EARLI General Assembly

Yesterday I attended the General Assembly of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI), which I became a member of earlier this year.  Participating in the Assembly provided an opportunity to develop a better sense of what the organisation is about, it’s ethos, and get an overview of the various components of it’s activity.

The new president of EARLI was announced – Sari Lindblom-Ylänne of Helsinki University.

The status of the EARLI journals wasdiscussed:

• Learning and Instruction (L&I) has a rejection rate of of 80% (Sari says: “this is very positive”); it has recently achieved an impact rating of 1.43
• Educational Research Review (EduRev) has applied for impact rating, the outcome is expected in 10 months
• L&I receives 250 submissions annually, while EduRev receives 60
• 169355 downloads for L&I in 2008; 20719 downloads for EduRev
• There was a discussion about the possibility of  transferring the two journals online (for members, libraries would still receive paper copies) and of creating a thrid journal – no decision has been made and discussions will continue

New editors were announced as well – Lucia Mason (L&I) and Paivi Tynjala (EduRev).

Other news included:

• EARLI has (unwillingly) joined World Association of Educational Research (WAER), but will reevaluate the decision in two years. WAER provides possibilities for capacity building, development of researchers, international exchange, dissemination of research across the world.
• A sister association,  European Association of Practitioner Research on Improving Learning (EAPRIL), was established.  The undeprinning argument is that EARLI should not be open to everyone working on anything that has to do with education, rather it must be safeguarded for those who are conducting scientific research. EAPRIL will allow practitioners (teachers, lecturers), educational developers, etc to share and disseminate their practice-focused research.

Metacognition, epistemological beliefs and the division of cognitive labor (EARLI09 Keynote, Rainer Bromme)

Yesterday’s EARLI09 keynote by Rainer Bromme was very interesting, in my view the best one of all of this year’s EARLI keynotes that I had a chance to attend. I have captured some of the ideas and research findings he shared, what follows below is the abstract of his talk and the summary of my notes.

Abstract: “Due to the division of labor in modern societies, knowledge is distributed and used unevenly. Most of the knowledge we acquire through lifetime has been produced by specialized experts, is provided by specialized experts, and it is organized into disciplines, reflecting such specialization. This  division of cognitive labor has implications for our understanding of learning, epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Recent approaches on learning (especially those inspired by constructivist ideas) and research on epistemological beliefs undervalue the division of cognitive labor. Instead, they are in favor of personal knowledge construction, of first hand experiences as the main ways of learning. The implicit assumption ‘own knowledge is better than knowledge attained from others’ is underlying many approaches in educational research. In contrast to this normative assumption, we all remain laypersons with regard to the most domains of knowledge in modern societies. Therefore we will have to cope with experts and with specialized expert knowledge for the whole lifetime. It is necessary to learn how to evaluate knowledge which we do attain from experts. Such judgments are necessary even when they are based on a fragmentary understanding of the knowledge claims. At first I will review such positions held within research on epistemological beliefs and on learning. Secondly I will sketch a research program on students’ capacities to understand how specialized knowledge is distributed (who knows what?) and to evaluate expert sources (whom to believe?). Such capacities entail epistemological beliefs about expert knowledge and metacognitive awareness about ones’ own knowledge. I will then resume some empirical evidence from developmental psychology about children’s intuitive understanding of the division of cognitive labor and I will ask how schooling fosters and impedes such understanding. Finally, some of our own studies about the cognitive division of labor will be sketched. This research focuses on laypersons’ capacities for the evaluation of health related expert knowledge found in the Internet. Based on our research the relationship between metacognition and such capacities will be discussed.”

He started off by defining the notion of division of cognitive labour – “the reliance on the deeper understanding of knowledge held by others when using this knowledge for communication, for categorising our environment, cooperation and decision making”.  Argues this notion is linked with division of labour which has developed in human societies froom prehistoric times, but has increased dramatically after the industrial revolution and expecially recently in the context of knowledge economy and advancements in ICT.  Everincreasing specialisation of knowledge means people need skills in continuous assessment of knowledge claims made by experts.

Argues there is a conceptual distinction between first-hand and second-hand knowledge claims.  The former refers to assessment of “what is true?” and the latter to “whom to believe?”  Criteria of assessment of first hand knowledge claims are well known and well researched (critical thinking, evidence, cohesiveness and logic of argument) and a lot of instructional and research efforts have been focused on dealing with this type of knowledge claims.  In contrast, there hasn’t been enough focus on the second-hand knowledge claims (whom to believe) in learning theory or development of instruction.   [An exception that comes to mind is Harry Collins's research programme on expertise and his recent book co-authored with Robert Evans].  In addition, traditional approaches to first-hand knowledge claims have been influenced by Piagetian focus on personal, first-hand authentic experience, disregarding the social nature of our knowledge, ie that it does not derive only from indidvidual experience but we have to rely on what others know.

