This research represents the first known application of protocol analysis to a liberal arts knowledge domain. The purpose of this study was to capture differences in cognitive structure between experts and novices in the area of art history. A sorting task consisting of twenty-five reproductions of paintings and prints covering the 14th through the 20th centuries was used to elicit verbal protocol data from a sample of four experts and four novices. The protocols were then transcribed and scored using concept mapping and content analysis procedures. Three knowledge breadth measures, concept map propositions, concept map examples, and implicit propositions, were strongly correlated with membership in the expert or novice group. In addition, the knowledge depth measure, concept map hierarchy levels, was also strongly correlated with the group membership variable suggesting that, as predicted, experts produced a significantly greater number of concept map propositions, examples, hierarchy levels, and implicit propositions than novices. Subsequently, three discriminant analyses related to the three hypotheses of the study correctly classified 100 percent, 87.5 percent, and 100 percent of the grouped cases, respectively. Univariate F tests were statistically significant in all three analyses suggesting that the knowledge structures of experts evidence greater breadth and depth than those of novices and are related to particular elements of experience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChaseW. G. and SimonH. A., Perception in Chess, Cognitive Psychology, 4, pp. 55–81, 1973.
2.
DeGrootA., Perception and Memory versus Thought: Some Old Ideas and Recent Findings, in Problem Solving, KleinmuntzB. (ed.), Wiley, New York, pp. 19–50, 1966.
3.
ChiM. T. H.FeltovichP., and GlaserR., Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices, Cognitive Science, 5, pp. 121–152, 1981.
4.
LarkinJ. H., Enriching Formal Knowledge: A Model for Learning to Solve Textbook Physics Problems, in Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition, AndersonJ. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 311–334, 1981.
5.
LarkinJ. H.McDermottJ.SimonD. P., and SimonH. A., Models of Competence in Solving Physics Problems, Cognitive Science, 4, pp. 317–345, 1980.
6.
SimonD. P. and SimonH. A., Individual Differences in Solving Physics Problems, in Children's Thinking: What Develops?, SieglerR., ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1978.
7.
AndersonJ. R.GreenoJ. G.KlineP. J., and NevesD. M., Acquisition of Problem-Solving Skill, in Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition, AndersonJ. R. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 119–230, 1981.
8.
LewisC. H., Skill in Algebra, in Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition, AndersonJ. R. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 85–110, 1981.
9.
BiggsS. F., An Investigation of the Decision Process Underlying the Assessment of Corporate Earning Power (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1978), Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 945A, 1978.
10.
BiggsS. F., An Empirical Investigation of the Information Processes Underlying Four Models of Choice Behavior, in Behavioral Experiments in Accounting. II., BurnsT. J. (ed.), The Ohio State University, College of Administrative Science, Columbus, Ohio, 1978.
11.
BouwmanM. J., Financial Diagnosis: A Cognitive Model of the Processes Involved (Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 4002B, 1978.
12.
BouwmanM. J., Human Diagnostic Reasoning by Computer: An Illustration from Financial Analysis, Management Science, 29, pp. 653–672, 1983.
13.
BouwmanM. J., Expert vs. Novice Decision Making in Accounting: A Summary, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9:3/4, pp. 325–327, 1984.
14.
MalhotraA.ThomasJ. C.CarrollJ. M., and MillerL. A., Cognitive Processes in Design, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 12, pp. 119–140, 1980.
15.
VesseyI., Expertise in Debugging Computer Programs: A Process Analysis, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23, pp. 459–494, 1985.
16.
VitalariN. P., An Investigation of the Problem Solving Behavior of Systems Analysts (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota), Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 2762A, 1981.
17.
VitalariN. P., Knowledge as a Basis for Expertise in Systems Analysis: An Empirical Study, MIS Quarterly, September, pp. 221–241, 1985.
18.
VitalariN. P. and DicksonG. W., Problem Solving in Effective Systems Analysis: An Experimental Exploration, Communications of the ACM, 26, pp. 948–956, 1983.
19.
ChaseW. G. and SimonH. A., The Mind's Eye in Chess, in Visual Information Processing, ChaseW. G. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 215–281, 1973.
20.
HobusP. P.SchmidtH. G.BoshuizenH. P., and PatelV. L., Contextual Factors in the Activation of First Diagnostic Hypotheses: Expert-Novice Differences, Medical Education, 21, pp. 471–476, 1989.
