Skip to main content

Why Experts Can Struggle to Teach Novices

This week in our Slack group on teaching, there was an interesting discussion about expertise and the amount of time needed to prep for instruction. I mentioned something that I recalled reading: that experts can be less effective in teaching novices because often the expert skips cognitive steps that the novice learner needs to understand.  I thought I'd dig into this a little more today on the blog.

The fact is novices and experts learn very differently.  The major reason for this is that experts not only know a lot about their chosen discipline, but they understand how that discipline is organized. As such, what has a clear structure to the expert is a jumbled set of unorganized information to the novice.  The information presented to novices "are more or less random data points."[1]  In contrast, when the expert learns something new in her area of expertise, she just plugs it into the knowledge structure that already exists in her long-term memory. Because the new information fits into already-existing knowledge structures, it is easy to retrieve next time she needs it.

What often occurs when experts begin teaching novices is not sufficiently explaining how the different pieces fit together.  Expertise can inadvertently skip cognitive steps students need to know as they explain new information.  Arguably, this means that taking time to prep--focusing on pedagogical content knowledge--is even more important for subject specialists.  Less experienced teachers or those with less expertise are likely more aware of the learning difficulties inherent in learning a topic. These teachers may need to prep just as much for other reasons--newness to teaching, lack of familiarity with the subject area, etc--but they are less distant from the challenges inherent to learning new information than the expert.

This is especially true in disciplines involving problem solving.  The ability experts have to engage in in-depth analysis and problem-solving is tied to their well-organized knowledge structures.  They are able to recognize patterns in information in a way that novices cannot.  We have to teach novice student learners to recognize these patterns, a skill that can only be gained by repeated retrieval of information until identifying patterns becomes fluent.

In teaching law students legal research, especially 1Ls who are first doing legal research and analysis, it is easy for legal research instructors to fall into this trap.  I'll often think I could teach the four-step process we use as a scaffolding technique to teach legal research with no prep because it is so ingrained in my knowledge structures in my brain.  But that would be a huge mistake--in nearly every 1L class, I come to a point where a student asks a question that seemed obvious to me, the expert, but was not obvious to the student.  And I usually find that if one student has a question, usually at least a few other students have that same question.  Taking time to break my teaching down into small enough steps in my mind prior to class helps me to avoid taking these leaps and helps me best serve my novice learners.

For much more on how experts and novices think and learn differently, see Chapter 2 of How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition (2000).

Popular posts from this blog

Letter to A First-Time (Legal Research) Instructor

Dear Friend,

Seven years ago this week, I was prepping madly to teach my first legal research class.  Three months earlier, I'd been a law student myself.  To say that I was nervous is an understatement; mildly terrified was probably a more apt description.  The truth is I didn't really know what I was getting myself into, but I knew that I wanted to teach legal research differently than I had been taught legal research, where at best it was viewed as a skill less important than everything else being taught at law school and at worst an afterthought, a skill that students should be able to do with very little training. 

There are many points I wish I knew then that I know now and that's what I want to share with you today. 


First and foremost, students will forgive many imperfections in the classroom if they know you care about their learning.  At the start of every semester, I re-read Kent Syverud's "Taking Students Seriously: A Guide for New Law Teachers,"…

Rethinking Formative Assessment

We've seen an increased significance placed on formative assessment in the legal academy. Standard 314 of the ABA Standards requires that law schools use both formative and summative assessment methods in their curriculum. Its rational for doing so is "to measure and improve student learning and provide meaningful feedback to students." The ABA defines formative assessment methods as "measurements at different points during a particular course or at different points over the span of a student's education that provide meaningful feedback to improve student learning."

Those of us in the legal research instruction business are no strangers to formative assessment. We are leaders in this in the law school curriculum, with rarely a class going by in which students do not practice their skills. Lately, though, I've been wondering whether I'm going about formative assessment in the way that will best provide meaningful feedback to students. In the mandator…

16x16 Challenge, or How A Tweet Resulted in Building a Community of Law Librarians Thinking & Writing About Teaching

Twitter is a space in which I've made connections with so many Law Librarians and many others within legal academia--and strengthened connections with others--and learned so much from and been inspired by colleagues across the country.

This past weekend, Emily Barney, Technology Training & Marketing Librarian at Chicago-Kent College of Law, was live-tweeting a panel from the WP Campus (Where WordPress Meets Higher Education) Conference called "The Infamous 9x9x25 Challenge," by Todd Conaway, from the University of Washington--Bothell. Started in 2013 at a community college in Arizona, faculty members were challenged to write 25 sentences a week for 9 weeks about teaching and learning. It gave faculty members the chance to reflect on what they do, share experiences and ideas, and see what their colleagues are up to over the course of the semester. And the challenge has spread in various iterations to college campuses across the United States.

This seemed like a wonder…

Elaborative Interrogation in the Legal Research Classroom

One type of activity legal skills professors can incorporate into their classrooms is elaboration. As described by Yana Weinstein and Megan Sumeracki in Understanding How We Learn: A Visual Guide, "[e]laboration describes the process of adding features to one's memories."[1]  It helps with organization of information within the knowledge structures in one's minds, making it easier to retrieve this information later. But what activities will help students to add features to their memories?

Weinstein and Sumeracki recommend three elaboration techniques that can all be applied to the legal research classroom: elaborative interrogation, concrete examples, and dual coding.[2] Studies of each has shown improvement in student learning and long-term retention. Today, we're going to look specifically elaborative interrogation.

With elaborative interrogation, students ask themselves questions about the reason and way things work.[3]  While it's easy to presume law stud…