Applying Research on Adaptive Expertise to My Learning Design

Adaptive experts are those who have a very deep understanding in an area of study. “They are better at solving problems in their domain" (Berreiter & Scardamalia, 1993, p.42). By developing expertise they are able to share that knowledge with others. Berreiter & Scardamalia (1993) use the term “Promisingness” to mark one of the differences they see between experts and novices. Creative experts have over time learned from their successes and failures, which has helped them to be able to make decisions based on those experiences, this is the ability to recognize promisingness. This knowledge is vastly superior to the way nonexperts use theirs (Berreiter & Scardamalia, 1993). Weinstein and Van Mater Stone (1993) have summarized the characteristics of experts saying, “adaptive experts know more; their knowledge is better organized and integrated; they have better strategies and methods for getting to their knowledge, using it, applying it, and integrating it; and they have different motivations. Moreover, they tend to do things in a more self-regulated manner (p. 32)”.
     Ertmer and Newby (1996) describes how adaptive experts use the knowledge they have gained of themselves as learners to select, control and monitor strategies needed to achieve desired learning goals. They present a model of expert learning that illustrates how learners’ metacognitive knowledge is translated into control of the learning process through ongoing reflective thinking. They take two “novice” students in one content area and show that because one has better awareness of herself as a learner (through becoming an expert in a different area), she takes an “expert” approach to learning new things. The difference in the two students is not the quantitative knowledge each possesses, but in the “qualitative differences that exist between a more expert learner and a less expert learner” (p 3, 1996).
    Each field has different requirements or classifications for experts. General characteristics of experts paraphrased by Hatano & . Inagaki (2003, pp. 26) are:

1. Experts possess rich and well-structured domain knowledge (consisting of  
    “chunks”) that can readily be used.
2. Gaining expertise requires years of experience in solving problems in the
    domain, with concentration (often taking the form of deliberate practice).
3. The acquisition of knowledge and skills is accompanied by socioemotional
     changes (such as in interest, values, and identity).
4. The process of gaining expertise is assisted by other people and artifacts (unlike
     in school learning, novices are not expected to solve problems all by
     themselves).
5. Expertise occurs in socioculturally significant contexts; as a result, in expertise,
     learning is not clearly separated from solving socially significant problems and
     performing tasks (expertise occurs in the process of producing the target
     outcomes of the activity [e.g., goods in the market]).
6. Expertise is distributed (because there are a large number of domains in which
     people can gain expertise and expertise in each domain takes time).

When looking at these characteristics, a learning designer is challenged with how to provide experiences that facilitate expertise.  When learners participate in experiences that require “varied and changing demands their prior knowledge must be applied flexibly and they are likely to acquire adaptive skills”  (Hatano & Inagaki 2003, pp. 28).
Hatano and Inagaki ascertain that the concept of adaptive expertise provides an essential framework for successful learning “irrespective of attained competence”. “Since the acquisition of flexible, innovative competencies is much desired but seldom achieved in school learning,
understanding this issue must be highly relevant to the effective design of instruction. While basic schools cannot make students real experts, they can place students on a trajectory toward
expertise or prepare them for future learning. In this sense, an important goal of basic schooling is to make each student a “baby adaptive expert” of the domain or topic of choice” (pp. 28).  

