Practice and Performance — The Similarities and Differences That Matter
- Nathan Belcher
- 2 days ago
- 6 min read
Practice and performance are often mentioned side by side, plus I’ve had many experiences with practice and performance through my athletics career, coaching, and teaching. However, the relationship between practice and performance is not always clear: Are they the same? Or, are there major differences?
Understanding how practice and performance overlap — and where they diverge — can unlock new ways to improve how we develop our skills and approach challenges. In this newsletter we will dive deeply into the core similarities and key differences for practice and performance, showing how they can work together in your learning journey!
Ideas
Practice and performance are part of Purposeful Application, which is the output in my Model for Learning. We use Purposeful Application to test the knowledge and skills in our conceptual models, giving us feedback for future improvements to our knowledge and skills. The feedback becomes an input to the Model for Learning, driving our learning forward.
Before we get into the comparison of practice and performance, please take a minute and review my Model for Learning. Work yourself through the model, remembering specifics for each part and the connections in the model.
[For a much deeper explanation on the process of learning, check out this essay: That’s How Learning Works?!?! A Comprehensive Model for Understanding the Learning Process.]
Spectrum of Warm-Up, Practice, and Performance
One way to think about Purposeful Application is on a spectrum of stakes and intensity: The Warm-up on the left side begins with the lowest stakes and intensity, with the stakes and intensity increasing as the spectrum moves to the right.
The spectrum gives some hints for the similarities and differences between practice and performance, so here’s a pre-question before the rest of the newsletter: What do you think are some of the similarities and differences?
[This newsletter will not discuss the Warm-up; if you want more information, here’s an earlier newsletter: Newsletter 021: The Warm-up — What, Why, and How.]
Core Similarities between Practice and Performance
Practice and performance have many similarities.
Both are expressions of Purposeful Application. Purposeful Application is the output for my Model for Learning, which is how we apply the knowledge and skills in our conceptual models to the real world. Applying and getting feedback creates a continuous learning loop, further refining and strengthening our knowledge and skills.
Both reveal and test the true capabilities for our knowledge and skills. Practice and performance serve as reality checks, exposing the actual state of our knowledge and skills and giving future directions for learning. The testing also builds resilience through challenges, contributing to the development of expertise over time.
Both require full engagement across multiple systems. Fully engaging mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually leads to maximum learning, speeding up the learning process. In addition, full engagement helps us reach a state of flow — giving times of complete absorption and peak experience.
Both involve managing internal performance states. We come to every practice or performance with varying personal factors; these personal factors affect our performance state, getting us into either the Reactive Performance State or Responsive Performance State. Changing the performance state affects the way we interact with the tasks and outcomes, making us manage our performance state for both practice and performance. [For more information on performance states, see this essay: Stuck in a Performance Plateau? Use this Guide to Break Through the Plateau and Maximize Your Ability.]
Both operate within social and game contexts. Humans are incredibly social creatures, so practice and performance both depend on social factors. In addition, the ideas for a finite game or infinite game change the way we view practice and performance, giving different learning experiences depending on the context.
These similarities show how practice and performance help us continuously deepen and expand the knowledge and skills in our conceptual models, driving our learning journey forward!
Key Differences between Practice and Performance
Practice and performance have many key differences.
Purpose: What is the point? The point of practice is to learn, using exploration to deepen and expand the knowledge and skills in our conceptual models. The point of performance is to execute, acting decisively and skillfully to succeed at a task.
Focus: How many conceptual models? Practice usually is focused on either one or two conceptual models, going deep into the knowledge and skills for the specific conceptual model. Performance uses a wide range of conceptual models, integrating the knowledge and skills from many conceptual models.
Environment: What is the complexity? To focus on one or two conceptual models, the environment for practice is closed and controlled. This control creates a structured sequence of tasks, maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness for learning the knowledge and skills in one or two conceptual models. With the wide range of conceptual models, the environment for performance is open and complex. This openness and complexity creates an unstructured sequence of tasks, forcing the learner to respond in real time by integrating the knowledge and skills for many conceptual models.
Success Target: What counts as success? Through exploration and a focus on learning, the success target for practice is roughly 80%. Failures are learning opportunities, creating productive struggle that enhances the learning process. Through execution and a focus on integration, the success target for performance is 100%. Failures have real consequences for the win-loss record or our reputation, making the goal of 100% success.
Mindset: What is my approach? Through the point of learning, the mindset in practice is more playful, exploratory, and growth-oriented. Ideally the learner remains in the Responsive Performance state throughout practice; however, if the learner goes into the Reactive Performance State, the learner can safely navigate back to the Responsive Performance State. Through the point of execution, the mindset in performance is focused, goal-directed, and success-oriented. To meet the demands of execution, the learner needs to stay in the Responsive Performance State throughout the performance.
These key differences between practice and performance highlight how each serves a unique and essential role in our learning journey. Understanding these distinctions helps us design better practice sessions and approach performances with clearer intentions. By respecting both the differences and similarities between practice and performance, we can maximize our growth and achievement in our learning journey!
Stories
Here are a couple of stories and wonderings on the interplay between practice and performance.
Story 1: There are many areas of life where the expectation is 100% success, putting these areas into the performance category. Teaching — especially during our face-to-face time with students — definitely falls into this category, as does many parts in business. One idea with which I’m wrestling is how to incorporate practice into these areas; how can we create spaces where some failure is okay, plus have the rest of the characteristics of practice? Especially in courses with an end-of-year state test, there is a ton of pressure on teachers to have 100% success each day. The same with business: People in business have to make sales, leading to a profit — otherwise they go out of business! The tension comes from the challenge of learning through only performance; we can learn through performance, but the learning requires a ton of time for reflection. There is also a huge importance on the systems: Do the systems allow time for reflection, or do they just make everyone hurry along? If you have ideas on any part of this I would love to hear them; I will continue wrestling with this for a while.
Story 2: Athletics and performing arts are much cleaner in terms of making a distinction between practice and performance, with players taking time to engage in structured practice tasks and then apply these in an unstructured way through performance. One challenge is to bring the learning created through practice into the performance; a mis-structuring of practice can lead to feelings of learning instead of real, robust learning. I’ve had to learn how to properly structure the intensity and stakes in practice to produce learning that will transfer to performance, plus use the reflection during and from performance to achieve the 100% success rate in future performances. This is still a work-in-progress for my personal learning in golf, though I use the ideas in each newsletter to become better at practice and performance!
Questions
What do you think about the list of core similarities? Are there any that resonate particularly deeply with you?
Would you add any part to the list of core similarities?
What do you think about the list of key differences? Are there any that resonate particularly deeply with you?
Would you add any part to the list of key differences?
How do you manage your internal performance states differently during practice and performance?
How do you adapt your approach when moving from a controlled practice environment to a complex performance environment?
How do you balance the need for both practice and performance in your current learning goals?
Comments