities forself-improvement even though that may not have been why teachers did them. The frequent and mindful engagement inthese activities, prompting cycles of teaching } evaluation } revision, may be what accounts for expertise. ( 1999 ElsevierScience Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher expertise; Teacher planning; Teacher evaluation

Research in the "eld of expertise has suggestedthat a number of characteristics distinguish expertperformers from novices in a domain. Among thesecharacteristics are di!erences in pattern recogni-tion, time required to complete tasks, accuracy inrepresenting and solving problems, as well as di!er-ences in short- and long-term memory capabilities(Glaser & Chi, 1988). Additional research indicatesthat experience, an integral factor in the acquisitionof expertise, is a necessary but insu$cient condi-tion. Experience alone does not guarantee high

*Corresponding author. Tel.: (419) 530-2045; fax: (419) 530-8447.

E-mail address: [email protected] (T.G. Dunn)

levels of competence. The "ndings of these studies,however, which contrast experts and novices ina domain, do not say anything about how thesuperior knowledge displayed by experts came tobe, or how it is possible for performers whohave equivalent amounts of experience to di!erin the amount of knowledge they possess (Bereiter& Scardamalia, 1993, p. 42). If experience ina "eld does not necessarily result in high levelsof performance, what other factors account forit?

Several authors have addressed this question.Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) suggest that ex-pertise is a process rather than a state of beingcharacterized by capabilities that people have.They suggest that there is something that experts

0742-051X/99/$ - see front matter. ( 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 6 8 - 7

do over and above ordinary learning that accountsfor the fact that they become and remain experts.According to these authors, available mental re-sources are continually reinvested back into solvingadditional problems at higher levels of complexity.The process builds on normal learning because it isthrough normal learning and proceduralizationthat mental resources are freed and made availablefor reinvestment (p. 120). Experts continue to lookfor and tackle the complexities of a domain, ratherthan reduce problems to situations that can behandled with routine procedures. Bereiter andScardamalia suggest that although it may takeyears for socially recognized expert performance todevelop, the process of expertise could begin veryearly.

Another approach to understanding the develop-ment of high levels of competence in the professionshas been o!ered by SchoK n (1983, 1987). Challengingthe notion that practice is guided by theory andapplied principles, SchoK n sees practitioners as morethan mere problem solvers who apply theory andprinciples. Rather, he suggests that the role of thepractitioner is critical. Individuals are thought todisplay an ability to see problems in ways thatfacilitate solution in the particular context whichSchoK n has called &&re#ection-in-action.'' The e!ec-tive professional is characterized by an ability torecognize and explore puzzling, problematic eventsand situations as they occur. A less than e!ectiveprofessional will resort to routine responses andrepetitive behavior, regardless of how well theseactions resolve the current situation. The notion ofre#ection-in-action is somewhat elusive. SchoK n(1983, 1987) di!erentiates this type of re#ectionfrom &&re#ection-on-action'' which is a deliberate,retrospective analysis of action. Re#ection-in-action is more a process of experimenting withinterpretations and possible solutions until anappropriate combination is found. According toSchoK n, professional knowledge, and the potentialfor more e!ective, improved performance, arisefrom direct interaction between the practitionerand the action.

Another model to explain the acquisition of ex-pertise has been developed by Ericsson, Krampeand Tesch-Romer (1993). It is this model that servesas a basis for the studies and discussion presented

in this paper. These authors suggest a frameworkthat explains expert performance as the result ofindividuals' prolonged e!orts to improve. Indi-viduals are thought to acquire new knowledge,methods, and skills which allow them to restructuretheir current performance. This is not done as anautomatic response to experience in the "eld, butrather it is a consequence of structured learningand e!ortful adaptation. Performance is improvedwhen individuals participate in domain speci"cactivities that provide optimal opportunities forlearning.

Ericsson et al. (1993) have described deliberatepractice as those activities which are highly rele-vant to improving performance and require sig-ni"cant personal e!ort to initiate and maintain.Performance of the activities is thought to be moti-vated by a goal of performance improvement ratherthan enjoyment inherent in the activities themsel-ves. Deliberate practice activities are performedfrequently, and the amount of practice is thought torelate directly to the level of performance. Manyindividuals may cease &&practicing'' once they reachan acceptable level of competence in their "eld. Theexpert, however, continues to regularly engage in&&practice'' activities which contribute to continuedimprovement in performance. Ericsson et al. (1993)have identi"ed a monotonic bene"ts function be-tween deliberate practice and expertise. Higherlevels of engagement in deliberate practice areassociated with higher levels of performance.

In their investigations of deliberate practice,Ericsson et al. (1993) report data regarding musi-cians' perceptions of activities most relevant toimproving performance. Practicing alone was theactivity rated most relevant. In addition, they foundthat expert musicians spend more time engaged inpractice activities than average or good musicians.For the domain of music, it was clear what activ-ities constituted practice. These activities did notinclude actual performances and did not includeplaying for fun and enjoyment. Practice activitieswere deliberate e!orts to improve, hence the term&&deliberate practice.''

In subsequent work, Ericsson and Charness(1994) argue that it is possible to study and analyzethe factors which mediate expert performance inany domain. Many of the domains considered so

632 T.G. Dunn, C. Shriner / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 631}651

far, however, are in the areas of music and sports.These domains can be considered somewhat well-structured in the sense that practice leading toimprovement can be recognized and observed. Inaddition, improved performance in these domainsis de"ned and can be assessed by comparison tosome standard. Not all performance domains, how-ever, are well-structured. When performing in ill-structured domains, there is di$culty in de"ninggoals and subgoals that constitute improved per-formance. The problems that performers in thesedomains need to overcome in order to improve arenot clearly de"ned.

The studies reported here represent an attemptto explore an ill-structured domain, classroomteaching, from the perspective of deliberate prac-tice. Several general questions have guided thiswork: Does the framework of deliberate practiceprovide a useful approach to understanding thedevelopment of expertise in the ill-structured do-main of teaching? Does considering the domain ofteaching from this perspective provide insight intothe factors that may mediate the development ofexpertise in teaching?

Over the last few decades considerable researchand development e!orts were carried out with theintent of identifying, and creating conditions for,the development of high levels of teacher compet-ence. In this regard, Competency Based TeacherEducation (e.g., see Hall & Jones, 1976) and pro-cess-product research (e.g., see Gage, 1985) standout. While much was learned from these e!ortstheir promise was certainly not ful"lled. Still quiteelusive is a clear de"nition of e!ective teaching andhow to evaluate it (Dunn, 1980, 1994; Shulman,1986).

These di$culties notwithstanding, research onteachers and teaching has indicated that highlycompetent teachers exhibit performance character-istics similar to those associated with expert per-formers in other domains (e.g., Berliner, 1986;Borko & Livingston, 1989; Swanson, O'Connor &Cooney, 1990; Sabers, Cushing & Berliner, 1991;Clarridge & Berliner, 1991). Although the domainof teaching is ill-structured and speci"c perfor-mance criteria needed to identify &&expert'' per-formers are elusive, real di!erences in performancehave been observed. As in other domains, di!er-

ences in levels of competence imply di!erences inthe knowledge that has been acquired by the per-former, and experience alone does not account forthese di!erences.

1. Deliberate practice activity for teachers

The activities of teaching are quite varied. How-ever, among these activities &&practice,'' in the sensethat it occurs in the lives of musicians and athletes,is not one that occurs frequently for teachers. Theconcept of deliberate practice, however, capturesa mechanism that may be manifest in activity thatdoes not resemble what we commonly think of astraining activity. In many professions, performers&&practice'' by engaging in repetitive activitydesigned to improve speci"c aspects of perfor-mance. These performers frequently practice underthe direction of an experienced coach or trainerwho helps them monitor progress and providesimmediate feedback. At the foundation of the no-tion of deliberate practice, however, is the fact thatdeliberate practice refers to activity that providesoptimal opportunity for learning and skill acquisi-tion (Ericsson & Charness, 1994). It is possible thatactivities may look very di!erent across domainsyet serve this same purpose. For example, Forbes(1992) notes that advanced chess players spendmany hours each day studying previously played,published games of grand masters. As they studythese games, these advanced players try to predictthe master's moves and if a prediction is wrong, tryto understand the move at a deeper level and themaster's reasons for it. For the domain of science,Ericsson et al. (1993), noting the relationship be-tween eminent achievement and published manu-scripts, have suggested that it is through the processof writing that scientists develop and re"ne theirideas. The written manuscripts that present argu-ments in support of the scientists' new theory oridea are revised many times in response to com-ments and criticisms. Scientists improve their argu-ments as they deliberately revise and restructuretheir written presentations of them.

