PART 1: HOW DO EXPERTS DIFFER FROM NOVICES?
“The ability to change and continually innovate is where the concept of equipping students to be adaptive experts comes into play.” – John Bransford, "Thoughts on Adaptive Expertise"
Brilliantly in both his chapter on "How Experts Differ from Novices" in How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School and in his informal essay, "Thoughts on Adaptive Expertise," posted on the VaNTH ERC website (Vanderbilt-Northwestern-Texas-Harvard/MIT Engineering Research Center), John Bransford explores the role of expertise in teaching and learning--and approaches to cultivating a very particular kind of expertise that is especially well-suited to the learners and environment of the 21st century: Adaptive Expertise.
In his chapter "How Experts Differ from Novices," Bransford outlines six principles of of "expert's knowledge" and then examines their "potential for learning and instruction." These principles shed light on how and why the understandings that experts achieve are fundamentally different--richer, more complex, more subtle, more fluent, more nuanced--than the understandings of more novice learners. In Part 1 of this topic, we will explore the fundamental elements of expertise--and how expert knowledge & understanding differ from novice knowledge & understanding.
In Part 2 of this entry (to be posted mid-week) we will explore a crucial--and extraordinarily powerful and useful--distinction Bransford makes between routine experts (artisans) and adaptive experts (virtuosos). For it is in this distinction, I believe, that our greatest challenges and our most exciting opportunities lie for teaching and learning in the 21st century.
1. Experts notice features and meaningful patterns of information that are not noticed by novices.
Experts don't find themselves unable to see the forest through the trees. In fact, they can see all kinds of different collections of trees within the forest. Practically speaking, experts don't simply see discrete and unrelated pieces of information; rather, they see patterns or chunks. Take the example of the expert circuit technician who was able to reproduce large portions of a complex circuit diagram after only a few seconds of viewing. Why? Because the expert "chunked several individual circuit elements (e.g., resistors and capacitors) that performed the function of an amplifier." In short, the expert has a schema--a mental map--which organizes what a novice would see as individual pieces of information into conceptual structures.
2. Experts have acquired a great deal of content knowledge that is organized in ways that reflect a deep understanding of their subject matter.
Experts are shown to organize their thinking around what John Bruer has termed "core concepts" and what Wiggins and McTighe term "big ideas." For example, "novices tend to categorize physics problems as being solved similarly if they 'look the same' (that is, share the same surface features), whereas experts categorize accordig to the major principle that could applied to solve the problems." Novices get lost in seemingly disconnected particulars. Experts connect the dots, as it were, through the lens of core concepts or principles.
3. Experts' knowledge cannot be reduced to sets of isolated facts or propositions but, instead, reflects contexts of applicability: that is, the knowledge is "conditionalized" on a set of circumstances.
Experts are able to retrieve knowledge that is relevant to a particular task--understanding the context in which the knowledge is most fruitfully applied. A professional basketball coach, for example, need not scan every bit of basketball knowledge he has when deciding what in-bounds play to have his team run against a particular opponent with 4 seconds remaining on the clock. The coach, as expert, considers only "a subset of possible" plays--plays that suit the particular circumstances in which his team finds itself.
4. Experts are able to flexibly retrieve important aspects of their knowledge with little attentional effort.
This kind of seemingly effortless retrieval is known as fluency--and it is vital to expertise. The more fluent this retrieval is the LESS mental energy (to use Mel Levine's concept) the expert must expend on remembering and the MORE mental energy the expert can apply to learning.
5. Though experts know their disciplines thoroughly, this does not guarantee that they are able to teach others.
Based on Shulman's extensive research, we know that "expert teachers know the kinds of difficulties that students are likely to face, and they know how to tap into their students' existing knowledge in order to make new information meaningful plus assess their students' progress."
6. Experts have varying levels of flexibility in their approach to new situations.
This is where the rubber meets the road in our work with 21st century learners in a flat world--for it is within these varying levels of flexibility that we find the greatest opportunity for moving our students far beyond mere problem solving into the realm of a deeply metacognitive and creative process that begins in meaningful problem posing and leverages both our critical and creative imaginations. Routine experts, what Bransford terms "artisans," can be described as follows:
"They tend to accept the problem and its limits as stated by the clients. They approach new problems as opportunities to use their existing expertise to do familiar tasks more efficiently."
The adaptive expert, what Bransford terms the "virtuoso," however, is described as follows:
"The virtuoso experts treat the client's statement of the problem with respect, but consider it a 'a point of departure and exploration' (Miller, 1978). They view assignments as opportunities to explore and expand their current levels of expertise."