Goes on to argue that laypersons are not novices who want to become experts-above and beyond basic literacy and focus on specific areas, most laypeople become “acclimatised” to broader knowledge but not proficient in it.

Research on metacognition has focused on person’s own cognition, but studying metacognition about others’ metacognition is necessary (who knows what, who has the knowledge to corraborate knowledge claims). This area is currently underresearched. Some people argue that research on theory of mind (TOM) is focusing on this, but that’s not correct – the focus of TOM is on comparing others’ minds to one’s own, ie the focus is still on individual.

Then shares early findings of a range of empirical studies conducted by his group testing students’ abilities to evaluate knowledge claims, in particular identify who to ask when presented with tasks they don’t have sufficient knowledge to complete. Found that majority of  students identified the right experts to ask for further information above chance  [note to self to follow up on these studies, some are not published yet]. Concludes that humans have capabilities not to rely on knowledge by experts and to make accurate judgements on how the necessary knowledge can be accessed even if they are not faimilar with the domain.

Question and answer session focused on discussion of the implications of this research for democratisation of knowledge through web 2.0 phenomenon (how people can assess knowledge that is not created by experts and that has not been vetted by gatekeepers) and implications of this research for educational system (“should there be a subject in schools teaching children how to judge expert knowledge”).

EARLI 2009 Opening session

I am at the opening session of the 2009 Conference of the European Association of Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI).  The general conference intrductiona and the overview of practicalities was followed by an overview of JURE and presentation of Best of JURE 2009 awards. Best of JURE2009  nominations are:

1. Greet Fastré, Supporting students in self‐assessment by providing specific assessment criteria
2. Marjolijn Peltenburg, ICT‐based dynamic assessment to reveal special education students’ potential in mathematics
3. Jake McMullen, Justifying the margins: the effects of data collection and categorization methods on sociometric measurements in the classroom
4. Sandra Janssen, The influence of guidance on the quality of professional development plans

EARLI 2009 Conference begins next week: Overview of interesting sessions

I am travelling to Amsterdam tomorrow to attend the 2009 conference of the European Association of Research in Learning and Instruction.

In preparation, I am  going through the conference programme and  putting together a schedule of sessions I would like to attend.  It is difficult to choose, because there are just too many interesting sessions taking place in parallel.

I will use this post as a placeholder for the most interesting sessions so that even if I cannot attend them all I could look up the papers later on.  I am also including papers that might be of interest to my Caledonian Academy colleagues who are not attending the conference but who might be reading this blog.

I myself will be hosting a round table table discussion on methodological issue in studying self-regulated learning in real-world workplace settings (Friday, Aug 28, 10:30-12:00)

TUESDAY, 25/08

Parallel Sessions B (13:30-15:00)

• Knowledge-driven collaborative learning practices in higher education
• Assessing vocational competence in higher education: Comparing different methods throughout Europe
• What affects students’ academic self-regulation?
• “Making social aspects of SRL transparent” – focus on methodological solutions and different data
• Research on the pedagogy and effects of teacher education: Trends and gaps in research

Parallel Sessions C (15:30-17:00)

• Development of work place competencies during students` internships (Assessment of Competence session)
• 360 degree feedback as a tool for learning: The role of self directed learning orientation and interpersonal variables (Assessment of Competence)
• Which factors determine non-traditional Dutch university students’ achievement? Educational productivity of professional bachelor students (Educational Effectiveness)
• Identifying potential threshold concepts in Educational Development: Towards a profile of professional educational developers (Professional development 1)
• Integrative pedagogy for developing vocational and professional expertise (Prof Dev 1)
• Talent development, learning and employee turnover (Prof Dev 2)
• Do intentions mediate the transfer process? Testing the theory of planned behaviour (Training and Development)
• Transfer of training: the role of feedback in supportive peer networks (Training and Development)
• Focusing the Conceptual Lens on Metacognition, Self-regulation, and Self-regulated Learning (Reflection)
• HE teachers’ learning about assessment: engaging with formal and informal learning opportunities (Higher Education)
• Prior knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, and learning strategies as the predictors of study success (Higher Education)
• Faculty Development in Context: Learning Culture Inventory in Higher Education (Higher Education)
• Are higher education students self-regulating their learning? – Assessing and activating students through the combination of self-evaluation and interview methods (Self-regulation)
• How can we know that they think what we mean? Investigating students self-reports of self-regulated learning (Self-regulation)
• Procrastination as a multi-faceted phenomenon: A qualitative interview study (Self-regulation)
• Motivational beliefs, self-regulated learning strategies and achievement: a short-term longitudinal study (Self-regulation)

