Expert and Novice Teachers 1 Running head: PROBLEM REPRESENTATION IN TEACHING Problem Representation In Teaching: Inferences from Research of Expert and Novice Teachers

Research examining differences between expert and novice teachers is reviewed through the lens of cognition to outline and establish how features of the classroom are mentally represented. Studies are reviewed under Shulman’s (1986) framework characterizing knowledge bases necessary for teacher effectiveness, including content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge. Inferences are made as to how teachers, varying in experience level, represent classroom events including curriculum planning, instruction, management and communication. Implications for teacher education and professional development programs are discussed. Expert and Novice Teachers 3 Problem Representation In Teaching: Inferences From Research Of Expert And Novice Teachers Differences between experts and novices have been researched within several domains including, in part, chess (de Groot, 1978; Simon & Chase, 1973), physics (Chi, Feltovich & Glaser, 1981; Hardiman, Durfresne & Mestre, 1989), computer programming (Adelson, 1981) and mathematical problem solving (Shoenfeld & Herrmann, 1982). According to a review by Ericsson and Lehmann (1996), expertise in such domains has been investigated through the lens of innate abilities, (i.e. talent), years of studying in a domain (i.e. experience) and knowledge, including schemas and memory retrieval (i.e. cognition). The skill of teaching has been examined under similar lenses outlined by Ericsson and Lehmann (1996) within a variety of teaching domains, including science (Clermont, Borko & Krajcik, 1994), mathematics (Borko & Livingston, 1989; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986), physical education (Housner & Griffey, 1985) and music education (Standley & Madsen, 1991). While these research programs have compared expert and novice teachers, the studies have, to paraphrase Shulman (1986a), originated from markedly disparate orientations of research. Consequently, a grand understanding of teacher cognition, specifically how expert and novice teachers perceive and subsequently represent educational events, including curriculum planning, teaching and evaluation remains unclear. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine prior research in expert and novice teaching to outline how features of the classroom may be mentally represented by both expert and novice teachers. In doing so, insights into generalizable mental events associated with the act of teaching may be abstracted from otherwise seemingly disconnected research programs. Expert and Novice Teachers 4 As many researchers contend (Borko & Putnum, 1996; Berliner, 1986; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986), deepening our understanding of the cognitive processes inherent in the teaching profession is necessary to improve current practices of both pre-service and in-service teachers. One aspect of cognition central to this review is that of problem representation (Adelson, 1981; Chi, et.al., 1981; Chase & Simon, 1973; Hardiman et.al., 1989; Schoenfeld & Herrmann, 1982). Problem representation, in essence, is the mental construction, preservation and interpretation of information of real world object and events (McNamara, 1994). These representations, dependent on their complexity and sophistication, may constrain the mental processes associated with abilities such as perceiving, inferring, assuming, and recognizing situations and phenomena. Furthermore, how one mentally represents a problem is important in that the representation offers a guide to solving a problem at hand (McNamara, 1994). According to Pinker (1997), mental representations have been studied by cognitive psychologists through the evaluation of “reports, reaction times, and errors as individuals remember, solve problems, recognize objects and generalize from experience” (p. 85). To determine what factors may interfere or promote the sophistication level of mental representations, researchers have examined individuals with varying levels of expertise within a domain. Extant findings reveal that experts, in part, tend to represent problems using deep, structural features (e.g., the requisite analysis needed to solve a problem, underlying principles) while novices primarily rely on surface features (e.g., story characteristics, superficial causes). For example, Chi et al. (1981) investigated problem representation and knowledge organization in the domain of physics. Two of the four experiments consisted of sorting tasks where participants, ranging in experience from expert to novice, were asked to categorize physics word problems into groups based on solution similarity. Findings revealed that experts Expert and Novice Teachers 5 sorted the problems using deep structural features, the physics principles underlying the word problem such as Newton’s Law of Motion, while novices generally looked to surface features for grouping similarity, including the apparatus being manipulated in the problem (i.e. pulley, inclined plane). The researchers claimed, in part, that these distinctions stemmed from different knowledge structures, or schemas, existing between novices and experts in physics. Furthermore, while both experts and novices shared commonality in general physics knowledge, experts’ schemas increased in complexity by containing possible solution methods derived from features that trigger both implicit and explicit knowledge of the subject. While those who have examined differences between expert and novice teachers have not explicitly addressed mental representations, the questions posed and the methods used in data collection are quite similar to those used by cognitive psychologists. Taking these similarities into consideration, findings from literature of expert/novice teaching yield important insights into the ways expert and novice teachers mentally represent events inherent in their profession and in turn, provide important implications for the development and assessment of targeted practices in teacher training. Organizational Framework and Selection Criteria An organizational framework described by Shulman (1986b) is used herein to characterize expert/novice studies and systematize the survey of literature. Shulman argues, for teachers to be effective, competency must lie within three domains that include: 1) content knowledge, 2) pedagogical content knowledge and 3) pedagogical knowledge. He defines content knowledge as an understanding of the concepts embedded within the domain being taught. For example, teachers of biology need a thorough knowledge base detailing the overall structure of the domain, from the classification of organisms to their evolutionary development. Expert and Novice Teachers 6 Pedagogical content knowledge is defined as the ability to convey one’s understandings of the content knowledge through multiple models of teaching for student understanding, comprehension and achievement. Pedagogical knowledge, as referred to by Shulman, includes the skills necessary for classroom guidance, including management techniques, effective communication strategies and the assessment of student learning. From a pragmatic perspective, Shulman’s framework is useful in unraveling the complex relationships between teachers’ cognitive understandings of content and pedagogy and the influence they have on instruction. It also has utility in aligning the wide variety of research agendas found in the literature. Furthermore, Shulman’s framework is often used to guide practitioners and policymakers in professional development activities (Shulman, 1987). Perhaps more importantly, there is merit in using Shulman’s framework from a cognitive science perspective. The questions Shulman raises (e.g., how are such forms of knowledge acquired) with regard to the origin and development of the various kinds of knowledge are, in fact, epistemological in nature. As Alvin Goldman (1986) claims, the chief way that cognitive science can contribute to epistemology is to identify the basic processes of problem solving. Goldman specifically argues that the role of problem representation in this mental activity cannot be underestimated. To date, however, the ways that teachers represent problems and events in the classroom remains poorly understood for few studies have explicity investigated the cognitive process of representation. Thus, gaps remain in understanding the complex development from the novice to the expert teacher when specifically discussing problem representation and problem solving. Particular criteria were used to select the studies for this review. First, the studies had to be conducted shortly before and/or since Berliner’s (1986) presidential call to members of the Expert and Novice Teachers 7 American Education Research Association for deeper understandings of teacher expertise. Second, studies