Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 91–110 | Cite as

The Implications of Research on Expertise for Curriculum and Pedagogy

Original Paper

Abstract

Instruction on problem solving in particular domains typically relies on explanations from experts about their strategies. However, research indicates that such self-reports often are incomplete or inaccurate (e.g., Chao & Salvendy, 1994; Cooke & Breedin, 1994). This article evaluates research on experts’ cognition, the accuracy of experts’ self-reports, and the efficacy of instruction based on experts’ self-reports. Analysis of this evidence indicates that experts’ free recall of strategies introduces errors and omissions into instructional materials that hinder student success. In contrast, when experts engage in structured knowledge elicitation techniques (e.g., cognitive task analysis), the resultant instruction is more effective. Based on these findings, the article provides a theoretical explanation of experts’ self-report errors and discusses implications for the continued improvement of instructional design processes.

Keywords

Expertise Self-report Knowledge elicitation Instruction Automaticity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges Dr. Margaret Gredler for her assistance in revising this manuscript. The considerable time and effort she invested was essential to its completion.

References

  1. Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goal-directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 53–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 18–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 288–318.Google Scholar
  4. Ackerman, P. L., & Kanfer, R. (1994). Kanfer-Ackerman air traffic controller task© CD-ROM database, data collection program, and playback program: Office of Naval Research, Cognitive Science Program.Google Scholar
  5. Adelson, B. (1981). Problem solving and the development of abstract categories in programming languages. Memory and Cognition, 9, 422–433.Google Scholar
  6. Alberdi, E., Sleeman, D. H., & Korpi, M. (2000). Accommodating surprise in taxonomic tasks: The role of expertise. Cognitive Science, 24(1), 53–91.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, J. R. (1987). Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem situations. Psychological Review, 94(2), 192–210.Google Scholar
  9. Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT* theory. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 165–180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1), 35–44.Google Scholar
  11. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive Psychology (4th edn.). New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.Google Scholar
  12. Anzai, Y., & Yokoyama, T. (1984). Internal models in physics problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 397–450.Google Scholar
  13. Bainbridge, L. (1977). Verbal reports as evidence of the process operator’s knowledge. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 11, 411–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bainbridge, L. (1981). Mathematical equations or processing routines? In J. Rasmussen & W. B. Rouse (Eds.), Human Detection and Diagnosis of System Failures. NATO Conference Series III: Human Factors, Vol. 15. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bargh, J. A. (1999a). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479.Google Scholar
  16. Bargh, J. A. (1999b). The cognitive monster: The case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 361–382). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479.Google Scholar
  18. Bargh, J. A. & Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 925–945.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trötschel, R. (2001). The automated will: The nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1014–1027.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  21. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Beilock, S. L., Wierenga, S. A., & Carr, T. H. (2002). Expertise, attention, and memory in sensorimotor skill execution: Impact of novel task constraints on dual-task performance and episodic memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, A55(4), 1211–1240.Google Scholar
  23. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  24. Berry, D. C., & Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between process task performance and associated verbalisable knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, A36, 209–231.Google Scholar
  25. Besnard, D. (2000). Expert error. The case of trouble-shooting in electronics. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference Safe Comp2000 (pp. 74–85). Rotterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  26. Besnard, D., & Bastien-Toniazzo, M. (1999). Expert error in trouble-shooting: An exploratory study in electronics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 391–405.Google Scholar
  27. Besnard, D., & Cacitti, L. (2001). Trouble-shooting in mechanics: A heuristic matching process. Cognition, Technology, and Work, 3, 150–160.Google Scholar
  28. Biederman, I. (1995). Visual object recognition. In S. F. Kosslyn & D. N. Osherson (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science: Visual cognition (2nd ed., pp. 121–165). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Blessing, S. B., & Anderson, J. R. (1996). How people learn to skip steps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 576–598.Google Scholar
  30. Broadbent, D. E. (1977). Levels, hierarchies, and the locus of control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 181–201.Google Scholar