WEDNESDAY, 26/08

Parallel Sessioon D (08:30-10:00)

• Doctoral education: the shift from teaching and learning to supervision and professional development (Sympoisum, Prof Dev)
• Measuring learning strategies: What are we measuring? (Symposium, Assessment methods)
• Conditions for teacher professional learning: perspectives from research at the individual, group, organisation and network level (Symposium, CPD in Teachers)
• Critical elements of peer assessment for learning: Reliability, task-type, and feedback (Symposium, Assessment and Evaluation)
• Exploring the link between educational views and the use of ICT in the classroom (Symposium, Technology in Education and Training)
• Multi-method approaches in research on self-regulated learning (Symposium, Assessment of Competence)

Parallel Session E (10:30-12:00)

• Facing the double agenda of design research: Investigation of the researcher’s complex role in design studies (explores problems in integration of educational research and teaching practice) (Workshop, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Learning and Instruction)
• Individual influences on the organisational success of knowledge management issues (Paper, Professional development)
• Professional development of higher education teachers in the context of educational change: teacher learning in communities of practice (Round Table, Professional Development)
• Do the concepts of expert and expertise oversimplify complex professional work? (Paper, Prof Dev)
• From Behavioral Observations to Data Analysis: How to Get the Most out of Your Research (Workshop, Technology in Education and Training)

Parallel Session F (13:30-15:00)

• The investigation of a new instrument for measuring personal goals in social learning contexts (Paper, Goal Orientation)
• The Effects of Autonomy-Supportive or Suppressive Teaching on Bedouin Students’ Learning Experience: Evidence from a Traditional Collectivistic Society (Paper, Goal Orientation)
• Trait/State Goal Orientation and Learning Self-Efficacy in Adults: Effects of Age and Education (Paper, Goal Orientation)

Keynotes (15:30-17:00)

• Prof. Dr. Jeroen van Merrienboer: Research on Instructional Design for Lifelong Learning

Parallel Session G (17:15-18:45)

• A relational view of feedback seeking in the workplace (Paper, Prof Dev)
• In Search of Practitioner-Based Social Capital: A Social Network Analysis Tool for Understanding and Facilitating Teacher Collaboration in a Professional Development Program (Paper, Communities of Learners)
• Supporting experience sharing as participatory workplace practice (Paper, Social interaction)
• On the problems of asking what quality of higher education is (Paper, Higher Education)

THURSDAY, 27/08

Parallel Sessions H (08:30-10:00)

• Fostering Communities of Learners in Higher Education (Symposium, Communities of learners)
• Nurturing & sustaining postgraduate student learning (Symposium, Concept and Context)
• Understanding learning at work: the role of individual and contextual factors (Symposium, Training and Development)
• International Research on Competencies in the Field of Vocational and Occupational Education and Training (Symposium, Prof Dev)
• Learning with computer games, virtual 3D environments, and computer simulations: in and between form (Sympoisum, Computer-Supported Learning Environments)
• Methodological Advances in Research on the Social Regulation of Learning and Motivation (Symposium, Social Aspects of Learning)

Parallel session I (10:30-12:00)

• Learning from innovating (Paper, Prof Dev)
• What daily interactions and discourses tell about the academic identities of doctoral students (Paper, Lifelong learning and Prof Dev)
• Massively Multiplayer Online Games: Forum Discourse as an Indicator of Literacy Practices and Intellectual Exchange (paper, web-based learning)
• Learning Research Methods in an Online Digital Research Community (Workshop, Research methodology)

Parallel session J (13:30-15:00)

• Learning environment, integration, sense of belonging and study success in ethnically diverse student groups (Paper, Culture and Education)
• The Learning Kit Project: Lessons Learned and Implications for Future Uses of Technology in Researching Self-Regulated Learning (Paper, Self-regulation)

Keynotes (15:30-17:00)

• Facilitating social knowledge construction in communities of learners: Are we there yet (and how will we know)? (Dr. Cindy Hmelo-Silver)

