Re: [tips] Explaining What Expertise Is (was Teaching expertise
So I no longer can suspect that the reason PSYCHTEACH takes so long to post my responses is personal?! Oh shucks, it was such fun letting my paranoia run rampant. Joan jwarm...@oakton.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=50784 or send a blank email to leave-50784-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] a limit on grants?
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49337/title/Individual-Investigators-to-Have-Limit-on-NIH-Funds/ Imagine the chaos that would ensue at several institutions if such a limit was imposed. -- - Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. steel...@appstate.edu Professor Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA - --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=50783 or send a blank email to leave-50783-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Explaining What Expertise Is (was Teaching expertise
PsycTeacher has been slow to post my response to Michael from yesterday. I copy it here for TIPSters. (Perhaps one day it will appear on the other list as well.) -cdg …… Mike, I think that the research you cite on “expertise” means something rather different by the term than I did. They seem to take “expertise" to be a category, a state that one arrives in at some certain point in time. By contrast, I take “expertise” to be something that one develops over time — it is a continuum, not a category. What I want students to be able to do is take all that “cook book” stuff they learned in the intro stats course — this is how you do a t-test, this is how to do a correlation, this is how you do a chi-square, etc. — and start to *use* it as part of a broader inquiry into the meaning of their data, not just use statistical tests to “stamp” a result out of a dataset. As Robert Abelson put it, statistics should be part of a “reasoned argument.” That means we use the strengths of statistical tests while remaining keenly aware of their weaknesses, and we integrate what they offer with other kinds of information about the kind of data we’re using and the kind of participants — often people — we’re testing. Statistics are not an autonomous domain, entirely divorced from other ways of thinking. They should be seamlessly woven into the various ways in which we think about our research problems. As I like to say to my classes, using statistics does not absolve you of the responsibility to *think* about your data and your broader research project (ding! Significant! vs. bzzz! Not significant!). It is just a set of tools that, like all tools, are designed to do certain things well, but not other things (like hitting a screw with a hammer). Chris ….. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 43.773895°, -79.503670° chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo ... On May 4, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Mike Palij wrote: > > > > > > NOTES: > (1) I apologize to folks on TiPS who are also on the > PsychTeacher list where I had posted this message > yesterday and may find this redundant. > > (2) I've changed the subject line from "Teaching Expertise" > to "Explaining What Expertise Is" because the former seems > to emphasize expertise about teaching in contrast to what > expertise (in statistics) is, which seems to be the focus of > Chris' post. > > (3) One difference between TiPS and PsychTeaher's response > to Chris' original response is a focus on the use of rubrics and > guides and aids in accomplishing certain tasks. I think I understand > why people may raise issues about the use of such things by > students in doing assignments -- instead of engaging in a burst > of creative problem solving when dealing with a vague set of > instructions for a task or assignment -- but it should be clear > that original focus of Chris' post was on developing "expertise" > in an area, specifically, statistics. My response below tries > to make the argument that this is an odd argument given the > scientific research on expertise which imply that it is unrealistic > to expect expertise in an area (e.g., doing a correct statistical > analysis) instead of competence (i.e., ability to perform a > specific analysis though without sophistication, such as > knowing that instead of an independent groups t-test, > one should use Tchebycheff's inequality, as shown > in following: > Lord, F. M. (1953). On the statistical treatment of football numbers. > > American Psychologist, 8, 750–751. > > (4) Even with expertise and experience, it is clear that in some > situations experts rely upon checklists to make sure that they > cover all relevant issue -- ask an airplane pilot who goes through > a checklist before a take-off or a surgeon who goes through > a checklist before doing surgery (as well as other aids that > remind them that, say, it is the right kidney they need to remove > and not the left). The reliance on such devices is to make sure > that explicitly review all relevant information instead of just > haphazardly review them and assuming they "know" what the > unexamined points are (which can give rise to certain types > of "cognitive illusions", comparable to the semantic illusion > shown by the question "How many of each animals was taken > on the Ark by Moses?"). > > On Wednesday, May 03, 2017 11:30 AM, Christopher Green wrote: > >How does one explain to students what it means to have > >expertise? > > With all due respect, this is an odd question. If one looks at > the cognitive research on expertise (e.g., Chi, Chase, Ericsson, > et al), then some common "rules of thumb" include knowing > about 50,000 facts about a topic area (e.g., cognitive psychology, > statistics, etc), having spent 10 years in dedicated practice > in the specific domain, and so on. If we are talking about > undergraduate education, this conception of expertise is >
