PSYC471 readings notes Expert Performance its structure and acquisition By K.A. Ericsson & N.

Charness -

-Jerry Gu

Expertise and mastery in a human endeavor is not innate unique ability, but formed from long (up to decades) deliberate practice at consistently high levels Skills acquired by expert performance can include o Bypassing limits of working memory and sequential processing o Anatomical changes due to long-term adaptation to intense practiced physical activities Info processing approach (incre. increase in knowledge from practice exp) / skills approach (developed bio/neuro differences) to explain mastery Study attempts another approach at understanding this, through scientific lab-reproducible methods Ancient view On the whole the gods do not bestow more than one gift on a person attribution bias of skill toward gift rather than experience legitimizes the practices as being divinely bestowed Vasari The life of the artist, first book systemically detailing expertise development, attributing to bestowed gift theory Edward Young origins of creative product, stating the opposing ideas of achievements from innate talent and gift vs achievement from acquired skills Galton challenged this with a theory of integration between talent and training to achieve expertise and performance o He presents three main factors for excellence: innate ability (talent/gift), eagerness (motivation), work (effort). o As motivation and effort have then already been recognized in the sci community, later efforts focus on showcasing innate ability as a major factor in excellence o Galton suggests practice has a monotonic functional relationship with performance all the way up to an asymptotic max; the amplitude of this max performance capacity however is determined by heritable pre-dispositional factors (gift), especially in domains where peak performers are statistically very few Howard Gardner Frames of mind seven intelligences: linguistic, musical, spatial, logics/math, body kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal; each with individual biological basis o Though he notes that genetic talent disregards intelligences, e.g. musical geniuses are picked out at extremely young ages even in families without music background o Those with proper training (e.g. Suzuki method, for music) under high quality masters still reach performance levels in line with these genetically talented individuals; reflects Suzukis view that training failure causes lack of motivation and thus failure for one to reach high performance down the road o Gardners proposed test for 7 intelligences: memory test on subjects shown patterns relevant to an intelligence field, but only applicable past pre-school due to neural plasticity at early ages; strong int property = readily learn the patterns and difficulty in forgetting them o Two major sources of evidence for his talent theory: 1) performance of prodigies/savants, 2) predictability of future performance based on early tests of talent Performance of prodigies and savants: o E.g. Perfect/absolute pitch (A.P.) in musicians; ability to identify 64 rather than 5~6 frequency tones, only 0.01% of gen population has AP

Thought to be an innate talent, but recent review shows anyone can learn it if they were within the narrow developmental window (3-6 years old) o Evidence suggests those with talent were imposed with stronger than normal levels of support and training from family and trainers o Child prodigies almost never become exceptional as adults; exceptional adult performers are a result of early life training and sustained intense training throughout life o Scheinfeld reported that prodigies usually showed very high interests in the activity rather than unusual capacity for them o Savants exceptional performers with show lower-than-normal general intelligence, who gained their talents almost spontaneously Evidence suggests high level family/training support starts months or years before the spontaneous gaining of skill in savants Musical savants do not have high performance with music tests with unfamiliar scales, meaning they still rely on access to stored patterns o Conclusion prodigies/savants show no evidence toward innate talent/gift, but rather the importance of optimal environment for the particular skills Future success prediction by innate talent measures o Analogy distinguishing computer software (knowledge and experience from training) and hardware (innate attributes that are not modifiable) o Individual differences in talent in certain skills predispose people for success, is a fact agreed by the biggest supporters of practice-based mastery o Inborn qualities include motor coordination, reflexes, hand-eye coordination o Muscle fibre aerobic capacity study shown to be 90% heritable (later corrected to 40%) o Lab studies of simple tasks trying to gauge innate abilities are still unsuccessful in predicting actual performance level, as specificity in high performance of skills is extremely high Elite athletes with better reflexes and perception in their fields, still performed average in simple stimuli tests Elite chess players with superior memory in their games, performed average when given randomized memory tasks o IQ differentiates elite chess players from average population, but not from lesser chess players o Physiology related to athletics (endurance, flexibility, cardiovascular capacity) is still vastly more determined by training than predispositional factors o Tests showing physiology heredity is done on gen. population, while elite athletes show normal levels o Conclusion short-term measures of talent / inborn differences do not affect success of the domain in the long term This paper attempts to reproduce expert performance reliably, followed by various assessments. Superior performance can be gauged statistically as those performing at least 2 std deviations above mean; in chess experts are 2-3 std devs above mean, or 5-6 std devs above mean of beginners Observed expert performance vs perceived experts are two divergent methods of identifying expertise; recognized financial experts do not in fact perform better in investment yields. Thus those labeled experts are related to experience rather than actual superior performance

