Practice and Rehearsal: Some Key Semantic Distinctions and Implications for Creative Learning

By Mary C. Murdock

Originally appeared in the International Creativity Network Newsletter, volume 2, number 4, 1992, pages 4-5, 8.

"Practice makes perfect," or so the saying goes. There are, however, several hidden, imperfect assumptions behind this familiar rule of thumb. Practice may not necessarily assist at every stage when learning Creative Problem Solving (CPS). To be sure, practice can be important and valuable insofar as: (a) what we are practicing builds relevant and necessary skills; (b) what we are practicing is useful under a variety of realistic conditions and (c) the pressure of striving to be perfect does not become a block to creative thinking and productivity.

Developmental Learning Levels and The Need for Practice

When considering how to approach practice in CPS, it is helpful to identify developmental levels of learning and to adjust one's strategies accordingly. Treffinger and Isaksen (1992) described a model for effective learning in CPS that takes into account a variety of conditions under which people learn and practice the process. Level I involves basic skill development using divergent and convergent tools; it contains a focus on teaching people how to understand and apply tools accurately. Level II involves using these tools descriptively when they are needed in group interactions; this level focuses on leading situationally. Level III involves real challenges where the learner has personal ownership, commitment and involvement with the challenge; it focuses on facilitation. According to this model, closeness to one's context can be seen as a key factor in learning and carries implications for effective practice as well. Initial learning is often best practiced with activities that are removed from an individual's personal challenges. Later learning may be enhanced by opportunities to use CPS in the context of one's own situation and needs.

In-Context Practice: Risk and Reward

Learning embedded in personal context is complex, ambiguous and often risky. Messy, real world problems that are a part of our everyday interactions are not clear cut; they involve group and social perspectives that are value-based and related to our perceptions. Misinformation, misunderstandings and misinterpretations often influence our attempts to resolve issues related to these kinds of challenges.

Under such circumstances our initial problem solving data is likely to be inaccurate and identification of skills that we might practice in one situation may not apply in another situation. Diversity and novelty make every group interaction somewhat unlike any other. The process of developing effective solutions to such problems has no fixed set of skills that will work in a prescribed way. Flexibility is a key skill, but "practicing" problem solving skills in a real context may carry many risks.

Mark Twain once noted that "the difference between a word and the right word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug. " If you have ever been struck by one or the other, you have experienced an important, and perhaps painful, difference in learning how to operate flexibly at different levels of in-context involvement. Learning at Level I is more like the lightning bug level of involvement and risk: if you make a mistake in practicing the tools, the worst that will happen is that you suffer a little ego twinge.

If you make a mistake in selecting and applying tools at Level II the risk goes up. Level II situations involve realistic interactions that are embedded in a context with which you may be directly involved with as a leader or follower. These situations are much more difficult to practice because their outcomes will be influenced by many variables. If, as a leader or follower, you make a mistake in your process choices and applications, you can usually correct it-sooner or later and with more or less energy-but the social risk will be greater. At Level II, depending upon the seriousness of the situation, you might be hit by a "lightning bug" and be able to brush off the miscue. But you might also be hit by an unexpected jolt of lightning with varying consequences and impact on your motivation to learn.

Level III experiences certainly take you into "lightning territory," in which your only questions are, "When will it strike?" and "How strong will it be?" Learning at this level is not a matter of repeating what has been done before, but of having sufficient experience to recognize, facilitate and possibly mitigate the effects of a storm that is brewing. Here the challenge becomes how to get that experience without electrocuting yourself or others. Under such conditions, the traditional wisdom of "practice makes perfect" does not serve you well; if the bolt strikes you, you might not have- or want- any more practice opportunities!

At Level III, and under some circumstances at Level II, the traditional approach to practice needs to be modified to include process training in how to select, apply and transfer learning in a variety of contexts.

Practice and Rehearsal: Some Key Semantic Distinctions

Twain's semantic distinction between lightning and lightning bug also applies to the traditional understanding and use of the word practice. How we define practice influences how we think about it when we approach learning. There may be some obstacles inherent in our use of the term itself. Practice implies a repetition of skills to achieve a known or a previously identified outcome. Thus, while there may not be a stated right or wrong way to practice, there is minimally a poor to best way to get efficient results. Interpreted in this way, the goal of practice is not to explore, consider, or redefine, but to repeat similar procedures until the desired level of competence is achieved. After this desired level is reached, additional repetition does not increase the quality of the outcome, though it may influence the speed at which the task is completed.