The following two studies consider the activitiesof teachers from the perspective of deliberate prac-tice. Assuming that the development of expertise

T.G. Dunn, C. Shriner / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 631}651 633

over years of experience is supported by engage-ment in speci"c activities that provide optimal op-portunity for learning and skill acquisition, thesestudies try to identify these activities for teachers.

2. Study I

In order to be considered deliberate practice ac-tivities for teachers, behaviors should satisfy theconditions proposed for such activity by Ericssonet al. (1993): (a) teachers should perceive the beha-viors as highly relevant to improving teachinge!ectiveness; (b) they should acknowledge that con-siderable e!ort is required to initiate and maintainthe behaviors over time; (c) they should performthese behaviors frequently; and (d) they need not"nd the behaviors highly enjoyable in themselves.It should be reasonable that teachers can learnfrom engaging in these behaviors, and that they canadapt and restructure their performance as a resultof them. This study involved an investigation ofteachers' beliefs about activities related to teachingin primary, middle grade, and junior high class-rooms. The major question concerned identifyingactivities simultaneously rated high in relevance,e!ort and frequency by classroom teachers. Anactivity that meets these criteria may be consideredas a possible &&deliberate practice'' activity if itreasonably provides teachers with optimal oppor-tunities for active learning.

2.1. Method

Data for this study were collected using a ques-tionnaire designed speci"cally for the purpose ofgathering information regarding teachers' percep-tions of activities related to teaching. The speci"citems on the questionnaire included activitiesthought to support or complement a teacher'sclassroom performance and to potentially increasee!ectiveness. The questionnaire presented 15 acti-vities generated through discussions with experi-enced classroom teachers as well as individualsinvolved with the training of new teachers. Duringdevelopment of the questionnaire, classroomteachers were asked to read and respond to poten-tial items. Revisions were made as needed to clarify

and re"ne the items. Some of the items werethought to present speci"c activities likely to beinterpreted by respondents in similar ways. Forexample, &&Attending workshops or in-service meet-ings,'' &&Serving on school or district committees,''and &&Observing others teach or interact with chil-dren,'' were items thought to represent similaractivities for all individuals. Circumstances wouldbe di!erent, but the activities themselves similar.

Other activities related to teaching, however,were thought to be interpreted in unique waysbased on an individual's approach to teaching andexisting behavior patterns. For example, items pre-senting &&evaluation'' and &&planning and prepara-tion for instruction'' would be subject to variousinterpretations since individuals have developedunique ways to do these things. In these cases, theitems were elaborated in an attempt to make themhave similar meaning for respondents. The activityof evaluating student performance was eventuallyrepresented by four separate items on the question-naire:

(1) evaluating student performance and under-standing through the use of graded writtenwork and projects,

(2) evaluating student performance and under-standing through the use of tests you developyourself,

(3) evaluating student performance and under-standing through the use of tests provided bypublishers, and

(4) evaluating student performance and under-standing through informal observations ofstudents' behavior and non-graded perfor-mance.

The "nal questionnaire included items describingactivities a teacher would engage in independently(e.g., writing lesson plans, mental planning, or pro-fessional reading), and those which involve otherschool personnel (e.g., discussions with otherteachers or administrators). Some activities couldbe performed in the context of the school day (e.g.,informal observations of student behavior), andothers could not (e.g., attending workshops, com-mittee work). The "nal form contained 15 itemswhich referenced speci"c activities involved inteacher planning and preparation, evaluation of


students, interaction with other teachers and pro-fessionals, as well as opportunities for continuededucation (see Appendix A).

The general term &&teaching'' is not listed amongthe 15 items. This is consistent with Ericsson et al.(1993) in that deliberate practice is distinct fromactual job performance. It is very likely thatteachers would consider the general activity ofteaching, that is, time spent engaged with studentsand the delivery of instruction, as quite relevant toimprovement, e!ortful, and frequent. While mostteachers would no doubt rate actual teaching highon all three characteristics, these results would notprovide potentially discriminating evidence ofmore speci"c activity that may lead to expertise.Two activities that can co-occur with the deliveryof instruction are included }mental planning (d10)and informal evaluation (d15).

The 15 activities were rated on four separate butparallel rating scales. Each rating scale assessedteachers' perceptions of one of the characteristics ofdeliberate practice suggested by Ericsson et al.(1993), that is, relevance to improving teaching ef-fectiveness, e!ort required to initiate and maintainperformance, enjoyment inherent in the activity,and frequency of performance. Questionnaires weredistributed to classroom teachers in 14 private ele-mentary schools in northwest Ohio and southeastMichigan. The schools included those located inlow-income, inner-city neighborhoods as well asmiddle class neighborhoods. The number ofteachers per school varied. Enrollment ranged from300 to over 700 students, and all schools consistedof kindergarten through eighth grade classes. Atotal of 201 questionnaires was distributed and 142,or 70%, were completed and returned. Several hadto be eliminated, and the "nal number of usableresponses was 136. Respondents were distributedacross grade level, years of experience, and level ofeducation.

Ratings were made on a nine-point scale forrelevance, e!ort and enjoyment (1"the minimumrating and 9"the maximum rating). Ratings forfrequency were made on a 5-point scale (1"sel-dom, 5"daily). Mean ratings were calculated foreach item on the four rating scales. Respondents'ratings were also tabulated using a three-dimen-sional array, relevance by e!ort, controlling for

frequency. Activities were rank ordered accordingto the number of teachers who assigned a highrating to the activity on the scales regardingperceptions of relevance, e!ort, and frequency.

2.2. Results

The analyses of ratings for the separate dimen-sions of relevance, e!ort, enjoyment, and fre-quency produced a number of interesting trends. Asshown in Table 1, mean ratings suggest that allactivities were perceived as at least somewhatrelevant to improving teaching e!ectiveness.

Teachers considered activities involving plann-ing and evaluation, as well as discussions withother teaching professionals, as more relevantthan other activities presented. These activities areclosely connected to instruction and a teacher'sclassroom performance.

The results concerning perceptions of e!ort sug-gest that while teachers "nd activities involvingother people (with the exception of committeework) to require the least e!ort, they consider activ-ities involved in planning, preparation andevaluation to require greater e!ort. In general,teachers also perceived activities involvingother people as more enjoyable, and regarded ac-tivities which involve &&paperwork'' as the least en-joyable.

The main purpose of Study I was to investigateactivities related to teaching from the theoreticalperspective of deliberate practice. Of primary inter-est were activities simultaneously rated as highlyrelevant to improving performance, thought to re-quire considerable e!ort, and performed frequently.The nine-point scales were collapsed into threecategories and responses were recoded as low,moderate, and high. For the scales re#ecting per-ceptions of relevance and e!ort responses of 7, 8 or9 were considered high. For the ratings of fre-quency, reports of 4 (2 or 3 times a week) or5 (daily), were recoded as high frequency. Ratingsregarding inherent enjoyment were not consideredin this analysis since deliberate practice activitiesmay or may not be perceived as enjoyable. Theactivities were rank ordered according to thenumber of teachers who rated them high on allthree scales. Table 2 displays these results.