  31. Broadbent, D. E., Fitzgerald, P., & Broadbent, M. H. P. (1986). Implicit and explicit knowledge in the context of complex systems. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 33–50.Google Scholar
  32. Brown, S. W., & Bennett, E. D. (2002). The role of practice and automaticity in temporal and nontemporal dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66, 80–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Casner, S. M. (1994). Understanding the determinants of problem solving behavior in a complex environment. Human Factors, 36(4), 580–596.Google Scholar
  34. Ceci, S. J., & Liker, J. K. (1986). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 115, 255–266.Google Scholar
  35. Cellier, J. M., Eyrolle, H., & Mariné, C. (1997). Expertise in dynamic environments. Ergonomics, 40(1), 28–50.Google Scholar
  36. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.Google Scholar
  37. Chao, C., & Salvendy, G. (1994). Percentage of procedural knowledge acquired as a function of the number of experts from whom knowledge is acquired for diagnosis, debugging, and interpretation tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 6(3), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Charness, N., Krampe, R., & Mayr, U. (1996). The role of practice and coaching in entrepreneurial skill domains: An international comparison of life-span chess skill acquisition. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 51–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind’s eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215–281). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  40. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.Google Scholar
  43. Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1996). Cognitive task analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 25(5), 403–417.Google Scholar
  44. Clement, J. (1988). Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12(4), 563–586.Google Scholar
  45. Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97(3), 332–361.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Collins, H. M., Green, R. H., & Draper, R. C. (1985). Where’s the expertise?: Expert systems as a medium of knowledge transfer. In M. Merry (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifth technical conference of the British Computer Society Specialist Group on Expert Systems ‘85 (pp. 323–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Cooke, N. J. (1992). Modeling human expertise in expert systems. In R. R. Hoffman (Ed.), The psychology of expertise: Cognitive research and empirical AI (pp. 29–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Cooke, N. J. (1994). Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41, 801–849.Google Scholar
  49. Cooke, N. J., Atlas, R. S., Lane, D. M., & Berger, R. C. (1993). Role of high-level knowledge in memory for chess positions. American Journal of Psychology, 106(3), 321–351.Google Scholar
  50. Cooke, N. J., & Breedin, S. D. (1994). Constructing naive theories of motion on the-fly. Memory and Cognition, 22, 474–493.Google Scholar
  51. Cooke, N. M., & McDonald, J. E. (1987). The application of psychological scaling techniques to knowledge elicitation for knowledge-based systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 26, 533– 550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347–362.Google Scholar
  53. Crandall, B., & Gamblian, V. (1991). Guide to Early Sepsis Assessment in the NICU. Fairborn, OH: Klein Associates.Google Scholar
  54. Crandall, B., & Getchell-Reiter, K. (1993). Critical decision method: A technique for eliciting concrete assessment indicators from the “intuition” of NICU nurses. Advances in Nursing Sciences, 16, 42– 51.Google Scholar
  55. Dawes, R. M. (1994). House of cards. New York, Free Press.Google Scholar
  56. de Groot, A. D., & Gobet, F. (1996). Perception and memory in chess : Studies in the heuristics of the professional eye. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  57. Dhillon, A. S. (1998). Individual differences within problem-solving strategies used in physics. Science Education, 82, 379–405.Google Scholar
  58. Doll, J., & Mayr, U. (1987). Intelligenz und schachleistung—eine untersuchung an schachexperten. [Intelligence and achievement in chess—a study of chess masters.] Psychologische Beiträge, 29, 270–289.Google Scholar
  59. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58, 113.Google Scholar
  60. Einhorn, H. (1974). Expert judgment: Some necessary conditions and an example. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 562–571.Google Scholar
  61. Ericsson, K. A. (1998). The scientific study of expert levels of performance: General implications for optimal learning and creativity. High Ability Studies, 9(1), 75–100.Google Scholar
  62. Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine, 79(10), S70–S81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49(8), 725–747.Google Scholar
  64. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2000). Shortcomings of generic retrieval structures with slots of he type that Gobet (1993) proposed and modeled. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 571–590.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.Google Scholar
  67. Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.Google Scholar
