Verified by 
Creativity
Does Practice Make Perfect?
How to practice and succeed in life like the best athletes in sport
Posted March 9, 2021 Reviewed by Ekua Hagan
In this article, I examine what science tells us about effective practice and instruction. I explore whether the idiom ‘practice makes perfect’ stands up to scrutiny. This idiom has two fundamental assumptions. First, the more one practices the better one becomes. Second, the more consistent and repetitive the practice the better skills are learnt. Yet, scientific evidence shows that these assumptions are false. In fact, rather paradoxically, not only are these assumptions incorrect, but if applied verbatim they could have a negative effect on skill development.
Is more practice always better?
Many of you will have heard of the so called ‘10,000 hour rule’ and its fundamental assumptions that one needs to accumulate 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert in any professional domain. Let’s be clear: the ’10,000 hours’ was never intended as a ‘rule’, more of a guideline, and the actual hours needed to reach the pinnacle of one’s profession varies markedly depending on the field and the quality of the practice accumulated. Scientific evidence suggests that the mere accumulation of experience in a domain is not highly correlated with the actual level of performance. The problem is that individuals could accumulate many hours in practice that do not ‘push the envelope’ or stress the system sufficiently for learning to arise. The feeling of reaching a plateau is common to many athletes, but the familiar lament is common across many professional domains. People reach a plateau in their performance, seemingly incapable of improving to the next level. Scientists have referred to this premature plateau as ‘arrested development’. The problem is that these athletes, and other professionals, continue to do the things that they have always done before. Does this sound like you?
In order to continue to improve, it is essential to carry out deliberate practice with a specific intention to improve a crucial aspect of performance. Such practice is effortful to carry out, both mentally and often physically, bringing no immediate rewards, and is not always fun or enjoyable. A coach or mentor needs to provide tangible feedback and instruction in order to continue to refine and improve performance. Practice should also be sufficiently demanding, creating a necessary ‘challenge point’ or ‘desirable difficulty’ and it should be specific to the domain, mimicking the situation and context under which performance occurs.
Scientists have suggested that there are several key criteria when engaging in deliberate practice. First, you need to identify areas that need improving, using objective data were possible. Second, you need to set short- and long-term goals to provide guidance as what you should work on at each stage of development. Third, practice should be individualized and designed to ensure that it is sufficiently challenging and difficult to facilitate learning (i.e., identify challenge points or desirable difficulties). Fourth, instruction and feedback needs to be relevant and appropriate. Fifth, any improvements need evaluating as objectively as possible. Finally, repeat as necessary.
Such practice leads to the development of more effective mental representations about how to perform the task. These mental representations function like “apps” in the brain that help “run” the task. Following engagement in deliberate practice, performers acquire “killer apps”; more detailed, sophisticated, and effective mental representations. These representations allow performers to monitor ongoing performance more effectively, which helps them notice when they are doing something wrong and makes them better at correcting these mistakes.
Scientists have shown that elite athletes are more likely to engage in deliberate practice, whereas, those who are less elite are more inclined to passively gather experience. For example, elite athletes spend the majority of the time trying to improve their weaker skills rather than their stronger skills, whereas, in contrast, less elite athletes are more likely to do the reverse. While practicing ones weaker skills leads to more failure, elite athletes are more likely to perceive these as ‘speed bumps’ to be navigated along a pathway to self-improvement (a rocky road). Moreover, the best athletes are much more engaged cognitively in the process of learning, spending much longer periods of time self-reflecting about performance and how it can be improved before, during, after practice sessions. In sum, more practice does not make you better; only engagement in deliberate practice paves the path to success in sport and other professional domains. Quality out trumps quantity!
Does practice always have to be perfect to learn?
The original conceptualization was that the less variable and more structured practice the better for learning. The notion that skills have to be ‘grooved’ for many hours under constant and repetitive practice conditions. Yet, contemporary research suggests that this is not the case. Variability and randomness in practice leads to better learning, particularly when the conditions experienced in practice mimics those evident in the workplace.
A crucial difference exists between performance and learning. What one actually observes when people practice skills is their performance, not the amount of learning taking place. It is not directly possible to infer learning from short-term performance. In order to evaluate whether learning has occurred, one needs to ascertain that any observed change in behavior remains over time and that these changes in performance can transfer to novel situations where the skills acquired need modifying and adapting to the demands of the workplace.
The distinction between performance and learning is the single biggest paradox in education and training. In order to facilitate short-term performance, science suggests that instructors should provide plenty of instruction, have the learner practice a single skill in a repetitive and blocked manner and offer plenty of feedback. In contrast, the reverse factors facilitate long-term learning, retention, and skill transfer. Yet, these are the key questions: What is the least amount of instruction needed so that the learner can practice the skill? Are the practice conditions variable and random, so that they mimic the inherent variability that occurs in the professional domain? How can learners be encouraged to rely on their own feedback? Clearly, for those engaged in developing the best athletes and the best performers in business and industry, there is a difficult balance to weight up between short-term performance and long-term learning. The focus should mostly be on the long-term development of individuals, since developing expertise and reaching the very top is an extended journey with few, if any, shortcuts.
The crucial message is that instructors should provide learners with as much variability as possible when they practice skills. Practicing different tasks in a random, unstructured manner with variations to task, situation and culture may create perceptions of chaos; ultimately, most work settings are chaotic environments where professionals have to solve unique and divergent problems, often under substantive pressure. The more the practice setting matches the work environment the more likely skills transfer to the workplace. In sum, do not sacrifice long-term learning for short-term performance.
Is less often more?
The underlying historical culture in sport and industry has always been ‘top down’, with the coach, mentor or instructor been viewed as the purveyor of all knowledge. While there is no doubt that experiential knowledge is crucial, science suggests that an approach that is too ‘hands on’ or prescriptive in nature may not be the best approach for individual learners. Being overly prescriptive may stifle creativity and individuality. A culture that bestows on learners the benefits of a ‘one size fits all’ mantra may not facilitate the long-term development of employees that can improvise and provide successful solutions in a range of different situations.
The ‘guidance hypothesis’ suggests that if learners are spoon fed information during the instruction process they will perform less well in situations where the same level of instruction or feedback is not immediately available. The key is to provide the least amount of guidance possible to progress, without stifling the learner’s creativity. Feedback is essential to skill learning, but the challenge is to make learners less reliant on prescriptive feedback from others and instead encourage them to process and rely upon their own intrinsic feedback. Providing feedback less frequently, offering summary or delayed feedback after various practice attempts, and using a question and answer approach reduce reliance on feedback provided by others.
A fundamental notion to overcome is ‘failure is bad’. Failure presents a crucial stimulus for learning and is a constructive and developmental process. The very best athletes practice and perform on the edge between success and failure. Failure is an important opportunity for growth; it is a necessary ingredient in becoming the best in any domain. Performance at the highest level is not possible without some inherent risk of failure. Failure is an opportunity to demonstrate resilience, and notably to develop new ways to look at old problems and a stimulus for creativity and change.
A balance exists between the cost of failure and the benefits of providing opportunities for growth. No simple recipe exists to solve this conundrum, yet those involved in training, whether working with the best athletes or the best from any professional domain, must be aware of getting the balance right by creating a learning environment that does not overly criticize failure. Failure is part of the cycle of success and it is not the main problem; the crucial problem to address is how to develop future generations of professionals that have the creativity and independence needed to be successful in an ever-changing world. Coping with, and overcoming challenges, are fundamental skills to have in the modern workplace. Those involved in trainings should see themselves as facilitators tasked with creating an environment that presents opportunities for learners to problem solve and grow.