Table 1Mean ratings of all 15 activities related to teaching

Mean ratings

Questionnaire item Relevance E!ort Enjoyment Frequency

Professional reading 6.76 5.28 5.71 2.56Attending workshops 7.15 5.79 5.90 1.99Committee work 5.16 7.08 3.98 1.90Discussions*teachers 7.87 3.30 7.51 4.08Discussions*resource pers. 6.75 4.15 6.45 2.16Discussions*administrators 6.97 4.09 6.55 2.48Observing others teach 7.49 4.88 7.33 2.49Discussions*teaching prof. 7.68 4.20 7.50 2.30Written planning 7.46 5.87 4.36 3.70Mental planning 8.04 5.58 6.48 4.45Preparing materials 8.22 6.43 5.65 4.65Evaluation*written work 7.35 6.31 4.79 4.26Informal evaluation 7.56 5.35 6.60 4.21Evaluation*self-made tests 7.41 6.69 5.15 2.93Evaluation*prepared tests 6.08 4.50 4.10 2.60

Table 2Number of teachers responding with high ratings for relevance,e!ort, and frequency

Questionnaire item Number ofteachers

Preparing materials 71Mental planning 47Evaluation*written work 46Informal evaluation 35Written planning 23Evaluation*self-made tests 11Discussions*teachers 7Observing others teach 4Evaluation*prepared tests 4Discussions*teaching prof 2Discussions*administrators 1Professional reading 1Attending workshops 0Discussions*resource pers 0Committee work 0

Based on this ranking procedure, the "rst sixactivities listed in Table 2 best re#ect characteristicsof deliberate practice. They are:

1. preparing materials needed for instructionalactivities,

2. mentally planning instructional strategies andactivities,

3. evaluating student progress using graded, writ-ten work, and projects,

4. informally evaluating students through observa-tions and non-graded performances,

5. written planning,6. evaluating student progress using teacher-made

tests.

While teachers reported that they engage in theseactivities frequently, they did not report them ashighly enjoyable. It follows that some goal otherthan enjoyment may support the performance ofthese activities. The other activities were seldomrated simultaneously high on the scales re#ectingcharacteristics of deliberate practice.

2.3. Discussion

The framework for deliberate practice proposesthat participation in such activities will be relevantto improving competence (Ericsson et al., 1993).Engaging in deliberate practice provides oppor-tunities to generate knowledge of current perfor-mance levels that can be used to determineimprovement goals. Practice allows for repeated


experiences in which individuals can pay attentionto particular aspects of their performance, usuallywith the help of a teacher, and gradually improveby incorporating knowledge of results and feed-back into their current performance patterns. Theenvironment of teaching is considerably di!erent,of course, with no generally accepted practice activ-ities and relatively rare opportunities for help. Afterstudent teaching, there is often little guidance, lim-ited opportunities to work closely with experiencedteachers, and a lack of internship programs inwhich well-respected teachers serve as mentors forbeginning teachers.

The planning, preparation, and evaluation activ-ities which elementary classroom teachers performfrequently, and which surfaced as possible deliber-ate practice activities in this study, representa broad spectrum of such activities, both formaland informal. These are not unusual activitiesand all teachers perform them to a certain extent.However, their common nature may belie theirimportance. The issue here is if they can providemotivated performers with opportunities forimprovement.

While we cannot say for certain that planningand evaluation activities will lead to the develop-ment of teacher expertise there are others whoserecommendations for improved teaching proposeactions and activities purported to improve teach-ing that are similar. Certainly we see the evalu-ation/planning emphasis in Shulman's (1987)cyclical Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Ac-tion involving Comprehension } Transformation }Instruction } Evaluation } Re#ection } New Com-prehensions. In addition, advocates of teacherre#ection (see, e.g., Zeichner & Liston, 1987; Cal-derhead, 1989) emphasize the cycle of changing andimproving what you do based on careful consi-deration of its impact on students. InstructionalSystems Designers encourage similar e!orts whendeveloping curricula and instructional materials.This is especially the case in the various tryout,process evaluation, and revision cycles so pervasivein formative evaluation of instruction (Dick &Carey, 1990). Evaluation has often been assignedthe role of being a part of the process of bothcurriculum development and teacher self-improve-ment (Scriven, 1967).

The teacher activities involved in preparation,planning, and evaluation can also be related toexpertise as it is discussed by Bereiter and Scar-damalia (1993). Considering expertise as a processrather than an acquired state, they suggest that theprocess of expertise is, in part, the process of tack-ling problems at higher levels. As initial problemsbecome manageable and routines are developed fordealing with them, experts rede"ne problems toconsider more variables, establish a higher stan-dard of results or meet a larger, more subtle rangeof requirements. For classroom teachers, where theproblems are centered around developing and im-plementing appropriate teaching and managementstrategies, this process of progressive problemsolving could be occurring as they plan, prepare,evaluate, and revise their strategies for the uniquesituations they encounter and choose to address.

The teachers' perceptions reported in Study Iand the work of the authors referenced above pro-vide some support for the importance of planningand evaluation activities in teaching. However, asstated previously, these activities are performed byall teachers, yet all teachers do not reach high levelsof teaching competence, and even fewer becomeexpert. A second study was developed to explorehow engaging in these relatively common teachingactivities could facilitate the development of highlevels of teaching competence over years of teach-ing experience.

3. Study II

The activities identi"ed in Study I as at leasthaving potential to serve the function of deliberatepractice, are not generally considered to be prac-tice. In other domains where practice activities aremore readily identi"ed, their value for the develop-ment of expertise is also more readily understood.While most teachers, at least on some level, under-stand the value of planning and evaluation activ-ities in teaching, they may not understand theirvalue for self-improvement. The purpose of thesecond study was to further explore these activitiesas mechanisms supporting the development ofteacher knowledge leading to teacher expertise.Speci"cally, we investigated the potential e!ects of


these activities on teaching as well as their fre-quency. The speci"c research questions were: Whatmore can we learn about the nature and dimen-sions of these activities that may support theiridenti"cation as deliberate practice for teachers?and How much time do teachers invest in theseactivities and what are the perceived outcomes?

3.1. Method

One important issue that was considered in theselection of teachers for Study II was that noviceteachers are often involved in planning and evalu-ation activities for survival (e.g., see Huberman,1989). The frequency, nature, and usefulness ofthese activities for novice teachers would likely bedi!erent than it would be for more experiencedteachers. We were interested in investigating theseactivities for teachers who were past survival andperhaps had had enough experience to develophigh levels of competence. We decided to limit ourinvestigation to teachers with at least 10 years ofexperience. These teachers have passed the stabiliz-ation period (Huberman, 1989), probably havemade a professional commitment to a teachingcareer, have had enough time to develop routines,and perhaps even expertise. However, this is nota study about teacher expertise, but rather an in-vestigation of teacher activities that may in#uencethe development of higher levels of competencefor teachers who have already developed at leastadequate levels of competence.

To identify teachers for this study we askedseveral administrators and experienced teachers ina middle class suburban school district to recom-mend names of primary or middle grade teachers inself-contained classrooms who were considered tobe good teachers, had at least 10 yrs of experience,and did not have a student teacher during thequarter in which the study was to be carried out.Although working with student teachers is a com-mon activity for experienced teachers, in this studywe wanted to study primarily teaching and teach-ing-related activities as opposed to supervisory ac-tivities. From a total of 19 teachers identi"ed, eightvolunteered to participate. The eight participantsaveraged 18 yrs of teaching experience (one 1stgrade, two 2nd grade, three 4th grade, one 5th

grade, and one 6th grade). There were no obviousdi!erences between the teachers who volunteeredto participate and those who did not.

Data were collected using integrated methods:activity logs for keeping a diary of daily activities,and qualitative interviews for elaborating on activi-ties and the perceived e!ects of activities on teach-ing. Using activity logs served two purposes. Itprovided information regarding the frequency ofactivities of interest as they exist in their naturalcontext and also served as a stimulus for elabor-ative interviews. Using qualitative interviewsallowed for exploration of relationships betweenreported activity, knowledge of teaching, and thedevelopment of competence. The interviews pro-vided an opportunity for participants to elaborateon their activities and the perceived outcomes ofthese activities on teaching.

Each teacher kept a diary of activities for thesame 14 days, 10 days when school was in sessionand two weekends. Teachers recorded their activ-ities in 15-min increments for each 24-hour period.They coded their recorded activities on a dailybasis using a coding scheme which was providedfor them and coding booklets especially preparedfor that purpose. The coding scheme had beendeveloped through pilot work and listed codes rep-resenting 24 categories of possible activity. Catego-ries included activities related to classroomteaching, planning for instruction, evaluation, sup-port for teaching or instruction, and everyday ac-tivities involving family, recreation, and personalinterests (see Appendix B).

