+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reconsidering the dimensions of expertise: from linear stages towards dual processing


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          This paper explores the developing concept of expertise, taking the Dreyfus and Dreyfus staged model as its starting point. It analyses criticism of the Dreyfus model and considers more recent attempts to resolve the tensions implicit within it. The authors go on to suggest ways some of the later modifications can be improved. The traditional notion of intuition is revisited and thereafter a new and novel way of visualising expertise is presented as a dual-processing relationship between chains of practice and the underlying networks of understanding. These chain and net knowledge structures have been revealed through the analysis of concept maps produced by numerous cohorts of students and teachers. It is argued that a visualisation of the dynamic relationship between the dimensions of expertise provides an emerging theoretical framework for a more general reappraisal of teaching in higher education. This reconsideration of expertise may be the catalyst for dialogue about educational practice within disciplines (between lecturers and between lecturers and students), and between lecturers and educational developers. This dialogue will strengthen disciplinary communities of practice and place the agenda for pedagogic change within the context of the academic disciplines.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends.

            Research in clinical reasoning has been conducted for over 30 years. Throughout this time there have been a number of identifiable trends in methodology and theory. This paper identifies three broad research traditions, ordered chronologically, are: (a) attempts to understand reasoning as a general skill--the "clinical reasoning" process; (b) research based on probes of memory--reasoning related to the amount of knowledge and memory; and (c) research related to different kinds of mental representations--semantic qualifiers, scripts, schemas and exemplars. Several broad themes emerge from this review. First, there is little evidence that reasoning can be characterised in terms of general process variables. Secondly, it is evident that expertise is associated, not with a single basic representation but with multiple coordinated representations in memory, from causal mechanisms to prior examples. Different representations may be utilised in different circumstances, but little is known about the characteristics of a particular situation that led to a change in strategy. It becomes evident that expertise lies in the availability of multiple representations of knowledge. Perhaps the most critical aspect of learning is not the acquisition of a particular strategy or skill, nor is it the availability of a particular kind of knowledge. Rather, the critical element may be deliberate practice with multiple examples which, on the hand, facilitates the availability of concepts and conceptual knowledge (i.e. transfer) and, on the other hand, adds to a storehouse of already solved problems.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Knowing-In-Action: The New Scholarship Requires a New Epistemology

               Donald Schön (1995)

                Author and article information

                London Review of Education
                IOE Press
                01 July 2010
                : 8
                : 2
                : 153-166
                1474-8460(20100701)8:2L.153;1- s6.phd /ioep/clre/2010/00000008/00000002/art00006


                Comment on this article

                Similar content 65

                Cited by 44

                Most referenced authors 156