must have been designed to explicitly address expert-novice comparisons within a specific context (e.g., classroom management) or domain (e.g., mathematics). Finally, the experts referred to in the studies must have been defined by their expertise in teaching (as opposed to expertise in subject matter content). This criterion is in accord to DarlingHammond’s (2000) assertion that although content knowledge is important to effective teaching, it is pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge that exert a stronger influence on overall teaching performance. While the purpose of this paper is to examine the literature of expert/novice teaching using the theoretical framework of problem representation to infer mental representations of classroom events by teachers, three points need to be called to the reader’s attention. First, the studies included do not exhaust the research that has been conducted in expert/novice teaching. The studies included should, however, provide the reader with an overview of the research methods used, the criteria outlined to select participants, and the general questions used in examining possible differences between the expert and novice teacher. Second, the authors do not accept any notion that equates experience alone with expertise in teaching. While experience may improve perceptual abilities, such as found in the study by Standley and Madsen (1991), other criteria must be included for an accurate identification of expert teachers. The majority of the studies examined in this paper used experience as one contributing factor but also looked at improved student achievement (Leinhardt and Greeno, 1986), and/or supervisor recommendations (Borko & Livingston, 1989; Clarridge & Berliner, 1991; Swanson, O’Connor & Cooney, 1990) to define the expert teacher population. Finally, studies that examine either content knowledge and/or pedagogical content knowledge are discussed together as prior Expert and Novice Teachers 8 research has suggested that these two categories are interconnected and together, affect student achievement (McEwan & Bull, 1991; Rovengo, 1992). Individually, the studies discussed below shed needed light on the cognitive differences between expert and novice teachers on limited aspects of teaching. Collectively, the studies can be used to infer a schema for problem representation and knowledge organization in the domain of teaching, specifically in the way expert and novice teachers think about planning, teach content within their discipline, and perceive classroom events. Content/Pedagogical Content Knowledge Each study in this section explored similarities and differences between expert and novice teachers in a discipline-specific context (i.e. subject areas). In some cases (e.g., Clermont, Borko & Krajcik, 1994; Housner and Griffey, 1985; Schemp, Manross, Tan and Fincher, 1998), the researchers were interested in understanding the role and/or influence of knowledge in a subject among expert and novice teachers. In others, the researchers selected novice and expert teachers in a specific discipline or subject to make comparisons between the groups (e.g., Borko and Livingston, 1989; Leinhardt and Greeno, 1986; Standley and Madsen, 1991). Regardless, the studies reviewed have been categorized and discussed under three main components: curriculum planning, instruction, and the perception and reflection of classroom events. Curriculum Planning The literature examining content specialists suggests clear differences in the way expert and novice teachers organize their thinking and go about the task of planning curriculum. One major distinction between the two is in the way that the classroom is perceived (Housner and Griffey, 1985). When thinking about the classroom while planning instructional strategies (lesson planning), novice teachers tend to regard the class as a whole. That is, novice teachers do Expert and Novice Teachers 9 not think in terms of individual students. Rather, they think in terms of “a class” of thirty-five (or so) students. Expert content specialists, on the other hand, perceive the classroom as comprised of unique individuals. Perceiving the classroom on these two levels impacts the requisite analysis needed by the expert and novice to solve the problem of curriculum planning. For example, Housner and Griffey (1985) found that experienced teachers of physical education needed more specific information than novices before being able to plan lessons (53 requests as compared to 37 requests by novices) to teach skills in both soccer and basketball. Information included the availability of equipment, student ability, type of facility, and prior knowledge of the students. In contrast, novices were more inclined to disregard many of these important questions and concentrate strictly on the development of the lesson. While the types of activities were similar in both the experts’ and novices’ lesson plans, experts provided a greater number of adaptations that could be used if found that a student’s ability did not match the lesson or the goals of the lesson were met before the time period ended. In addition, experienced teachers planned twice as many strategies to teach a specific skill than did novices. In another study, Borko and Livingston (1989) found distinctions among expert and novice mathematics teachers in both the processes of mentally scripting lessons and in the development of both long range and short range goals for instruction. Novices tend to focus on short-term planning while expert content specialists focus on both long-term and short-term curriculum development. With a concentration on short-term planning, novices tend to generate highly scripted and mentally well-rehearsed instructional strategies. Expert curriculum plans (long-term) and lesson plans (short-term), however, were largely unrehearsed and unscripted. Specifically, experts were found to engage in various tiers of curriculum development including yearly, unit, and daily planning. Additionally, the amount of written planning was kept Expert and Novice Teachers 10 to a minimum, highlighting the main components of the lesson while the remaining part of the lesson was stored mentally. These mental operations included the timing and pacing of the presentation and the number and types of the examples used to teach the mathematical concept. Novice teachers also incorporated this type of mental planning but to a more specific degree such as scripting introductions or parts of the lesson, and determining ahead of time the types of questions they would ask during the lecture. Unlike the experts, the novices did not plan far ahead and admitted to being only pages or a section ahead of the students. The researchers found that problems arose when teachers relied on such narrow curriculum planning. For example, while teaching the lesson, the experts kept the lecture on track reaching the objectives that were established during planning. The experts were better prepared than the novices to answer students’ questions by using specific examples to explain the concepts and were able to achieve a balance between student and teacher-centered discussion. Novices were easily thrown off track when asked for a more detailed explanation that was not within their rehearsed script, which led to providing incorrect information and examples to the students. Instruction Expert content specialists’ ability to plan for both long range and short range goals and maintain a largely unrehearsed, unscripted mental model for teaching coupled with the novice’s focus on short-term, highly scripted, and well-rehearsed designs for teaching hint at yet another distinction between the way the two represent teaching. That difference is the complexity of the schema each holds for teaching. Researchers argue (Borko & Putnum, 1996; Carter et.al., 1988; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Livingston & Borko, 1989; Peterson & Comeaux, 1987) that with a richer, more complex schema, expert content specialists are able to perceive and recall more Expert and Novice Teachers 11 subtle classroom events, focus on individual student learning occurring in the classroom, and adjust instructional strategies accordingly. Novices, by comparison, hold a less complex schema and focus on short-term planning. They also tend to demonstrate few instructional strategies that are linked to the abilities of the class as a whole. Furthermore, the interest of the class towards a given topic has greater influence on the novice’s instructional strategies than does student achievement and/or understanding. Given the complexity of instruction, this section is broken down into the areas of teaching routines, demonstrations, feedback, and content. Teaching routines. Leinhardt and Greeno (1986) hypothesized that a teacher’s complex schemata could be dissected into smaller segments including routines (activities that are consistently and successfully completed each