  69. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Towards a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Fisk, A. D., Lee, M. D., & Rogers, W. A. (1991). Recombination of automatic processing components: The effects of transfer, reversal, and conflict situations. Human Factors, 33, 267–280.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Frensch, P. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent issues: When is it worse to know better? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 5, pp. 157–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  72. Fitts, P., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  73. Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.Google Scholar
  74. Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.Google Scholar
  75. Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv-xxviii). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  76. Gobet, F. (1998). Expert memory: A comparison of four theories. Cognition, 66, 115–152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Templates in chess memory: A mechanism for recalling several boards. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 1–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1998). Expert chess memory: Revisiting the chunking hypothesis. Memory, 6, 225–255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Gruber, T. R. (1989). The Acquisition of Strategic Knowledge. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  80. Hatano, G. (1982). Cognitive consequences of practice in culture specific procedural skills. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 4, 15–18.Google Scholar
  81. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Asuma, & K. Hakauta (Eds.). Child Development and Education in Japan (pp. 262–272). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
  82. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (2000). Practice makes a difference: Design principles for adaptive expertise. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. New Orleans, Louisiana: April, 2000.Google Scholar
  83. Hermans, D., Crombez, G., & Eelen, P. (2000). Automatic attitude activation and efficiency: The fourth horseman of automaticity. Psychologica Belgica, 40(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  84. Hinds, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by abstraction: The effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1232–1243.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Hoffman, R. R. (1998). Can experts be trusted? How can expertise be defined? In J. Fleck & R. Williams (Eds.), Exploring expertise. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  86. Hoffman, R. R., Crandall, B., & Shadbolt, N. (1998). Use of the critical decision method to elicit expert knowledge: A case study in the methodology of cognitive task analysis. Human Factors, 40(2), 254–286.Google Scholar
  87. Hoffman, P., Slovic, P., & Rorer, L. (1968). An analysis of variance model for the assessment of configural cue utilization in clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 338–349.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Hulin, C. L., Henry, R. A., & Noon, S. L. (1990). Adding a dimension: Time as a factor in the generalizability of predictive relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 328–340.Google Scholar
  89. Jackson, P. W. (1985). Private lessons in public schools: Remarks on the limits of adaptive instruction. In M. C. Wang & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Adapting instruction to individual differences (pp. 66–81). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  90. Johnson, P. E. (1983). What kind of expert should a system be? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 8, 77–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates.Google Scholar
  92. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.Google Scholar
  93. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 558–568.Google Scholar
  94. Kareken, D. A., & Williams, J. M. (1994). Human judgment and estimation of premorbid intellectual function. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 83–91.Google Scholar
  95. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (in press). Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist.Google Scholar
  96. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science, 14, 511–550.Google Scholar
  97. Kramer, A. F., Strayer, D. L., & Buckley, J. (1990). Development and transfer of automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 505–522.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Lamberti, D. M., & Newsome, S. L. (1989). Presenting abstract versus concrete information in expert systems: What is the impact on user performance. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31, 27– 45.Google Scholar
  99. Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.). Mental models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  100. Larkin, J. H. (1985). Understanding, problem representation, and skill in physics. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 2): Research and open questions (pp. 141–160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  101. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980a). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980b). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4(4), 317–345.Google Scholar
  103. Lee, R. L. (2003). Cognitive task analysis: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
