Expert Thinking as a Way of Knowing

An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes, which can be made, in
a very narrow field. - Niels Henrik David Bohr (1885-1962)

Years ago when the movie The Bone Collector was released, my friend, the author of the book version, was asked repeatedly how he felt about the movie adaptation. His standard answer was he would have done some things differently however his expertise was in writing novels not in writing screenplays. While it is understandable that each writing environment requires its own set of special knowledge, the author’s statement about expertise carries a stereotype that the specializations in a particular field constrain the ability to apply the specialized knowledge in another interrelated context. It conjures up the image of a specialist rather than expert. The use of the word ‘expert’ is commonly used as evident in the daily newspapers, often without explanation about who these experts really are. In everyday life we may not take time to consider who these experts are but the notion of expert does become important when need to base decisions in knowledge.

What exactly is an expert? Merriam- Webster Online defines an expert as one having, involving, or displaying special skills or knowledge derived from training or experience. Answers.com describes an expert as a person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject. These vague descriptions are not helpful in explaining the depth of expertise. Wikipedia.com suggests that people who are able to solve problems are specialists but those that have to know the solution to a problem are experts. This gives a clue that expertise involves a ‘knowing’. Digging deeper into understanding the nature and process of expertise gives insight into how experts come to know, of what expert thinking consists, and offers how expert thinking is a distinct way of knowing.

While the notion of expertise has been debated over the course of history, we have the technology revolution to thank for modern research in the development of what comprises expert thinking. The need to advance the production of Artificial Intelligence has propelled researchers to understand the process how experts think and know. As a result, a core of research on novice-expert comparisons emerged. This core research has provided the foundation for more recent novice-expert comparisons studies in education (i.e. Angell, Ryder, & Scott, 2005), nursing and medicine (i.e. Daley, 1999; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 2005), and economics and investment markets (i.e. Mauboussin, 2005). Table 1 highlights this early research which is frequently summarized in the literature reviews of more recent studies (i.e. Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Thompson, Licklider, & Junst, 2003).

Table 1: Summary of Early Novice – Expert Comparison Research
Research Findings
De Groot (1965): study with chess masters
Experts are better at recognizing meaningful patterns.
Chase & Simon ( 1973): study with chess players Experts use recognizable chunks of ‘good’ knowledge; have a ‘vocabulary’ of sub patterns.
Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser (1981): study of physics problems by experts and novices Experts use a qualitative approach through categorization and representation when solving problems.
Glaser (1992): Study on the nature of expertise Experts are able to access appropriate knowledge.
Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson (1994): Cognitive Flexibility Theory Experts effortlessly retrieve relevant knowledge.
Wineburg (1998): study on the comparison of two history experts Experts use self-regulation: asks appropriate questions, monitors responses, and persists until confusion passes.
Hatano & Inagaki (1986): adaptive expertise Experts use knowledge efficiently with flexibility and innovation.

The core research provides good descriptions of what expert actions look like in comparison to the novice actions, but researching expert thinking as a comparison to novice thinking does not reveal all that comprises expert thinking. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) describe the limitations of these studies. Typically novice- expert comparison studies lack attention to the dynamics of how experts develop and maintain expert thinking. Also, because of the comparison nature of the study, tasks must be chosen that can be dealt with by both the novice and experts. This means that the expert is most likely not challenged at the edge of competency, a position that could possibly reveal much about expert thinking. Information that is vital to the understanding of how expertise is a way of knowing is missing from these studies. Rather than focus on the difference in thinking between novices and experts in order to understand expert thinking, exploring expert thinking distinctly reveals more to explain how expert thinking is a way of knowing.

