1. There are novices and there are experts. Experts look at the whole picture and see how they can solve problems by synthesizing their understanding or knowledge while novices just see the surface of the problem and apply basic understanding or knowledge gained...they are unable to synthesize their understanding. As educators, we should become experts of our students because content knowledge expertise is of no value unless we are able to continually use it, keep it current, and apply it with our students based on their learning needs.
2. The author discusses how experts are able to chunk information into their working memory by chunking it into "familiar patterns." Matlin reinforces this understanding when he states that we are able to chunk information into our short-term memory, since it holds limited information, by units of 5-9 chunks so we can better remember the information.
3. I am still not clear on how we can hold many accountable to being novices and not experts because they simply do not see the "whole picture." I don't believe it is an intelligence issue because our memories are able to hold the knowledge but what if the reason one has not become an expert because no one has explicitly taught or told one that we should try and synthesize the knowledge we have and apply it to other situations? Maybe we should begin to look at those who are experts teaching the content and point the finger at them because they are withholding that information and assuming they will pick up on that major concept!
4. As stated in #1, we as teachers should not become experts on content but rather on our students. I need to apply this by truly looking at each student individually and finding their strengths and weaknesses to teach each one specifically. I also need to keep in mind that their working memory only holds 5-9 chunks of info so I must not overload them but continue to reinforce the concept so it is practiced and moved out of working memory into long-term and is conditioned or habit to them.
5. It appears most information is valid but I have to wonder where they got all of their people for the case studies. For instance, did the chess players come from a place where chess is more of a sport and not looked on as "nerdy"? It appears that the study studied 10-11 year olds and college aged students and was comparing their working memory with chess to remembering numbers. The two are completely different and should not be compared because some players just might have the skill of chess down to a science of understanding but that does not mean that they have more or less of a working memory because they can or cannot memorize and recall numbers. Maybe they are just not wired to memorize numbers but they have just been conditioned to play a game of skill.
6.It is important to see that there are differences between experts and novices in order to try and counter-act the issue and strive to nurture more novices to become experts. The book offered no additional information as to why the examples given had not become novices, it simply appeared that it was due to how they process their information into their working memory that seems to make them more apt to their knowledge and synthesis.
7. I can continue to use the working memory 5-9 chunks when providing my students with new information as to not overload their brains so they are unable to remember. I also need to begin allowing them the experience to think critically in order to become experts in their thinking. I believe I can have some 1st graders who are experts at questioning. But, when they move to 2nd grade, they will no longer be experts because the bar is now raised higher to move to the next level in questioning.
8. The discussion between historians and gifted high school seniors could have been conducted in a better manner. This study should have saved time and money by comparing masters students working on their thesis papers rather than the high school students. The researcher obviously knew the outcome prior to administering the test so why waste time and money and the poor seniors' egos by setting them up for failure. By comparing those with the same amount of schooling and those writing their thesis (they are or should be more experts in their field through the writing of their thesis), the researcher could have had a more accurate result and used something already in place at an existing college, rather than drag the historians and seniors to a different location.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Julie, you have made some interesting comments here. Keep in mind that the idea behind the novice expert research is to see how the two differ. Once we know how the two differ, we can design education to move people who are novices to the expert level. That is one way of thinking of teaching and learning. Novices aren't be held accountable to expert standards.
ReplyDeleteAs the chapter describes, one interesting finding of this research is that experts are not necessarily more intelligent than novices -- they just know more content and it is better organized through experience.
Finally, I totally agree with you that as a teacher it is important to understand the needs of each student individually. It helps you customize things to their prior knowledge, since we know people understand new things based on their prior knowledge. But that does not mean a teacher does not have to know their area of content. They have to know it backwards and forward in order to be an effective teacher and do that kind of customization for each student.