In Study I there were four evaluation activitiesthat teachers rated. In Study II there were only twoevaluation categories for coding purposes: C4,which combined formal evaluations of writtenwork, projects and tests (both teacher made andalready prepared); and C3, informal evaluation.Using only two categories for coding evaluationactivities simpli"ed the process for teachers.

In addition to within school, we asked teachersto log everyday activities outside of school so thatwe could capture teaching-related activities thatoccurred in those settings. A sample page from thecoding booklet with actual data is included in Ap-pendix C. We knew before running the study, andthis was con"rmed from pilot data, that we could


not expect teachers to code every 15 min through-out the day and evening. This would be an obviousproblem for some categories like sleeping, but alsofor actual teaching. During an initial visit with eachteacher we encouraged completing the informationafter each interval if they could, but at least severaltimes in the morning and in the afternoon. Thecoding booklets were designed to be very trans-portable (3 in]6 in) and the teachers were encour-aged to keep this booklet with them throughout theday and in an obvious place in the home. Westrongly discouraged the strategy of waiting untilsome free time at the end of the day to go backand code all intervals for that day. To encouragethe timely collection of data teachers wereinstructed to send log data to one of the experimen-ters every other day in a pre-addressed/stampedenvelope.

For each 15-min increment, the recorded activitycould be assigned one, two, or three category codes.This is similar to the log procedures that Ericssonet al. (1993) used. It allowed participants to moreaccurately represent time when they were doingmore than one thing. Total minutes were calculatedfor each activity category. If an interval was as-signed multiple codes, the number of minutes in theinterval was divided across the categories reported.For example, if a teacher reported grading papers(C4) and watching TV (E7) during the same 15-mininterval, each of these categories was credited with7.5 min.

Follow-up interviews consisted of a series ofopen-ended questions and explored the partici-pants' interpretation of the following activities: C4*Evaluating students by grading written work,projects, and tests; C3*Evaluating students by in-formally observing their behavior and non-gradedperformance; and P2*Mentally planning and de-veloping instructional strategies and activities. Weselected these three categories for more intensivestudy for two reasons. First, of the activitiesidenti"ed in Study I as likely deliberate practicecandidates, these three would provide the mostinformation regarding how teachers responded tostudent behaviors and the results of their own (i.e.,the teacher's) behavior. In particular, inquiringabout evaluation activities (C4 & C3) wouldprovide insight as to how teachers dealt with in-

formation they had collected and/or observedabout student behavior. Did they tend to be mind-ful and change what they did based on this in-formation? Perkins has referred to this mindfulnessas re#ective intelligence and that re#ectiveness isessentially what determines the value of our experi-ences for subsequent learning and transfer (1995, p.109). Second, the covert nature of C3*informalevaluation, and P2*mental planning, convincedus that we needed to know how teachers inter-preted these activities.

The questioning for each of these three categories(C4, C3, P2) followed a similar pattern starting "rstwith asking what this category meant to theteachers, how often they did it, how it a!ected theirteaching, and what advice they received regardinghow to carry out this activity. Interviews were re-corded, transcribed, and examined for evidence ofactivity that participants reported as contributingto teaching knowledge or e!ectiveness.

3.2. Results

Total time in minutes was determined for all logcategories over the two-week period for eachteacher. Means and ranges for all these activitiesare included in Appendix D. We will restrict themore detailed presentation of results to the plann-ing and evaluation activities identi"ed in Study I ashaving deliberate practice characteristics, althoughin general, there was great variability amongteachers in the amount of time they allocated toboth teaching and non-teaching activities. Themeans and ranges for these activities of interest aredisplayed in Table 3. The ranges for these activitiesare also quite broad, and individual teachers didnot report consistent amounts of engagement inthese activities from day to day.

In general, teachers invest almost an additionaltwo hours each day beyond the time when school isin session on activities related to teaching, andalmost one hour each weekend day. This includestime spent planning, preparing materials, and grad-ing. The total time reported for activities whichwere directly related to instruction, including ac-tual teaching time (C1), was 3.4 hours per day.These results are consistent with those of studieswhich focused on how teachers use their time


Table 3Means and ranges in minutes for selected evaluation and planning activities

Weekdays Weekends

In school Out of school

C3. Evaluating informally by observation 29 (0}158) 4 (0}73) 0C4. Grading written work, projects, tests 24 (0}88) 33 (0}135) 34 (0}135)P1. Completing written lesson plans 12 (0}65) 16 (0}135) 17 (0}225)P2. Mental planning 4 (0}90) 18 (0}98) 3 (0}45)P3. Preparing/organizing material 16 (0}90) 43 (0}150) 5 (0}90)

Total instruction-centered activity 3.4 (0}5.7)!

!This activity reported in hours per day.

Table 4Selected teacher comments regarding C4*evaluating students by grading written work, projects, and tests

Support for grades and reportcards required by school

We have certain forced methods of evaluation that are required through the district and of course,we have to meet those2writing portfolios that need to be maintained2reading and math skillcards have to be kept in the child's "le.I do more written evaluation because it's required for report cards and you need something objectiveto put in the grade book.

Evidence of studentunderstanding or lack ofunderstanding

I view homework as a learning experience, so even though I evaluate it, I don't usually count it in aspart of their grade, because that's for me to "nd out what they don't know and what they do know.I consider that a kind of practice for them and evaluation of &Do they understand or do they not'.

Direction for instruction andnecessary intervention

Hopefully that helps me to determine where we need to go from there. The evaluation helps me toknow if we need to back up, do I need to "nd an alternative method of teaching it, or, if the childrenhave mastered it, we can move on.When I see what they don't know2when somebody does something incorrectly, I work one-on-onewith them, cause I want to know if they did it out of carelessness, if they misread it, or they can't readit and they don't understand it. So I've never sent anything home until I have worked with that childon that particular concept.(Using evaluation) I was able to intervene for those that needed help and enrich those that were moreable.

Opportunities for self-evaluation I think that (written work) evaluates me and to a large extent, how well I taught the material. I use itas my own tool as well as something that is used with the children.

(Chissom, 1987; Roney, Delong, Bloomer & Lin-dsey, 1990; National Center for Education Statis-tics, 1994).

The interview data provided information regard-ing how several codes for categories of activity wereinterpreted by participants, how the activities re-lated to and a!ected teaching, and how they mayhave provided deliberate practice opportunities foracquisition of teacher knowledge. As indicated pre-viously, the focus of these interviews was on threespeci"c activities: C4*evaluating students bygrading written work, projects, and tests; C3

*evaluating students informally by observing theirbehavior and non-graded performances; and P2*mentally planning and developing instructionalstrategies and activities. Each of the authors readthe transcribed interviews independently lookingfor patterns or themes of responses and comparedthe "ndings. The patterns or themes identi"ed byboth authors were essentially identical althoughsome discussion was necessary to decide on thenumber of, and speci"c titles for, the functions ordimensions for these activities as presented inTables 4}6.


Table 5Selected teacher comments for C3*informal evaluation through observation

Assessment of the whole child At the end of the year, you can write a book on each kid. You know them.If there is a child in your room who is troubled, whether it is academic, emotionally, or anything else,I "nd that if there is a component in his life that's not working, its going to a!ect everything else. Ifsomething is wrong at home, I am not going to make much headway with him in the classroom. SoI (need to) look at the whole package.

Information regarding speci"cbehaviors and behavior patterns

I'm observing them all the time. Who's on task, who's focused2who is paying attention, who isn't.I keep a register, and so do my teammates. What we do is we try to watch for behavior patternsYou are evaluating behavior as you go along.

Opportunities for assessmentof instruction and teachingstrategies

(While I am instructing) I can see that blank (look), &I don't get this at all.' I can see thatimmediately2those kinds of clues2I change my strategy then. I might repeat myself in a di!erentway, or I might pull a child in. Call on him, include him, ask him a question.Because it's constant (observation of students). I "nd while I am teaching a lesson, I am re"ning, I'mmaking changes. I'm deciding, Is there a better way?

Table 6Selected teacher comments for P2*mental planning

Organization Intentionally, I go through the day before I get to school. Well, am I forgetting anything?That was the time, in the morning, and I was walking and I would go over my day. When you get toschool you are organizing your desk, you are organizing the work that you are going to give themfor the day. That is when you do a lot of mental planning.