* * * * * * * * * *
In Part 2 of this entry, we will examine Bransford's essay "Thoughts on Adaptive Expertise," comparing the learning processes and trajectories of routine experts (artisans) with those of adaptive experts (virtuosos) and exploring important interconnections among the adaptive expert, Daniel Pink's six senses of the conceptual age (design, story, symphony, empathy, play and meaning) as detailed in A Whole New Mind and Steve Zades' seven tools for developing imaginative intelligence (discovery, story, conversation, contradiction, voice, sketchpad, and space) as explored in Mad Dogs, Dreamers and Sages.
-- Michael Ebeling, Head of Summit School
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
“Transfer is our great and difficult mission because we need to put students in a position to learn far more, on their own, than they can ever learn from us” (Wiggins & McTighe, Understanding by Design)
If you’re looking for a rich, complex and thorough textbook (and I do, literally, mean textbook) on learning, you can’t do better than Jeanne Ellis Ormrod’s Human Learning. One of the more compelling chapters in the book is Chapter 14: Transfer and Problem Solving.
And directly connected to our focus on understanding are Ormrod’s insights on factors affecting transfer—the ability to use knowledge effectively or purposefully in a new or different context from that in which it was learned.
Ormrod identifies six principles that can help us (as parents and teachers) predict when transfer is most likely to occur for our children and students. My challenge to all of us is to engage in the daily discipline of seeking ways to apply these principles: from the classroom in school to the dining room table at home—and every context in between, at least every context in which our children may find themselves.
• Meaningful learning promotes better transfer than rote learning.
Our Gen Y children and students are doing everything they possibly can to get it through our heads that meaning is the coin of their realm. Ann Berthoff wrote about the power of meaning and the drive for meaning-making in human beings when she wrote about “animal symbolicum” in the 80’s (The Making of Meaning: Metaphors, Models and Maxims for Writing Teachers). Carol Dweck (“Brainology: Transforming Students’ Motivation to Learn”) and Dan Pink (A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the World) have with equal fervor written in their recent works about the centrality of meaning for learners. Ormrod draws on both cognitive science and neuroscience when she writes, “meaningfully learned information is more easily stored and retrieved than information learned at a rote level." Students must see the relevance—the connections to their own lives—of what they are being taught in order to understand it, literally to make sense of it. Part of the sense making involves engaging students in a multifaceted way, providing them with opportunities to explain, interpret, apply, and empathize—to employ Wiggins’ and McTighe’s six facets of understanding.
• The more thoroughly something is learned, the more likely it is to be transferred to a new situation.
Perhaps the most important and resonant statement Ormrod makes related to this point is this: “Acquiring knowledge and skills thoroughly takes time. . .Teachers who teach a few things in depth are more likely to promote transfer than those who teach many things quickly—the less is more principle.” Indeed. Point & click or scan & scroll does not equal learning. If we expect our students to apply their learning in new or novel situations, we must create the context for them to explore principles and big ideas deeply and in varied ways. Rapid-fire teach, test and move on to the next is NOT 21st century teaching--and does NOT enhance 21st century learning.
• The more similar two situations are, the more likely it is that what is learned in one situation will be applied to the other situation.
Again, the perspective of the learner is crucial here. Since transfer depends on the retrieval of relevant information at the appropriate time, the learner’s perception of similarity between the situations is vital. For us, as teachers and parents, to support this kind of retrieval, of course, we must have a clear window into the learner’s perceptions. The big question: How do we create windows into what our children are perceiving and how our children are making sense of that? Another way to put it: What roles are we asking our children to play in their own learning? And what roles are we playing? How do we equip our children to reveal what they know and understand? And what venues do we create for them to share their thinking, their knowledge, their questions and their understandings?
• Principles are more easily transferred than discrete facts.
Try this one on for size yourself, and see if it doesn’t fit. What do you find yourself more readily transferring: the names and locations of wide variety of names and locations of rivers, lakes, tributaries, creeks and the like or why various water features are located where they are?
• Numerous and varied examples and opportunities for practice increase the extent to which information and skills will be applied in new situations.
Two related points from Ormrod:  “Knowledge is often stored in association with the context in which it has been encountered. People who store a particular skill or piece of information in connection with one situation are likely to retrieve that knowledge—and thus may use it—when they encounter the same situation again.”  “People are most likely to transfer something they have encountered it in a wide variety of examples and practice situations. Learners instructed in this fashion store the material they are studying in association with multiple contexts; therefore, they are more likely to retrieve the information when they again find themselves in one of those contexts.”
• The probability of transfer decreases as the time interval between the original task and the transfer task increases.
Another way to put this is: Information that has been learned recently is more likely, and more able, to be retrieved than information acquired back in time. Remember the adage “Use it or lose it”? This principle reflects the learning theory behind that adage.
The fundamental notion of "use it or lose it," of using what we know, is central to the relevance of our work with students. The next entry in this series will explore understanding and transfer in the context of John Bransford's work on adaptive expertise.