Expert lecture 2014, Pirkko Hyvönen

Pirkko Hyvönen, [email protected]

Adjunct Professor

LET, University of Oulu

EXPERT –

theoretical and

empirical

background

mailto:[email protected]

AFTER THIS LECTURE

Pirkko Hyvönen, [email protected]

Tutkijatohtori

KTK/ LET, Oulun yliopisto

Explain, why is expertise and expertperformance important to learn in higher education.

Describe different levels of expertiseand differences between routine and adaptive expert.

Reflect, what kind of expertise is needed in work life today.

Understand, that learning expertisecan be designed.

BACKGROUND

Normal learning can reach

satisfying basic level. Then, it is

possible to free mental

resources in order to use them

for higher level activities (in

knowledge construction, skills

and self-regulation) (Bereiter & Scardamalia,

1993)

Universities are expected to educateexperts, who are competent to excel in changing and complex circumstances in work life (Hyvönen, Impiö, Järvelä, 2010).

LET master’s program aims to educateexperts in learning and educationaltechnology.

The students will be competent to work in schools and work places and use their expertise in adapting to changing situations, solving problems, creating social innovations and integrating technologies in practices.

Education is based on LET research and it provides a strong support for learning.

Education is also one of the researchcontexts.

STEREOTYPES related to

EXPERTISE

Gender

Age

Education

Objective truth truth

Memory

Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993

Expertise is more than general intelligence: ”Capasity to perform consistentlyat a superior level” (Weisberg, 2006)

DEFINITIONS IN DICTIONARIES

FROM 1968-2011

1968: One who is very skillful and well-informed in some special field(Webster) – specialist with a long experience

2005: Characteristics , skills and knowledge that distinguishes expertsfrom novices and less experiencedpeople (Wikipedia)

2011: person, who in certain domaincan recognise problems and solvethem efficiently. Expertise includesknowledge, experiences and skills for expressing. (Wikipedia)

DOMAIN-SPECIFIC EXPERTISE

- Informal and formal domains

Salomon (1997). Wine expertiseNorman et al. (2006). Medicine and surgeryDurco & Dattel (2006). TransportationSonentag et al. (2006). Software designKellogg (2006). Professional writingRoss et al. (2006). Decision makingLehman & Gruber (2006). MusicHodges et al. (2006). SportsButterworth (2006). MathematicsCobet & Charness (2006). ChessVoss & Wiley (2006). HistoryBrennenkmeyer & Spillane (2008). Problem-solving

FROM NOVICE TO EXPERT

-

Five levels of development(Dreyfus, 1980)

Novice ”Instead of seeing

patient care as bits of

unrelated information

and series of tasks, the

expert is able to

integrate various

aspects of patient care

into a meaningful

whole.”

(Dracup, Bryan-Brown, & Einstein, 2004,

p. 449)

Advanced beginner

Competent

Proficient

Expert

Proficiency scale (Chi, 2006, adapted from Hoffman, 1998)

Novice New; some minimal exposure in the domain

Initiate, Novice who has begun introductory instruction

Apprentice, Is learning beyond introductory level – living with or assisting

someone

Journeyma

n

Experienced, reliable and independent worker (under orders)

Level of competence; motivated but may remain at this level

Expert Brilliant journeyman, highly regarded by peers; can deal

effectively with certain types of rare or tough cases; has

special skills or knowledge derived from extensive experience

with subdomains

Master Expert who has qualified to teach those at a lower level; one

of a elite group of experts, whose judgements set regulations,

standards and ideals; regarded as ”the” expert / ”real” expert

FROM NOVICE TO EXPERT

[email protected]

Ponder your path

towards expertise:

analyze your levels.

[email protected]

Expertise is domain-specific. Is a bird expert in flying?

DOMAIN-LIMITED

- Have not necessarily

knowledge about other

domains

OVERTLY CONFIDENT

- eg. in music and physics

GLOSSING OVER

- Sometimes they overlook

details

CONTEXT-DEPENDENT WITHIN

A DOMAIN

- Sometimes they rely too much

for contextual cues

EXPERTS may FALL SHORT (Chi, 2006)

INFLEXIBLE

INACCURATE PREDICTION, JUDGMENT AND ADVICE

- Cannot always take the perspectives of novices

BIAS AND FUNCTIONAL FIXEDNESS

- Analyse problems in other domain through the

priciples of their own domain

TYPES OF EXPERTISEBransford, 2001; Bransford et al., 2000; Brophy, Hodge, & Bransford, 2004; Crawford, 2007; Hatano & Inagagi, 1986

Which kind of expertise is valued and aimed; and how

to design learning processes, evaluations, learning outcomes and

instructions.