Having a general picture of expertise from the earlier research does not answer the big question: Where does expertise come from and what is it? Expert performance requires about ten years of deliberate practice and experience (Mauboussin, 2005). However, experience alone is not enough to lead one on the path towards expertise (Lampert & Clark, 1990). Expertise also comes from having knowledge and skills in a particular discipline. Knowledge is not simply the knowing of content. Understanding the complexities of knowledge and the different components which make up knowledge helps to explain why expertise goes beyond knowing content. Knowledge consists of both formal and covert knowledge (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). Formal knowledge is that body of truths that have been created through negotiation in society. Its function is to provide justifications when providing solutions to problems. Another use of formal knowledge is to provide a means of sharing knowledge. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) state that “it takes formal knowledge to get formal knowledge” (p.64). Lastly, formal knowledge is the background for the construction of new skills and informal knowledge. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) explain that “formal knowledge is converted into skill by being used to solve problems of procedure” and it “is converted into informal knowledge by being used to solve problems of understanding” (p. 66).

Covert knowledge is subdivided further into informal knowledge, impressionistic knowledge and self-regulatory knowledge (Bereiter & Scardamalia,1993). To understand expertise is to acknowledge this hidden knowledge because the degree to which these forms are used together with formal knowledge directs the level of expert thinking. Informal knowledge is educated common sense. The expert is able to solve a problem based on what makes sense in light of integrating prior facts and experiences from similar problems. Impressionistic knowledge is intuition, the feelings that allow individuals to make connections and relive experiences. It depends on emotional response. When impressionistic knowledge is applied effectively, it provides the expert with the ability to make quick and sound judgments. Self-regulatory knowledge functions as metacognition: thinking about thinking. By applying self-regulatory knowledge effectively, experts develop the ability to know when one strategy is not working and when to apply another (Levy & Murnane, 2004).

The abilities of expertise as described by Bereiter and Scardamalia can be thought of in another way. Pink (2005) views expert thinking as a whole mind process. Left (brain) directed thinking is the analysis piece. Right (brain) directed thinking synthesizes the big picture. In expert thinking, both of these are highly developed. Left directed thinking is sequential, literal, and textual. Right directed thinking is simultaneous, metaphorical, and contextual. Because our culture spends much time cultivating left directed thinking, we are attuned to this type of thinking. Right directed thinking is generally not specifically cultivated in our education system. However expert thinking requires right directed thinking working in concert with left directed thinking. Table 2 summarizes Pink’s (2005 p.65) whole mind by illustrating the left directed thinking with its corresponding right directed thinking.

Table 2: Pink’s Whole New Mind
Left directed thinking Right directed thinking
Functional Design
Argument Story
Focus Symphony
Logic Empathy
Seriousness Play
Accumulation Meaning

Design is the human ability to shape the world and environment in ways that go beyond what nature has created. It has two components: utility and significance. The expert thinker uses design to communicate effectively and with meaning.
Story is the human ability to put information in a context and to communicate with emotional impact. Developing story allows the expert thinker to “sharpen understanding of one thing by showing it in the context of something else” (Pink, 2005, p. 101).
Symphony is the human ability to synthesize. Expert thinking consists of the ability to see the big picture and/or to bring together pieces into a whole new picture. This aptitude allows experts to cross domains, make connections, and understand the interrelatedness of domains and concepts.

Empathy is the human ability to understand other human beings and to use this knowledge to forge relationships. The aptitude requires attachment in order to recognize interaction.
Play is represented by games, humor, and joyfulness. Each of these promotes healthy outcomes for the expert. The expert thinker uses the aptitude of play to be inventive, sophisticated in thinking, and productive.

In Pink’s (2005) whole new mind, meaning is the human ability to find purpose, spirituality, and a meditative state. The expert thinker calls on this ability in order to free up the mind to allow creativity to develop.
The ‘whole new mind’ is a model of expert thinking. With the development of both left-directed thinking and right directed thinking, experts view their world more holistically and with more depth.

Another notion of expertise has recently emerged: routine vs. adaptive expertise (Bransford, Derry, Berliner, & Hammerness, 2005, Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). Continued learning is present in both forms. The difference between the two lies in what happens to the core competencies learned by the experts. After developing a set of core competencies, beliefs, and ideas, a routine expert will apply these competencies throughout their career with greater and greater efficiency. On the other hand, an adaptive expert continually restructures their core competencies, expanding the reach of their expertise. The goal of adaptive expertise is to handle problems that arise in uncharted waters. While routine expertise promotes efficiency and adaptive expertise promotes flexibility, innovation, and eventual efficiency.

