From novice to expert

Becoming an Expert/Expertise is commitment coupled with creativity. Specifically, it is the

commitment of time, energy, and resources to a relatively narrow field of study and the creative
energy necessary to generate new knowledge in that field. It takes a considerable amount of time
and regular exposure to a large number of cases to become an expert.
A
An individual enters a field of study as a novice. The novice needs to learn the guiding
principles and rules of a given task in order to perform that task. Concurrently, the novice needs to
be exposed to specific cases, or instances, that test the boundaries of such heuristics. Generally, a
novice will find a mentor to guide her through the process. A fairly simple example would be
someone learning to play chess. The novice chess player seeks a mentor to teach her the object of
the game, the number of spaces, the names of the pieces, the function of each piece, how each piece
is moved, and the necessary conditions for winning or losing the game.
B
In time, and with much practice, the novice begins to recognize patterns of behavior within
cases and. thus, becomes a journeyman. With more practice and exposure to increasingly complex
cases, the journeyman finds patterns not only within cases but also between cases. More
importantly, the journeyman learns that these patterns often repeat themselves over time. The
journeyman still maintains regular contact with a mentor to solve specific problems and learn more
complex strategies. Returning to the example of the chess player, the individual begins to learn
patterns of opening moves, offensive and defensive game-playing strategies, and patterns of victory
and defeat.
C
When a journeyman starts to make and test hypotheses about future behavior based on past
experiences, she begins the next transition. Once she creatively generates knowledge, rather than
simply matching superficial patterns, she becomes an expert. At this point, she is confident in her
knowledge and no longer needs a mentor as a guide—she becomes responsible for her own
knowledge. In the chess example, once a journeyman begins competing against experts, makes
predictions based on patterns, and tests those predictions against actual behavior, she is generating
new knowledge and a deeper understanding of the game. She is creating her own cases rather than
relying on the cases of others.
D
The chess example is a rather short description of an apprenticeship model. Apprenticeship
may seem like a restrictive 18th century mode of education, but it is still a standard method of
training for many complex tasks. Academic doctoral programs are based on an apprenticeship
model, as are fields like law, music, engineering, and medicine. Graduate students enter fields of
study, find mentors, and begin the long process of becoming independent experts and generating
new knowledge in their respective domains.
EPsychologists and cognitive scientists agree that the time it takes to become an expert
depends on the complexity of the task and the number of cases, or patterns, to which an individual
is exposed. The more complex the task, the longer it takes to build expertise, or, more accurately,
the longer it takes to experience and store a large number of cases or patterns.
F
The Power of Expertise
An expert perceives meaningful patterns in her domain better than non-experts. Where a
novice perceives random or disconnected data points, an expert connects regular patterns within and
between cases. This ability to identify patterns is not an innate perceptual skill; rather it reflects the
organization of knowledge after exposure to and experience with thousands of cases. Experts have a
deeper understanding of their domains than novices do, and utilize higher-order principles to solve
problems. A novice, for example, might group objects together by color or size, whereas an expert
would group the same objects according to their function or utility. Experts comprehend the
meaning of data and weigh variables with different criteria within their domains better than novices.
Experts recognize variables that have the largest influence on a particular problem and focus their
attention on those variables.
G
Experts have better domain-specific short-term and long-term memory than novices do.
Moreover, experts perform tasks in their domains faster than novices and commit fewer errors while
problem solving. Interestingly, experts go about solving problems differently than novices. Experts
spend more time thinking about a problem to fully understand it at the beginning of a task than do
novices, who immediately seek to find a solution. Experts use their knowledge of previous cases as
context for creating mental models to solve given problems.
H
Better at self-monitoring than novices, experts are more aware of instances where they have
committed errors or failed to understand a problem. Experts check their solutions more often than
novices and recognize when they are missing information necessary for solving a problem. Experts
are aware of the limits of their domain knowledge and apply their domain's heuristics to solve
problems that fall outside of their experience base.
I
The Paradox of Expertise
The strengths of expertise can also be weaknesses. Although one would expect experts to be
good forecasters, they are not particularly good at making predictions about the future. Since the
1930s, researchers have been testing the ability of experts to make forecasts. The performance of
experts has been tested against actuarial tables to determine if they are better at making predictions
than simple statistical models. Seventy years later, with more than two hundred experiments in
different domains, it is clear that the answer is no. If supplied with an equal amount of data about a
particular case, an actuarial table is as good, or better, than an expert at making calls about the
future. Even if an expert is given more specific case information than is available to the statistical
model, the expert does not tend to outperform the actuarial table.
J
Theorists and researchers differ when trying to explain why experts are less accurate
forecasters than statistical models. Some have argued that experts, like all humans, are inconsistent
when using mental models to make predictions. A number of researchers point to human biases to
explain unreliable expert predictions. During the last 30 years, researchers have categorized,
experimented, and theorized about the cognitive aspects of forecasting. Despite such efforts, the
literature shows little consensus regarding the causes or manifestations of human bias.

Questions 1-5

Choose No More Than Three Words from the Reading Passage for each answer. Write your answers
in boxes 1-5on your answer sheet.
From a novice to an expert
Novice: need to study 1______ under the guidance of a 2______
________3 start to identify 4_______ for cases within or between study more 5 ______ ways of
doing things
Expert: create new knowledge
perform task independently

Questions 6-10
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 1?
In boxes 6-10 on your answer sheet, write
TRUE if the statement is true
FALSE if the statement is false
NOT GIVEN if the information is not given in the passage
6. Novices and experts use the same system of knowledge to comprehend and classify objects.
7. The focus of novices' training is necessarily on long term memory
8. When working out the problems, novices want to solve them straight away.
9. When handling problems, experts are always more efficient than novices in their fields.
10. Expert tend to review more than novices on cases when flaws or limit on understanding
took place.

Questions 11-13
Complete the following summary of the paragraphs of Reading Passage, using No More Than
Two Words from the Reading Passage for each answer. Write your answers in boxes 11-13 on your
answer sheet.
While experts outperform novices and machines in pattern recognition and problem solving,
expert predictions of future behavior or events are seldom as accurate as simple actuarial tables.
Why? Some have tried to explain that experts differ when using cognitive 11 to forecast.
Researchers believe it is due to 12 . However attempting endeavor of finding answers did not yet
produce 13 .