Protocol Analysis and Expert Thought: Concurrent Verbalizations of Thinking during Experts' Performance on Representative Tasks
Protocol Analysis and Expert Thought: Concurrent Verbalizations of Thinking during Experts' Performance on Representative Tasks
复制标题
协议分析和专家思维：专家执行代表性任务时并发的思维言语化
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
K. Ericsson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Ericsson
专家的高超技艺，如有成就的音乐家和国际象棋大师，会让大多数观众感到惊讶。例如，俱乐部级别的棋手经常对大师和世界冠军的棋法感到困惑。同样地，许多业余运动员发现，大多数成年人——不管训练的数量或类型——有可能达到国际竞争者的表现水平，这是不可思议的。尤其令哲学家和科学家感到困惑的问题是，专业知识在多大程度上需要天生的天赋，而不是专门获得的技能和能力。收集卓越绩效数据的最广泛和最简单的方法之一是采访专家本人。但是，专家是否总是能够以一种方式描述他们的想法、行为和策略，让技能较低的人理解专家是如何做他们所做的事情的，也许还能理解他们如何通过适当的培训达到专家水平？迄今为止，关于专家能够在多大程度上解释其卓越表现的性质和结构，一直存在相当大的争议。一些先驱科学家，如Binet(1893/1966)，当他们发现一些专家的报告与其他专家的报告不一致时，质疑专家描述的有效性。更糟糕的是，在极少数情况下，通过观察绩效来验证策略，发现报告的策略与观察结果之间存在差异（Watson, 1913）。
The superior skills of experts, such as accomplished musicians and chess masters, can be amazing to most spectators. For example, club-level chess players are often puzzled by the chess moves of grandmasters and world champions. Similarly, many recreational athletes find it inconceivable that most other adults – regardless of the amount or type of training – have the potential ever to reach the performance levels of international competitors. Especially puzzling to philosophers and scientists has been the question of the extent to which expertise requires innate gifts versus specialized acquired skills and abilities. One of the most widely used and simplest methods of gathering data on exceptional performance is to interview the experts themselves. But are experts always capable of describing their thoughts, their behaviors, and their strategies in a manner that would allow less-skilled individuals to understand how the experts do what they do, and perhaps also understand how they might reach expert level through appropriate training? To date, there has been considerable controversy over the extent to which experts are capable of explaining the nature and structure of their exceptional performance. Some pioneering scientists, such as Binet (1893/1966), questioned the validity of the experts' descriptions when they found that some experts gave reports inconsistent with those of other experts. To make matters worse, in those rare cases that allowed verification of the strategy by observing the performance, discrepancies were found between the reported strategies and the observations (Watson, 1913).