A possible downfall of expertise has been described as the “expert blind spot” (Nathan & Koedinger, 2000, p. 21). As applied to teachers, Nathan and Petrosino (2000) define how “well-developed subject matter knowledge can lead people to assume that learning should follow the structure of the subject-matter domain rather than the learning needs and developmental profiles of novices” (p. 3). As applied to expertise in general, the expert becomes entrenched in the “rigid behaviors that accompany the automated processes” (Nathan & Petrosino, 2000, p.6) of the discipline. A practice of adaptive expertise counteracts the problems of “expert blind spot” because it promotes extension of one’s expert ability into other contexts.
Knowing the types of knowledge at work in expert thinking helps to explain the findings from the core research. Expert thinking can be described as consisting of the organization of all knowledge into schemas, effective pattern recognition from knowledge, thinking about thinking, and an understanding when to be persistent in a strategy and when it is time to try something else. It is not enough to say that an expert has these types of knowledge but also that the expert applies them to a high degree and maintains expertise. Experts take on higher level problems and work at the edge of their competency. They apply known skills using a ‘best fit approach’ to problem solving which frees up mental processes for more high level thinking. Experts reinvest in learning. They build their lives around deliberate practice but with balance; sleep and play are critical components in the process (Mauboussin, 2005). Expertise is intentionally and “effortfully acquiring abilities that carry us beyond what nature has specifically prepared us to do” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993, p.3). Expert thinking is how one handles things in the absence of rules (Levy, 2006).

The descriptions of expertise and the components of expert thinking have implications for research and inquiry. Expert thinking is comprised of a multitude of functions that allow us to apply a well-rounded approach to problem solving. The use of formal knowledge is a well known contributor in research. The formal knowledge of expert thinking is applied as a way to justify and explain our claims and reasons for making inquiries. Formal knowledge provides the researcher with the philosophical assumptions and stances within a discipline and offers the theoretical frameworks of a study. It helps us to process the rational and logical viewpoint. Because an expert’s knowledge in a particular area is connected and organized around important ideas within the discipline, expert knowledge guides the researcher to know when, why, how, information is relevant.
When applied as expert thinking, the left-directed thinking described by Pink (2005) guides the researcher in literature reviews, which are functional and logical approaches to understanding what is known about an issue. Focus is essential in a literature review to build an argument for the importance of an issue by using all the known findings accumulated in the literature on the topic of study. In creating a logical and defensible report, a researcher utilizes functions of left-directed expert thinking. These aptitudes of expert thinking guide inquiry in deductive directions and are types of thinking that facilitate more quantitative processes.
The application of informal and impressionistic knowledge results in the ability to make connections between data, to use prior experiences that could lead inquiries in the right direction and maybe to shift questioning in the middle of a participant interview when intuition suggests another path. Applying informal knowledge of expertise provides opportunities for the researcher to take risks because previous experiences may have resulted in success. The impressionistic knowledge component of expert thinking relies on the fact that we are emotional and feeling beings. The processes of expertise require the individual to become “more and more emotionally involved in the task” (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 2005, p. 785). There is an emotional consequence in restructuring core beliefs and ideas, as performed in adaptive expertise. In research this may allow the inquirer to more readily detach from the rules that limit extension of knowledge and to explore beyond what is currently held as truth. This is in direct opposition to Descartes’ objective and rational view of problem solving. Researching without the constraints of rules can lead to new discoveries, new methods for collecting data, or new ways to see problems. The self-regulation knowledge of expertise guides the researcher to know when paths are leading nowhere and when a change of course or an alternative research technique is necessary. Using these aspects of expertise reflects the ability to meet the changes in society and to the researcher, the opportunity to inquire in new areas that need to be studied.