 
Most instructional methods only lead to developing routine expertise. Bransford, Brophy & Hodge, (2004) cite an example of a common activity where students explore circuits and become fluent in calculating voltage, current and resistance. They gain a lot of experience in solving text book problems based on the main principles of circuits. The students could not reason qualitatively to explain how the values would be different if a particular variable were to change. If they left the classroom and had to troubleshoot an existing circuit they would perform well. If they had to design an original circuit or create a circuit for a project with many variables they would not be able to.  
In addition to the six characteristics of expertise established by Hatano, an essential characteristic for learning is reflection. Dewey (1997) described reflection as a special form of thinking and he argued that we learn more from reflecting on our experiences than we do from the actual experiences. According to Dewey, reflection is the “hallmark of intelligent action” (p. 17), enabling effective problem solving to take place and improving the effectiveness of learning. Smith (1991) adds to this idea, saying that “we learn to learn as we become more aware of ourselves and learners…and more active in examining what happens as we learn “ (p. 12).
Ertmer and Newby (1996) asked how expert learners translate what they know about learning (metacognitive knowledge) into what they “do about learning” (p. 14).  Their comparison of two different “experts” illustrated that a “learner’s reflection on the process of learning can lead to changes in future processing and increased metacognitive knowledge about learning” (p. 14).
     So how are metacognitive skills taught? Etermer and Newby suggest that learners be mentored by experts. Experts model adaptive expertise and metacognitive reflection while doing the things they are passionate about. They propose that experts aren’t experts because they know more but because they are more aware of what they don’t know and they use strategies to acquire what they don’t know.  In their work, they compare and contrast the two high school students who are both novices in their domain. One is successful because she could effectively match the demands of a task with her own personal resources and constraints.  She could combine past learning and skills by reflecting on previous experiences and create an implement a new strategy and plan. Less successful learners usually do not have a very good idea about what they don’t know.  
An additional element in developing adaptive expertise is introduced by Sternberg (2003) who suggested we teach for intelligence (s). He summarizes three studies he was directly involved in that controlled for different types of intelligence (s). The studies taught students to think creatively, analytically, and practically. His studies were designed to give students problem solving opportunities to use the same set of skills in a variety of disciplines, enabling them to “think creatively, analytically, and practically always and everywhere” (p. 5). He attempted to enhance “domain-general intelligence” not domain-specific expertise”. His work suggests that training for intellectual skills and educating for adaptive expertise are directly related. “Becoming an expert physicist, composer, or teacher, for example, seems to require a blend of creative (generate ideas), analytical (evaluate the ideas), and practical thinking (make the ideas work and convince others of their worth) that goes substantially beyond deliberate practice” (p. 6-7).
To help my students become Adaptive Experts I chose to change my practice and situate my students within a framework of adaptive and creative problem solving; relevant and real learning experiences, expert mentor collaboration; and opportunities for reflective thinking.


References


Alexander, P. A. (2003b). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to
proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14.
Berreiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing Ourselves:An Inquiry Into the Nature and
Implications of Expertise. Peru, IL:Open Court
Brendtro, L K, & Strother, M A (Spring 2007). Back to Basics Through Challenge and
Adventure.(response ability pathways). Reclaiming Children and Youth. , 16, 1. p.2(5).
Retrieved October 17, 2007, from Academic OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=AONE&docId=A164947512&source=
gale&userGroupName=idaho_a&version=1.0
Bransford, J., Brophy, S. & Hodge, L. (2004). Work in Progress - Adaptive Expertise: Beyond
Apply Academic Knowledge. Proceedings of the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved May 10, 2008 from http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2004/papers/1446.pdf
Dewey, John. (1938/1997). Experience in Education. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Ertmer, P & Newby, T. (1996). The Expert Learner: Strategic, Self-regulated, and Reflective
Instructional Science 24: 1-24.
Fisher, F. & Peterson, P.  (2001). A Tool to Measure Adaptive Expertise in Biomedical
Engineering Students. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference & Exposition American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved May 10, 2008 from http://www.vanth.org/docs/013_2001.pdf.
Grabelle, S., & Littky, D. (2004). The Big Picture: Education Is Everyone's Business.
Alexandria, VA: Association For Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Hatano, G. and K. Inagaki (1986). Two Courses of Expertise.   Child development and education
In Japan: 262–272.
Hatano, G and Y.  Oura (2003). Reconceptualizing School Learning
Using Insight From Expertise Research. Educational Researcher,  32(8), 26-29.
Mathison, C., Wachowiak, S., & Feldman, L. (Summer 2007). School in the park: bridging
formal and informal learning environments. Childhood Education. , 83, 4. p.206(5).
Retrieved October 17, 2007, from Academic OneFile via
Gale:http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=AONE&docId=A162832846&source=
gale&userGroupName=idaho_a&version=1.0
Shaffer, D. W. (2004). Epistemic Frames and Islands of Expertise:
Learning from infusion experiences. University of Wisconsin-Madison.  Retrieved May 10, 2008, from  
http://www.education.wisc.edu/edpsych/facstaff/dws/career/..%5CPapers%5Cepistemicframesicls04.pdf
Smith, F. (1998). The Book of Learning and Forgetting. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sorensen, B. H., Danielsen, O., & Nielsen, J. (March 2007). Children's informal learning in the
context of schools of the knowledge society. Education and Information Technologies. ,
12, 1. p.17(11). Retrieved October 17, 2007, from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=AONE&docId=A166997422&source=gale&userGroupName=idaho_a&version=1.0&workId=5CUF_10639_2006_Article_9019-p.pdf&contentSet=IAC-Documents&callistoContentSet=NPDF&retrieveFormat=PDF
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). What is an “expert student?” Educational Researcher, 32(8), 5–9.