  104. Lee, F. J., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Does learning a complex task have to be complex? A study in learning decomposition. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 267–316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Lehmann, A. C., & McArthur, V. (2002). Sight reading. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 135–150). Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Lewicki, P., Hill, T., & Czyzewska, M. (1992). Nonconscious acquisition of information. American Psychologist, 47, 796–801.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Ling, C. X., & Marinov, M. (1994). A symbolic model of the nonconscious acquisition of information. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 595–621.Google Scholar
  108. Logan, G. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 583–598.Google Scholar
  109. Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought, and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91, 295–327.Google Scholar
  110. Logan, G. D., Taylor, S. E., & Etherton, J. L. (1996). Attention in the acquisition and expression of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 620–638.Google Scholar
  111. Lohman, D. F. (1986). Predicting mathemathantic effects in the teaching of higher-order thinking skills. Educational Psychologist, 21(3), 191–208.Google Scholar
  112. Lovett, M. C., & Anderson, J. R. (1996). History of success and current context in problem solving: Combined influences on operator selection. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 168–217.Google Scholar
  113. Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans II: The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12, 181–194.Google Scholar
  114. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Masunaga, H., & Horn, J. (2000). Characterizing mature human intelligence: Expertise development. Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 5–33.Google Scholar
  116. Masunaga, H., & Horn, J. (2001). Expertise and age-related changes in components of intelligence. Psychology and Aging, 16(2), 293–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Maupin, F. (2003). Comparing cognitive task analysis to behavior task analysis in training first year interns to place central venous catheters. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
  118. McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5, 100–22.Google Scholar
  119. McAllister, H. A. (1996). Self-serving bias in the classroom: Who shows it? Who knows it? Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 123–131.Google Scholar
  120. Merrill, M. D. (2002). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 39–44.Google Scholar
  121. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  122. Mullin, T. M. (1989). Experts’ estimation of uncertain quantities and its implications for knowledge acquisition. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 19, 616–625.Google Scholar
  123. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.Google Scholar
  124. Nørretranders, T. (1998). The user illusion. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  125. O’Hare, D. O., Wiggins, M., Williams, A., & Wong, W. (1998). Cognitive task analyses for decision-centred design and training. Ergonomics, 41(11), 1698–1718.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. Phillips, L. H., Wynn, V. E., McPherson, S., & Gilhooly, K. J. (2001). Mental planning and the Tower of London task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, A54(2), 579–597.Google Scholar
  127. Radziszewska, B., & Rogoff, B. (1988). Influence of adult and peer collaborators on children’s planning skills. Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 840–848.Google Scholar
  128. Radziszewska, B., & Rogoff, B. (1991). Children’s guided participation in planning imaginary errands with skilled adult or peer partners. Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 381–389.Google Scholar
  129. Reber, A. S., Kassim, S. M., Lewis, S., & Cantor, S. (1980). On the relationship between implicit and explicit modes of learning a complex rule structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Performance, 6(5), 492–502.Google Scholar
  130. Reder, L. M., & Schunn, C. D. (1996). Metacognition does not imply awareness: Strategy choice is governed by implicit learning and memory. In L. M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 45–77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  131. Schaafstal, A., Schraagen, J. M., & van Berlo, M. (2000). Cognitive task analysis and innovation of training: The case of the structured troubleshooting. Human Factors, 42(1), 75–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. Schneider, W., & Fisk, A. D. (1984). Automatic category search and its transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 10, 1–15.Google Scholar
  133. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66.Google Scholar
  134. Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S. F., & Shute, V. J. (2000). State-of-the-art review of cognitive task analysis techniques. In J. M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman, & V. L. Shalin (Eds.), Cognitive Task Analysis (pp. 467–468). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  135. Schunn, C. D., Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Richards, D. R., & Stroffolino, P. J. (1997). To calculate or not to calculate: A source activation confusion model of problem-familiarity’s role in strategy selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
  136. Schwartz, D., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.Google Scholar
