Much of what we do in life is geared toward performance.   On a daily basis we utilize the knowledge and skills that we possess to complete various tasks and perform various duties.  The successful and skilled performance of such "real-life" responsibilities is (hopefully) the ultimate purpose of learning and of teaching.  For the sake of this discussion we will label the performance of such tasks as actual work.  The purpose of actual work is to accomplish something in the everyday struggles of life.

The capability to skillfully perform actual work in our daily lives is not generated spontaneously. Ericsson's review found no evidence of innate personal characteristics that match up with general or specific natural abilities relating to expert performance (Ericsson, Krampe, Tesch-Romer,1993).  Ericsson's seminal research on the development of expert skills in elite performers demonstrated this reality throughout an assortment of domains.   Common patterns observed through the examination of athletes, musical performers, scholars, and chess players revealed the importance of early and regular practice carried out over an extended period of time.   Ericsson found that this practice must be intense, and is generally begun early in the life of the individual who attains expert levels of performance.
 
It is important, however, to make a distinction here; all practice is not created equal.   Johnson and his colleagues describe a spectrum of practice that goes from mindless drilling through concentrated practice to playful engagement (Johnson, Gershon, Tenenbaum, & Edmonds, 2006).

There are many tasks that might be performed regularly and over an extended period of time that involve little or no advancement toward better or more expert performance.  While the amount of time spent playing (particularly in actual sanctioned competitions) is important in the development of expertise in chess, it is not the most significant factor.   Participation in several thousand hours of concentrated study is more significant--albeit essential(Charness, Tuffiash, Krampe, Reingold, & Vasyukova, 2005).The key impetus to developing the capability for expert performance is the quantity of practice that is conducted with the specific goal of improvement (Keith & Ericsson, 2007).  This type of practice is called deliberate practice.  This deliberate practice is generally very difficult, very effortful, and is usually not very enjoyable.

 While many works of Ericsson on the subject make mention of the fact that deliberate practice is not enjoyable this should not be considered an immutable defining characteristic.   While in comparison to playing or doing other life activities they may not be as enjoyable, Hodges and his colleagues make the point that a lack of enjoyability is not an inerrant predictive criteria (Hodges, Kerr, Starkes, Weir, & Nananidou, 2004).  Medical residents have been shown to not only benefit from but also enjoy training, evaluation, and feedback in a simulated clinical environment (Wayne, Butter, Siddaii, Fudala, Wade, Feingiass,  & McGaghie, 2006).  Only working hard and smart with specific goals kept in the forefront contribute to advancement in the quality of work performance (Sonnentag & Kleine, 2000).

Typists are good cases to examine when comparing the efficacy of large quantities of everyday work as compared to the impact of focused deliberate practice.   When studied, typists studied showed little correlation between their overall performance and the length of time that they had worked at their job.  The greatest impact was seen when concentrated practice with a focus on improvement was performed (Keith et al, 2007).  Other studies of typists reinforce the idea that it is not merely experience that makes a difference, but that concerted, deliberate effort to improve (van Gog, Ericsson, Rikers, & Paas, 2005).

Similar to the studies of typists, a study of insurance agents echoes  some of the same themes.   Expert performance is not the result of innate abilities nor even the result of exposure to experience.   This researched reinforces the conclusion that even years and years of experience do not necessarily produce expert abilities.   Only focused effort to improve makes a significant difference (Sonnetag and Kleine, 2000).

Long term studies of human performance such as the typist and insurance agent studies referenced above are frequently found to be  confounded.  When experimental research is attempted, people choose to drop out and do not stay in the experimental groups to which they were assigned.  In an attempt to address these issues an experimental study was conducted focusing on deliberate practice in canines as they train for the "agility" obstacle course sport.  In this experiment, groups of dogs were controlled for their members genetics, size,  and sex.  Though unconventional, these results also seemed to reinforce the conclusion that focused practice correlates significantly with improvement in sport performance measures (Helton, 2007).

 Indeed, the status quo just can not be the accepted as the norm if expert performance is to be attained.  Practice as mere repetition of an action merely ingrains that same action or pattern of thought deeper into the commonplace habitual nature of the individual.  Certain patterns of thought or action performed day after day march steadily toward the status of automated response requiring little or no conscious mental effort.

In their article examining the relationship between working memory, the cerebellum , and creativity Vandervert, Schimpf and Liu summarize Ericsson to state that expert performers deliberately seek to avoid automaticity (Vandervert & Schimpf & Liu, 2007).  While it can be easy and comfortable, it is not a strategy accepted by those intent on the acquisition of expertise.

