Picture this scenario. You are sitting in a class, a math class for example, especially if math is not your forté and you are totally lost. You try with every fiber of your being to understand what the content is all about, but to no avail. You stay after class to ask the professor to explain the topic and he gladly spins into a long dissertation while you nod your head approvingly, but in actuality you are still lost. You leave thinking that you will never get through this class because the professor does not connect with your level of knowledge. You feel like a complete and total failure because everyone else around you seems to understand. After a query of the other students, you discover that you are not the only person who is lost. On the other hand, have you ever been in a class where questions are asked to relate the topic to the level of experience in the class? In this same class examples and graphics are used, and the professor has a distinct desire to ensure that everyone in the class has a formative idea of the new information that is being presented. When the professor sees questioning looks he stops to inquire where the stumbling block is. He tries different techniques and mixes the instruction with lecture and application exercises. He engages the class in active discussion about the topic to ascertain who has misconceptions. Those are two examples of varied and differing styles of instruction. Those are the classic examples of expert and novice instructors.

        Experts are brilliant in their field of knowledge. They have spent countless years amassing that knowledge. They have begun their journey to becoming an expert with a core of knowledge and have built upon that information in very specialized ways. Each learning experience has been categorized and has added to the body of knowledge as in a filing cabinet of the mind. They have layered their knowledge surrounding that core and have access to it readily when posed a question by flexible retrieval. They are very detail oriented and readily notice patterns of information and how they fit within the whole puzzle. However deep their understanding, they often are not the best educators because they have very deep content knowledge but often lack pedagogical knowledge which equates to an understanding of the needs of students and the empirical ways in which students process information.

        I may be flattering myself when I say that I believe that I am an expert in the teaching field. I not only deeply care about my students’ understanding of the course objectives, but also strive to provide multiple strategies that appeal to their particular learning styles. I use differentiated learning approaches when I see that something is not working and do not rest until I achieve mastery or understand why mastery is not obtainable. In short, I think that I am the sort of expert that possesses not only the knowledge of the content, but also the knowledge of how learners learn most effectively. I cannot say that I know everything because I am always seeking new and innovative ways to improve what I do already. I can shift gears on a moment’s notice if a particular lesson is not working to meet the needs of my students rather than just covering material. I evaluate my approach to the objectives based on the assessments I conduct with the students, both formally and informally. When I feel that what I am teaching does not mesh with the students, I retrieve from my repertoire experiences that will complement the students ability. Pinpointing their particular area of difficulty. It is for those reasons that I think that I am an expert or at least on my way to becoming one.

        The novice educator knows his content but his understanding of the content is more broad than deep. He often presents his objectives in the same way, touching on many points but not allowing the students deep understanding of many concepts. He does not have automaticity in his retrieval because he has to process through his information when asked a question. Because of the breadth rather than depth of his knowledge, he sometimes cannot find solutions to problems. His content knowledge is superficial because he cannot see the relationships in information. He dabbles in his particular area of specialization but does not have a solid basis for true understanding and application of the same. However, he often posses the knowledge of pedagogical issues and can relate information to students better than an expert because he can begin at a rudimentary level/

        I would have to say that my son from Croatia, (to further explain how that is, he was an exchange student of mine who lived with me for 9 years), is an expert skier. I am definitely a sub-novice skier. He is the classic example of an expert who does not have the ability to teach. We have been to numerous ski resorts together like Ruidosa, and Angel Fire, which are relatively easy courses and the more difficult like Taos and Breckenridge. He has skied all over Europe and has a solid core of black trail skiing which is the most difficult and has gone on to moguls which are snow bumps on a long course and snowboarding. I, on the other hand, ski green trails, which are the least difficult and take ski school every time I go skiing. After several years of taking ski school, my son decided that he was going to take me by the hand and teach me to ski. He has mastered all of the techniques necessary to navigate in the roughest of terrain, yet he could not teach me how to ski better. He was so advanced in his knowledge that he could not relate to my need for taking the course slowly, and how to turn my skis left and right, and how to dismount from the lift without calamity. Do you get the picture of what kind of a skier I am? I have superficial knowledge of varying skiing techniques. I have the ability to do these things but have not been faced with enough challenges to utilize them rapidly. I think that this compares to the rapid retrieval premise. His knowledge is second nature to him, but mine takes some contemplation and by the time I contemplate, I am down. He has had genuine experiences that led him to his ability to ski as he does because he was a soccer player and agility is part of his mode of movement in other activities. My experience however, is a contrived experience because I am skiing for the sake of the sport or my vanity that I am not really getting older. In that way, I compare to the novice because I have to process every move that I make and I am not committed to the task. He thinks that I should be able to move in a certain way just because he tells me to, without taking the preparatory steps necessary for me to really experience it in stages. He takes me on treks that are way beyond my field of knowledge because he has the knowledge and he thinks that everyone should possess the same if engaged in the sport. He is not patient when trying to help me to achieve my goal of getting down the hill and in that way does not try different strategies.

        As I look at the scenarios described, as a skier I am very comfortable in calling myself a novice. I do not recognize nuances that would prepare me to make judgments quickly. I possess general knowledge but do not have a deep core of knowledge with very situation specific experience to back up that knowledge. I process very slowly and have rudimentary skills that provide me with the ability to stay on two skis, dismount from the lift and execute minor turns but no more. When the course becomes rough, I am unable to retrieve the necessary information to make informed changes in my behavior to fit the situation. In my teaching however, I feel that I am assessing the background knowledge of my students and taking them from that point forward. I am building on their pre-existing schema to construct new knowledge. I am not expecting them to be on my level because I recognize my experience and know that they have not experienced the same. I try new and varied techniques to produce a positive feeling about their emerging skills. I engage them in different ways at different times to keep the learning not only challenging but also stimulating. I do not take for granted that they understand everything that I am trying to impart and make adjustments for their inability to recognize that skill mastery is contingent upon prior skill mastery. I assess my own strategies frequently and change them as necessary, for better comprehension. I feel that I am in touch with them and assist them in the metacognitive process that enables them to think through more complex issues down the road. I conditionalize my knowledge and apply it at the appropriate point of understanding. I think that this aids me in conveying the skills that are necessary for the learner to assimilate knowledge.

BACK