Re: [xmca] Re: Expert / Novice [was POSSIBLE SPAM Copernicus]

Hi Tony-- Nice thought on the heterogeneity of expertise. The automaticity
feature is accompanied, is it not,
by a domain-specific inclusivity? Seeing larger patterns "at a glance."? It
wold be interesting to put this
way of talking togeter with Michaels indivdiual/societal dialectic
perspective.
mike

On 6/28/07, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:
>
> I think part of the joy a parent experiences with an infant child is the
> child's ability to make things appear wonderful again, after the adult has
> learned to not see the wonder, having sedimented de-problematizing ways of
> negotiating in the world.
> In that sense, with repect to learning, maybe the infant could be
> regarded as having a kind of expertise in being able to see things anew
> -- which is the flip side of not yet seeing them in a more discerning way
> -- but could help the adult learn to see them otherwise, or differently
> (or even better).
> On the other hand, "expertise" does have an established meaning in
> Cognitive Science, and that meaning involves seeing things in a way
> characterized by automaticity -- which from another POV could be regarded
> as seeing them more opaquely ("chunking," etc.).
>
> What do you think?
>
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Paul Dillon wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> > I haven't read your article yet I'm wondering whether you equate
> professor with expert, student with novice? This clearly would make your
> statement about expertise being up for grabs a bit circular, no?
> >
> > Often a student has insights into a specific problem that the professor
> doesn't, but you are now at the graduate level, right? That is already
> stratospheric in relation to the first year physics student being taught a
> section by the grad student. It is unlikely that the freshman could
> distinguish between the expertise of the professor or the grad student in a
> conversation about physics.
> >
> > Paul Dillon
> >
> > Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > thinking from an ontology of difference----the hardest thing for many
> > Westerners subject to individualist ideology---means that we are
> > different from ourselves, that heterogeneity is at the hard of
> > sameness and Self. This also means that expertise is heterogeneous,
> > within individuals and across, and even within itself. This, then,
> > makes the ontological opposition of THE expert and THE novice highly
> > questionable. In a paper that David Middleton and I published not too
> > long ago, we show how this turns out to be the case in research
> > interviews conducted with respect to graphing by an undergraduate
> > physics students with professors in his own department, and who is
> > expert and who is novice with respect to a particular issue
> > continuously is up for grab.
> > Cheers,
> > Michael
> >
> > Roth, W.-M., & Middleton, D. (2006). The making of asymmetries of
> > knowing, identity, and accountability in the sequential organization
> > of graph interpretation. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 11–
> > 81.
> >
> >
> > On 27-Jun-07, at 7:36 PM, Louise Hawkins wrote:
> >
> > I also find issue with the distinction between expert and novice, as if
> > the expert has something to give and the novice something to receive.
> > How many times is it the student who poses a question that raises a
> > point that the 'expert' learns from?
> >
> > Louise
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 June 2007 04:37 AM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: RE: [Possible SPAM] Re: [Possible SPAM] Re: [xmca] Copernicus,
> > Darwinand Bohr
> >
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > Why this distinction between expert and novice? What does it really buy
> > us? And who gets to make the distinction? It seems to me in an
> > expert/novice scenario all power lies in the hands of those who get to
> > make this distinction on whatever level, and get to define the two
> > classes. Take a look at the political class in the United States, we
> > define experts as those who have the right cultural capital, wear the
> > right type of ties and suits, who speak in somber, modulated voices with
> > a weary sigh of resignation, suggesting "of course you cannot see what I
> > can see, but trust me."
> >
> > This is not to say every generation starts from scratch. Every
> > generation starts with the tools that they have, but then they figure
> > out how to use those tools to solve what invariably must be new
> > problems, or they develop new tools out of the old tools. Let's say we
> > have a set of spears we use to hunt food. There are great spear
> > throwers who use those spears and teach others to use them as well.
> > Their "expertise" in spear throwing gives them great power within the
> > community. But things change, and the spears that were once used on
> > larger animals are not as good for smaller animals. Are the spear
> > throwers going to give up their place in the community as "experts?" Or
> > are they going to say, well if we just wait, or if we use the spear in a
> > different way, or it is the fault of our lazy children who do not train
> > in spear throwing the way previous generations did. Meanwhile the food
> > supply dwindles for the community. A young person examines the spear
> > and says, hmmm, the arrow head pierces the skin but it cannot reach the
> > skin with these new animals that we hunt. Perhaps I can create
> > something else - a bow and arrow perhaps. But she is not an expert.
> > Who, in a hierarchical system of knowledge development would listen and
> > adopt the work of this young innovator? This is always the danger of a
> > heirarchical system of knowledge development.
> >
> > In a more lateral system of development information is everything. As a
> > species were are problem solvers, but our problem solving is based on
> > the easy access and flow of information. I just read the most
> > fascinating article by the economist Amriyat (sp?) Sen. In it he talks
> > about famine. He makes a really good argument that famine is almost
> > never about food. There is always enough food even in some of the major
> > famines of the twentieth century. It is about the lack of capability
> > for getting to the food. At its core the lack of information as a tool
> > in obtaining this basic human function. What else is there other than
> > information. When we define information as static and give it value
> > separate from the problems we are working on, isn't that when we find
> > the most trouble, have the most difficulties in problems solving?
> >
> > I watch my son play his World of Warcraft game. I wish I knew more
> > about it. But I see him adapting and recalibrating constantly,
> > developing strategies and processes that see incredible to me. It is a
> > virtual world in which there are no "experts." The world and my son and
> > the other players co-exist.
> >
> > I don't know if I've done such a good job trying to explore this.
> > Perhaps a problem that needs greater consideration.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin Packer
> > Sent: Tue 6/26/2007 2:04 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Possible SPAM] Re: [Possible SPAM] Re: [xmca] Copernicus,
> > Darwinand Bohr
> >
> >
> >
> > Michael, you would have each generation start on their own, from
> > scratch? No
> > experts, just novices? That really is a post-apocalyptic vision!
> >
> > My point was there is more to life (and education) than "functioning"
> > and
> > "information." The danger with the tool metaphor, and the emphasis on
> > artifacts as tools, is that they reduce all of life to the production
> > process. That is not just a conceptual mistake, it is a political
> > agenda. To
> > argue that thinking is not important, only tool use, is not to argue
> > against
> > formalization, it is to promote a purely instrumental conception of
> > human
> > action and interaction. It is to promote an extreme version of the
> > division
> > of labor, in which only a tiny elite get to think about the nature of
> > thinking, and everyone else is simply using tools skillfully but
> > thoughtlessly.
> >
> > On 6/26/07 12:40 PM, "Michael Glassman" wrote:
> >
> >> But if this information is so important, and it exists as part of the
> > problem
> >> solving tools of humanity, don't we trust humans to discover it
> > through their
> >> own activities?
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
> > Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
> Tony Whitson
> UD School of Education
> NEWARK DE 19716
>
> twhitson@udel.edu
> _______________________________
>
> "those who fail to reread
> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Thu Jun 28 08:08 PDT 2007