Open Access
Expertise in Problem Solving.
Michelene T. H. Chi,Robert Glaser,Ernest T. Rees +2 more
- 18 May 1981
- Vol. 1
TL;DR: An examination of the shift from consideration of general, domain-independent skills and procedures, in both cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence, to the study of the knowledge base shows the importance of differences in the knowledge bases of experts and novices to their problem solving success.
read more
Abstract: : It has become increasingly clear in recent years that the quality of domain-specific knowledge is the main determinant of expertise in that domain. This paper begins with an examination of the shift from consideration of general, domain-independent skills and procedures, in both cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence, to the study of the knowledge base. Next, the empirical findings and theoretical models of other researchers in physics problem solving are detailed and summarized. Then our own work is presented, consisting of eight empirical studies. These studies show, in general, the importance of differences in the knowledge bases of experts and novices to their problem solving success. More specifically, they show that it is difficult to use protocols of problem solving episodes to illuminate the differences in the knowledge bases of experts and novices, that experts and novices perceive the problem themselves differently, i.e., novices respond to the surface features of a problem while experts respond to its deep structure, that less successful novices, at least, have deficiencies in their declarative knowledge of physics, that novices tend to lack knowledge of when to use certain physics knowledge, and that deficiencies in knowledge appear to prevent novices at times from making key inferences necessary for solving problems. Finally, these results and their implications for theories of intelligence, are discussed. (Author)
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.
TL;DR: A theoretical framework is proposed that explains expert performance in terms of acquired characteristics resulting from extended deliberate practice and that limits the role of innate (inherited) characteristics to general levels of activity and emotionality.
Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning
TL;DR: It is suggested that a major reason for the ineffectiveness of problem solving as a learning device, is that the cognitive processes required by the two activities overlap insufficiently, and that conventional problem solving in the form of means-ends analysis requires a relatively large amount of cognitive processing capacity which is consequently unavailable for schema acquisition.
7.1K
Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.
Justin Kruger,David Dunning +1 more
TL;DR: Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability.
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching
TL;DR: In this article, the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert-novice differences, and cognitive load, and it is shown that the advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide "internal" guidance.
Running head: WHY MINIMALLY GUIDED INSTRUCTION DOES NOT WORK Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching
Paul A. Kirschner,John Sweller +1 more
- 01 Jan 2006
Abstract: Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert–novice differences, and cognitive load. Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide "internal" guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional design models that support guidance during instruction are briefly described.
5.6K