day with little mental effort, such as commanding student attention) and information schemata (the ability to collect information from a situation that will in turn be used later in the lesson). The researchers designed a framework comprised of action schemas defining the procedures cognitively followed by skilled teachers. The frameworks specifically outlined the goals, actions and consequences followed when 1) orally checking student homework, 2) communicating new math terminology and 3) presenting a new mathematical concept to students. The purpose of their study was to critically examine the hypothesized frameworks through the observation of both expert and novice teachers and pinpoint differences found between these two groups. During a three and a half month period, the researchers observed both expert and novice teachers in an elementary school. A portion of observations took place during mathematics instruction. Eight experts, selected on the basis of past student achievement, and four novices, identified as strong candidates from a mathematics methods course, participated in the study. Findings revealed that experts, when compared to novices, spent less time shifting from one class Expert and Novice Teachers 12 activity to the next, presented more concepts and ideas within a shorter amount of time, and were more consistent and efficient in probing for student comprehension through the use of questions and discussion. Additionally, experts used more guided and monitored practice during the lesson than did the novices and spent less class time completing these tasks. Demonstrations. The influence of pedagogical content knowledge has also been found to impact the teaching methods used to demonstrate abstract chemical principles, including air pressure and density to a classroom of students. Clermont and colleagues, (1994), identified experienced and novice chemical demonstrators through a questionnaire where participants were asked to rate their confidence in performing chemical demonstrations in the classroom and the average number of demonstrations that took place in their classroom per week. The experienced demonstrators were selected based on their response that 1) an average of four chemical demonstrations were performed weekly, 2) a high level of confidence in demonstrating chemical principles was reported and 3) their prior experiences in teaching effective practices of chemical demonstrations was documented. Novices reported low confidence in performing chemical demonstrations and that few demonstrations actually took place within their classrooms. Participants were asked to view two videotapes of a chemical demonstration using a critical-stop task approach. When the participant stopped the tape, the researcher asked him/her to “think aloud” as to whether the segment either supported or hindered the success of the demonstration in promoting student understanding of the concept. At the end of viewing both tapes, researchers asked a series of semi-structured interview questions where participants were asked to discuss additional thoughts about the two teaching performances and to provide alternative demonstrations that could be used to teach the same scientific principles. The researchers found that experienced and novice chemical demonstrators varied Expert and Novice Teachers 13 extensively in several ways. For example, experienced chemical demonstrators offered a greater number of alternative demonstrations that could be used to teach the same principle whereas novices, on average, could discuss only one other alternative. Additionally, the experts provided more detail in the alternative demonstrations, explaining how the demonstration depicts the abstract concept. The researchers inferred from these findings that expert chemical demonstrators have a richer, more complex mental representation for teaching abstract, chemical concepts through demonstration than novice demonstrators. Findings also revealed that experienced teachers recognize the complexities of chemical demonstrations, including the materials and tools used that could potentially cause misunderstandings and misconceptions of the illustrated concept. For example, to demonstrate the principle of air pressure, an aluminum can, with a small amount of water added, is heated under a flame. Moments later, using tongs, the demonstrator inverts the can into a bowl of cold water causing the water vapor inside the can to condense creating a partial vacuum. Due to the internal change in the can, the atmospheric pressure crushes the can. Experienced demonstrators realize, for example, that students may think that the can crushes due to the external force of the tongs used to invert the can into the bowl of water and were able to discuss alternatives or variations to the demonstration that may limit the misunderstandings. Novices, by comparison, rarely discussed issues of misconceptions occurring from the chemical demonstration itself and could offer little changes in simplifying the demonstration in order to increase student understanding. Feedback. Expert-novice research in teaching has indicated that different types of cues are used to inform instructional decision-making. For example, Housner and Griffey (1985) found student achievement as the main basis for altering a lesson by experienced teachers of Expert and Novice Teachers 14 physical education while novices teaching within this same domain changed instructional strategies based on class interest. Experienced teachers were concerned with student understanding and utilized different strategies to assist individuals experiencing difficulties. Novices, however, catered to the level of class interest and ability as a whole. When the majority of students’ interest or enjoyment decreased, novice teachers tended to disregard the initial lesson plan and alter the activity to maintain classroom management, regardless of the individuals who needed continued practice. This pattern of behavior would suggest that as a teacher’s schema approaches greater complexity, the classroom environment shifts from a more teacher-centered approach (e.g., the teacher’s focus is on teacher actions rather than learning outcomes) to an environment where organization, teaching efficiency and student understanding is at the forefront of concerns. Content. Because the scope of the school curriculum in a given subject is sufficiently broad to preclude expertise in all topics within the curriculum, a teacher may feel more knowledgeable and confident within one specific content area. The question remains whether the characteristics of expertise that a teacher holds while teaching one lesson transfers to a less familiar subject matter. Schemp and his colleagues (1998) explored this issue by examining the differences among ten physical education instructors teaching content both within and outside their area of expertise. The findings showed that when teaching within their expertise, a rich scaffold of skills and concepts were planned and executed. The teachers taught their lessons by introducing basic skills and eventually progressed to more the more complex. The teachers reported that if students could not master the initial steps in understanding a skill, difficulties would occur later in the lesson. The teachers also reported spending less time planning and a greater confidence in their Expert and Novice Teachers 15 knowledge of the content, their abilities to alter a lesson, and/or employ different teaching strategies when necessary. Differences were noted when these same teachers were asked to teach outside their expertise. Difficulties in planning and organizing coherent lessons were reported. Fewer instructional strategies were employed throughout the instructional period and the teachers were less willing to change or alter the planned lesson. Similar findings were revealed in the examination of science instructors (Hashweh 1987; Sanders, Borko & Lockard, 1993) and English teachers (Grossman, 1985) when teaching outside of their expertise. Together, these findings suggest that when expert teachers are confronted with teaching less familiar subject matter, they may not transfer behaviors characteristic of expert teaching and thereby mirror a more novice teaching approach. Perceptions and Reflections of Classroom Events In describing perceptual-cognitive features of expertise, Klein and Hoffman (1993) state that “novices see only what is there while experts can see what is not there” (p.203). Klein and Hoffman elaborate that the ability to perceive events within a domain allows an individual, a teacher for example, to anticipate problems, respond quickly and plan alternatives that prevent any future disturbances. Standley and Madsen (1991) researched the ability of perception of music educators with varying levels of experience. One hundred and fifty music educators, ranging in experience from greater than ten years of teaching to those enrolled in an