This is great Dylan. I'll admit, as someone who frequently invokes the phrase "novices do not think the same way as experts," you've got me wondering if I need new terminology. What *I* mean by that statement is I think pretty closely aligned to what you describe here, which is that "experts" need to be careful about not assuming that "novices" possess the same background knowledge that the expert possesses -- such as the meaning of increase and decrease, for example. But your guidelines are clearer!
Yea that's fair. I think if you have a decent understanding of the underlying process then novice/expert is a decent heuristic. But I often see it employed in lazy ways (mostly assuming students are always novices) and I think it's prone to misunderstanding without a broader understanding of the role of knowledge. And I think another place it gets hung up is a) people claim all students are novices, b) a teacher feels successful with some sort of problem-solving activity, so c) the teacher rejects the premise.
This is great Dylan. I'll admit, as someone who frequently invokes the phrase "novices do not think the same way as experts," you've got me wondering if I need new terminology. What *I* mean by that statement is I think pretty closely aligned to what you describe here, which is that "experts" need to be careful about not assuming that "novices" possess the same background knowledge that the expert possesses -- such as the meaning of increase and decrease, for example. But your guidelines are clearer!
Yea that's fair. I think if you have a decent understanding of the underlying process then novice/expert is a decent heuristic. But I often see it employed in lazy ways (mostly assuming students are always novices) and I think it's prone to misunderstanding without a broader understanding of the role of knowledge. And I think another place it gets hung up is a) people claim all students are novices, b) a teacher feels successful with some sort of problem-solving activity, so c) the teacher rejects the premise.