EXPERTS and EXPERIENCED NON-EXPERTS (Bereiter &

Scardamalia, 1993)

Career may conformmerely to the routines, not advancing expertiseand problem-solving.

EXPERTS and NOVICES

ROUTINE EXPERTS Everyday skills, routines, are developed in familiar environments and in familiar tasks. Routine experts can develop their accuracy and fluency.

ADAPTIVE EXPERTSSet of cognitive, meta-cognitive, social, and emotional strategies, where individuals abandon ‘routine’ problem-solving strategies.

Adaptive experts are more flexible, inventive, spontaneous, encouraging and creative. They deal with novel, unexpected situations and problems, and build knowledge at the same time. They increase their core competencies plus and go beyond their comfort zone!

ROUTINE EXPERTS:Acting and dealing with problems

Surface level perceptions

Does not see hidden messages, does not see

problems

Weak skills to solve new problems, but can

solve familiar problems.

See one suitable way to solve problems

Want to solve the problem quickly, and move

to next tasks.

Sparce knowledge base -> may think quickly

Mainly procedural knowledge

When situation unexpectably changes,

efficiency decreases, because they try to

solve problem by imitating familiar solutions

that are not suitable for the situation.

Do not learn in problem-solving

Routine expertsare competent to

solve problemsthat are familiarand expected.

Name some

concrete situations

or problem-solving

processes in any

domain, here

routine expertise is

useful.

ADAPTIVE EXPERTS

Holoyok: truly expert,

Bransford: competencies plus

Make perceptions of problem and its context;

dissect various different perspectives

See a problem as an opportunity to learn, learn in

problem-solving and produce new knowledge

same time

Classify, label, analyse problems

Perceive patterns and differencies

Start to organise problem around central

concepts or idea

Ponder forward, theoretical reasoning

Dence knowledge base thinking may take time

Think and identify novel solutions and possibilities

Strong conceptual understanding

Flexible in using knowledge

Evidence-based argumentation

Name some

concrete situations

or problem-solving

processes inin any

domain, where

adaptive expertise

is useful.

Adaptive expertsare competent to

solve problemsthat are novel and

unexpected

LEARNING EXPERTISE IS A PATH OR JOURNEY OF COMPETENCE BUILDINGincluding also regressions (Alexander, 2003; Bereiter& Scardamalia, 1986; Lajoie, 2003)

Learning expertise comprices of three overlappingdimensions: knowledge construction (Bransford et al,

2000; Sawyer, 2006) expert-like performance (eg., Bereiter &

Scardamalia, 1993; Tynjälä, 2007) self-regulation (Boekaerts, Pintrich &

Zeidner, 2000; Lin, Schwarz & Hatano, 2005)

It is a transitional learning process where goals areset, monitored, reflected and scaffolded (Lajoie, 2003)

GENERATING THE BEST

- Find the best solution

DETECTION and

RECOGNITION

- Detect and perceive

features that novices

cannot

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

-Analyse problems,

develope problem

representations

EXPERTS can EXCELL (Chi, 2006)

MONITORING & REFLECTING

- Have good self-monitoring

and predicting skills

STRATEGIES

- Use the best and effective

strategies in a given situation

OPPORTUNISTIC

- Can use whatever sources

of information that are

available

COGNITIVE EFFORT

Can retrieve relevant domain

knowledge

DOMAIN-LIMITED

- Have not necessarily

knowledge about other

domains

OVERTLY CONFIDENT

- eg. in music and physics

GLOSSING OVER

- Sometimes they overlook

details

CONTEXT-DEPENDENT WITHIN

A DOMAIN

- Sometimes they rely too much

for contextual cues

EXPERTS may FALL SHORT (Chi, 2006)

INFLEXIBLE

INACCURATE PREDICTION,

JUDGMENT AND ADVICE

- Cannot always take the

perspectives of novices

BIAS AND FUNCTIONAL

FIXEDNESS

- Analyse problems in other

domain through the

priciples of their own

domain

EXPERTISE IN WORK LIFE

let.oulu.fi / [email protected]


Informants (N=13) are experts in different formal domains

On what ground they are considered experts? They are in a leading and demanding position Key persons in their field Considered as more competent than other people in the field Long career and high education They consider themselves as experts Each of them are experts at least on two domains

”Expertise is easiest to identify when it differs most dramatically fromwhat ordinary people can do” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993)

(Hyvönen, Impiö & Järvelä, 2014)



How experts define expertise?

