This research investigates the development of transferable-"adaptive"-expertise. The study contrasts problem-solving performance of two kinds of experts (business consultants and restaurant managers) on novel problems at the intersection of their two domains, as well as a group of novices (non-business undergraduates). Despite a lack of restaurant experience, consultants performed better than restaurant managers and undergraduates, even though the problems concerned a restaurant. Process measures suggest this was due to the use of more theoretical reasoning. Analyses show this resulted from differences in work experience and not other factors (e.g., education). We discuss aspects of experience that might be responsible for development of theoretical understanding and, thus, expertise that transfers to novel problems. One possible explanation, consistent with existing research from multiple approaches, is that to transfer to novel problems, experience must include substantive variability. The social context of learning may also play a role. Some argue that learning does not transfer to novel situations, and therefore that education should focus on teaching the precise knowledge that will be needed later (Detterman, 1993). However, educators cannot predict exactly what individuals will need to know in a rapidly changing world. Thus many problems faced, at work and elsewhere, will necessarily be new and unfamiliar. How can performance on such novel problems be enhanced, that is, how can transferable or so-called "adaptive" expertise (Hatano, 1982) be developed? several anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this article; Laura Eselius, Amy Leahy, Jai Sweet, and Jack Young for painstaking help with coding; Cara Olsen for invaluable help with statistical issues; and the participants and "super-exper t" judges for giving freely of their time.
Every two weeks infants 8 to 22 weeks old were shown two balls, one at a time. Although both balls were within reach, one was of a graspable size while the other was too large to grasp. Before the infants were capable of reaching, grasping at the midline was more likely to occur in the presence of the graspable rather than the non-graspable ball. This suggests that grasping activity is coordinated with visual information about the graspability of an object even before the infant has had experience reaching.
In Theory and Evidence Barbara Koslowski brings into sharp focus the ways in which the standard literature both distorts and underestimates the reasoning abilities of ordinary people. She provides the basis for a new research program on a more complete characterization of scientific reasoning, problem solving, and causality. Long acknowledged for her empirical work in the field of cognitive development, Koslowski boldy criticizes many of the currently classic studies and musters a compelling set of arguments, backed by an exhaustive set of experiments carried out during the last decade.
Theory and Evidence describes research that looks at the beliefs that people hold about the type of evidence that counts in scientific reasoning and also examines how those beliefs change with age. The primary focus is on the strategies that underlie actual scientific practice: two general sorts of research are reported, one on hypothesis testing and the other on how people deal with evidence that disconfirms a given explanation—the process of hypothesis revision.
Koslowski argues that when scientific reasoning is operationally defined so that correct performance consists of focusing on covariation and ignoring considerations of theory or mechanisms, then subjects are often treated as engaging in flawed reasoning when in fact their reasoning is scientifically legitimate. Neither relying on covariation alone nor relying on theory alone constitutes a formula for success.
Bradford Books imprint
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.