Parallel session K (17:15-18:45)

• An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Motivation and Self-Regulation, or How Educational Psychology Met Neuroscience (Paper, Research Methodology)
• Difficulties and Traps during the Ph.D. Process –Experienced Challenges and Well-being among Ph.D. Students (Paper, Higher Education)
• BEING A PH.D. STUDENT IN THE SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY – Examining Ph.D. students’ sense of professional agency in the scholarly community (Paper, Higher Education)

FRIDAY, 28/08

Parallel session L (08:30-10:00)

• Different aspects of self-regulated learning from a perspective of lifelong learning (Symposium, Self-regulation)
• Epistemification and transformations in professional practice and learning (Symposium, Prof Dev)
• WHAT IS COMPETENCE REALLY? Part II: Expert Panel Discussion (Assessment of Competence)

Parallel session M (13:30-15:00)

• Creativity in collaborative activity: a sociocultural perspective (Symposium, Collaboration)
• Skill Development for Research Students: Analyses Across Nations, Disciplines, and Programs (Symposium, Higher Education)
• Building a Multi-dimensional, Cross-Cultural Community in Engineering Education Research (Symposium, Prof Dev)

Keynotes 3 (15:30-17:00)

• If you do not know, ask someone else! Metacognition, epistemological beliefs and the division of cognitive labor (Prof. Dr. Rainer Bromme)
• Community of learners: How to keep the concept viable for educational practice (Prof. Dr. Geert ten Dam)

SATURDAY, 29/08

Session O (08:30-10:00)

• Challenges Facing Faculty Development Practices (Symposium, Higher Education)
• Methods for interpretation in qualitative research (Symposium, Research Methodology)
• Emotional and motivational challenges at the beginning of the professional career: The reality shock (Symposium, Training and Development)

Session Q (13:30-15:00)

• Representations of teaching-research linkages: elaboration, use and reflection (Symposium, Research-based Learning)
• Assessment for the future: Which elements drive learning on the long term? (Symposium, Assessment and evaluation)

Learning and knowledge sharing in the workplace: Part 2, How people learn at work

The ideas in the post are based on a research study I am collaborating on with Colin Milligan and Allison Littlejohn.  Your feedback would be appreciated.

How are the knowledge, skills and dispositions discussed in the Part 1 being learned?

This is a challenging question, because in the workplace learning takes place continuously, even though it is not always explicit and hence not always recognised.  We asked our interviewees to think about their most significant learning experience in the past year (a project or a task from which they felt they learned the most), but this time we asked them to elaborate on how they learned and what of these learning methods they personally preferred.

We uncovered 9 ways in which the respondents learned. These conscious learning processes range from working processes during which learning occurs (eg vicarious learning or learning from experience) to processes in or near the workplace where learning was the prime purpose (formal learning, coaching and mentoring, self-study).  They are listed in Table 1 (note that all respondents learned in more than one way):

Table 1.  Modes of learning

Mode of learning	Total no of participants who adopted the mode	Novices	Experts	Mid-career
Formal learning (classroom and blended learning courses, self-paced elearning)	25/29	9/9	9/12	7/8
Learning by doing	20/29	9/9	6/12	5/8
Learning by discussing with others	9/29	4/9	3/12	3/8
Coaching and mentoring	7/29	4/9	1/12	2/8
Learning by teaching others	6/29	3/9	2/12	1/8
Vicarious learning[1]	6/29	4/9	2/12	0/8
Learning by trial and error	5/29	1/9	1/12	2/8
Self-study[2]	4/29	3/9	0/12	1/8

Some patterns can be observed:

• Prevalence of formal learning for all levels of experience, although many interviewees indicated that they preferred to learn via a combination of formal and informal, rather than formal alone.  However our data points out clearly that formal courses are still very important in individuals’ conceptions of what constitutes learning
• A relatively significant proportion of novices appear to view teaching others as a valuable form of learning
• Vicarious learning appears to be most popular among novices
• Experts did not mention engaging in self-study – this doesn’t necessarily mean that experts don’t engage in studying the relevant literature but that perhaps this activity is viewed by them as an inherent part of work rather than a way of learning

---

[1] Refers to learning by observing others.