  137. Seamster, T. L., Redding, R. E., & Kaempf, G. L. (2000). A skill-based cognitive task analysis framework. In J. M. C. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman, & V. L. Shalin (Eds.), Cognitive Task Analysis (pp. 135–146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  138. Shiffrin, R. M., & Dumais, S. T. (1981). The development of automatism. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition (pp. 111–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  139. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.Google Scholar
  140. Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G. (1973). Skill in chess. American Scientist, 61, 393–403.Google Scholar
  141. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic mode. Psychological Review, 106, 435–457.Google Scholar
  142. Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  143. Sloutsky, V. M., & Yarlas, A. (2000). Problem representation in experts and novices: Part 2. Underlying processing mechanisms. Proceedings of the XXII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 475–480). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  144. Sohn, Y. W., & Doane, S. M. (2003). Memory processes of flight situation awareness: Interactive roles of working memory capacity, long-term working memory, and expertise. Human Factors, 46(3), 461–476.Google Scholar
  145. Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs, 74, 498.Google Scholar
  146. Squire, L. R., Knowlton, B., & Musen, G. (1993). The structure and organization of memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 453–495.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. Starkes, J. L., Deakin, J. M., Allard, F., Hodges, N. J., & Hayes, A. (1996). Deliberate practice in sports: What is it anyway? In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 81–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  148. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Cognitive conceptions of expertise. In P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Expertise in Context (pp. 149–162). Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence Press.Google Scholar
  149. Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1998). Cognitive conceptions of expertise and their relations to giftedness. In R. C. Friedman & K. B. Rogers (Eds.), Talent in Context (pp. 177–191). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  150. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(2), 176–192.Google Scholar
  151. Taylor, K. L., & Dionne, J. P. (2000). Accessing problem solving strategy knowledge: The complementary use of concurrent verbal protocols and retrospective debriefing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 413–425.Google Scholar
  152. Thompson, S. C., Kyle, D., Osgood, A., Quist, R. M., Phillips, D. J., & McClure, M. (2004). Illusory control and motives for control: The role of connection and intentionality. Motivation and Emotion, 28(4), 315–330.Google Scholar
  153. Thorley, N., & Stofflet, R. (1996). Representation of the conceptual change model in science teacher education. Science Education, 80, 317–339.Google Scholar
  154. Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 334–341.Google Scholar
  155. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. Velmahos, G., Toutouzas, K., Sillin, L., Chan, L., Clark, R. E., Theodorou, D., Maupin, F. (2004). Cognitive task analysis for teaching technical skills in an animate surgical skills laboratory. The American Journal of Surgery, 187, 114–119.Google Scholar
  157. Vicente, K. J. (2000). Revisiting the constraint attunement hypothesis: Reply to Ericsson, Patel, and Kintsch (2000) and Simon and Gobet. Psychological Review, 107(3), 601–608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. Vicente, K. J., & Wang, J. H. (1998). An ecological theory of expertise effects in memory recall. Psychological Review, 105, 33–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. Wegner, D. M. (2002). The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  160. Wheatley, T., & Wegner, D. M. (2001). Automaticity of action, Psychology. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, (pp. 991–993). Oxford, IK: Elsevier Science Limited.Google Scholar
  161. Wickens, C. D. (2002). Situation awareness and workload in aviation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(4), 128–133.Google Scholar
  162. Wigboldus, D. H. J., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). When stereotypes get in the way: Stereotypes obstruct stereotype-inconsistent trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 470–484.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. Wilson, T. D., & Dunn, E. W. (2004). Self-knowledge: Its limits, value, and potential for improvement. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 493–518.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. Wilson, T. D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1978). The accuracy of verbal reports about the effects of stimuli on evaluations and behavior. Social Psychology, 41(2), 118–131.Google Scholar
  165. Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 269–388.Google Scholar
  166. Yarlas, A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2000). Problem representation in experts and novices: Part 1. Differences in the content of representation. Proceedings of the XXII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1006–1011). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  167. Zeitz, C. M. (1997). Some concrete advantages of abstraction: How experts’ representations facilitate reasoning. In P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Expertise in Context (pp. 43–65). Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Studies, College of EducationUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations