|
The expertise reversal effect refers to the reversal of the effectiveness of instructional techniques on learners with differing levels of prior knowledge.〔Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. ''Educational Psychology Review'', 19, 509–539.〕〔Kalyuga, S., Rikers, R., Pass, F. (2012). Educational implications of expertise reversal effect in learning and performance of complex cognitive and sensorimotor skills. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 313-337.〕 The primary recommendation that stems from the expertise reversal effect is that instructional design methods need to be adjusted as learners acquire more knowledge in a specific domain. Expertise is described as “the ability to perform fluently in a specific class of tasks.” 〔 Instructional techniques that assist learners to create long term memory schema (psychology) are more effective for novices or low-knowledge individuals, who approach a learning situation or task without these knowledge structures to rely on. But, for higher-knowledge learners or experts, i.e. learners with more prior knowledge of the task, the reverse is true, such that reduced guidance often results in better performance than well-guided instruction.〔〔Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23-31.〕 Slava Kalyuga, one of the leading researchers in this area, writes, “instructional guidance, which may be essential for novices, may have negative consequences for more experienced learners.” 〔 The expertise reversal effect is a specific example of an aptitude by treatment interaction (ATI), which is a more general phenomenon in which learning environments that have positive effects for one type of person have neutral or even negative effects for another type of person.〔Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington〕 == The Expertise Reversal Effect and Cognitive Load Theory== The expertise reversal effect is typically explained within a cognitive load framework.〔〔Kalyuga, S. (2009). Knowledge elaboration: A cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction, 19, 402-410.〕 Cognitive load theory assumes that a learner’s existing cognitive resources can influence the effectiveness of instructional techniques.〔Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.〕 The goal of any learning task is to construct integrated mental representations of the relevant information, which requires considerable working memory resources. To accomplish the task without overwhelming working memory, some form of guidance is needed. Low-knowledge learners lack schema-based knowledge in the target domain and so this guidance comes from instructional supports, which help reduce the cognitive load associated with novel tasks. If the instruction fails to provide guidance, low-knowledge learners often resort to inefficient problem-solving strategies that overwhelm working memory and increase cognitive load. Thus, low-knowledge learners benefit more from well-guided instruction than from reduced guidance.〔 In contrast, higher-knowledge learners enter the situation with schema-based knowledge, which provides internal guidance. If additional instructional guidance is provided it can result in the processing of redundant information and increased cognitive load. “Learners would have to relate and reconcile the related components of available long-term memory base and externally provided guidance. Such integration processes may impose an additional working memory load and reduce resources available for learning new knowledge.” 〔 In this case, the external guidance becomes redundant relative to the learner’s internal schemas and is less beneficial than a reduced-guidance technique. Although this cognitive load theory-driven explanation for the expertise reversal effect is plausible, there are a few caveats to keep in mind. First, many studies that demonstrate expertise reversal effects rely on subjective measures of cognitive load.〔Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389-400.〕〔Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, P. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63-71.〕 For example, one common measure is to have learners rate task difficulty by answering the following question on a scale from 1 (extremely easy) to 7 (extremely difficult): “How easy or difficult was it to complete this task?” 〔Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P, & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors, 46, 567-581.〕〔Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126-136.〕〔Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages?Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390-397.〕 Some researchers claim that such ratings are increasingly being used as an effective and valid measure of subjective cognitive load.〔 However, others question the use of subjective measures. For example, some question people’s ability to provide accurate self-reports of mental effort.〔Schnotz, W., & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469-508.〕 Others suggest that there is no way to know how subjective ratings relate to actual cognitive load.〔Brunken, R., Plaas J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53-61.〕〔Kirschner, P. A., Ayres, P., & Chandler, P. (2011). Contemporary cognitive load research: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 99-105.〕 Second, expertise reversal effects have been found in studies outside of the cognitive load paradigm, indicating that alternative explanations remain viable.〔 For example, a number of explanations center on motivational processes.〔Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 193-198.〕〔Schnotz, W. (2010). Reanalyzing the expertise reversal effect. Instructional Science, 38, 315-323.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Expertise reversal effect」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|