The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective

Reflection on the process of learning is believed to be an essential ingredient in the development of expert learners. By employing reflective thinking skills to evaluate the results of one's own learning efforts, awareness of effective learning strategies can be increased and ways to use these strategies in other learning situations can be understood. This article describes how expert learners use the knowledge they have gained of themselves as learners, of task requirements, and of specific strategy use to deliberately select, control, and monitor strategies needed to achieve desired learning goals. We present a model of expert learning which illustrates how learners' metacognitive knowledge of cognitive, motivational, and environmental strategies is translated into regulatory control of the learning process through ongoing reflective thinking. Finally, we discuss the implications that the concept of expert learning has for instiuctional practices. We have all probably met, at one time or another, 'expert ' learners: those successful individuals who approach academic tasks with confidence, diligence, and resourcefulness. It's not merely the a m o u n t of knowledge or n u m b e r of skills possessed that distinguishes these learners from their less successful peers, but rather their ability to implement appropriate regulatory strategies when they become aware that certain facts or skills are missing from their learning repertoires that are necessary for reaching desired academic goals. Expert learners display planfulness, control, and reflection; they are aware of the knowledge and skills they possess, or are lacking, and use appropriate strategies to actively implement or acquire them. This type of learner is self-directed and goal oriented, purposefully seeking out needed information, ' incorporating and applying a variety of strategic behaviors to optimize academic performance' (Lindner & Harris 1992). To illustrate the concepts discussed in this paper, we would like you to consider the studying behaviors of the following two high school students, Emilie and Monica, upon hearing that they will be taking an essay test on a textbook chapter that discusses the effects of environmental pollution on the ecosystem. Assume, for the sake of comparison, that neither learner has any prior experience in this subject area. When Emilie is told about the upcoming test she is slightly worried, not only because the test is scheduled for the morning after the basketball playoff game, but also because she is aware that essay tests are difficult for her. Although she sees herself as a competent hard-working student, she acknowledges this weakness in herself and knows that she will have to be more selective about the way she prepares for this test. She realizes that she must set aside ample time and that she should probably not study at home as she is likely to be distracted by the telephone and other family members. A few days before the test, Emilie takes her text and a notebook to her favorite study carrel at the public library. She likes to study there because the desks and chairs are comfortable, the lighting is good, and there is a minimal amount of noise. Emilie recalls that when she studies for a multiplechoice test she usually begins by writing definitions for all the bold-faced words. However, she knows that studying for an essay test requires different strategies. Although it will take her a little longer, Emilie decides to prepare for the test by outlining the information in the chapter and reorganizing it so that it can be more readily recalled. This strategy has been helpful in the past and Emilie is willing to take the extra time needed. While skimming the chapter, Emilie notices that the authors have presented the information by linking causes and effects. She divides a piece of paper into two columns, 'causes' and 'effects', and proceeds to fill in the information. As she works through her outline, Emilie stops periodically to assess the progress she is making. Is her plan working the way she had anticipated? Is she maintaining her concentration? Is she understanding the content? Emilie judges that her understanding has been enhanced by visually representing the relationships among the concepts being discussed. After completing the outline, Emilie self-tests by drawing a diagram of the chapter to illustrate the relationships between events and outcomes in the ecosystem. During the next few days, Emilie reviews her outline and informally discusses her understanding of the concepts with her classmates. When opposing viewpoints arise, Emilie checks back with the text and, if necessary, consults with the teacher about her confusions. The evening before the test, Emilie completes a final self-check before heading to the big basketball game; she wouldn't pass up a chance to cheer for her favorite team! Monica is also anxious about the test format because she is aware that she usually does better on multiple-choice tests. She's not really sure why that is, but judges that if she just studies harder she will be successful. She thinks if she spends a little more time reading and rereading the chapter and memorizing the vocabulary words she'll be prepared. Monica doesn't make a conscious decision about when or how to study; she automatically plans to study the night before the test so she has a greater chance of recalling the memorized information. She does notice that the test is scheduled for the day after the big basketball game and thinks that is unfortunate, if not a little unfair. She is nervous about not getting started until after the game but she really can't think of any other alternatives; missing the big game is not an option; the idea of starting to study a day or two earlier, or studying a different way, never crosses her mind. It is essential for Emilie and Monica to utilize their knowledge about ecosystems in a flexible manner when they finally take the test. Because Emilie's approach has increased her understanding of the workings of an ecosystem, she is able to access her knowledge from a variety of vantage points, and thus performs in a confident and competent manner. Although Monica has increased her knowledge of the specific terminology related to environmental ecosystems, she finds it difficult to utilize this information to answer the essay questions. She leaves the test feeling anxious about her grade; did she do well enough to pass the test? (Based, in part, on an example from Palinscar & Brown 1989.) For many years educators have defined an expert as 'any individual who is highly skilled or knowledgeable in a given domain' (Bruer 1993: 8), suggesting that expertise depends on well-organized, domain-specific knowledge that arises only after extensive experience has been gained in a particular area. However, it is easy to see that the difference between Emilie and Monica is not due so much to the amount of content knowledge each possesses (both are novices in this domain), as to the approach each takes for learning new information. Although both students spend time studying, Emilie's awareness of herself