It’s not just that there is a lot of information in an expert’s long-term memory; it’s also that the information in that memory is organized differently from the information in a novice’s long-term memory.
**
This generalization—that experts have abstract knowledge of problem types but novices do not—seems to be true of teachers too.When confronted with a classroom management problem, novice teachers typically jump right into trying to solve the problem, but experts first seek to define the problem, gathering more information if necessary. Thus expert teachers have knowledge of different types of classroom management problems. Not surprisingly, expert teachers more often solve these problems in ways that address root causes and not just the behavioral incident.
**
...that transfer is so difficult because novices tend to focus on surface features and are not very good at seeing the abstract, functional relationships among problems that are key to solving them. Well, that is what experts are great at. They have representations of problems and situations in their long-term memories, and those representations are abstract.That’s why experts are able to ignore unimportant details and home in on useful information; thinking functionally makes it obvious what’s important.That’s also why they show good transfer to new problems. New problems differ in surface structure, but experts recognize the deep, abstract structure. That’s also why their judgments usually are sensible, even if they are not quite right.
**
The second way to get around the limited size of working memory is to practice procedures so many times that they become automatic.That way the procedures don’t take space in working memory.Tie your shoes a few hundred times and you no longer need to think about it; your fingers just fly through the routine without any direction from thought processes that would crowd working memory. Experts have automatized many of the routine, frequently used procedures that early in their training required careful thought. Expert bridge players can count the points in a hand without thinking about it. Expert surgeons can tie sutures automatically. Expert teachers have routines with which they begin and end class, call for attention, deal with typical disruptions, and so on. It’s interesting to note that novice teachers often script their lessons, planning exactly what they will say. Expert teachers typically do not.They plan different ways that they will discuss or demonstrate a concept, but they don’t write out scripts, which suggests that the process of translating abstract ideas into words that their students can understand has become automatic.
**
Over the last fifty years there have been a few instances in which a researcher has gained access to a good number (ten or more) of prominent scientists, who have agreed to be interviewed at length, take personality and intelligence tests, and so forth.The researcher has then looked for similarities in the backgrounds, interests, and abilities of these great men and women of science.The results of these studies are fairly consistent in one surprising finding.The great minds of science were not distinguished as being exceptionally brilliant, as measured by standard IQ tests; they were very smart, to be sure, but not the standouts that their stature in their fields might suggest.What was singular was their capacity for sustained work. Great scientists are almost always workaholics. Each of us knows his or her limit; at some point we need to stop working and watch a stupid television program, read People magazine, or something similar. Great scientists have incredible persistence, and their threshold for mental exhaustion is very high
**
Experts are not simply better at thinking in their chosen field than novices are; experts actually think in ways that are qualitatively different.
**
They have worked in their field for years, and the knowledge and experience they have accumulated enables them to think in ways that are not open to the rest of us. Thus, trying to get your students to think like them is not a realistic goal.Your reaction may well be, “Well, sure. I never really expected that my students are going to win the Nobel Prize! I just want them to understand some science.” That’s a worthy goal, and it is very different from the goal of students thinking like scientists.
Styles, Abilities and Multiple Intelligences
Why Is It Hard to Make Students Think Like Experts?
Why Is It So Hard for Students to Understand Abstract Ideas?
Why Do Students Remember Everything That’s on Television and Forget Everything I Say?
Factual knowledge must precede skill
Why Don't Students Like School?