Creativity/Spontaneity Hopefully I will be more organized and more creative. I think if you are always thinking about whatyou are going to do, then you are constantly getting new insights into what you want to do or howyou are going to do it. You are better prepared.It used to be when I'd walk our dog, he's passed away since, I'd have all these ideas, &cause there wasextra time that I could spend in the morning going over what I was going to do during the day, andoftentimes I'd get to school and change what I was going to do, from walking the dog.But ideas come to me at the craziest times, like my driving. &&Oh, it would be great to do that!''

Problem solving concerningstudents or presentationof content

I plan out units and that sort of thing. I think of projects to do, and things the kids would enjoydoing, and ways I can really get the information across to them.I wake up at 3:00 in the morning and I'm thinking, &&All right, what am I going to work on,''whatever, &&Synonyms. What would be a fun way to do that?2What is a way I could teach a certainskill that would be fun and mean something to the kids?''Sometimes, because (my driving to school takes) a good half hour, (I) don't turn on the radio andI need to think about a student and what's happening in the classroom with that student, and why itmay be happening, and try to look at all the factors. So sometimes, yes, I use time speci"cally formental planning.Evaluating your own lessons. What went wrong here? You sit back and focus. And then backtrack-ing. OK, how can I change? Because its usually yourself

2you have to change yourself to get the

class listening to you or whatever the problem might be.

Responses regarding the evaluation of students'written work (C4) suggested that this activity hasseveral dimensions and serves several functions forteachers: (a) support for grades and report cardsrequired by school districts, (b) evidence of studentunderstanding or lack of understanding, (c) direc-

tion for instruction and necessary intervention, and(d) opportunities for self-evaluation. Sample com-ments for these C4 dimensions are included inTable 4.

These dimensions and functions are not unusual.Most teachers understand the value of evaluation


activities for grades and evidence of what studentsunderstand. It is also not uncommon for teachersto use this information for subsequent interven-tions and for self-evaluation. It is these latter twofunctions that are of primary interest in this studyas they represent activities which provide oppor-tunities for new learning. While all teachers carryout formal evaluation activities, some may learnmore from these e!orts than others. It would seemreasonable to look toward such activities as indi-cators of processes leading to improvement. Theprocedures and analyses in this study were notdesigned to di!erentiate between those teacherswho actually changed what they did based on theresults of evaluation and those who tended to per-sist at what they have been doing even if datasuggest that change may be necessary. However, itwould seem a reasonable conclusion that teacherswho frequently carry out formal evaluation activ-ities will at least have more opportunities for self-improvement than those who do so less frequently.

Two of the reasons to have teachers log C3*informal evaluation, were (a) to investigate howteachers might carry out more subtle forms ofevaluation, and (b) to determine if these informalattempts might indicate a pervasive disposition ororientation towards improving instruction andself-improvement. Somewhat unanticipated wasthe frequency of informal evaluation. All eightteachers reported during interviews that this type ofevaluation is ongoing. The following quotes fromtwo of the teachers make this point clearly:

It's almost like a second sense. It's like radar.The minute the kid comes in the room in themorning, it starts. I feel like I have got my littlescanners going all the time, picking up signals.It's part of being on the job. It's constant.When you are teaching, you are teaching, butthere are also other things going on, like I'mdoing constant evaluation during that time,you know, I'm organizing things, there is somuch going on.

Analysis of the responses indicated that C3*informal evaluation has several dimensions andfunctions: (a) assessment of the whole child, (b)information regarding speci"c behaviors and be-havior patterns, and (c) opportunities for assess-

ment of instruction and teaching strategies. Samplecomments for C3*informal evaluation, are in-cluded in Table 5.

Very important for this study was whether infor-mal evaluation would present opportunities forself-improvement, as was the case for more formalevaluation. All teachers reported such opportuni-ties. In this regard, we anticipated that teacherswould describe instances of observing student be-havior during teaching and making changes basedon these observations. Such was the case, but inter-estingly, their comments included not only oppor-tunities for improving teaching/instruction but alsoa major emphasis on getting to know the &&whole''child, and the child's behavior patterns that wouldin#uence learning and classroom behavior over theentire school year.

Based on pilot data, discussions with otherteachers, and even personal experience, we ex-pected that much of informal evaluation wouldtake place during teaching. As anticipated, severalteachers consistently combined the codes for teach-ing and informally observing students (C1 and C3)when they completed the activity logs. During theinterviews, they elaborated on this combination ofactivities and were able to describe their integra-tion. These teachers were aware that they wereconstantly watching students and responding bychanging what they were doing to "t the immediateneeds of their students. However, other teachersdescribed the same kind of ongoing student obser-vation with similar responses but their activity logsdid not re#ect it. They discussed how they codedtheir teaching time with only a single code (C1)though other things were occurring during thattime.

Similar to the discussion of informal evaluationby observation (C3), the responses to questionsconcerning mental planning (P2) indicated thatteachers engage in more mental planning than wasreported in the logs. Analysis of mental planning(P2) responses for these experienced teachers in-dicated that they did this activity for several di!er-ent reasons. Essentially, mental planning wasthought to provide: (a) organization, (b) creative,spontaneous ideas, and (c) opportunities for solvingproblems concerning students or presentation ofcontent. Examples of these di!erent forms and


functions of mental planning are depicted inTable 6.

While there are di!erences between informalevaluation and mental planning, we did recognizethat there may be instances when informal evalu-ation during teaching would co-occur with, or beimmediately followed by, mental planning, and thatthis might be di$cult to code. In all likelihoodteachers probably continued coding these instancesas informal evaluation (C3). Log data support thisconclusion since most of the mental planning timewas reported to have taken place at times otherthan teaching (see Table 3).

To summarize, some of the major "ndings fromthe analyses were:

(a) While all teachers engage in these behaviors,their value for teachers would vary based onfactors related to mindfulness and e!ort.

(b) Evaluation activities, whether formal or infor-mal, provide learning opportunities for teachersin that they can become aware of the impact oftheir teaching and take steps to change it.

(c) Informal evaluation included both an aware-ness of &&how things were going'' during teach-ing, and also ongoing assessment of studentsover the school year.

(d) According to interview data, informal evalu-ation was continuous in nature. However, someteachers did not indicate this in their logs.

(e) Teachers could report when they did mentalplanning. The clearest examples occurred dur-ing non-teaching activities. Mental planningthat occurred with informal evaluation wasmost likely coded as informal evaluation.

3.3. Discussion

Teachers reported that the process of keepinga daily activity log was di$cult although, over time,experience with the coding scheme made it some-what easier. Teachers also found the size of thecoding booklets to be very helpful. Teachers furtherindicated that the ten school days, within the four-teen days during which they logged their activities,were typical school days for them with the excep-tion that one teacher attended a day long in-servicemeeting during this two-week period. We feel con"-

dent that the data provide a reasonably accurateaccount of how teachers spent their time.

As mentioned previously, multiple coding forinformal evaluation (C3) and teaching (C1) causedproblems for some teachers in that they coded littleor no informal evaluation while teaching, but dur-ing the interview reported that informal evaluationwas an on-going activity. We believe there are tworeasons for this discrepancy. First, actual teaching(C1) was relatively easy to code. Teachers knewwhen they were doing it, and indeed it occurred atpredictable times each day. Teachers did not stoptheir teaching at the end of a 15-min interval tocode this activity. Instead they would code several15-min intervals when they had the opportunityduring a break. At these opportunities they couldreadily recall that they were teaching and if therewas any ambiguity about how to code, and/or therewas any time pressure, it was easier to usethe singular code for teaching. A second, and re-lated explanation is that some teachers were moremetacognitively aware than others. That is, usingthe C3 code for informal evaluation necessitatedthat teachers, at that moment, were aware of theactivity. Although all the categories were explainedto teachers in a preliminary meeting, we suspectthat for some teachers and some categories (espe-cially informal evaluation and mental planning) theactual logging experience and subsequent interviewwere instrumental in the development of metacog-nitive awareness for these activities. The C3 cat-egory of informal evaluation is similar to whatSchoK n (1987, p. 26) calls re#ection-in-action in thesense that teachers would be re#ecting on theiractions, and the impact of these actions on stu-dents, while they are teaching. The fact that someteachers did not or could not register this re#ectionactivity in the logs might reduce the value of thisactivity insofar as it may lead to teaching improve-ments in the future.