[2] For example, reading relevant literature and project documentation

A powerful critique of academic publishing system

In the latest issue of First Monday Brian Whitworth and Rob Friedman deliver a powerful critique of the current academic publishing system:

This final vision of journals as exclusive and isolated castles of specialist knowledge, manned by editor–sovereigns and reviewer–barons, raising the barricade of rigor against a mass assault by peasant–authors seeking tenure knighthoods, is not inspiring. In feudalism an elite few manage the valued resources. When the resource is knowledge “truth” becomes what its self–appointed guardians say it is, and innovation is rejected along with error. Is not “Let them publish elsewhere” the knowledge equivalent of Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake”? A system where the few choose what is best for the many to read cannot be sustained as in the end people must choose for themselves.

Learning and knowledge sharing in the workplace: Part 1, What people learn at work

The ideas in the post are based on a research study I am collaborating on with Colin Milligan and Allison Littlejohn.

I have written earlier about a research study we are conducting within a major multinational company.  We are still analysing the data collected trhough 29 interviews and survey with 462 knowledge workers (engineers, scientists, commercial and business professionals) within the company. I wanted to blog the findings as they emerge, hoping that you might provide feedback, obersvations, comments, etc.

Semi-structured interviews were used to explore the ways in which experts and novices contribute, consume and connect knowledge and self-regulate their learning at work.  To this end we looked at learning and knolwedge sharing practices, indvidual and organisational motivating factors for learning and knolwedge sharing, barriers and enablers to knowledge sharing, the role of the collective (group, team, network, community) in learning and who people draw upon when faced with a need to learn to deal with a novel problem in the workplace (“significant others”). We have also explored what tools – personal and organisational – people use to support their learning and knowledge sharing, focusing in particular on social technologies.

I intend to post write ups of the key findings on  each of these themes as they become available.

Part 1. What people learn at work

What is being learned in the workplace?  Our methodology was designed to elicit categories of knowledge, skills and dispositions that interviewees acquired in the workplace.  We have asked our interviewees to think about their most significant learning experience in the past year (a project or a task from which they felt they learned the most) and to elaborate what they learned. This question generated a set of 22 categories of knowledge, skills and dispositions that interviewees believed they acquired through work.  We combined these using an existing typology of what is learned in the workplace (Eraut, 2004).  Our typology is outlined in Table 1.  The letters in the brackets indicate the number of interviewees who indicated that they had acquired the particular type of knowledge, skill or disposition and whether they were an expert (E), novice (N) or a mid-career professional (M).

Table 1. Typology of learning in the workplace

Awareness and Understanding Understanding background of projects (NNNM) Workplace politics (NM) Stakeholder engagement (EM) Contextualising knowledge (MMEE) Personal Development Assertiveness (M) Learning about oneself (E) Self-confidence (EE) Stress management (M) Core knowledge Technical knowledge related to core tasks (NNNMMEE) Using knowledge resources: developing personal networks (M), knowing who to ask (N)

Role Performance Delegation skills (M) People management skills (N) Time management and prioritising (N) Project management (EEM) Teamwork Collaboration skills (EEEMN) Virtual team working (N) Task Performance Lab skills (N) Using company-specific technology (NNE) Enculturation in the company* Developing visibility in the company (M) Understanding the big picture (N) Working in the organisation (NNNME**)

* While the types of skills and knowledge acquired through work that we uncovered generally match closely the categories outlined in Eraut’s typology, a new category emerged through our interviews – enculturation – which refers to individuals’ finding out about the company norms and values, understanding how work is conducted in the organisation and becoming known within the company.

** Although this person was an expert with 11-20 years in their discipline they were new to the organisation (1-3 yrs)

While the number of respondents is too small to ascertain generalities, some patterns can be observed in this typology:

• No novices indicated acquisition of personal development-related dispositions and skills. This might be because their focus is on task performance and development of core knowledge in discipline
• Development of deeper awareness and understanding of the context seems to be the focus mostly for experts and mid-career professionals. This might be due to the greater variety of experiences these individuals will have had within the company, which means they have to develop a more refined understanding of the variety of local conditions and other contextual aspects of their task and role performance.

This typology demonstrates the breadth and variety of knowledge and skills that individuals acquire in the workplace.   It encompasses both conceptual and procedural forms of knowledge (“know that” and “know how”) and the dispositions that underpin them (attitudes, behaviours that enable individuals to put their knowledge and skills into action).  The development of some of the skills and knowledge reflected in this typology is traditionally understood to be primarily the domain of formal educational settings, as for example in the case of conceptual knowledge. Of note is the fact that many of these skills and dispositions are being developed at all stages of career, regardless of experience and expertise level. These findings point to the variety of types of expertise and the holistic and continuous nature of learning at work.