One article phrases it even more intensely while discussing the role of deliberate practice in the adaptations of individuals under difficult conditions. The authors emphasize the importance of facing the failures of their entrenched procedures (Johnson, Tenenbaumb, and Edmonds, 2006).  Those striving for expert levels of performance must bring personal weaknesses and shortcomings into the light of active mental processes so that they can be examined, altered, or even extinguished as necessary.

It seems fairly well established that long-term, quality deliberate practice is what leads to expertise.  What makes it possible for an individual to sustain this push to more and more expert performance over such an extended window of time?  There are so many obstacles to overcome. 
Constraints to achieving expert performance include limitations of resources, issues of motivation, and personal levels of effort.  Successful deliberate practice involves an individually challenging workload, a supportive environment, individual facilitation and coping skills, and a predisposition toward a desire to achieve exceptional performance (Johnson, Tenenbaum, & Edmonds, 2006).

Johnson and his colleagues also highlight three key aspects of deliberate practice as they apply to the process of humans adapting physically to demanding conditions.  These include well defined tasks with appropriate difficulty level, high effort, and opportunity for repetition and error correction.  They also reinforce the importance of articulating this clear distinction between repetitive training and true deliberate practice.

Referencing Ericsson, Vallerand speaks of the nature of motivational forces that lead individuals to engage in sustained deliberate practice (Vallerand, Salvv, Mageau, Elliot, Denis, Grouzet, & Blanchard, 2007).  The personal rewards that result and that can compel individuals to the necessary levels of effort include a sense of autonomy (self initiative), feelings of competence (effectiveness within an environment), and relatedness (connection to significant others).
  
To summarize, the conscientious evaluation of task performance with an effortful mindset focused on improvement is the fundamental key in advancement toward expert performance and is what distinguishes deliberate practice from regular practice. Sustaining this long-term effort in spite of the natural and innate personal obstacles ultimately separates the expert from the aspiring expert.  I ponder this foundational concept in light of the teaching and learning activities I have participated in throughout my career.  Time and time again I have "taught" and "learned" in ways that in no way contributed to my expertise or the expertise of my students.  Commitment of information to relatively short-term memory for a one-time use on an examination is far short of any type of advancement toward enduring and advancing expertise.

One does not have to go far afield from the basic tenets of deliberate practice research to find relevant references to metacognition.  As I examined past and recent literature relating to deliberate practice, I found repeated references echoing the key aspects of metacognitive theory such as the monitoring and control of one's own mental processes.    Many articles stressed the importance of individuals acquiring the ability to plan, monitor, evaluate, and control their own learning process.  These concepts are present in nearly any definition of metacognition.

Ericsson seems to be the grandfather, patron saint, and leading advocate for understanding the role of deliberate practice in the attainment of expert performance (Ericsson, 2005).  He and his colleagues repeatedly emphasize the significance of experts developing complex mechanisms for controlling, executing, and monitoring their own performance.

Key to this process of self-monitoring and control is an awareness of the basic limitations of human cognitive architecture, such as those relating to cognitive load theory.  Knowledge that each of us has limited capacity in our working memory, with approximately 7 slots for items in holding and about 3 available for use when processing (van Gog, Ericsson, Rikers, & Paas, 2005) is fundamental metacognitive knowledge.  Attempts to participate in developmental activities that produce load exceeding these basics is foolish and wasteful of time and effort for an individual.

From the early days of an individual's deliberate practice, tasks need to be very well defined and designed specifically for improvement.  Initially these tasks are likely to be planned by teachers, coaches, parents, trainers or other influential adults.  Eventually, individuals who have moved significantly down the road toward expert performance should reach the point where the deliberate practice activities are self-designed and assigned (Keith & Ericsson, 2007).

In a similar vein, it is important (and possible) to facilitate the development in students of the ability to diagnose their own needs for improvement.  Maintenance  of high levels of conscious monitoring and control is essential to the learning process and must be exercised over the long periods of time if an individual is to approach expert performance (van Gog, et al).

Should the concept of metacognition be viewed with the same levels of skepticism directed toward learning styles?  I would say definitely not.  There are too many aspects of metacognition that have points of contact with well-researched learning processes relating to deliberate practice and expertise development.  In her article on the choices that individuals make in spacing and timing their study, Son suggests that there is a great deal of room for additional research into metacognitive control strategies (Son, 2004).

In conclusion, my view of how individuals learn applicable knowledge and skills is greatly influenced by the research surrounding deliberate practice and metacognition.  If a particular body of knowledge or collection of skills is to be acquired for practical daily use, it cannot just be "crammed" into the brain.  Long term use and re-use with a conscientious focus upon goal-driven refinement and improvement need to be a part of nearly any teaching and learning task that we seek to accomplish.  If these fundamentals are not kept in mind by teachers and learners, vast amounts of effort will be wasted through intellectual inefficiency.  Individual performance on necessary real-world tasks will be far short of expert.