undergraduate music education methods course, were asked to view video clips of interactions and events typically found in a music classroom. Participants provided written interpretations of their perceptions of classroom activity. Findings suggest a significant relationship between teaching experience and the ability to accurately perceive and describe interactions and events in Expert and Novice Teachers 16 the classroom. Borko and Livingston (1989) found that expert teachers of mathematics, when asked to reflect about the day’s lesson, focused mainly on student learning and understanding of the concept(s) presented. Classroom management was rarely mentioned and only in cases where the event affected the instructional goals and objectives of the lesson. The novices were more concerned with their overall effectiveness as a teacher. Thus, they expressed concerns about how they used examples and questions. Trivial concerns were also mentioned including chalkboard use and other isolated teaching behaviors. Surprisingly, the novices made little mention about student behavior and discipline problems, further illustrating a greater focus on their own behaviors as a teacher. Summary Combined, expert/novice studies with subject-specific context suggest specific differences within the areas of planning, instruction, and perceiving and reflecting on classroom events. Specifically, experts were found to plan long-term and cognizant of the relationship between daily objectives and the overall curriculum, while novices tended to focus on short-term planning. Novices were found to mentally script each section of their lesson, from the questions posed to students to the examples that could be used as concept reinforcements (Borko and Livingston, 1989; Schemp et.al., 1998). Experts were found to plan more strategies to teach a specific skill than novices and to implement their lesson largely unrehearsed prior to the instructional period (Housner and Griffey, 1985). Experts made more transitions among teaching activities than did novices, were more efficient in probing for student understandings, and made greater use of guided and monitored practice routines to increase student comprehension as compared with novices (Leinhardt and Expert and Novice Teachers 17 Greeno, 1986). If student comprehension was lacking, experts were able to employ a variety of alternative explanations whereas this ability unattainable by novices (Clermont et.al., 1994). Experts focused on individual student achievement and adapted their lesson accordingly while novices primarily used the interest level of the class as the cue for altering a lesson (Housner and Griffey, 1985). Finally, expert content specialists were more accurate in perceiving classroom events than novices (Standley & Madsen, 1991). When asked to reflect on a lesson, expert teachers were concerned with individual student understanding and achievement while novices were egocentric, and predominantly reflected primarily on their own teaching behaviors (Borko & Livingston, 1989). Attention now turns to a focus on the expert/novice studies within the domain of general pedagogical knowledge. Pedagogical Knowledge Expert-novice teacher studies provide insights about the behaviors, strategies, techniques and routines expert teachers use in their classroom. For example, researchers have examined classroom management strategies (Clarridge & Berliner, 1991; Sabers, Cushing & Berliner, 1991; Swanson et.al, 1990), effective communication techniques (Sánchez, Rosales & Cañedo, 1999), abilities to recall and reflect on classroom events (Allen & Casbergue, 1997; Gonzales & Carter, 1996) and foster meaningful classroom environments (O’Connor & Fish, 1995). Such studies focus on skills and knowledge without regard to subject-specific nuances. The findings from these studies contrast the ways in which novice and expert teachers represent problems and situations in teaching. Classroom Management One of the most important components of general pedagogical knowledge is that of Expert and Novice Teachers 18 effectively managing a classroom full of students (Borko and Putnum, 1996). How teachers perceive and manage the dynamic classroom has emerged from research exploring the behaviors of expert and novice teachers. For example, Swanson and colleagues (1990) explored how teachers mentally represent and solve classroom management issues including students talking at inappropriate times, not following instructions or arguments occurring between students during an instructional period. Using a “think aloud” protocol, forty-eight teachers were asked to read six classroom vignettes and discuss their initial thoughts of the problem and to then outline necessary steps to reach an effective solution. Responses were coded as heuristics (i.e. defining and interpreting the problem) and strategies (e.g., data acquisition, feedback and pattern extraction), referred to as mental components. The findings revealed that expert teachers displayed a greater number of these mental components than novices. Specifically, expert teachers defined the problem whereas novices were more interested in quickly solving the problem. To examine in greater detail the management of student-to-student and teacher-to-student interactions, Clarridge and Berliner (1991) designed a simulated classroom where teachers, with varying levels of expertise and experience, taught a lesson to students with diverse needs and behaviors. Nineteen teachers were grouped according to the framework developed by Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) claiming that expertise in a domain is highly dependent upon a developmental progression from novice, to advanced beginner to experienced. All teachers were asked to plan and teach a lesson on mathematical probability to approximately 21 high school students in which seven confederate students were placed. For example, “Donna” played the part of a very enthusiastic learner who tended to monopolize the conversation and “Joe” acted the part of an unruly student by being tardy and getting up Expert and Novice Teachers 19 throughout class without permission. Each lesson was videotaped and the participant was asked to “think aloud” while watching the tape, recalling their thoughts at each point of the lesson. When responses were analyzed, significant differences emerged between the experts and novices. The experts indicated that much of the misbehavior was typical and also discussed the various strategies they used in their own classrooms to solve such behavioral problems. In contrast, novices were unaware of the misbehavior or, if they were aware, they discussed how they were unprepared to effectively handle these incidences. While novices may have difficulties in managing such situations given a lack of experience, the researchers were surprised to find that many novices were unable to simply recall the events of misbehavior. Research conducted by Sabers et.al., (1991) suggest similar findings as they examined seven teachers’ assessment of classroom events using three properties inherent of the profession. These properties, as outlined by Doyle (1986), include 1) simultaneity as defined by the multitude of teacher-student and student-student interactions occurring in the classroom, 2) multidimensionality, as characterized by the number of simultaneous interactions occurring each day and 3) immediacy, which referred to the rapidity of managing these interactions. The seven teachers represented three levels of teaching experience (expert, advanced beginner and novice). To recreate these properties, each participant viewed a teaching lesson from three different television monitors with each monitor showing interactions from one-third of the classroom. When asked to discuss their perceptions of the classroom, experts used more evaluative comments while advanced beginners and novices tended to describe the events taking place. In addition, experts were more analytical and specific about the instructional strategies employed by the teacher. Advanced beginners and novices used more general terms, such as lecture or activity, when interpreting these same instructional practices. Expert and Novice Teachers 20 Expert teachers also were better able to monitor and interpret classroom events simultaneously by dividing their attention to each screen: 24% for the left monitor, 42% for the center monitor and 24% for the right monitor. Alternatively, novices and advanced beginners were primarily concerned with interactions taking place on the middle screen. The researchers emphasized that the teacher instructing the class appeared most frequently on the middle monitor. Thus, novices and advanced beginners may have perceived classroom events through actions of a teacher whereas experts realize the importance of scanning both student and teacher actions to represent the classroom dynamics. Recall and Reflection of Classroom Events The literature suggests that expert