1) Expertise is future-oriented having a developmental and advancing perspective. They are expected to innovate new or re-new existing practice, processes and products.

2) Developmental perspective and performance is conjugated with need of constant learning and understanding things and processes (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). - Factual, procedural and self-

regulative knowledge- Multifaceted domains

20


3) Expertise is increasingly a social and collaborative phenomenon, which lay both opportunities and challenges for the path of expertise.

- Opportunity: social view, collaboration and even technologies in collaboration can enhance construction of shared expertise

- Challenge: collaboration is effective way of learning, but does not happen easily

- Social skills, communication, use of technologies- Learning from and with other people- Understanding other people: without it domain-specific

expertise cannot be exploited

21


4) Experts Have a strong self-confidence, and trust on their team to develop,

create and construct new solutions Knows how to act rationally in certain situations Have sensibility to perceive situations Are diligent, curious, flexible, self-initiative, and modest

Expert’s work is not automatic nor easy. (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Hyvönen, Impiö & Järvelä, 2010; Tsui, 2009)

22



What are the problems like?

Situations are always complex and difficult, and you can never be fully prepared for them. Problems in working life involves more than running through ‘routines’.

1) Understand people and interacting with them. Problems with people are related to communication, social interaction, shared understanding and emotional constrains, such as envy and hostile atmospheres, which tend to prevent developing innovations and also expertise. 2) Inadequate technical tools. Although many ICT tools are in use, there are still lack of tools and software that solve very compound problems.3) Decision-making problems (Johnson, 1988; Jonassen, 2007): experts at times have to make decisions without the necessary information. 4) Sharing tacit knowledge5) Dealing with time, motivation, prioritization and overlapping tasks

(Hyvönen, Impiö & Järvelä, 2014)

23



How do the experts perform ‘routine’ and ‘adaptive’ expertise in their work?

“There is no such thing as routines in my work.”

1) Degree of routines declines, when complexity of work and experience of individual increases: “The more I have experience in this work, the less there are routine cases.”

2) Creativity, insight and playfulness (see, Brophy et al., 2004; Hyvönen, 2008; Weisberg, 2006) seems to play a role in adaptive expertise.

3) To some extend adaptive experts can adjust the complexity

24



How useful education has been for their current position?

1) Overall, formal education has not satisfactorily provided resources for their current work; instead, it has provided basic general knowledge. Education is lacking of important areas that are needed in work life, such as communication, negotiation and presentation, even writing and discussing skills were not adequately provided.

2) Only exception was education in engineering, that has provided skills in problem-solving and foreign languages, which are essential in expert work.

(Hyvönen, Impiö & Järvelä, 2010) 25

HOW TO LEARN TO BE AN

ADAPTIVE EXPERT?Bransford, 2001; Brophy, Hodge, & Bransford, 2004; Crawford, 2007; Hatano & Inagagi, 1986

Help students to understand their own processes of knowing and problem-solving!

Normal learning does not provide expertise, but can leadto ”good enough” tai ”satisfying” level.

Normal learning can reach satisfying basic level. Then itis possible to free mental resources in order to use themfor higher level activities (in knowledge construction, skillsand self-regulation)

Formal education produces the users of experts, but notexperts! (Geisler, 1994)

Formal education does not nesessarily produce experts, rather experienced non-experts (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993)

Learning expertise is a path or journey of competencebuilding, including also regressions (Alexander, 2003; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1986; Lajoie, 2003) Learning expertise comprices of three overlapping

dimensions: knowledge construction (Bransford et al, 2000;

Sawyer, 2006) expert-like performance (eg., Bereiter &

Scardamalia, 1993; Tynjälä, 2007) self-regulation (Boekaerts, Pintrich & Zeidner,

2000; Lin, Schwarz & Hatano, 2005)

It is a transitional learning process where goals are set, monitored, reflected and scaffolded (Lajoie, 2003)

How to learn to be an adaptive expert?Bransford, 2001; Brophy, Hodge, & Bransford, 2004; Crawford, 2007; Hatano & Inagagi, 1986

Structured collaborative problem-solving method (Hyvönen &

Impiö)

1. To establish the basis for collaborative problem solving process:

to get to know each others, to acknowledge mental resourses and to construct common understanding of the task and underlying theories(activating prior knowledge)

To design virtual and face-to-face phases and technological tools to beused.