In general, low values were reported in thelogs for all the activities categorized as supportinginstruction, such as reading educational literature(S1) and discussions with other teachers (S4). Dur-ing the interviews, however, teachers referenced thevalue of interaction with other teachers. Havingdiscussions with other teachers was considereda source of ideas, feedback, and information


regarding students and teaching strategies. It wasvery common for teachers to refer to the value ofother grade level colleagues and how much theylearn from each other, including ideas about plann-ing, grading, evaluation, and actual teaching. InStudy I we found that teachers perceived dis-cussions with other teachers as highly relevant toimproving their teaching e!ectiveness. However,these discussions did not require e!ort and there-fore did not "t the de"nition of deliberate practice.Even though these interactions may not be thate!ortful they apparently provide opportunities forthe acquisition of new knowledge of teaching.

3.4. General discussion

Both Studies I and II dealt with potential delibe-rate practice activities in teaching. In Study I weinvestigated teachers' perceptions of activities thatmight qualify as deliberate practice based on theframework presented by Ericsson et al. (1993). InStudy II we wanted to further explore these activi-ties and attempt to understand their potential tosupport the development of e!ective and compe-tent teaching over years of teaching experience.

Teaching activities that involve aspects of plann-ing and evaluation do not automatically qualify asdeliberate practice. They are activities that allteachers do. They are a routine part of the job.However, as indicated in Study II, these activitiescan serve di!erent functions and teachers use themin di!erent ways. The purpose for engaging in theseactivities can vary, and consequently, so can theresults. Each of the speci"c activities explored (C4,C3, P2) contained a dimension that suggested theactivity has the potential to provide a teacher withopportunities to acquire new knowledge of teaching.Learning from these activities is possible but notautomatic. What would make these planning andevaluation activities deliberate practice for teachers iscontinued frequency and that they would be carriedout when it is not absolutely necessary to do so.

Consider the "rst years of teaching. During theseyears, extensive planning, evaluation and revisionare quite common. As time goes by, teachers getbetter. They develop routines and events are morepredictable. Yet some teachers will still not settlefor relatively e!ective teaching. They will deliber-

ately and frequently engage in activities to improvetheir teaching. Ostensibly, the increased e!ective-ness should come about as a consequence ofthe application of new knowledge resulting fromdeliberate practice activities.

It is apparent that planning and evaluation activ-ities require e!ort, for some teachers they occuroften, and at least theoretically, they are believed tohelp teachers become more e!ective. These activi-ties are not inherently enjoyable and, in addition,we can see how for some teachers, they are carriedout even when a relatively acceptable level ofcompetence already exists. From this perspectivethey would "t the description of deliberate practice(Ericsson et al., 1993). As part of an iterative pro-cess involving instruction and revision, these activ-ities provide motivated teachers with unlimitedopportunities to acquire new knowledge of teach-ing and to incorporate this knowledge into theirunique repertoire of teaching strategies.

Given the apparent cognitive nature of activitiesthat contribute to increases in teaching e!ec-tiveness, it is more di$cult to capture and assessdeliberate practice for teachers than for performersin a number of other domains. Comparing thecontexts and results of this study with other delibe-rate practice studies (Ericsson, et al., 1993; Ericsson& Charness, 1994; Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996), itbecomes increasingly clear that the factors whicha!ect the development of competence in teachingare quite di!erent from the factors in other areaswhere this framework for explaining the acquisitionof expertise has been applied. These di!erences mayin#uence our ability to recognize and assess delib-erate practice as it is applied to the development ofexpertise in teaching. At the same time, however,examining these di!erences may help us under-stand certain aspects of the domain that may eithersupport or impede the development of competentperformance. We turn now to a discussion of anumber of these factors.

3.4.1. GoalsStudies of deliberate practice were carried out

primarily in the areas of music and sports (Ericssonet al., 1993). In these areas of human activity thegoals for practice are clearly self-improvement. Forexample, major league baseball players, already


operating at world caliber performance levels, oftenspend considerable time trying to improve theirhitting. Tony Gwynn, an out"elder with the SanDiego Padres, is well known for his e!orts at im-proving his hitting. With seven batting champion-ships and a lifetime batting average over 0.330, he isconsidered by many to be the best hitter amongactive players. However, Tony Gwynn works hardat improving his hitting. He video tapes his ownhitting, spends hours analyzing his swing, practiceshitting to various parts of the "eld, etc. This isabove and beyond team scheduled batting practice.He does not necessarily enjoy doing this. It is notinherently fun. It requires e!ort. His goal here isclearly self-improvement.

How often are teachers' planning and evaluationactivities, considered to be deliberate practice,driven by the goal of self-improvement? Theteachers we interviewed clearly wanted improve-ment in their students' learning and that seemed tobe the primary overall goal, as opposed to self-improvement. Surely there is a relationship here inthat, at least logically, what helps students do bettershould be related to improvements in teaching.There would be a major di!erence, however, in theinformation that is used to judge whether or nota goal has been attained.

3.4.2. FeedbackThe musician has various sources of feedback

that provide information as to goal attainment ofself-improvement. For example, a violinist mayknow that she has improved her performance basedon (a) her &&feeling'' that the "ngering was correct,(b) how the performance sounded, (c) feedback froma teacher who is watching her, (d) the impact of theperformance on an audience, and (e) comments froma music critic. Most of these sources of feedback,with the exception of the "fth, are somewhat im-mediate. In addition, although this could be arguedin some contexts, musicians rely more on the "rstthree sources for feedback as to self-improvement.

The situation in teaching, of course, is quitedi!erent. Ultimately, we have to look for changes instudent behavior to judge the e!ectiveness of teach-ing, and these relationships, the major focus ofprocess/product research, have not been easy toverify (see Shulman, 1986). In addition, the more

immediate feedback, that is, student behavior in theclassroom during instruction, may not be a validsource of information regarding student learning.Typically, feedback regarding student learning is lessimmediate (tests, assignments, projects, etc.). Ofcourse the quality of feedback depends on the pre-dictability of knowledge that exists within a domain.

3.4.3. Teaching is an ill-structured knowledgedomain

Part of the value of feedback, of course, dependson speci"city. In some domains, and notably thosethat focus on motor skills, feedback can be veryspeci"c, in addition to being immediate. Teaching isnotoriously ill-structured in that predictable rela-tionships are not strong enough so that we can takereasonably complex subject matter and teach it toa group of diverse learners and expect success forall students. Other professions, particularly thosedealing with human behavior, deal with similarproblems of uncertainty. SchoK n has described theseproblems as indicative of the &&indeterminate zonesof practice'' (1987, p. 11). This uncertainty dramati-cally a!ects how one learns to practice in the pro-fessions. In teaching, for example, clear standardsfor highly competent performance do not exist.Therefore, one is never quite sure when these highlevels have been attained, nor is it totally clear whatone can do to improve teaching, thus a!ectingdeliberate practice. These comments are not meantto present a bleak picture of teacher education butrather to point out some inherent di$culties in thatendeavor. There have been some attempts to re-duce the ambiguity of what makes teaching e!ec-tive and de"ne these as competencies. CompetencyBased Teacher Education (CBTE) was a very popu-lar movement in the 1970s and into the 1980s. Partof the problem with CBTE was the inability to beprecise regarding what it is that competent teachersdo (see Dunn, 1980; Dunn, 1994).

3.4.4. Teaching/coachingMost professions have a period of time when

a novice is introduced to the world of practice withthe help of a more experienced professional whoacts as a teacher, mentor or coach. This is the casein medicine where preceptors work with residentsand interns, and certainly in education where


cooperating teachers work with student teachers.The introductory period in medicine lasts for sev-eral years, whereas student teaching lasts for a fewmonths. Consequently, after student teaching, op-portunities for teachers to receive detailed feedbackand advice about all dimensions of their teachingare rare. The e!ect here is very substantial. Notonly will teachers be limited in their sources offeedback about their teaching, but without it theymay not choose to improve their teaching at all, orat least less often, thereby reducing the time spentin deliberate practice.

