If I am ever to get an education-related tattoo (it is only a matter of time), it would say ‘experts and novices think differently‘ (Barton, 2018, p.31).”
A year ago, my choice of education-related tattoo would have been the same: this distinction is critical. But tattoos are dangerous if you keep changing your mind: what I’ve read recently would lead me to edit this tattoo. It might now read: ‘experts and novices think differently – and those who are no longer novices but not yet experts think differently again.’*
How do novices and experts differ?
Experts have developed extensive mental models in a specific field through years of experience. This allows them to assess challenges rapidly and respond fluently, efficiently and successfully.
Novices lack these mental models: when they examine a problem, they focus on superficial features, so they respond inefficiently, painstakingly and often unsuccessfully.
Consequently, novices and experts learn differently:
- Novices benefit from explicit instruction: seeing models, hearing explanations, practising small steps.
- Experts learn from problems with limited support: they can identify rapidly what is unusual, important and worth recalling in a novel situation.
If we treat novices as experts, offering challenging problems for which they lack relevant mental models, they tend to struggle and learn little. If we treat experts as novices, their performance can fall: the support novices require distracts them.
The evidence for these distinctions is discussed here; this brief review introduces this post, which considers the intermediate stage between novice and expert.
How do we get from novice to expert?
I’m troubled by what happens between beginning as a novice and becoming an expert. Most English students would, I suspect, benefit from being treated as novices more often: a little more explanation, a few more models, more extensive practice. But as we struggle to emphasise the importance of treating novices as novices, I fear we risk losing sight of what happens next. We hope the novice will become an expert one day: this cannot happen overnight. How do people behave in this intermediate stage, “beyond the introductory stage for a subject area, but before the achievement of practiced expertise that comes with massive experience (Spiro et al., 1988, p.2)”? How do they learn?
It is with regard to advanced knowledge acquisition for complex material that current theories of learning are most deficient and current educational methods least effective. In particular, although much has been described about experts and novices… little is known about the acquisition of the advanced understandings found in expertise or about the best educational methods for fostering them (Feltovich, Spiro and Coulson, 1988, p.2).”
Between novice and expert: the intermediate
Schmidt and Rikers (2007) examined how doctors diagnose differently as they develop expertise and identified three stages of expertise – novice, expert and intermediate:
- Novices are learning physiology and anatomy but are unlikely to be able to apply it to solve a clinical case
- Intermediates go into great detail about a patient’s condition: they remember more than experts about a case, as they draw on their scientific knowledge to explain symptoms
- Experts diagnose parsimoniously, based on symptoms and their experience of past cases; they don’t invoke scientific knowledge to do so
So, presented with a case, a novice would likely be baffled. An intermediate (like a Year 6 medical student) would say:
This man must have been using contaminated needles, which led to an infection with gramnegative bacteria. These bacteria in the bloodstream lead to the activation of antibodies, which explains the fever reaction: the high temperature, the shaking chills, the sweating, the feeling of prostration, and the shortness of breath. The bacteria also release endotoxins, leading to vasodilatation of the arteries. Vasodilatation in turn leads to the observed drop in blood pressure and possibly shock. Decreased resistance may be a reason why the immune response fails… (p.1135)”
An expert would say:
This drugs user has developed a sepsis as a result of using contaminated needles (Ibid.).”
The expert no longer needs to think about bacteria: the concept of sepsis explains the patient’s condition. The concept contains limited knowledge about the symptoms but a wealth of information about the enabling conditions of the disease, based on extensive experience. This allows expert doctors to process fluently and efficiently. There is an intermediate state between novice and expert: how can we support people at this stage?
Learning beyond medical school, Schmidt and Rikers argue, structures medical knowledge, rather than expanding it. “Extensive and repeated application of knowledge acquired”, particularly “through exposure to patient problems” leads to a change in students’ knowledge structures which encapsulates “detailed, causal, pathophysiological knowledge” into “diagnostic labels or high-level, simplified causal models that explain signs and symptoms (p.1134).” Doctors then diagnose against their memory of past cases. Schmidt and Rikers argue that basic science should be taught inasmuch as it is relevant to developing these concepts doctors use, and that “the integration of biomedical and clinical science should not be left to the students but the encapsulation process should be supported by integrated teaching (p.1138).”
