Deliberate practice and expert performance

Abstract

Like their sporting heroes, many young athletes aspire to greatness. The lure of an exciting lifestyle and an exponential increase in wealth is, for some, sufficient to warrant pursuing this dream. For others, motivation to endure the rigor and commitment of elite-level sport is provided by the ‘love of the game’. However, regardless of the underlying motives few individuals reach the required level of performance to be deemed an expert, whilst an even smaller minority achieve greatness. The obvious question is ‘why’? Is greatness, or even expertise, reserved for the select few who are born with the credentials that ensure that they stand out from their less ‘gifted’ counterparts or are only a handful of individuals able to withstand the challenges that they are confronted with along the road to excellence? Scientists have been trying to map out the route to excellence for many centuries and, perhaps not surprisingly, the notion that some performers are ‘born to be great’ has carried with it an almost mystical context (for a discussion, see Sternberg and Wagner, 1999). More recently, however, Ericsson and colleagues (Ericsson, 1996; Ericsson and Charness, 1994; Ericsson and Lehmann, 1996) have espoused the importance of practice in the development of elite performers. They have advocated that commitment to practice and practice itself are more important than ‘natural ability’ in defining the road to excellence. According to their deliberate practice theory, expertise results from the development of domain-specific knowledge structures and skills acquired through the process of adaptation to practice.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 133 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.