DeGroots research in finding specific tasks that capture expert performance allows chess skill evaluation by seeing optimal chess move in a mid-game random step extended adaptation to the demands of naturally occurring situations in the relevant field Discovering these representative tasks allows control to be imposed on other contextual factors and variables (scientific method) A math example is for subjects to report product of 24x36 o Some do typical multiplication table in mind, reordering to 36x24 o Others do formula of (a-b)(a+b) = a^2 b^2 o Others break down the numbers o Skilled mental calculators calculate in reverse o To negate these variables, subjects could think aloud (verbal report) thus allow tracking of method and speed, and consistency of results Ericssons review of 40 studies show that explaining methods causes deviations from cognitive processes structures, while thinking aloud verbalization allows the retaining of these structures thinking aloud method is sufficient in providing rich details on cogn. Processes, e.g. in chess With scientific (e.g. physics) problem-solving, novices are shown to inefficiently go through the process stepwise, while experts can form immediate internal representation of problem and simply retrieve their knowledge for solving them; similar in medical comprehension Degree of internal representation of any problem is the key to expert performance Immediate representation memory in chess was tested by DeGroot where a random config is shown for 2-15 sec, and subj asked to recall it; experts did significantly better. Chase & Simon also replicated the findings. Conclusion experts already understood and recognize larger chunks of config, thus the whole chess board config becomes easier, bypassing STM (short term mem) limits o this accounts for why specificity of superior STM is so high in expert another finding is with enough practice, one utilizes LTM to bypass the STM chunk size advantage of experts to also increase performance, by 1000% Binets memory test of asking subj to recall a number matrix in various orders shows trained subjects perform as well as exceptional subjects, and that natural pattern memorization methods develop naturally through practice LTM acquired memory skill allows superior experts to perform after STM distraction tasks without any performance hindrance LTM is stored and indexed in salient ways Trained subj perform mem tests as well as masters, but focus nondiscretely while masters focus on central critical game-changing areas of the chess game Mastery is the integration between improved memory skills, and improved knowledge organization / procedure refining strategies. Perceptual-motor skill in expert performance, as in their rapid reaction to dynamically changing situations pertaining to their skills, are also relevant Lab studies show extensive practice allow increase in correct response to stimuli, however not sufficient increase in speed of response (at best 0.5-1 sec) Tennis / keyboard typing skills are boosted with experts by their ability to anticipate moves and coordinate the response actions well ahead of when they are played out To gain truly superior expertise, trained individuals still need long periods of practice with coaching to allow natural development of refinement and optimization of skills and strategies Physiological advantages of experts are also likely developed over long periods of practice, rather than innate unchangeable attributes

Attaining expertise requires mastery of all relevant and prerequisite skills and knowledge Due to the steady accumulation of knowledge and methods in every domain, those involved become increasingly more specialized (e.g. Olympians 100 years ago vs Olympics athletes today) AND to engage in these activities full-time compared to the past Minimum period needed to attain expert performance = 10 years full-time (several thousand hours), remarkably consistent across all domains Most active individuals in popular domains tend to transition into enjoyable play, rather than deliberate practice as they become moderately proficient, and thus do not focus on repeated training to squelch weaknesses Work activities (ones with rewards or other external motivations for high performance) themselves do not provide learning or innovation opportunities for those involved, rather the training toward high achievements in work activities is where that occurs Deliberate practice is an effortful activity motivated by the goal of improving performance; it is not inherently motivating unlike play and does not immediately lead to rewards Apprenticeship at young ages is becoming popular, where younglings try to reproduce and compare from expert products/performances in order to learn Deliberate practices main difference from all other domain-related activities = it provides optimal opportunities of skill / knowledge acquisition, and Ericsson deems it the primary mechanism in creating expert performance Three phases of development of elite performance: o Child starts off with playful involvement in domain activity, then show promise with which parents suggest lessons for the child to involve in limited deliberate practice. o As a habit develops in the child, parents show them instrumental value of activity, and transition them into extended preparation and ends with individual full-time commitment o In full-time commitment, increased practice hours and higher level teachers optimize practice environment, ends when the child either lives off the profession, or stops. International-level experts are almost always coached by teachers who were intl level, or previously produced intl level students At very young (4-6YO) ages talent cannot be discerned, only varying levels of motivation A fourth phase of elite performance exists eminent attempt at elite achievements in the domain. One such achievement is major innovations in the domain, and tends to be rare and unpredictable unlike qualitatively superior performance. Monotonic benefits assumption ones performance level is a function of the amt of deliberate practice accumulated since that type of practice has started o Thus performance is a function of Starting age Weekly amt of hours spent in delib. Practice Empirical measurements of this can be done via diary-tracking / schedule counting Ericsson finds higher level performers in professional field start 2-5 years earlier than lesser performers Maturity is also big factor in performance, thus competitions tend to be age-restrictive; by late teens huge practice amt gaps are already present. E.g. 20YO top violinists have 10k hours practice, unlike next best group with 7.5k hours, or the lowest performing group with 5k hours.

Lower level performers at a given age cannot catch up to top performers even at full-time practice, as the accumulated practice time gap is already present and maintained Expert performers have daily practice routines, hours-long with breaks, and usually in mornings (time with highest capacity for demanding performance), with very high care for proper sleep to maximize focus and effort during practice In perceptual-motor domains (e.g. sports), one main goal is to push performance to the persons limits repeatedly, with far-reaching anatomical and physio changes (e.g. increase capillary supply, heart size, flexibility, muscle density and composition, etc) o However it is not necessarily good practice, as it risks strains and injuries, and burn-outs o Already-top level performers are capable of extreme intensity performance for longer durations without these risks, thus increasing performance gap with the next best Peak age for performance in experts tends to be 20~40 YO o In sports, peak narrow in the 20s with variation inter-sports (intense sports limiting age more than fine motor sports) Though total creative output declines for art domains with aging, chance of achievement is constant (e.g. chess peak is 30YO, but 60YO performance same level as 20YO) In innovation-based domains o Math/physics/poetry, peak late 20YO-early 30YO o Writing/history/philosophy, peak late 40YO-early 50YO Postal chess (several days per step) vs tournament chess (3 mins limit per step), impose different memory and cognitive requirements, thus tournament chess peak at 30YO, postal chess at 46YO Top experts decline in performance slower than lesser performers, not due to differences in aging rates, but to more experience thus less demand on physical or mental abilities With perceptual-motor domains, decline in performance due to aging is because of the bodys natural reverting to average whenever deliberate practice ceases; thus retaining high performance in sports depends on consistent adult delib practice being maintained Early acquisition of skills into a domain is also critical, as shown by difficulty of adult learners attempting to delve into an activity