21.
PopleH. E., The Formation of Composite Hypotheses in Diagnostic Problem Solving: An Exercise in Synthetic Reasoning, Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1977.
22.
WortmanP. M., Medical Diagnosis: An Information Processing Approach, Computer and Biomedical Research, 5, pp. 315–328, 1972.
23.
ChiM. T. H.GlaserR., and ReesE., Expertise in Problem Solving, Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence (Vol. 1), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 7–75, 1981.
24.
WagnerR. K.SebrechtsM. M., and BlackJ. B., Tracing the Evolution of Knowledge Structures, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, pp. 275–278, 1985.
25.
ResnickL. B., Cognition and Instruction: Recent Theories of Human Competence and How It Is Acquired, Learning Research and Development Center, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 1986.
26.
ResnickL. B., Developing Mathematical Knowledge, American Psychologist, 44, pp. 62–69, 1989.
27.
BrandtR., On Learning Research: A Conversation with Lauren Resnick, Educational Leadership, 46, pp. 12–16, 1989.
28.
TrotterR. J., The Mystery of Mastery, Psychology Today, 20, pp. 32–38, 1986.
29.
AkinO., Models of Architectural Knowledge, Pion, London, 1980.
30.
ChiM. T. H. and GlaserR., Problem-solving Ability, in Human Abilities: An Information Processing Approach, SternbergR. J. (ed.), W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, pp. 227–250, 1985.
31.
GobboC. and ChiM., How Knowledge is Structured and Used by Expert and Novice Children, Cognitive Development, 1, pp. 221–237, 1986.
32.
RisslandE. L., The Structure of Knowledge in Complex Domains, in Thinking and Learning Skills Volume 2: Research and General Questions, ChipmanS. F.SegalJ. W., and GlaserR. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 107–125, 1985.
33.
WestL. H. T.FenshamP. J., and GarrardJ. E., Describing the Cognitive Structures of Learners Following Instruction in Chemistry, in Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change, WestL. H. T. and PinesA. L. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 29–49, 1985.
34.
AndersonJ. R., Architecture of Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983.
35.
GagneR. M. and WhiteR. T., Memory Structures and Learning Outcomes, Review of Educational Research, 48, pp. 187–222, 1978.
36.
RyleG., The Concept of Mind, Hutchinson, London, 1949.
37.
ShuellT. J., Knowledge Representation and Cognitive Structure, and School Learning: A Historical Perspective, in Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change, WestL. H. T. and PinesA. L. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 117–130, 1985.
38.
PinesA. L., Toward a Taxonomy of Conceptual Relations and the Implications for the Evaluation of Cognitive Structures, in Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change, WestL. H. T. and PinesA. L. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 101–116, 1985.
39.
WhiteR. T., Interview Protocols and Dimensions of Cognitive Structure, in Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change, WestL. H. T. and PinesA. L. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 51–59, 1985.
40.
AlbaJ. W. and HasherL., Is Memory Schematic?Psychological Bulletin, 93, pp. 203–231, 1983.
41.
AndersonJ. R., Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1985.
42.
ChampagneA. B.GunstoneR. F., and KlopferL. E., Instructional Consequences of Students' Knowledge about Physical Phenomena, in Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change, WestL. H. T. and PinesA. L. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 163–187, 1985.
43.
NovakJ. D. and GowinB., Learning How to Learn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
44.
RumelhartD. E.LindsayP., and NormanD. A., A Process Model for Long-Term Memory, in Organization of Memory, TulvingE. and DonaldsonW. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 197–246, 1972.
45.
HayesJ. R., Protocol Analysis, The Complete Problem Solver, The Franklin Institute Press, Philadelphia, pp. 51–70, 1981.
46.
PreeceP. F. W., Mapping Cognitive Structure: A Comparison of Methods, Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, pp. 1–8, 1976.
47.
IsenbergD. J., Thinking and Managing: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Managerial Problem Solving, Academy of Management Journal, 29, pp. 775–788, 1986.
48.
AusubelD. P.NovakJ. D., and HanesianH., Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (2nd edition), Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1978.
49.
LabovW., The Boundaries of Words and Their Meanings, in New Ways of Analyzing Variations in English, BailyC. T. N. and ShuyR. W. (eds.), Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 340–373, 1973.