teachers, as compared to novices, identify more meaningful events in a dynamic classroom (Carter, Sabers, Cushing, Pinnegar & Berliner, 1987; Needels, 1991; Peterson & Commeaux, 1987). To explore possible differences in the interpretation of these events, Gonzales and Carter (1996) examined thirteen teams consisting of a cooperating teacher (with more than twelve years of teaching experience) and his/her student teacher. At the end of the semester-long internship, each member of the dyad was asked to recall the three most salient teaching events that occurred throughout the apprenticeship. While each member remembered similar events, cooperating teachers had a more elaborate mental framework used to discuss each episode. For example, they tended to focus on necessary skills such as planning, pacing, instruction and student learning. When a lesson fell short of established objectives, the experienced teachers commented on the organization and management of the lesson. Similar to Clarridge and Berliner’s findings (1991), novices recalled events through a narrow lens, attributing problems that arose to management issues that, at the time, they were unable or unprepared to handle. Additionally, the novices tended to attribute Expert and Novice Teachers 21 their successes or failures to the number and type of confrontations they experienced with students, neglecting to attribute responsibility to their specific teaching behaviors. While Gonzales and Carter (1996) explored the recall abilities based on an extended period of time, Allen and Casbergue (1997) focused on the expert and novice teachers’ degree and accuracy of recall within a single instructional period. The study included three expert teachers, identified by their experience (greater than ten years of experience) and an administrative nomination; four intermediate teachers (one to seven years of experience); and five novices (student teachers). The data included an audiotape recording of the entire instructional period, the researchers’ field notes describing events occurring within the classroom, and a checklist used by the researcher to record both teacher and student behaviors every five minutes. At the end of the instructional period, participants engaged in a structured interview in which they were asked to recall both student and teacher behaviors. Interviews were transcribed and compared to the observer’s field notes, checklist and the audiotape of the lesson. Findings revealed that all three groups were largely accurate in their recall when compared to the researcher’s recorded observations. Comparable to Borko and Livingston’s (1989) findings, novice teachers tended to discuss their own teaching behaviors. Also, the novices conveyed their main concern as following their scripted lesson, ensuring that the objectives of the lesson were met by the end of the period. Intermediate teachers reported shifting away from honing their teaching skills to focusing on student understanding. They attributed this shift to their comfort with the content being presented, enabling them to concentrate more on student learning. Experts, by comparison, realized that student understanding and achievement was intertwined with the delivery of instruction. Experts reported focusing, and recalling in greater details, both their own teaching actions and that of specific student behavior. Expert and Novice Teachers 22 Throughout the interview, the researchers found that novice teachers were strained in their recall of specific events. They discussed the instructional period in terms of instruction, student conversations, and interactions with students. Experts exhibited a consistent and easy ability to recall both specific and general events. The experts were able to specify student instances that influenced their chosen instructional or management strategies. Finally, consistent with other studies (Clarridge & Berliner, 1991; Gonzales & Carter, 1996; Westerman, 1991) novice teachers recalled neutral behaviors enacted by themselves and their students, virtually ignoring poor behavior that occurred during the lesson, while expert and intermediate teachers recalled all behaviors along the continuum during the instructional period. Communication Verbal communication in the classroom enables teachers to convey necessary expectations, to assess student knowledge through questions, and effectively convey new knowledge. Sánchez and colleagues (1999) examined verbal discourse to explore possible differences in the strategies implemented by expert and novice teachers during their instruction. Nine expert teachers and nine novice teachers (student teachers) were asked to present two lectures to a class of students. The lectures were later transcribed and analyzed by the researchers who examined the discourse under three categories: the given (e.g., assessment of student’s prior knowledge of the topic), the new (e.g., the ordered presentation of new ideas using prior knowledge as supports and links), and evaluation (e.g., the verification that new ideas were being understood by the students). Within the first two categories, the given and the new, the researchers found that the expert teachers were better equipped than novices at selecting and diversifying strategies to assess their audience’s prior knowledge of the given topic. In turn, expert teachers used this information to Expert and Novice Teachers 23 create a greater number of supports and links to guide students to similar understandings of the topic, and to connect new knowledge to prior knowledge, than did the novice instructors. The data also suggested that expert teachers’ discourse revolved around a central, or thematic topic throughout the lecture whereas novices presented the information in a disorganized and disjointed manner. In summary, experts perceived the learning process through a cognitive lens, explicitly creating connections between prior and new knowledge. Discourse within the third category, evaluation, indicated that expert teachers assessed student comprehension throughout the entire lecture while the novices ignored this facet of discourse. Experts tended to ask higher-order questions, including the analysis or synthesis of information, while novices primarily relied on rhetorical questions to guide their instruction. Classroom Environment Thus far, expertise in pedagogical knowledge has been explored through specific teaching behaviors including reflection, communication, and observation. O’ Connor and Fish (1998) were interested in understanding the differences between the classrooms of experts and novices. Thus, they examined eighteen classrooms taught by teachers with less than one full year of experience (novices) and that of expert teachers (greater than five years of experience and an administrative recommendation). The Classroom Systems Observation Scale (CSOS) (Fish & Dane, 1995) was administered to both students and teachers within each classroom and is designed to measure the overall cohesion within the classroom and the flexibility and communication of both instructor-to-student and student-to-student interactions. Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Borko & Livingston, 1989; Westerman, 1991; Shemp et.al., 1998) classrooms taught by expert teachers reflected a greater balance of flexibility than those taught by novices. Both students and teachers in these classrooms were better able to adapt Expert and Novice Teachers 24 to different situations that frequently occurred in day-to-day activities. Analysis also revealed higher scores on the communication dimension of the CSOS in the expert classrooms than in the novice classrooms. Thus, expert teachers used different strategies to communicate with their students, including the use of questioning, probing and exchanging ideas and thoughts. As predicted, the degree of cohesion, including the emotional bonding among students and with the teacher, was similar across all classrooms. Thus, the skill of creating a warm environment may not be dependent on the amount of experience a teacher possesses. Summary Studies conducted without regard to content area highlighted differences in general pedagogical skills of expert and novice teachers. For example, experts are more likely to identify and subsequently solve management problems in the classroom using external controls (e.g., change seating assignments) whereas the novice teacher tends to be unaware or in some instances, ignore classroom disruptions (Swanson et.al., 1990). As Sabers and her colleagues (1991) found, expert teachers were able to articulate in greater detail and accuracy as to events occurring in the classroom whereas novices, in contrast, generically described the same occurrences. Additionally, expert teachers are capable of scanning an entire room simultaneously to better understand how classroom events are unfolding while novices and advanced beginners tend to focus their attention to only one area of the