This typology can be used as a heuristic that reminds people of possible aspects of learning in the context of their own work. The typology can also be used as an initial mapping tool for individuals, possibly in collaboration with their mentor/coach, to reflect upon the types of knowledge, skills and dispositions that they could acquire directly through their work. It can also serve as a starting point for individuals to develop a typology of their own workplace learning.

As in any typology, each category can fit more than one heading, but we have chosen to group them under the heading we found most suitable for the categories that emerged from the interview data.  It is also important to keep in mind that this is only an initial mapping – because the typology is based on a limited data set from only one organisation it doesn’t reflect the entire complex repertoire of knowledge, skills and dispositions that individuals can develop in the workplace.

References: Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26 (2), 247- 274.

RWL09 Conference: paper, presentation, etc.

I am at present in Copenhagen to participate in the 2009 Researching Work and Learning (RWL) Conference.  The conference kicks off tomorrow (Sunday July 28) with an opening reception, keynote and dinner at the Workers Museum in Copenhagen.  The rest of the conference will take place at Roskilde University.

I have decided to stay in Roskilde rather than Copenhagen in order to avoid the daily 25-30 minute journey to the conference – in retrospect this was not a very smart decision.  The hotel which was booked for me turned out to be approx 25 minutes away from the university anyway (10 min walk to the station+5 min train+10 min walk to the university).   On the positive side – the weather is great (sunny, +25C) and forecasts indicate it will stay so in the next 5 days.

I am looking forward to the conference.  I am planning to live-blog the interesting presentations, of which I hope there will be many.  The programme looks promising.

I am presenting a paper titled “Self-regulated learning and knowledge sharing in the workplace: Similarities and differences between novices and experts” co-authored with Colin Milligan and Allison Littlejohn.  The paper is part of a symposium on Integrating Workplace Learning and Institutional Learning. I don’t think our paper fits the theme of the symposium very well, but I am hoping the discussion will be useful anyway.  The presentations is now on the slideshare.

Classification of knowledge-intensive processes: What does Davenport’s matrix tell us?

I have written earlier about a research study in which we are looking at developing interventions (approaches, tools) for supporting knowledge work and learning in the workplace.

As part of that study we have conducted a survey (n=462) and semi-structured interviews (n=29) exploring current learning and knowledge sharing practices utilised by workers in a major multinational company.  The survey aims to elucidate, among other questions, the types of knowledge work that individuals carry out. To this end, we are using Davenport’s classification structure for knowledge-intensive processes.

For the survey, we have translated each of the four subcategories of Davenport’s typology into a set of options. Respondents were asked to choose as many options as were applicable in describing their current job.

The initial analysis of the survey results shows that only a very small proportion of individuals characterised their job as neatly fitting into one specific model. Instead, the majority of knowledge worker jobs fit two or more categories spanning across the four models.

These findings suggest not only that, as Davenport himself admits, knowledge work is too complex to be reduced to two dimensions, but also may point to the possibility that the categories in these typology are not quite correct.  Many knowledge-intensive jobs, even if they are primarily routine, may require some degree of collaboration and personal interpretation or judgement.

Of course one has to take into consideration that our data is based on respondents’ self-reports, and we do not verify through parallel measures the extent to which these individuals’ categorisations of their work tasks are objective. Also, we cannot determine the extent to which the meaning of the options was interpreted uniformly acroos the sample (a common problem for surveys).

Generalisable aspects of expertise

In introduction to Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, Anders Ericsson reviews several conceptualisations of generalisable aspects of expertise.

He also elaborates some definitions:

Expertise comprises a set of charactersitics/skills/knowledge that distinguish experts from novices and less experienced peers.

Expert performance denotes types of superior reproducible performance of representative tasks of a domain.

In some domains there are no objective measures of these two notions; subjective measures are then used.  These subjective criteria include:

• recogntion by peers as a reliable source of knowledge/skill
• authority and status accorded by public or peers
• prolonged/intense  experience through practice and education

The subjective criteria are often problematic, for example experience, which could mean that difference from novices are a function of repetition rather than superior skill.

Ericsson outlines key issues in expertise development that are currently not well understood and require further research:

• How experts organise their knowledge and performance?
• How can efficiency of learning be improved to reach higher levels of expert performance?
• Why indviduals improve their performance at different rates and why different people reach different levels of final achievement?
• What are the mediating mechanisms of expertise development?

Source: Ericsson, A. (2006). An introduction to Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance: It’s developemnt, organisation and content.  In Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., & Hoffman, R. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp.3-19). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.