Even more dramatic di!erences are evident whencomparing "elds such as music and sports withteaching. In both music and sports there is a historyand tradition of experienced teachers or coacheswho can guide the individual through deliberatepractice and provide important sources of feed-back. These coaches and teachers continue to haveimpact on their &&students'' throughout the activelives of professionals. The world's best pianists andviolinists still practice under the guidance ofteachers who would have a great in#uence ontheir deliberate practice. There are batting coachesand pitching coaches at the major league level whoserve in similar capacities for major league players.

3.4.5. Environments that promote deliberate practiceSome environments expect and value e!orts that

will result in increasing levels of expertise. Theseenvironments will not have the same impact on allindividuals, but for some, the dynamic environmentwill in#uence many to strive for improvement eventhough their skill and performance levels were al-ready considerable. Professional sports serve assuch an environment. For example, major leaguebaseball players may have excelled in collegeand/or the minor leagues, but the level of competi-tion at the major leagues is dramatically di!erent.For many players to survive or progress, they needto engage in deliberate self-improvement. Bereiterand Scardamalia (1993, p. 104) describe these envi-ronments as expert subcultures, or second-orderenvironments, that embody the ideals and goalsthat direct the progress of expert development.The subculture provides models of successful pro-fessionals and recognition within the subculture.Surely we can see this in music and sports where

subcultures provide &&highly sophisticated mutualadmiration'' (p. 105).

The novice physician's environment is similarin that the subculture provides models of highlysuccessful professionals while o!ering the potentialfor much recognition from peers and professionalorganizations. The implication is that in order toadhere to the subculture's expectations one has toengage in continuing e!orts to improve. Academicenvironments in higher education are similar in thatthere is a distinct culture of searching for and dis-seminating knowledge through research and publi-cation that de"nitely requires continuing e!orts toimprove and expand one's knowledge. In addition,the discussion of such knowledge with students andpeers is a frequent and expected activity.

There are good models to follow in teaching.There are also professional organizations that pro-mote teacher growth and o!er recognition for out-standing teachers. However, this subculture is byno means as pronounced and in#uential as it is insports, arts, music, the theater and other profes-sions. As a consequence, the activities that wouldlead young teachers in the direction of advancedstanding in the profession are unclear.

In addition to these factors the teaching profes-sion is not as independent as other professions. Inmusic, sports, art, medicine, law, dentistry, etc., theindividuals within these professions, for the mostpart, decide on what constitutes standards for ap-propriate practice. There is also the long standingtradition of academic freedom in higher education.Teachers, on the other hand, are subject to variouspressures which a!ect how they teach. While wemay not always be pleased with what our doctorrecommends, we are more likely to go along withhis or her recommendations than go to some higherauthority to exert pressure to change these recom-mendations. On the other hand parents often goabove a teacher to attempt to change a teacher'srecommendations. The general public is more likelyto believe that these other professions require spe-cialized knowledge and skills that they do not have,and is less likely to feel that way about teaching.Berliner (1991) expressed this very well:

Pedagogical knowledge is not seen as sophisti-cated knowledge because it overlaps with


knowledge of childcare, is possessed mostly bywoman, held by members whose social-classstanding is not high, and it is a form of know-ledge thought to resemble common sense soclosely that anyone can acquire it rapidly(p. 146).

In sum, examining the domain of teaching fromthe perspective of deliberate practice has drawn ourattention to a number of factors that are present inthe domain that may in#uence the ease with whichwe can use this framework to explain the develop-ment of teaching expertise. Teaching is a classicill-structured knowledge domain in which clearstandards of high level performance are lacking. Inaddition, there is no standard expectation or rolefor coaches or mentors beyond student teaching.These conditions a!ect both the quantity, source,and quality of feedback that teachers could use forself-improvement. Furthermore, teachers do not&&practice'' teaching in order to improve but insteadengage in patterns of planning, evaluation and revi-sion so that students improve. While it certainlymakes sense to look to student behavior for evid-ence of teaching e!ectiveness, establishing reliableand replicable &&process/product'' relationships hasbeen problematic (Shulman, 1986). Finally, theenvironments in which teachers work provide vary-ing degrees of support, recognition, and encourage-ment for improvement. All these factors in#uencethe teaching profession and certainly the conditionsthat would help teachers advance within it.

4. Conclusions

The intent of this paper was to explore the modelof deliberate practice as an explanation for thedevelopment of expertise in the domain of teaching.Does the framework of deliberate practice providea useful approach for understanding the develop-ment of teaching expertise, and does it provideinsight into factors that may mediate such develop-ment? Based on the results of the studies describedhere, we believe it does.

Several common and routine aspects of teachingemerged as ones displaying the characteristics ofdeliberate practice as it is described by Ericsson etal. (1993). Teaching activities that involve planning

and evaluation were described by teachers as pro-viding frequent opportunities to assess the e!ec-tiveness of their teaching strategies, to revise, and torestructure them. We do not normally think ofteachers as engaging in &&practice'' to improve theirteaching skills. For most of us, the word &&practice''elicits images of repeated performances aimed atre"ning and perfecting some skill, usually a motorskill. Teachers do not practice, they &&teach.'' Per-haps deliberate practice for teachers is approachingthe normal activities of teaching in a &&deliberate''way. It may be doing more of the normal activitiesof teaching*more planning, more thorough evalu-ation of students and, of equal importance, evalu-ation of self. It may be being fully mindful duringthese activities*mindful of what was e!ective,what was not, of changes that may lead to improve-ment. It may be choosing to be e!ortful*makingchanges when teaching seems to be going well,trying to "nd an even better way, trying to reacha particular child, trying to solve a particularproblem. Perhaps it is this approach to activitiesinherent in teaching that, when exempli"ed ona regular basis over many years, both leads to andmaintains teaching expertise.

The framework of deliberate practice recognizesthe complexity of becoming &&expert.'' It acknow-ledges the motivation of performers to choose toimprove, to learn through their experience, and tointegrate new knowledge into future performances.The framework further addresses the importance ofgoals, feedback, and the role of coaches and men-tors in this process. A supportive environment iscritical if performers are to maintain their improve-ment e!orts over time, long enough to developbeyond competent performance toward levels ofexpert performance. Further consideration of thesefactors may help teacher educators understand notonly how expertise in teaching develops but howboth pre-service and in-service teachers can besupported and encouraged to advance within theirprofession.

With these points in mind, several recommenda-tions for future research emerge. First, how areteachers who engage in these activities for the pur-pose of acquiring new knowledge of their ownteaching di!erent than those who do so less often?Are they motivated by di!erent goals? Are they


Appendix A. Sample questionnaire page

The following list contains activities related to teaching and education. Teachers are known to engage insome or all of these activities which may complement or support classroom performance. Please rate each ofthe following activities according to how much it has helped you become a more e!ective teacher. &&E!ective''should be thought of as your ability to implement instructional activities which result in the studentoutcomes you desire, that is, your students learn what you set out to teach. If you do not engage in anactivity, leave the line blank.

Not helpful Somewhat helpful Very helpful

1. Reading educational literature and books 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 92. Attending workshops or inservice meetings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 93. Serving on school or district committees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 94. Professional discussions with other teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 95. Professional discussions with resource

personnel such as a counselor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 96. Professional discussions with administrators 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 97. Observing others teach or interact with children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 98. Discussing your teaching with an experienced

professional with the intention of improvingyour teaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. Completing written lesson plans to guidedaily activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. Mentally planning and developinginstructional strategies and activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11. Organizing and preparing teaching materials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 912. Evaluating student performance and

understanding through the use ofgraded written work and projects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. Evaluating student performance andunderstanding through the use oftests you develop yourself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

14. Evaluating student performance andunderstanding through the use oftests provided by publishers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15. Evaluating student performance andunderstanding through informal observationsof student behaviors and non-gradedperformances 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

considered to be better teachers? Results fromStudy II indicate that teachers seemed to bemotivated to engage in evaluation and planningactivities in order to improve instruction and helpstudents. Less common was a goal of self-improve-ment. Would a goal of self-improvement result indi!erent activity than a goal of improving instruc-tion? Is this a worthwhile discrimination to make?

