Expertise and the organization of knowledge: Unexpected differences among genetic counselors, faculty, and students on problem categorization tasks
Expertise and the organization of knowledge: Unexpected differences among genetic counselors, faculty, and students on problem categorization tasks
复制标题
专业知识和知识的组织：遗传咨询师、教师和学生在问题分类任务上的意外差异
DOI：
10.1002/tea.3660290207
复制
发表时间：
1992
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Mike U. Smith
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mike U. Smith
Chi，Feltovich和Glaser（1981）观察到，专家（物理系）根据潜在的物理定律或适用的原则将问题分组，而新手物理学生的分组则专注于物体，字面物理术语和问题中的物理配置。在许多类似的研究中，这些发现的重复导致了人们普遍接受这样一个命题，即专家用于组织内容领域内信息的心理方案是根据该领域的"深层结构"组织的，而新手的方案则受"表层"维度的约束。
然而，与本研究中获得的学生新手相比，遗传学辅导员和教师专家对遗传学问题的分类与深层结构/表面结构二分法不一致。正如预期的那样，教师专家几乎只关注概念原则，而学生则主要关注问题的已知和未知。在这方面，专家辅导员的分类出乎意料地类似于学生。辅导员还强调要使用的解决方法，而学生则强调问题陈述的逐字措辞。这些研究结果是一致的假设，作为专业知识的实现，一个人重组他/她的知识领域的框架，是基于关键的尺寸，促进日常使用的知识。理论家，研究人员和教师的影响。只要有可能，未来的专业知识的研究应该包括非教育专家;教师应该帮助学生发展的能力，构建和重建组织框架的知识，以促进有效地利用这些知识在面对变化。
Chi, Feltovich, and Glaser (1981) observed that experts (physics faculty) organized problems into groups according to the underlying physics law or principle applicable, whereas the groupings of novice physics students focused on objects, literal physics terms, and physical configurations in the problems. Replication of these findings in a number of similar studies has led to the general acceptance of the proposition that the mental schemes used by experts to organize information within a content domain are organized according to the “deep structure” of the domain, whereas the schemes of novices are bound by “surface” dimensions.
Categorizations of genetics problems produced by genetics counselor and faculty experts in comparison to student novices obtained in the present study, however, are inconsistent with a deep structure/surface structure dichotomy. As expected, faculty experts focused almost exclusively on conceptual principles, but student sorts focused primarily on problem knowns and unknowns. The expert counselor sortings unexpectedly resembled those of the students in this regard. Counselors also emphasized solution techniques to be used, whereas students emphasized the verbatim wording of the problem statement. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that as expertise is attained, a person restructures his/her knowledge of the domain into a framework that is based on critical dimensions that facilitate the daily use of that knowledge. Implications for theoreticians, researchers, and teachers are drawn. Whenever possible, future studies of expertise should include noneducator experts; teachers should help students develop the ability to construct and reconstruct the organizational frameworks of their knowledge so as to facilitate the effective use of that knowledge in the face of change.