Two approaches to the study of experts' characteristics

(2006) in Charness, N., Feltovich, P, & Hoffman, R. (Eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Chi, Michelene T.H.

Introduction:

This chapter differentiates two approaches to the study of expertise, which I call the "absolute approach" and the "relative approach," and what each implies for how expertise is assessed. It then summarizes the characteristics ways in which experts excel and the ways that they sometimes seem to fall short of common expectations.

Brief Summary:

Chi defines two approaches to defining expertise. In the "absolute approach" expertise is conceptualized as being a property of exceptional individuals who have some unique or perhaps innate talent. In the "relative approach" expertise is conceptualized in terms of comparing experts to novices. This conceptualization assumes that novices can become experts--that expertise can be learned. It is this latter approach that is particularly useful in educational terms, I think. As Chi states, "the goal [in the relative approach] is to understand how experts became that way so that others can learn to become more skilled and knowledgeable" (p. 23).

Chi goes on to identify ways in which experts excel, and ways in which they "fall short." Experts excel in the following ways: they generate the best solution, they can detect and see features that novices cannot, they spend a great deal of time analyzing problems qualitatively and develop problem representations by adding constraints within their area of expertise, they have more accurate self-monitoring skills, they are more successful at choosing appropriate strategies, they are more opportunistic that novices, and they can retrieve relevant knowledge with minimal cognitive effort. Of these characteristics, the one that is most important in my work is the ability of experts to choose appropriate strategies. I also think that the third feature--analyzing problems and situations qualitatively and applying constraints--is particular important to consider when educating teachers with the aim of helping them develop expertise. This characteristics get at the context dependence and importance of constraints on teaching situations, and their influence on strategic choice. Clearly, these characteristics of experts are not independent.

According to Chi, ways in which experts "fall short" include the fact that their knowledge is domain-limited, they can be overly confident, they sometimes fail to recall surface features and overlook details, their expertise is context-dependent within a domain, they sometimes have trouble adapting, they can be inaccurate in their prediction of novices' performance, and they can exhibit bias. In some ways, this list has more implications for thinking about expertise is teaching. For example, The idea of expert knowledge being domain-limited, and the idea that their expertise is context-dependent within a domain give rise to my dissertation research questions: What is the nature of the interaction between teaching knowledge and content knowledge? Specifically, should surveys of science teacher practice be couched within "science" or within specific scientific domains (e.g. physics, biology, etc)? Another of these characteristics that teacher educators should pay particular attention to is the idea that experts often predict novice performance inaccurately. This idea should be troubling to any teacher. Consider a physics teacher (who may be an expert problem solver) not being able to accurately predict the performance of their students. Given what we know about teaching and learning, and more specifically about formative assessment, this teacher would not be very effective.

Much has been written about expertise or expert/novice differences. This short piece by Chi provides a nice introduction and some good discussion points.

How can web2.0 technologies facilitate classroom-based group work?

In a recent posting, I discussed how I thought the shift in use of technology in the science classroom would place the emphasis on collaboration, rather than on instrumentation (but without losing the many great data collection and analysis uses of technology we now employ). I've been thinking more about how collaborative and communicative uses of technology can enhance group work in the science classroom.

There are many types of collaborative grouping employed in science classrooms: group problem solving, group lab activities, pair-share, peer tutoring, jigsaw, and student teams/games to name a few. I'm sure there are many others. What are some ways in which web2.0 communications technologies can contribute to science classroom-based group learning? I'm thinking of technologies and specific applications such as chat, video chat, blogging, microblogging (e.g. twitter , cirip.ro, edmodo), online collaborative document/spreadsheet/presentation construction (e.g. Google Docs), and many others.

What follows is a brainstormed list- I certainly hope others will add to it though comments, etc.

• Extension of group working time: I think the most obvious enhancement has to do with "extending" the time that groups are able to physically spend working together. Continued collaboration via email or chat is not uncommon, but what other possibilities are opened up by things such as Google video chat, nearly synchronous document authoring in Google Docs, desktop sharing applications (e.g. Microsoft Shared View), etc? I'm thinking of this category of use in a synchronous way, with all (or many) group members collaborating and communicating at the same time.
• Online workspace: Related to the above but conceptualized in more of an asynchronous way is the idea of an online workspace for student groups. Within a classroom Ning or webpage, students could have their own group space in order to share ideas, documents, solutions, etc. Think of this as an online lab table or whiteboard.
  
• Working group updates, or "a-ha!" sharing: One really great potential application involves the anytime updating of the group with new ideas or breakthroughs. Because mobile devices make sharing so easy via text message or microblog post, members can notify others when they have an "a-ha!" moment or just an idea which pertains to the group work. More importantly, a record of that idea then exists in the cloud, ready to be harvested and fully documented/explicated later on (see Documentation below)..
• Sharing of group work to an outside audience: Many teachers are already using blogs as a medium for their students to share their work with a larger audience. This is a very powerful idea, and increases greatly the authenticity of the group product. But that sharing shouldn't end with the posting. The blog post/web page/document/presentation (i.e. whatever artifact gets published) should be advertised to a target audience and serve as a context for developing communication and collaboration with that audience. For example, a student group could post their solution to a complex problem and solicit a network of individuals (perhaps starting with the teacher's personal learning network, or PLN) to give feedback on their work. This would hopefully lead to network building by the students themselves. 
• Documentation: Perhaps one of the most tangible and useful aspects of using web2.0 technologies for communication and collaboration is the ability with which interactions can be documented. Online chats, tweets, posts, web pages, collaborative documents, etc all exist somewhere in the cloud. This data can later be mined and compiled if the need arises. Of course this also presents a bit of a challenge as different formats and searching methods make this a complex task. However, herein lies an opportunity to develop more 21st century skills.

I'm sure there are many more ideas and applications for using these technologies to enhance science classroom group work. Please let me know your ideas so we can develop this thread together. Post a comment or tweet me (@Bud_T) and I'l add it here, citing you of course.

More uses of twitter in the classroom

Check out this collaborative Google presentation on interesting ways to use twitter in the classroom. There are some great ideas here, and the presentation is ever-growing.

Is there any single repository on the web that could best act as a clearing house for information related to uses of twitter in education? I've been building a list in diigo but it is far from complete. Please add to it if you can. 

Questioning strategies in science teaching

In my opinion and experience, one of the most powerful and useful strategies that a science teacher can use is deliberative, planned questioning. This can take many forms, and I do not mean to imply that planned questioning strategies are purely prescriptive and therefore one size fits all. Although I think they should be planned and structured, questions should also be flexible and tailored to specific situations, students, and concepts being discussed. 

As a teacher and as a teacher educator, one resource that I often use for thinking about questioning strategies is a chapter by Jos Elstgeest in the book Primary Science: Taking the Plunge (Harlen, Elstgeest, & Jelly, 2001). Hans Andersen introduced me to this work in 1995, when I was a student in his in science education methods. Although written for the elementary school teacher, this work is applicable to all levels of science teaching. 

Elstgeest begins by discussing what makes a question a "wrong question", namely that is wordy and might itself contain the answer, indicating that it aims at pure recall. On the other hand, "productive" questions lead a student to show (rather than say) that they know the answer. These "productive" questions can be attention-focusing questions (e.g. "What do you notice about..."), measuring and counting questions (e.g. "How many of..."), comparison questions (e.g. "In how many ways do these things differ?"), or my favorite types of questions: action questions (e.g. "What would happen if...") or problem-posing questions (e.g. "Can you find a way to...").

How do you use thoughtful, planned questioning in your own teaching?