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 toda y.  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

Helping with Student Focus & Motivation in the Remote Classroom, Part 4: Building An Online Teaching Presence

I've written before about how important it is to show students you care about their learning and about them as humans , in part summarizing Kent Syverud's excellent piece , "Taking Students Seriously: A Guide for New Law Teachers. It is harder to show students that you care about them in a remote environment than when you see them in a physical classroom every day, where you can smile at them, easily ask them how they're doing as they enter the room or when you run into them in the classroom, or notice through their body language if they are having a hard time and reach out. But we know that showing we care matters; our students try harder and engage more when they feel like their learning matters to their instructor.  It takes more intention to show you care about students in the online classroom, but it's imperative that we find ways to show we do. So what are some ways that we can show students we care in the remote learning environment? The first is to

Research as Analysis in the Modern Legal Academy

For decades, those discussing best practices in legal education have highlighted the importance of skills education (see the Crampton Report, the MacCrate Report, the Carnegie Report, and Best Practices for Legal Education, for just a few examples). But, as legal writing, advocacy, and clinical courses have all emerged to take their rightful place as key components in law students' education, legal research has remained a shadow skill. Despite numerous reports from those hiring our students being dissatisfied with their research skills, legal research education remains relegated to the background even in first year skills classes with "legal research" in their very title. At least in part, this is due to legal research having been divorced from the analysis that is central to the Langdellian model of legal education. In reality, analysis is central to successful research, and it is only by reclaiming research as an analytical skill in the modern legal academy that resea

Four Aspects of Effectual Teaching (& Why Instructional Design Is the One Missing In Many Law Courses)

There are four general components of teaching, which all must come together for a teacher to be successful: Knowledge of the Subject Matter : Most instructors in higher education have this covered. The largest potential hurdle of this aspect of teaching is perhaps remembering to view the material from the perspective of the beginner learner, as opposed to from the teacher's own advanced learner status. In my first year of teaching, I found this to be an issue, as I jumped over steps that were so obvious to me that I didn't even notice them anymore. It was only by students asking questions that illustrated I was missing an important step in their comprehension and by watching the legal writing professor I co-taught with that I began to break down my material into pieces that were more digestible for my students. Interaction with Students : Instructor-student interaction can take a myriad of forms. As L. Dee Fink writes in Creating Significant Learning Experiences , "Teac