absence of certain cognitive abilities or processes in novices validated their
significance for experts. For example, it was not just that experts perceived
the problem space in a particular manner that was critical, but also that nov-
ices perceived the problem in quite a different, seemingly less sophisticated
way.
Such a methodological approach has been helpful in grounding the re-
search on expertise. However, this orientation fails to illuminate the process
by which one progresses from true novice to documented expert. It certainly
would be informative to juxtapose Jason and Bruce’s problem-solving behav-
iors or those of Evie and Bruce as they perform a selected history task. But
this informative analysis could not explain what specifically would be re-
quired to set Jason on the right course toward competence or prompt Evie to
take the next step toward proficiency in the domain of history.
- Concentration on “coldly cognitive” attributes. One of the most evident
limitations of past research on expertise was its concentration on strictly cog-
nitive dimensions of outstanding performance. Concentration on search
strategies and the structure of domain knowledge is a worthwhile pursuit.
Such a focus would help us distinguish between Jason, Evie, and Bruce as his-
tory experts. But this approach remains “coldly cognitive” (Pintrich, Marx,
& Boyle, 1993). It does not address the personality, social, or motivational
factors that are tied to cognitive processing (i.e., “hot cognition”) and that
have a great deal to do with whether someone like Jason or Evie devotes the
time and energy needed to build the knowledge structures or domain strate-
gies consistently associated with expert performance.
These “hot” factors would also be important to ascertaining why Evie
finds her museum activities motivating or why someone like Bruce retains his
fascination with history even after decades of concerted effort. That is to say,
Evie’s growing competence or Bruce’s established expertise in such a complex
and evolving domain as history cannot be fully captured by assessing their
knowledge structures, memory, perception, or domain strategies. Their per-
sistence, interests, curiosities, and other such forces matter as well and may
underlie the emergence of defining cognitive attributes, such as an integrated
body of domain knowledge (Ainley, 1998; Reio & Wiswell, 2000). - Disregard of learner goals and intentions. In the prior generations of ex-
pertise research, the conation (will) and intentionality of the learner did not
enter into the equation (Sinatra & Pintrich, 2002; Snow, Corno, & Jackson,
1996). Experts were defined as those with superior problem-solving skills fu-
eled by certain cognitive advantages (Ackerman, 2003). Novices were simply
those who had yet to acquire those distinguishing attributes.
Yet, there are willful or goal-directed aspects to the transformation from
novice to expert that are acknowledged in the literature (Ackerman, Kyllo-
nen, & Roberts, 1999), but not necessarily incorporated into research designs
or empirical measures. Perhaps because students in K–12 are a captive audi-
- MODEL OF DOMAIN LEARNING 279