Cognitive conceptions of expertise and their relations to giftedness.

Abstract

To be recognized as gifted is to be an expert in something: getting good scores on intelligence tests, gaining high grades in school, performing well on a job, o r being a superb instrumentalist. To understand what giftedness is, we need to understand first the various ways in which people (children or adults) come to be viewed as experts. In effect, we need to integrate research on expertise with research on giftedness. In this chapter, we discuss eight views of expertise and examine the relevance of each view t o giftedness. Our view is that, whether we recognize it or not, giftedness is a form of recognized expertise, whether in taking tests, getting grades, or performing on the job. The first three views that are reviewed are ones that have guided research at one time or another, we may call them received views of expertise. These views include (a) the general-process view, according to which experts are people who solve problems by different processes from those used by nonexperts or who use the same processes more rapidly than do nonexperts; (b) the quantity-of-knowledge view, according to which experts simply know more than do nonexperts; and (c) the knowledge-organization view, according to which experts organize their knowledge more effectively than do nonexperts.The next four views are based on the triarchic theory of human intelligence (Sternberg, 1985) but correspond to intuitions people have had as to what constitutes an expert. These conceptions include (d) the ability to automatize information processing, which may be seen as the ability to solve the same problems as novices but use fewer cognitive resources to do so; (e) analytical ability in solving problems, which may be seen as the ability to use effectively the knowledge one has; (f) creative ability, which may be seen as the ability to reformulate problems insightfully so as to arrive at solutions that are both novel and appropriate; and (g) practical ability, which may be seen as the ability to adapt one's solution attempts Research for this chapter was supported by the Javits Act program (Grant #R206R00001) as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US. Department of Education and the U.S. Army Research Institute (Contract MDA903-92-K). Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged to express their professional judgment f?eely. This chapter, therefore, does not represent the position or policies of the US. government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention

“…Rather, it means that for any given individual, intellectual ability can always be further developed. (See, e.g., the description of academic ability as developing expertise in Sternberg & Horvath, 1998. )…”

Multistage Complexity in Language Proficiency Assessment: A Framework for Aligning Theoretical Perspectives, Test Development, and Psychometrics

“…5. I am using "automatic" in the context of cognitive restructuring that results in automaticity (e.g., see Sternberg & Horvath, 1998) 6. ECD provides a conceptual framework that that is fully compatible with the language proficiency assessment framework offered in this article.…”

The Implications of Research on Expertise for Curriculum and Pedagogy

“…The effectiveness and efficiency emerge not only as consequences of acquired expertise within a domain. They also further improve performance by freeing up limited cognitive resources to accommodate atypical features or other added cognitive demands that may arise within a task (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993;Sternberg & Horvath, 1998).…”

“…Some authors argue that the term "expert" should refer only to individuals whose performance is consistently superior to that of non-experts in the essential skills of a domain (e.g., Dawes, 1994;Ericsson & Smith, 1991). Others suggest that discrete sets of competencies are inauthentic and do not capture the true nature of expert performance in authentic settings (Sternberg & Horvath, 1998). Furthermore, criteria for evaluating the identified performances also differ between domains and tend to be applied inconsistently between cases (Cellier, Eyrolle, & Mariné, 1997;Sternberg, 1997).…”