## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - Independent practice consolidates learning and builds automaticity through repetition > - Effective practice needs clear instructions, strategic monitoring, and responsive management > - From fluency building to problem-solving, each practice type requires specific design principles ## Definition **Practice**: Independent student work designed to consolidate learning, build fluency, and develop problem-solving capability through systematic application of knowledge and skills (Rosenshine, 2012). ## Connected To [[Fluency Practice]] | [[Scaffolding]] | [[Low-Floor High-Ceiling]] | [[Minimally Different Questions]] | [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Responsive Teaching]] --- ## Maximising participation during practice The instruction sandwich provides a three-part structure: gaining complete attention ("Eyes on me, pencils down"), delivering clear numbered instructions with specific expectations, and launching students into work with a brief scan and "Go!" This structure prevents students beginning work before understanding what's required, reducing confusion and off-task behaviour. The opening moments of practice establish the tone and expectations. Teachers can ensure a focused start by thanking students in advance ("Thank you for working in silent, independent mode"), positioning themselves in a corner where they can see everyone, waiting 30 seconds before circulating, and using the least intrusive corrections (progressing from looks to gestures to proximity before using words). Strategic circulation requires avoiding blackspots. Teachers should visit the strongest students first, as they have made the most progress and reveal common issues. Before circulating, teachers should decide what specific element to look for and carry an answer key for quick comparison without mental calculation. Mini-whiteboards allow students to show answers for easy scanning. ## Types of practice questions Practice questions vary in cognitive demand and structure. [[Fluency Practice]] develops automated recall and basic procedures through exercises like times tables and basic operations, building foundation skills. [[Scaffolding|Scaffolded Questions]] support progression to independence through partially completed problems. [[Minimally Different Questions]] focus attention on critical features by changing a single variable, revealing mathematical structure. [[Low-Floor High-Ceiling]] questions provide accessible entry with extension potential through open-middle problems, enabling differentiated practice. Practice also varies in structure. Procedural practice involves direct application of learnt methods for skill consolidation. Variation sequences use systematic changes to highlight patterns and relationships. Mixed practice interleaves topics, requiring students to select and discriminate between strategies. Assessment practice applies knowledge in formal assessment contexts for exam preparation. ## Responsive practice management Practice requires active monitoring and response to student needs. Strategic circulation provides data for decision-making (Wilson et al., 2019). When 80% or more students succeed, teachers should continue with the current level. When fewer than 80% succeed, teachers should stop the class, address common issues, and restart to prevent frustration and misconception embedding, continuing wastes time and damages confidence. This approach ensures practice remains productive rather than rehearsal of errors (Rosenshine, 2012). Teachers should stop practice when the same conversations happen around the room, widespread confusion emerges on a specific question, behavioural issues arise from frustration, or a common misconception appears across multiple students. Effective answer review avoids simply projecting answers and telling students to "tick correct ones". Teachers can check one key question on mini-whiteboards for immediate feedback, use selective sharing ("Who got 8/10?") to gauge class understanding, focus on common mistakes rather than just correct answers, and compare different solution methods used by students. ## Practice design principles Questions should progress from support to independence (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). Initial questions should be near-identical to worked examples (Sweller & Cooper, 1985), followed by scaffolded variations with support removal (Renkl & Atkinson, 2003), then independent application of procedures, mixed topic integration (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007), and finally problem-solving and transfer tasks. Students require different amounts and types of practice to achieve mastery (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993). Students with weaker [[Schema|schema]] connections require more repetitive practice to achieve fluency; what takes one student 10 examples might take another 30 (Rosenshine, 2012). Teachers should track accuracy, speed, and confidence levels. Speed without accuracy suggests rote application; accuracy without speed indicates incomplete automation (Logan, 1988). Teachers should provide additional challenges for students completing core practice successfully, but extension should deepen understanding rather than provide "more of the same" (Kalyuga et al., 2003). ## Common practice mistakes Students often struggle with time allocation across different question types. Teachers can provide clear time guidelines and progress checkpoints. When all students do identical practice regardless of ability, teachers should use [[Low-Floor High-Ceiling]] design principles for differentiation. Moving to independent practice before sufficient fluency development undermines learning; teachers should ensure adequate [[Fluency Practice]] before complex application tasks. Practice consolidates demonstrated procedures after [[Worked Examples]]. Before [[Problem-Solving]], practice allows automated skills to free working memory for complex thinking. Throughout learning, regular practice maintains skill accessibility and prevents decay. ## Key warnings Skills require extensive repetition to achieve automaticity; cutting practice short leaves learning incomplete (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). When students practice errors, they embed misconceptions in long-term memory, making later correction difficult (Chi, 2008). Providing identical practice to all students ignores individual learning needs; some need more support, others need more challenge (Kalyuga et al., 2003). Waiting too long to identify widespread issues means many students have embedded errors before intervention (Rosenshine, 2012). Students may appear successful during practice but forget quickly; success in the moment does not guarantee long-term retention (Soderstrom & Bjork, 2015). ## References Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), *International handbook of research on conceptual change* (pp. 61–82). Routledge. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. *Psychological Review*, 102(2), 211–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211 Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. *Psychological Review*, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363 Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. *Educational Psychologist*, 38(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. *Psychological Review*, 95(4), 492–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492 Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. *Educational Psychologist*, 38(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_3 Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. *Instructional Science*, 35(6), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9015-8 Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12–19. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), *Handbook of research on teaching* (3rd ed., pp. 376–391). Macmillan. Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 10(2), 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000 Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. *Cognition and Instruction*, 2(1), 59–89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3 Wilson, R. C., Shenhav, A., Straccia, M., & Cohen, J. D. (2019). The eighty five percent rule for optimal learning. *Nature Communications*, 10, 4646. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12552-4