as a learner and her knowledge of cognitive strategies (using text structure to outline the chapter) enables her to implement a strategic study plan. By comparing task demands with personal constraints and resources, Emilie is ~ible to take charge of her learning activity. In contrast, Monica has little, if any, awareness of these critical factors: she isn't sure why she is better at one task than another; she seems unaware of the available personal resources she might garner to accomplish the studying task; she doesn't know how to adapt her study plan to meet the specific task demands. The difference between Emilie and Monica is not a simple quantitative difference in the amount of content knowledge possessed; what are illustrated here are the qualitative differences that exist between a more expert learner and a less strategic peer. This article explains and illustrates this concept of an expert learner as a strategic, self-regulated, and reflective learner. We describe how expert learners approach novel learning tasks; how metacognition (knowledge and regulation of one's own learning) facilitates the strategic performance of expert learners; and how reflection provides the critical link between the knowledge and control of the learning process. Although these concepts of expertise, metacognitive knowledge and regulation, and reflection are mentioned quite frequently in the literature, the relationship among them has not been well established. Weinstein & Van Mater Stone (1993) have taken the first step by linking the notions of expert and self-regulated learners yet we are convinced that, without the additional element of reflection, expert learning cannot occur. Our conception of expert learning focuses on reflection as the key to the process. To facilitate our discussion of these concepts, we present a model of the metacognitive knowledge and regulatory processes that underlie and support expert learning. The major components of knowledge and selfregulation are discussed first, followed by an explanation of how the process of reflection provides a critical link between them. The expert learner a description The topic of expertise first appeared in major textbooks in cognitive psychology in 1985, in Anderson's second edition of Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (noted in Chi, Glaser & Farr 1988). Since that time, many studies have examined the differences between experts and novices in a variety of fields including chess, physics, architecture, electronics, teaching, etc. (cf., Chi, Glaser & Farr 1988; Swanson, O'Connor & Cooney 1990). For many years educators' conception of an expert was 'simply someone who knew more about something than most other people knew' (Weinstein & Van Mater Stone 1993: 31). Although most people tend to think that it is the presence of large stores of knowledge that 'make an expert', current research indicates that there are both quantitative and qualitative differences between experts and novices (Alexander & Judy 1988; Bruer 1993; Paris, Lipson & Wixcon 1983). While the amount of experience one accumulates is an important part of expertise, experience alone is not considered sufficient to guarantee its development (Berliner 1994; Bruer 1993). In 1988, Glaser and Chi listed and described seven key characteristics of expert performance that previous research had uncovered. Weinstein & Van Mater Stone (1993) have summarized these characteristics succinctly: 'experts know more; their knowledge is better organized and integrated; they have better strategies and methods for getting to their knowledge, using it, applying it, and integrating it; and they have different motivations. Moreover, they tend to do things in a more self-regulated manner' (p. 32). Experts are described as being more aware of themselves as learners; their learning is 'reflected upon more than is the learning in which others engage' (Berliner 1994: 162). In addition, experts are thought to be more sensitive to the task demands of specific problems, as well as more opportunistic and flexible in their planning and their actions (Berliner 1994). As a result, experts are more aware than novices of when they need to check for errors, why they fail to comprehend, and how they need to redirect their efforts (Brown & DeLoache 1978, italics added). To some extent, the self-knowledge and superior monitoring skills of experts simply reflect the accumulation of greater domain knowledge and a different representation of that knowledge from novices. Yet expertise depends on more than just knowing facts and procedures (Schunk 1991a). It is the monitoring and self-regulatory skills that enable experts to know not only what is important (declarative knowledge) but also how (procedural knowledge), when, where, and why (conditional knowledge) to apply the right knowledge and actions. Expert learners are strategic strategy users. By using the knowledge they have gained of themselves as learners, of task requirements, and of specific strategy use, they can deliberately select, control, and monitor strategies to achieve desired goals and objectives. Learning activities are monitored while in progress to make on-line decisions regarding whether the strategy(ies) in use should be continued, modified, or terminated. Bransford & Vye (1989) extended Glaser and Chi's (1988) summary by describing some of the regulatory strategies that experts employ. Citing the work of a number of researchers, Bransford and Vye described experts as monitoring their own thinking and problem solving better than novices; judging the difficulty of problems more successfully; allocating their time and assessing their progress more effectively; and predicting the outcomes of their performance more accurately. The description of Emilie's studying behavior, provided earlier, depicts these qualities in action. Emilie's success was not due simply to her ability to apply an appropriate cognitive strategy, i.e., outlining based on text structure. What was more critical was her ability to effectively match the demands of the studying task with her own personal resources and constraints. By reflecting on previous learning experiences, Emilie effectively combined knowledge of task requirements (the particular demands of studying for essay tests), her own learning habits (preference for multiplechoice tests, willingness to work hard to master the content), and effective regulatory strategies (planning a time and place for studying, monitoring progress through self-testing and self-questioning, assessing understanding through peer conversations, while continually adjusting and revising chosen strategies to meet changing task demands) to create and implement a strategic study plan. Less successful learners are not as likely to monitor their own learning and, as illustrated by Monica, often do not have a very good idea about whether they have comprehended and mastered the information presented. It is generally acknowledged that many students are not adept at cognitive self-appraisal (Paris & Winograd 1990). Candy, Harri-Augstein & Thomas (1985) state that 'most students are almost totally unaware of how they attribute meaning to