[tips] Explaining What Expertise Is (was Teaching expertise
NOTES: (1) I apologize to folks on TiPS who are also on the PsychTeacher list where I had posted this message yesterday and may find this redundant. (2) I've changed the subject line from "Teaching Expertise" to "Explaining What Expertise Is" because the former seems to emphasize expertise about teaching in contrast to what expertise (in statistics) is, which seems to be the focus of Chris' post. (3) One difference between TiPS and PsychTeaher's response to Chris' original response is a focus on the use of rubrics and guides and aids in accomplishing certain tasks. I think I understand why people may raise issues about the use of such things by students in doing assignments -- instead of engaging in a burst of creative problem solving when dealing with a vague set of instructions for a task or assignment -- but it should be clear that original focus of Chris' post was on developing "expertise" in an area, specifically, statistics. My response below tries to make the argument that this is an odd argument given the scientific research on expertise which imply that it is unrealistic to expect expertise in an area (e.g., doing a correct statistical analysis) instead of competence (i.e., ability to perform a specific analysis though without sophistication, such as knowing that instead of an independent groups t-test, one should use Tchebycheff's inequality, as shown in following: Lord, F. M. (1953). On the statistical treatment of football numbers. American Psychologist, 8, 750-751. (4) Even with expertise and experience, it is clear that in some situations experts rely upon checklists to make sure that they cover all relevant issue -- ask an airplane pilot who goes through a checklist before a take-off or a surgeon who goes through a checklist before doing surgery (as well as other aids that remind them that, say, it is the right kidney they need to remove and not the left). The reliance on such devices is to make sure that explicitly review all relevant information instead of just haphazardly review them and assuming they "know" what the unexamined points are (which can give rise to certain types of "cognitive illusions", comparable to the semantic illusion shown by the question "How many of each animals was taken on the Ark by Moses?"). On Wednesday, May 03, 2017 11:30 AM, Christopher Green wrote: >How does one explain to students what it means to have >expertise? With all due respect, this is an odd question. If one looks at the cognitive research on expertise (e.g., Chi, Chase, Ericsson, et al), then some common "rules of thumb" include knowing about 50,000 facts about a topic area (e.g., cognitive psychology, statistics, etc), having spent 10 years in dedicated practice in the specific domain, and so on. If we are talking about undergraduate education, this conception of expertise is not relevant -- even if it takes a student 10 years to get a B.A. I believe that the British college system allowed a student to spend most of their undergraduate course work focused on a particular topic (that is, they do/did not follow our conception of general liberal arts education which require students to take specific courses in different academic areas [i.e., arts, literature, science, math, etc.]; this was explained to me by a grad school compatriot who was British and had gotten their BA/equivalent in England but this was decades ago and things ma have changes). My main point here is that expertise, as understood by researchers in the area is not possible at the undergraduate level. Instead, I think the concept of "degree of competency" is more relevant here. Another consideration is that if undergraduates do not use their knowledge about statistics on a regular basis after taking undergraduate statistics courses, they are likely to forget much of what they learned with a couple of years; one research study on this point is the following: Custers, E. J. (2010). Long-term retention of basic science knowledge: a review study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(1), 109-128. Of course, Henry Bahrick has done work in this area and it too should be examined. With respect to statistics, unless an undergraduate is co-majoring in math, applied math, math statistics, or some similar field, I think it is unlikely that an undergraduate psych major could become expert or even near-expert in statistics. Even in graduate school, I think it is difficult for a psych grad student to become an "expert" in statistics unless they take a variety of grad stat courses and practice as a consultant.. My own experience which involved 6-7 grad courses in statistics (including a year long sequence taught by Jack Cohen and consultant in a social science datalab) it was only after a few years of coursework and practice that I started to realize that my understanding of statistics was undergoing a fundamental change, that I was able to think more deeply about statistical issues, about how to tailor statistical analy
