Practice and Feedback

Research indicates that time spent in deliberate practice, as opposed to more general forms of practice, predicts ongoing learning and the development of expertise in a specific field (Ericsson et al., 2003). A key feature of deliberate practice is that it involves working toward specific goals. Goals provide students with a focus for their learning, which leads to more time and energy going to that area of focus. Having goals also allows students to more accurately measure their progress in learning. 

Instructors often make the mistake of thinking that they are providing students with goal-directed practice, when they are not. This is due mainly to expert blind spot – experts can sometimes fail to see when stated goals are unclear to students. When instructors do not clearly articulate goals, it can be difficult for students to know what (or how) to practice.  

For example, in an introductory psychology course an instructor asks students to “analyze a case study.” The instructor assumes that students understand that “analyze” means identifying key psychological theories, applying them to the case, critically assessing their relevance, and drawing evidence-based conclusions. However, some students end up summarizing the case, while others list relevant psychological concepts without much analysis. Because the instructor did not break down the specific goal of “analyzing,” students misinterpreted the task and struggled to focus their practice on the correct skills. 

A clearer, goal-directed practice might involve explicitly stating: “The goal is to apply at least two psychological theories to the case study, assess their strengths and weaknesses in explaining the behavior, and support your assessment with evidence from the course readings.” By articulating specific goals, students can more effectively measure their progress and focus their practice on developing the analytical skills needed for the task. 

To identify the appropriate level of challenge for student practice, instructors need to ensure that tasks are neither too difficult, causing frustration, nor too easy, leading to disengagement. Effective practice lies in the “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978), where students can succeed with some assistance, enabling learning and growth. 

In large or diverse student groups, adjusting the difficulty of practice tasks at the group level is more efficient than tailoring instruction to individual students’ needs. Clarke et al. (2005) demonstrated that for students with little prior knowledge, sequential learning (focusing on one skill at a time) was more effective than concurrent learning, which posed too great a challenge. For more knowledgeable students, the opposite was true. Instructional scaffolding, such as providing structured support and breaking tasks into smaller steps, can help students at different levels engage with appropriately challenging material (Palinscar & Brown, 1984). 

When tasks are too easy, strategies like retrieval practice, spaced practice, or interleaved practice create “desirable difficulties” that enhance learning without overwhelming students (Bjork & Bjork, 2020). These approaches adjust the challenge level across time and tasks, ensuring that all students are appropriately challenged to promote learning. 

Students need enough practice for the benefits of practice to accumulate (Martin et al., 2007). Practical constraints of time and resources often prompts instructors to move through material too quickly, giving students little opportunity to practice a skill. It often takes more than one opportunity to learn something new, especially if the goal is for that new knowledge to be retained across time and transferred to new contexts. 

Accumulating practice helps students progress through different stages of learning. Early on, students may struggle to see improvement, but as they practice more and reach the middle phase of learning, they often experience significant performance gains. Repeated practice enables students to refine their skills and better detect improvements in their performance. 

Imagine a student learning to play the piano. At first, they struggle with basic finger placement and reading sheet music. During the early phase of learning, despite practicing daily, they may feel frustrated by slow progress and frequent mistakes. It’s difficult for the student to detect any real improvement, and they might feel as though they’re stuck on a plateau. 

However, as the student continues practicing over several weeks, they enter the middle phase of learning. The repetition of scales and simple songs begins to pay off—they can now play more fluently, make fewer mistakes, and even detect where their technique has improved, such as smoother transitions between chords. This progression reflects the accumulation of practice, where repeated efforts help refine their skills and lead to noticeable performance gains. 

Research has consistently shown that feedback is most effective when it highlights specific areas where students need improvement, rather than offering general assessments of their performance. In one study, students learning to solve geometry problems received automatic feedback when they made errors. One group received general messages indicating an error, while another group was given specific details about their mistakes and how to correct them. The students who received targeted feedback performed significantly better on a post-test measuring problem-solving skills (McKendree, 1990). 

On the other hand, providing excessive feedback is not always helpful. Too much feedback can overwhelm students, making it unclear which aspects of their performance need the most attention. For example, studies have found that when students receive numerous margin comments on their writing, they either become overwhelmed or focus on easily fixable issues, such as minor details, rather than addressing more significant conceptual or structural problems (Schreibersdorf, 2014). 

Generally, more frequent feedback leads to more efficient learning by helping students correct their errors early, preventing misconceptions from becoming ingrained. Extensive research supports this idea (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). However, providing frequent feedback is often challenging due to practical constraints. Fortunately, even minimal feedback on student writing can lead to improved second drafts, as it helps students better understand what their readers grasp and what they do not (Traxler & Gernsbacher, 1992). 

This does not mean that more frequent feedback is always better. The timing of feedback is also crucial. For example, a study on college students learning to write mathematical functions in a spreadsheet (Mathan & Koedinger, 2017) found that students who received immediate feedback after making an error performed worse on final assessments than those who received delayed feedback. The immediate feedback group had fewer opportunities to practice recognizing and correcting their own mistakes. In contrast, the delayed feedback group had more chances to self-correct, as feedback was only provided if they didn’t recognize their error or made several failed attempts to fix it. In this way, the feedback, though delayed, was more aligned with the learning goals of error recognition and correction. 

An instructor of an introductory economics course has found that many students struggle with applying the concept of “opportunity cost” in decision-making problems. 

Currently, students practice this concept through a single assignment where they analyze a business scenario and identify the opportunity costs involved. However, this assignment is graded, and they do not have opportunities to revise their work or apply the feedback to future tasks. Upon reflection, this practice may not be sufficiently goal-directed or repeated. 

The feedback provided is detailed but comes at the end of the assignment with no chance for students to use it in subsequent work. The feedback is aligned with learning goals, but without additional practice, students cannot apply the feedback to improve their understanding of opportunity cost. 

To accumulate practice more efficiently, the instructor could add low-stakes practice opportunities, such as in-class polling questions where students analyze opportunity costs in various scenarios. Students could submit a draft of their assignment, receive targeted feedback, and resubmit a final version. This would provide more chances to practice and apply feedback without significantly increasing grading time. Incorporating retrieval practice during class lessons could also help solidify their understanding over time.