room. Expert teachers tend to focus on student learning and achievement when asked to recall and reflect upon a teaching lesson by elaborating on the organization and management of the lesson, emphasizing both student and teacher behaviors. Novices, in contrast, placed greater weight on their own performance, specifically to student misbehaviors encountered rather than the effectiveness of the learning environment (Allen and Casbergue, 1997; Gonzales and Carter, Expert and Novice Teachers 25 1996). Additionally, Sanchez and colleagues (1999) found that when presenting new ideas or content matter to students, expert teachers tend to use multiple strategies to assess students’ mental schemas prior to introducing new information. This new content is then linked with prior knowledge and the assessment of student understanding occurs throughout the entire instructional period. Novices were found to teach in a manner where these important connections between prior and new knowledge are not emphasized and where flexibility and adaptability are less prevalent within the classroom environment as compared to experts. Discussion of Representation Goldman (1986) argues that there are many domains of cognition and many forms of representation and that there may be specialized constraints on representation to particular domains. Nonetheless, the cognitive components useful in describing representation in teaching include assumption, recognition, and abstraction. Accordingly, these components can serve to frame the discussion of expert/novice differences in teaching within and across general pedagogy (pedagogical knowledge) and subject specific pedagogy (content and pedagogical content knowledge). With regard to general pedagogical knowledge, studies (e.g., O’Connor & Fish, 1995; Sanchez et.al., 1999) suggest distinct differences between expert and novice teachers. Expert teachers appear to assume that effective instruction (productive introduction of new content) relies on the use of advanced organizers designed to accommodate students’ prior knowledge. Furthermore, expert teachers sought to recognize student comprehension on a more ongoing basis throughout the instructional period. Alternatively, novices assume that effective instruction links more directly to a teacher’s ability to communicate clearly and efficiently. The use of examples and analogies, the implementation of strategic approaches to questioning, and the Expert and Novice Teachers 26 elicitation of student understandings remained virtually absent from their dialogue in class. While both novice and expert teachers perceive the classroom as a place that should foster healthy relationships between both the students and the teacher, experts tend to rely on multiple features of the classroom environment, including flexibility, adaptability and effective communication methods, to characterize their surroundings. Studies (Clarridge and Berliner, 1991; Swanson et.al., 1990) that examined classroom management suggest other distinctions between representational skills of experts and novices. In managing the classroom environment, for example, expert teachers tend to analyze and generate multiple hypotheses in the process of recognizing and solving discipline problems. Expert solutions to discipline problems often entail structural modifications of the classroom, focusing on physical arrangements and making changes where necessary (e.g., altering seat assignments, consequences for misbehavior). Furthermore, the strategies employed were dependent upon the particular problem. In contrast, novices tend to represent discipline problems through the solution and are unable to elaborate on any possible underlying causes. Indeed, novices may generally lack the ability to recognize discipline problems. Perhaps these differences in abilities relate to the findings by Sabers et al. (1991) indicating that experts and novices perceive the classroom differently. For example, expert teachers recognize the important role of both student-to-teacher and student-to-student interactions occurring during an instructional period. Such teachers possess the ability to scan an entire room while simultaneously noting individual student behavior. In contrast, novices tend to place their attention in a classroom on the actions of the teacher. This perceptual filter may go as far as virtually ignoring poor conduct or sudden outbursts by students. Expert and Novice Teachers 27 From studies examining teachers’ ability to recall and reflect on classroom events (Allen & Casbergue, 1997; Clarridge & Berliner, 199; Gonzales & Carter, 1996), other perceptual differences emerge. Expert teachers, for example, tend to recall episodes through an elaborate framework, addressing the teaching skills necessary for student understanding, such as the organization and management of the lesson. Novices, on the other hand, tend to recall more surface features of the events, including the number of student confrontations that occurred during the lesson. Furthermore, expert teachers reflected on classroom events through the analysis of their own teaching actions and their students’ behaviors while novices tended to represent the event based only on their own teaching skills. Given the content-specific context of studies of expert/novice teachers, the task of generating generic representational skills in the content/pedagogical content knowledge domain is somewhat more difficult. Therefore, the authors do not take the leap to generalize inferences about representational skills of experts and novices across all content areas. Nonetheless, an attempt to characterize the differences by content area can be made. Expert physical education teachers, for example, visualize planning as a rich scaffold of events, where each lesson builds upon prior knowledge, consistent with the overarching goals of the curriculum (Schemp et al., 1998). Experts in mathematics plan curriculum from multiple tiers, including daily, weekly and yearly. Novices, in contrast, are unable to connect the goals of one lesson to the entire course curriculum and, instead, perceive planning as separate, daily entities. Additionally, experts are able to mentally abstract the main instructional goals of instruction within each lesson. This skill allows the teacher to effectively deliver instruction without the need for specifically writing down what will be said, what examples will be used, Expert and Novice Teachers 28 what strategies will be employed, and what questions will be asked. Novices, on the other hand, rely primarily on highly scripted and well-rehearsed plans (Borko and Livingston, 1989). Studies (Clermont, Borko & Krajcik, 1994, Housner and Griffey, 1985) that explored the skill of subject-specific teaching found that experts represent the task of instruction by regarding the classroom as a set of individuals with unique differences and abilities and personal prior knowledge. Experts have an elaborate understanding of the content that is delivered to students and are able to represent the abstract concepts more concretely than novices. This deeper representation provides the expert teacher an ability to perceive and/or anticipate possible obstacles to learning, such as misconceptions, and adjust instruction accordingly. Furthermore, experts in both physical and mathematics education seek links between instruction and student achievement (Housner and Griffey, 1985, Leinhardt and Greeno, 1986). They perceive the classroom as an orderly, efficient environment where transitions are subtle and quick, prior knowledge is considered in the instruction of new knowledge, and the idea that practice, through the presentation of examples and questioning, is necessary for student understanding. Alternatively, novices perceive and treat students in the classroom as an entire body where the general level of interest and ability guides instructional strategies. Implications While the research concerning expert/novice teaching differences within subject-specific and general classrooms has merit, there are several important shortcomings that must be acknowledged. First, the majority of these studies employed relatively small sample sizes. While this may reflect the complex methods employed, such sample sizes make generalizations to the broader population of teachers tenuous. Second, the complex methods in these studies preclude exact replication and are generally not feasible to use on large numbers of participants. Lastly, Expert and Novice Teachers 29 while researchers have explored expert/novice differences within a variety of teaching domains (e.g., science, mathematics and music), a consensus on the generic distinctions between the expert and novice teacher has yet to be established. Despite their limitations, the studies do provide rich descriptions of teaching behaviors stemming from expertise and, in doing so, offer insights into the cognitive components influencing the ways teachers represent