In addition to motivation, further exploration ofthe environmental factors thought to support thedevelopment of expertise is suggested. What can welearn about the impact of these factors on teacher

development? Furthermore, can teacher educatorsand administrators enhance the role of goals, feed-back, mentoring, and coaching for novice as well asexperienced teachers?

Research in the "eld of expertise has demon-strated that &&experienced'' does not equal &&expert.''Whatever can be learned about the aspects ofteaching experience that support the developmentof competence has the potential to lead to improve-ments in our programs for teacher education andprofessional development. Considered from thisperspective, such work has much to o!er.


Appendix B. Codes used to categorize loggedactivities

Planning and preparation activities

P1. Completing or revising written lesson plansP2. Mentally planning and developing instruc-tional strategies and activitiesP3. Organizing and preparing materials for in-struction

Classroom activities

C1. Teaching, directing learning activities, workingwith students to meet instructional goalsC2. Interacting with students when instruction isnot the main focusC3. Evaluating students by informally observingtheir behavior and non-graded performanceC4. Evaluating students by grading written work,projects, and testsC5. Completing school-related tasks not directlyrelated to students or instruction

Everyday activities unrelated to teaching

E1. Completing household choresE2. DrivingE3. ShoppingE4. Performing activities related to the care of de-pendent childrenE5. Engaging in activities related to body care andhealthE6. SleepingE7. Engaging in leisure activities centered aroundrelaxation or enjoymentE8. Participating in physical activities includingsports and exerciseE9. Communicating with others } having discussionsor telephone conversations not related to teaching

Activities supporting instruction

S1. Reading educational literatureS2. Attending workshops, inservice meetings, orclasses related to education

S3. Observing others teach and interact with chil-drenS4. Having discussions with other teachers con-cerning students, the content you teach, or teachingstrategiesS5. Having discussions with school administratorsconcerning studentsS6. Having discussions with school resource per-sonnel concerning studentsS7. Having discussions with parents concerningtheir childS8. Having discussions with others about yourteaching

Appendix C. A sample page of actual data froma 4th grade teacher:s coding booklet

Time Activites Activity codes

6:00 a Workout E8 E76:15 a ,, ,, ,, ,,6:30 a ,, ,, ,, ,,6:45 a Shower-dress E57:00 a ,, ,, ,,7:15 a Chores-break-lunch E1 E57:30 a Drive E2 P27:45 a Prep. P3 C58:00 a Assignments P1 P38:15 a ,, ,, ,,8:30 a Co!ee ,, ,, E98:45 a Opening C59:00 a Kids C2 C59:15 a Sharing-stapling C2 P39:30 a Organizing room C2 C59:45 a Health C1 C3

10:00 a ,, ,, ,,10:15 a ,, ,, ,,10:30 a ,, ,, ,,10:45 a Plans-Chris C311:00 a Media ,, S111:15 a Heading S411:30 a ,, ,,11:45 a Recess C2


Appendix D. Means and ranges in minutes for all coded activities

Weekdays Weekends

In school! Out of school

C1. Teaching, directing learning activities 177 (0}345)" (1 (0}15) 0C2. Interacting with students, non-instruction 45 (0}180) 6 (0}30) 0C3. Evaluating informally by observation 29 (0}158) 4 (0}73) 0C4. Grading written work, projects, tests 24 (0}88) 33 (0}135) 34 (0}135)C5. Completing other school related tasks 10 (0}120) 14 (0}90) 10 (0}120)P1. Completing written lesson plans 12 (0}65) 16 (0}135) 17 (0}225)P2. Mental planning 4 (0}90) 18 (0}98) 3 (0}45)P3. Preparing/organizing materials 16 (0}90) 43 (0}150) 5 (0}90)E1. Completing household chores (1 (0}7.5) 66 (0}375) 164 (0}435)E2. Driving 2 (0}38) 53 (0}270) 53 (0}210)E3. Shopping 1 (0}45) 15 (0}120) 44 (0}165)E4. Caring for dependent children 1 (0}30) 47 (0}210) 45 (0}360)E5. Caring for body and health 21 (0}75) 95 (30}220) 122 (23}278)E6. Sleeping 0 425 (300}555) 521 (420}743)E7. Engaging in leisure activities 3 (0}38) 93 (0}255) 257 (0}435)E8. Participating in physical activities 1 (0}45) 33 (0}165) 26 (0}105)E9. Communicating with others 7 (0}63) 55 (0}225) 121 (0}405)S1. Reading educational literature 2 (0}30) 4 (0}60) 8 (0}85)S2. Attending workshops, inservice 10 (0}300) 7 (0}148) 0S3. Observing others interact with children 9 (0}113) (1 (0}15) 0S4. Discussions with other teachers 9 (0}90) 14 (0}120) 6 (0}143)S5. Discussions with school administrators 1 (0}23) 4 (0}53) 0S6. Discussions with other school personnel 1 (0}15) 1 (0}30) 1 (0}45)S7. Discussions with parents 3 (0}60) 5 (0}45) 3 (0}60)S8. Discussions with others about teaching 2 (0}53) 1 (0}15) 0

!Extends from the beginning to the end of the scheduled school day. Teacher breaks, lunch periods, planning periods, etc. are included." In several instances, though school was in session, teachers were out of their classrooms for workshops or inservice meetings.

References

Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educa-tional Researcher, 5 (7), 5}13.

Berliner, D. C. (1991). Educational psychology and pedagogicalexpertise: New "ndings and new opportunities for thinkingabout training. Educational Psychologist, 26, 145}155.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves.Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvis-ation: Di!erences in mathematics instruction by expert andnovice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26,473}498.

Calderhead, J. (1989). Re#ective teaching and teacher education.¹eaching & ¹eacher Education, 5, 43}51.

Chissom, B. (1987). The work behavior of elementary schoolteachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 248}253.

Clarridge, P., & Berliner, D. (1991). Perceptions of studentbehavior as a function of expertise. Journal of ClassroomInteraction, 26(1), 1}8.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). ¹he systematic design of instruction(3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Dunn, T. G. (1980). Understanding and coping with CBTElimitations. Journal of ¹eacher Education, 31(4), 27}33.

Dunn, T. G. (1994). If we can't contextualize it, should we teachit? Educational ¹echnology Research and Development, 42(3),83}92.

Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and excep-tional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to taskconstraints. Annual review of Psychology, 47, 273}305.

Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Itsstructure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725}747.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). Therole of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert perfor-mance. Psychological Review, 100, 363}406.


Forbes, C. (1992). ¹he Polgar sisters: ¹raining or genius?New York: Henry Holt.

Gage, N. L. (1985). Hard gains in the soft sciences: The case ofpedagogy. New York: Phi Delta Kappa. Bloomington, Indiana.

Glaser, R., & Chi, M. (1988). In M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr(Eds.), ¹he nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Hall, G. E., & Jones, H. L. (1976). Competency-based education:A process for the improvement of education. Englewood Cli!s,NJ: Prentice}Hall.

Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers.¹eachers College Record, 91(1), 31}57.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). How much timedo public and private school teachers spend in their work?Report No. NCES-IB-3-94. Washington, DC. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Services No. ED 377 550).

Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: ¹he emerging science oflearnable intelligence. New York: Free Press.

Roney, R., Delong, M., Bloomer, D., & Lindsey, C. (1990). ¹imeused by teachers and school administrators. Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Boston, MA.

Sabers, D., Cushing, K. S., & Berliner, D. (1991). Di!erencesamong teachers in a task characterized by simultaneity,

multidimensionality, and immediacy. American EducationalResearch Journal, 28, 63}88.

SchoK n, D. A. (1987). Educating the re-ective practitioner. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler,R. M. GagneH , & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculumevaluation (AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evalua-tion, No. 1.) Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Shriner, C., & Dunn, T. G. (1996). Deliberate practice in teaching:=hat teachers believe accounts for e+ectiveness. Paper pre-sented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, New York.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs for thestudy of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (3rd. ed., pp. 3}36). New York: Macmil-lan.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations ofthe new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1}22.

Swanson, H. L., O@Connor, J., & Cooney, J. (1990). An informa-tion processing analysis of expert and novice teachers' prob-lem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 27,533}556.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching studentteachers to re#ect. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 23}48.


deliberate practice in teaching: what teachers do for self...

Documents