|
Anders Ericsson has replied to this meta-analysis [1], which in turn got a reply from McNamara et al [2]. In Ericsson's opinion/definition [1], deliberate practice is "individualized practice with training tasks (selected by a supervising teacher) with a clear performance goal and immediate informative feedback was associated with marked improvement"; and he argues "In contrast, Macnamara, Moreau, and Hambrick’s (2016, this issue) main meta-analysis examines the use of the term deliberate practice to refer to a much broader and less defined concept including virtually any type of sport-specific activity, such as group activities, watching games on television, and even play and competitions. Summing up every hour of any type of practice during an individual’s career implies that the impact of all types of practice activity on performance is equal—an assumption that I show is inconsistent with the evidence." McNamara et al reply saying that evidence only accounts for a relatively small fraction of expert performance [2]: "we found that deliberate practice accounted for a sizeable amount of variance in sports performance (18%), but it left a much larger amount unexplained. Ericsson’s (2016, this issue) evaluation of our research is undercut by contradictions, omissions, and errors." They conclude that "The available evidence indicates that deliberate practice, though undeniably important, does not largely account for individual differences in expertise. Building on Ericsson’s pioneering work, the task now is to develop theories of expertise that include multiple factors." [1] Summing up hours of any type of practice versus identifying optimal practice activities: Commentary on Macnamara, Moreau, & Hambrick (2016)
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691616635600 [2] How Important Is Deliberate Practice? Reply to Ericsson (2016)
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691616635614 |