aspects of their profession. These components include a more elaborate schema, deep knowledge of content, and the propensity for goal-oriented thinking. For example, researchers (Borko & Putnum, 1996; Livingston & Borko, 1989; Carter et.al., 1988; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Peterson & Comeaux, 1987) examining expert teachers have indicated that “expertise” stems from a more complex schema that each holds for teaching. Clermont and colleagues (1994) characterize the expert chemical demonstrator as possessing a rich, mental perception for abstract chemical principles. This perception allows for the generation of alternative demonstrations, variations to a complex demonstration to reduce possible student misunderstandings or misconceptions and the identification of critical junctures in a teaching demonstration where further inquiry or clarity of a concept could be infused. Additionally, Borko and Livingston (1989) found that expert teachers tend to represent curriculum planning by looking at the big picture, establishing yearly goals and objectives to guide the development of weekly and daily lessons. Given that expert and novice teachers represent dimensions of teaching, such as curriculum development, instruction and assessment, differently, further research is warranted to examine whether novice teachers can be taught the representational skills of experts. Interestingly, findings from studies in other domains, including physics (Rabinowitz & Hodulik, 1997) and statistics (Quilici & Mayer, 1996), have found that novices can be taught to represent Expert and Novice Teachers 30 problems on a more expert level through instruction and practice. For example, Rabinowitz and Hodulik found differences between two methods of instruction in representing and subsequently sorting physics problems into categories sharing similar features. Participants instructed to sort using an exemplar-based approach compared to those using definitions outlining central features of the categories required fewer attempts to successfully sort the fifteen problems. Moreover, while some (Bloom, 1985; Chase & Simon, 1973; Hayes, 1981) have argued that expertise is reached only after 10 years or 10,000 hours of experience within a specific domain, Klein and Hoffman (1993) argue that expertise could be reached within a shorter amount of time dependent on the types of experiences and practices that an individual encounters within their field. Klein and Hoffman (1993) contend that teaching expert strategies in a generic environment will not guarantee the development from novice to expert behavior. Rather, they recommend that practice situations take place through four situated learning experiences including, 1) personal experience where an individual is consistently challenged by a range of task demands differing in the number and degree of difficulty, 2) direct experience defined as on the job training under the supervision of an expert tutor or mentor, 3) manufactured experience where an individual sharpens his/her perceptual abilities through simulations and/or role playing and 4) vicarious experience defined as the opportunity to read or visualize a complex task and asked to highlight the difficulties and problems encountered within the scenario and propose working solutions (p. 215). The situations described by Klein and Hoffman are particularly well suited for application in teacher education. The focus then turns to the types of activities that both expert and novice teachers engage in within those situations. Dunn and Shriner (1999) provide direction on the types of activities that may assist in the development of teacher expertise. Their study focused on deliberate practice within the teaching Expert and Novice Teachers 31 domain and identified activities deemed important for effective teaching. The activities were evaluated by 136 teachers on the basis of four conditions identified by Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Romer (1993) as necessary for meaningful deliberate practice in providing an optimal environment for learning and acquiring the necessary skills for the development of domain expertise. Those conditions include relevance (perceiving the activity as being highly relevant to the improvement of teaching), effort (a considerable amount of effort is necessary to sustain the behavior), enjoyment (it is not necessary for the activity to be enjoyable) and frequency (the activity must be practiced frequently). The six activities suggested by Dunn and Shriner (1999) include: 1) preparing materials needed for instructional activities; 2) mentally planning instructional strategies and activities; 3) evaluating student progress using graded, written work, and projects; 4) informally evaluating students through observations and non-graded performances; 5) written planning; 6) evaluating student progress using teacher-made tests (p.636). Not surprisingly, many of these activities have been used to examine differences between the expert and novice teacher. For example, planning and preparing lessons have been studied under Shulman’s framework of pedagogical content knowledge (Borko & Livingston; 1989; Housner & Griffey, 1985), while skills in general pedagogy, including informally evaluating students through observation have been detailed by a multitude of researchers (Allen & Casbergue, 1997; Clarridge & Berliner, 1991; Sabers et.al., 1991). Expert and Novice Teachers 32 A synthesis of the research on expert teaching, the suggestions by Dunn & Shriner (1999), and the recommendations of Klein and Hoffman (1993) can certainly inform the structure of professional development programs for teachers to foster the development of expertise on a more rapid track. The authors, by no means, believe that teacher education programs can graduate expert teachers by the completion of a preparation period of two to four years. However, it is reasonable to propose specific activities to improve one’s perceptual and representational skills of classroom events. These skills, in turn, may offer an improved ability to perceive and respond to classroom situations more expertly. It is also reasonable to suggest that such activities target specific teacher knowledge domains (content, pedagogical content, and pedagogy). And, as Shulman (1987) has stated, the centrality of representation to the conception of those knowledge domains of teaching is critical. Within the knowledge domain of pedagogy, for example, to help novices begin to represent curriculum planning more like experts (i.e., establishing yearly goals and objectives to guide the development of weekly and daily lessons) directed experiences, including method courses and student teaching, should provide opportunities for education students to consider both long and short-term curriculum development. This can be accomplished by asking them to develop instructional objectives for an entire curriculum before scripting daily lessons or thematic units. Furthermore, when planning, students should practice strategies that assess the range of student abilities and prior understandings (e.g., brainstorms, higher-order questioning) so that instruction focuses on individual achievement. It is expected that as education students are asked to frequently practice both written and mental curriculum planning, their knowledge and desire to continually improve will extend into the realm of personal experience – as teachers of their own classrooms Expert and Novice Teachers 33 To learn expert skills in managing a classroom, manufactured experiences and vicarious experiences, including role playing and case studies, could be developed whereby novices learn to first focus on possible sources of specific discipline or academic problems, rather than limiting their discussion to over-learned solutions. Case studies have been identified as a possible source for improving teacher education in that the scenarios offer preservice students opportunities to develop a universal vocabulary for both recognizing and solving problems and issues inherent to all teachers (Broudy, 1990). As Berliner (1986) argued, a better understanding of the ways in which experts represent and respond to classroom situations could benefit novice teachers by learning through examples detailing the ways in which experts respond and solve problems posed in the scenarios. Additionally, Klein and Hoffman argue that manufactured experiences allow individuals the chance to improve their ability to discriminate. As Clarridge and Berliner (1991) found, expert teachers were able to discriminate between typical misbehaviors and those that could possibly lead to entire classroom disturbances while novices may have been unaware or unable to discriminate between that of typical and misbehaviors of students. In sections of a professional development program that focuses on content or pedagogical content knowledge, education students can enrich their mental representations