Misunderstanding of the interpretation of practice needed at more complex levels of interaction, however, can encourage premature closure and put pressure on individuals in Level II or III situations to find the "best" or "perfect" answer as quickly as possible in order to avoid feeling or being judged as incompetent. Problem solving under such conditions sets up a right or wrong, good versus bad outlook that can inhibit creativity when it is most needed.

Interpretation of learning as rehearsal can be a productive way to increase greater problem solving effectiveness in Level II or Level III applications. A rehearsal orientation creates an expectation for rethinking and redefining. It can assist groups to achieve additional depth and breadth in understanding complex problems generating ideas, or planning for action realistically.

Some ways in which practice and rehearsal might effectively be distinguished are illustrated in the table on this page.

The concept of rehearsal as a learning strategy emerges from theater and drama; in CPS, dramatic tools and techniques for Level II and III rehearsal can be helpful. Torrance (1975, 1979) and Torrance, Murdock and Fletcher (in press) have developed such a tool in a sociodramatic model that incorporates role play and dramatic techniques into a CPS framework. Drawing from the work of J. L. Moreno (1946; 1968) in both psychodrama and sociodrama, the Torrance Sociodramatic Model provides opportunities to explore real problems, or hypotheses, generate alternatives and to test their implementation in dramatic rehearsal. The tension and ambiguity inherent in Level II or III challenges is deliberately used for learning in role-playing.

The sociodramatic model is most effectively used in conjunction with complex problems and challenges at Level II or Level III for which other techniques have failed to produce significant resolution.

Sociodramatic action also promotes explicit learning of flexible thinking skills through realistic rehearsal. Practicing flexible thinking skills in situations that are removed from context may make us aware of their importance, but it will not necessarily assist us in using them effectively in a variety of contexts. Without intermediate technologies our only other option for learning this kind of thinking occurs when we are face-to-face with real situations. Given the closeness of context and the pressure for immediate content results, it is very difficult to concentrate on the thinking processes that help or hinder us. Thus "practice" at this level is often a trial and error process.

There is a popular saying on posters, buttons and bumper stickers that warns: Life is not a dress rehearsal; it is the real thing. This saying illustrates the powerful negative influence of the pressure to think perfectly in "real life" situations. Rather than being an excuse for not succeeding when it counts, using a rehearsal mindset can be more effective as a learning approach than using a practice mindset.

Defining learning strategies for Level II and III problem solving as rehearsal assists individuals in making several important perceptual shifts in thinking. Rehearsal implies on-going opportunities for change and thus, sets up an expectation for openness and exploration. It emphasizes the importance of process and removes the tacit pressure to make results perfect before they are usable. Like practice, the purpose of rehearsal is to identify and change whatever is not working effectively, to retain that which is working well and to develop a final product that more accurately reflects the integration and use of on-going data. Unlike practice, in a rehearsal one does not have to fail; one has instead, the opportunity to rethink, reconsider and to replay in psychological safety.

The need for flexible thinking is on-going. The opportunity to rethink, reconsider and respond spontaneously according to the needs of the situation provides a metacognitive rehearsal of flexible thinking skills in realistic situations that is more likely to reduce the lightening bolt of responding to real world challenges. As such, it can provide a safe dress rehearsal of thinking for life that is close enough to the "real thing" for a learner to monitor it without getting struck by lightning along the way.

References

Moreno, J. L. (1946). Psychodrama. First Volume. Beacon, NY: Beacon House.

Moreno, J. L. (1969). Psychodrama. Third Volume. . Beacon, NY: Beacon House.

Torrance, E. P. (1975). Sociodrama as a creative problem solving approach to studying the future. Journal of Creative Behavior, 9, 182-195.

Torrance. E. P. (1979). Developing creativity instructional materials according to the sociodrama model. The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly. , 4 (1), 9-19.

Torrance, E. P. , Murdock, M. C. & Fletcher, D. (in press). Sociodrama as creative problem solving. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

Treffinger, D. J. & Isaksen, S. G. (1992). Creative problem solving: An introduction. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.