Pink’s (2005) right- directed expert thinking guides researchers to view in concert (symphony) the interconnectedness between theories, methods, data, and the sociopolitical impacts of the research. It is essential in research for these pieces to mesh together coherently in order for the study to have persuasiveness and credibility. Some research studies seek to tell the story of the participants in order to gain insight into the role of culture on behaviors or the interactions among people. Using methods that make the stories of the participants come alive as well as communicating these stories in context of the research questions require right-directed expert thinking. Brewer and Hunter (2006) describe the use of mixing metaphors or crossover theories “to suggest new ways of looking at phenomena” (p.56). This technique requires placing understanding developed in one context into a different context in order to generate different research problems. Expert thinking facilitates this kind of activity.

Researchers are called upon to design their inquiries in such as way that they effectively communicate their purpose and find meaning in the data collected in order to make influential conclusions. Right directed aptitudes foster the inventiveness (play) required when researchers perform exploratory studies or need to seek alternative methods of data collection when traditional methods are not sufficient to answer research questions. In order to gain access to certain research settings and participants, inquirers need to have an understanding of those they choose to study. Crucial to interview situations, trust and confidence must be established between interviewer and interviewee. An empathic researcher has the ability to form a strong bond with the participants, and in turn elicit rich and substantial responses to questions. With compassion for the human condition, researchers unearth research questions and seek to find answers. As a result and in conjunction with meaning, knowledge is produced that benefits humankind. As shown, right-directed expert thinking has many implications for questions that seek a holistic view and qualitative research activities.

While the various types of knowledges and thinking that comprise expertise have been discussed in isolation, this by no means implies that expert thinking is made up of pieces or parts of the different knowledges and aptitudes described. The strength in using expert thinking as a way of knowing lies in the process of applying all components together in problem solving. With respect to research and inquiry, expert thinking abilities together provide the researcher with a way of knowing which is favorable to mulitmethod research. Left-directed thinking and right-directed thinking come together with formal, informal, impressionistic, self-regulation knowledge and functions of routine and adaptive expertise to guide the researcher in asking questions, applying a variety of methods, and making conclusions that contribute to the body of knowledge in a particular discipline. It is these aptitudes that give the researcher the know-how to appropriately use a variety of methods. Researchers who rely on expert thinking to guide inquiry ask questions

References
Angell, C., Ryder, J., & Scott, P.H. (2005). Becoming an expert teacher: Novice physics teachers' development of conceptual and pedagogical knowledge. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference in Barcelona. Retrieved online November 7, 2006 from http://www.fys.uio.no/~carla/ARS_2005.pdf
Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D, & Hammerness, K. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford B. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp.48-49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. Chicago: Open Court.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research.
Dreyfus, H. and Dreyfus, S. (2005). Expertise in real world contexts, Organization Studies, 26(5), 779-792.
Hatano, G. & Inagaki, I. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Ed.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman.
Lampert, M., & Clark, C. (1990). Expert knowledge and expert thinking in teaching: A response to Floden and Klinzing. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 21-23.
Levy, F. (2006) Nightly Business Report, Darren Gersh Work in Progress, May 29, 2006 retrieved on November 7, 2006 from http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/060529a/
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Mauboussin, M. (2005). Are you an expert? Legg Mason Capital Management, 1- 11. Retrieved November 7, 2006 from http://www.leggmason.com/funds/knowledge/mauboussin/Are_you_an_expert.pdf .
National Research Council (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nathan, M., & Koedinger, K. (2000). An investigation of teachers’ beliefs of students’ algebra development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 207-235.
Nathan, M., & Petrosino, A. (2002, October). Expert blind spot among pre-service mathematics and science teachers. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle, Washington. Retrieved on November 7, 2006 from http://www.edb.utexas.edu/petrosino/big12/Nathan-Petrosino-ICLS.pdf.
Pink, D. (2005). A whole new mind. New York: Riverhead Books.
Thompson, J., Licklider, B., & Lunst, S. (2003). Learner-centered teaching: Postsecondary strategies that promote “thinking like a professional.” Theory into Practice, 42(2), 133-141.
Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319- 346.