of concepts and principles through a variety of ways. For one example, the students can be challenged to develop analogies, metaphors, and models for content. For another, the education students can be directed to teach concepts using multiple avenues for explaining and demonstrating content. In yet another example, case studies can be used to highlight typically held misconceptions grade students hold about natural phenomena. In follow up, the education students can be asked to incorporate discrepant events to promote inquiry and/or concept clarification on the part of the learner. In doing so, the education students may begin to understand, as Shulman (2000) Expert and Novice Teachers 34 expresses, the difference between personally knowing something and understanding what is required for someone else to know and understand it. The authors acknowledge that such approaches and practices may indeed exist within teacher preparation programs. However, it may be counter-argued that there are many practices that exist within educational programs based on convenience and familiarity, rather than aresearchsupported rationale (Fullan, 1994). As the demand for accountability in teacher education increases, it is hoped that findings from research that clarifies cognitive components involved in teaching can be used as a guideline for realistic, research-supported professional development programs. In this way, the programs may take a developmental approach to professional training. Expert and Novice Teachers 35 ReferencesAdelson, B. (1981). Problem solving and the development of abstract categories in programminglanguages. Memory & Cognition, 9, 422-433.Allen, R.M., & Casbergue, R.M. (1997). Evolution of novice through expert teachers' recall:Implications for effective reflection on practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(7),741-755.Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13. Borko, H., & Putnum, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 673-707). New York: Simon & SchusterMacmillanBorko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematicsinstruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26,473-498.Broudy, H.S. (1990). Case studies why and how. Teachers College Record, 91, 449-459.Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D.S., Stein, P., & Berliner, D. (1988). Expert-novice differencesin perceiving and processing visual stimuli. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3),25-31. Carter, K., Sabers, D. S., Cushing, K. S., Pinnegar, S., & Berliner, D. C. (1987). Processing andusing information about students: A study of expert, novice and postulant teachers.Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 147-157. Chase, W.G., & Simon, H.A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81.Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152. Expert and Novice Teachers 36 Clarridge, P. B., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Perceptions of student behavior as a function ofexpertise. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 26(1), 1-8.Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogicalcontent knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 31(4), 419-441.Cushing, K.S., Sabers, D.S., & Berliner, D.C. (1992). Olympic gold: Investigations of expertisein teaching. Educational Horizons, 70, 108-114. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education,51(3), 166-173.de Groot, A.D. (1978). Thought and choice and chess. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.Doyle, W. (1986) Classroom organization and management. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbookof Research on Teaching (3 ed., pp. 392-425). New York: Macmillan.Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine. New York: Free Press.Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence ofmaximal adaptations to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273-305.Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in theacquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406. Fish, M.C., & Dane, E. (1995). Classroom Systems Observation Scale: Manual.Fullan, M. (1994). Teacher leadership: A failure to conceptualize. In D.R. Walling (Ed.),Teachers as Leaders (pp. 241-255). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.Goldman, A.I., (1986). Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Expert and Novice Teachers 37 Gonzalez, L. E., & Carter, K. (1996). Correspondence in cooperating teachers' and studentteachers' interpretations of classroom events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1),39-47.Grossman, P.L. (1985). A passion for language: From text to teaching. Knowledge Growth inTeaching Publication Series. Stanford: Standford School of Education.Hardiman, P.T., Dufresne, R., & Mester, J.P. (1989). The relation between problemcategorization and problem solving among experts and novices. Memory and Cognition, 17, 627-638.Hashweh, M.Z. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology andphysics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109-120.Housner, L. D., & Griffey, D. C. (1985). Teacher cognition: Differences in planning andinteractive decision-making between experienced and inexperienced teachers. ResearchQuarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 45-53.Klein, G.A. and Hoffman, R.R. (1993). Seeing the invisible: Perceptual-Cognitive aspects ofexpertise. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive Science Foundations of Instruction (pp.203-226). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysisand implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 36-42. McEwan, H., & Bull, B. (1991). The pedagogic nature of subject matter knowledge. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 28(2), 316-334. Expert and Novice Teachers 38 McNamara, T. (1994). Knowledge representation. In R. Sternberg's (Ed.), Thinking and ProblemSolving (pp. 81-117). New York: Academic Press.Needels, M.C. (1991). Comparison of student, first-year, and experienced teachers'interpretations of a first-grade lesson. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(3), 269-278.O'Connor, E.A., & Fish, M.C. (1998, April). Differences in the classroom systems of expert andnovice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, San Diego, CA. Peterson, P.L., & Comeaux, M.A. (1987). Teachers' schemata for classroom events: The mentalscaffolding of teachers' thinking during classroom instruction. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 3, 319-331.Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Rabinowitz, M. & Hodulik, C. (1997, August). Categorizing physics problems. Paper presentedat the annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Palo Alto, CA.Rovengo, I. (1992). Learning to teach in a field-based methods course: The development ofpedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 69-82.Quilici, J.L., & Mayer, R.E. (1996). Role of examples in how students learn to categorizestatistics word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 144-161. Sabers, D. S., Cushing, K. S., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Differences among teachers in a taskcharacterized by simultaneity, multidimensionality, and immediacy. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 28(1), 63-88. Sánchez, E., Rosaes, J., & Cañedo, I. (1999). Understanding and communication in expositivediscourse: An analysis of the strategies used by expert and pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 37-58. Expert and Novice Teachers 39 Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. D. (1993). Secondary science teachers' knowledge basewhen teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 30(7), 723-736.Schemp, P.G., Manross, D., Tan, S.K.S., & Fincher, M.D. (1998). Subject Expertise andTeacher's Knowledge. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 342-356.Shoenfeld, A.H., & Herrmann, D.J. (1982). Problem perception and knowledge structure inexpert and novice mathematical problem solvers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 8, 484-494.Shulman, L.S. (2000). Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogicalknowledge. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 129-135.Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. HarvardEducational Review, 57(1), pp. 1-22.Shulman, L.S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: Acontemporary perspective. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching(3 Edition) (pp. 3-36), New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher, 15, 4-14. Standley, J.M., & Madsen, C.K. (1991). An observation procedure to differentiate teachingexperience and expertise in music education. Journal of Research in Music Education,39(1), 5-11. Swanson, H. L., O'Connor, J. E., & Cooney, J. B. (1990). An information processing analysis ofexpert and novice teachers' problem solving. American Educational Research Journal,