So there is an ‘intermediate stage’ between novice and expert: how can we support intermediates’ learning?
Advanced knowledge acquisition
Three decades ago, a group of medical educators studied intermediate learning (Spiro et al., 1988). Introductory training, they argued, exposes novices to content, grounds them in the field, and promotes recognition and recall of basic ideas. They termed the next stage, before expertise, “advanced knowledge acquisition”: learners should “attain a deeper understanding of content material, reason with it, and apply it flexibly in diverse contexts (p.2).” This is challenging however, as students must cope with conceptual complexity and the “increasing ill-structuredness” of real-life situations (Ibid.). We can teach a novice teacher how working memory functions or how to frame challenging questions; it is harder to teach them to respond fluently to classroom situations.
Spiro et al. argue that training for novices, which compartmentalises knowledge and presents clear examples, is “at odds” with advanced learning: “knowledge which is intertwined… has significant context-dependent variations, and requires the ability to respond flexibly to “messy” application situations (Ibid.).” They argue that advanced knowledge acquisition in “complex and ill-structured domains” (like teaching) can best be attained “by the development of mental representations that support cognitive flexibility (p.10).”
These mental models can be developed, they argue, by focusing on and promoting the flexible application of knowledge in context. Spiro et al. suggest introducing multiple cases, not to illustrate ideas but as the learning. They suggest representing key ideas in multiple ways and examining them from multiple perspectives (highlighting the limits of each). And they suggest encouraging learners to identify links between concepts and cases, combining ideas from multiple sources in reaching solutions.
Cognitive load theory offers another perspective on approaching complexity and ill-structured tasks.
Simplifying complexity?
Van Merriënboer, Kester and Paas (2006) note that people can transfer what they learn about simple tasks to new ones if they experience variable practice, limited guidance and feedback. However, such desirable difficulties hinder the learning of complex tasks: such tasks are demanding due to their high intrinsic cognitive load; adding variation or limiting guidance risks making them impossible. Yet if we avoid introducing desirable difficulties like variation, learning will not transfer. They suggest, instead, limiting the element interactivity of complex tasks – reducing how many distinct elements of the task learners must think about at once. So, in a complex task (like teaching), we could offer training in one part at a time (like managing the classroom), or start with the whole task but focus teachers’ attention on particular aspects of it (focusing feedback on teachers’ instructions, for example). Whichever we choose, we can vary practice and limit guidance to increase the chances of transfer.
Singapore’s curricular approach
I wonder if Singapore’s student curriculum does something similar. Writing about it recently, I noted the remark of Pak Tee Ng: “Students have to learn the conventional knowledge solidly. Then they have to learn not to be trapped by the conventional knowledge so that they may be adaptable and innovative (2017, p.97).” The basics are crucial: Dr Ridzuan Abd Rahim, at the Ministry of Education, described the importance of factual fluency – ten minutes practice a day in basic arithmetic until students had mastered it, for example; but a visit to one high school showed their attempts to challenge students to integrate their knowledge from different disciplines to address challenges. The full post on Singapore’s curricular approach is here.
Conclusion
It is a mistake to treat novices as experts, a mistake I committed for many years. In correcting for it, I want to avoid failing intermediates, who are no longer novices, but not yet experts. Designing learning for intermediates – those with a strong knowledge base but limited experience or skill in applying it – we might ask ourselves:
- How can we challenge intermediates to use their knowledge in ways which develop mental models relevant to their tasks?
- How can we introduce intermediates to a greater variety of cases, representations and theoretical frameworks, and to move flexibly between them depending on the need?
- How can we help break down complex tasks, such that they remain meaningful but promote transfer?
This is all I’ve found. I’d love to know more: please let me know what I’m missing.
* I should emphasise that I state this not to criticise Barton’s excellent book, which has a wealth of brilliant suggestions to get students from novice to expert.
If this proved interesting, you might appreciate
What makes expert teachers – a summary of the research on how experts differ and discussion of how this may apply to teachers
Planning lessons using cognitive load theory – an explanation of cognitive load theory and how teachers can use it to plan
Eight priorities for teacher educators – some tentative thoughts about how we can design teacher education
References