2. To understand the context of the problem, and the problem and to define learning goals

Problems are authentic cases from work life; they are new and ill-structured, where multiple solutions are possible

The core of a problem should be analysed and defined

Reseach-based approach

3. To find possible solutions by constructing new knowledge based on the learning sciences, but adapted to authentic work life.

4. To choose the solution and work (play) with it until the problem will besolved


FEATURES OF THE COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM-

SOLVING METHOD

1. Problems are not as in work life, but real assignment from worklife..

2. Collaboration is enhanced all way long.

3. Working takes place as expert teams by students, work life personsand other invited experts.

4. Evaluation, monitoring, reflection and planning are central in the process.

5. Playfulness and creativity are encouraged to free cognitiveresources

6. Autonomy in designing blended model to work and use technologiesmeaningfully (AC, Skype, GoogleDocs, mind maps etc.) For rich interaction For making thinking visible and audible For knowledge construction

7. Academic, research-based approach and understanding

8. The outcomes as social innovations, such as novel models to carryon


Examples of open problems by Elektrobit (EB) 2010

1. Open Source & Developer CommunitiesVarious developer communities are now important in software designing. Many software adaptations are basedon open source platform (eg. Linux, Symbian, Qt, Android, MeeGo), while various informal communities work as developers. One temporal question is how open sourceculture and joining in developer communities can bepromoted?

2. Motivation and managersManagers face questions and situations that are linked to motivation and flow of work. In order to help managers to coach team members they need to understand, whatmotivation means and what affect to motivation. How to increase understanding among coaching managers? How manager could help experts to maintain their motivationthrough work career?

Heiss, Janice J. (2007)

http://java.sun.com/features/authors.html


Examples of results for problems by Elektrobit (EB) 2010Posters and booklets

ReferencesAlexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency.

Educational Researcher, 32(8): 10–14.

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. An inquiry into the nature and

implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.

Bransford, J. (2001). Thought on adaptive expertise. Retrieved June 15, 2008, from

http://www.vanth.org/docs/AdaptiveExpertise.pdf.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, and

school. Washington: National Academy Press.

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9853

Brenninkmeyer, L. D. & Spillane, J. P. (2008). Problem-solving processes of experts and typical school

principals: A quantitative look. School Leadership & Management, 28(5), 435–468.

Brophy, S., Hodge, L., & Bransford, J. (2004). Work in progress – Adaptive expertise: Beyond apply

academic knowledge. Frontiers in Education 3 (FIE): S1B/28-

S1B/30, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1408679.

Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In K. A. Ericsson, N.

Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert

Performance (pp. 21–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem-solving. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),

Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–75).

Chi, M. T. H. & Koeske, R. D. (1983). Network representation of a child’s dinosaur knowledge.

Developmental Psychology, 19(1): 29–39.

Crawford, V, M, (2007), Adaptive expertise as knowledge building in science teacher’s problem solving.

Paper accepted for the proceedings of the European Cognitive Science Conference. Delphi, Greece.

Ericsson, K. A. (2006). An introduction to Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance: Its

development, organization, and content. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R.

Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 3–19). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

http://www.vanth.org/docs/AdaptiveExpertise.pdf

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9853

Hatano, G. & Inagagi, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma & K. Hakuta

(Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York (N.Y.): Freeman.

Hatano, G. & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using

insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8): 26–29.

Hmelo-Silver, C., Marathe, S. & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice

understanding of complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307 – 331.

Holoyoak, 1991

Johnsson, E. J. (1988). Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. In T. H.

Michele, H. Chi, R. Glaser & M. T. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 209–228). Hillsdale (N.J.):

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D. H. (2007). What makes scientific problems difficult? In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Learning to

solve complex scientific problems (pp. 3–23).

Lajoie, S. P. (2003). Transitions and trajectories for studies of expertise. Educational Researcher, 32(8):

21–25.

Lin, X., Schwartz, D.L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Intercultural adaptive expertise: Explicit and implicit

lessons from Dr. Hatano. Human Development, 50, 65–72.

Posner, M. J. (1988). Introduction: What is it to be an expert? In M.T.H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M.J.F. Farr

(Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xxix–1). Hillsdale (N.J.): Lawrence Erlbaum .

Tsui, A.B.M. (2009). Distinctive qualities of expert teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and

Practice, 15(4), 421–439.

Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Modes of expertise in creative thinking: Evidence from case studies. In K. A.

Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise

and expert performance (Eds.), (pp. 761-787). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development of adaptation of expertise: The role of self-regulatory processes

and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge

handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 705–722). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Yates and Tschirhart (2007).