Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T13:16:50.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Adaptive Expertise and Knowledge Fluency in Design and Innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Ann F. McKenna
Edited by
Aditya Johri  and
Barbara M. Olds
Ann F. McKenna
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Aditya Johri
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter presents an overview of the adaptive expertise framework and describes how this framework holds promise for exploring knowledge fluency in the context of engineering design and innovation. Adaptive expertise is linked to research on knowledge transfer and the development of expertise. Each of these theoretical approaches explores how one recognizes when knowledge learned in one setting may apply in a novel setting, and the mechanisms for transfer of knowledge when challenged by an unfamiliar or ambiguous situation.

The adaptive expertise framework is directly applicable in the context of design and innovation given the emphasis on how one develops adaptiveness in learning, and how to apply knowledge fluidly. The process of design and innovation involves developing a solution where one does not yet exist. From this perspective, every design situation is novel, embeds ambiguity, and has no one correct answer. The very nature of design requires one to recognize how prior knowledge might apply under new circumstances. Furthermore, research suggests that the nature of knowledge one employs in the process of design innovation is nuanced, complex, and spans the cognitive, metacognitve, and affective domains.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research , pp. 227 - 242
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology (ABET). (2000). Engineering Criteria 2000. Retrieved from , 2000
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atman, C. J., Kilgore, D., and McKenna, A. F. (2008). Characterizing design learning: A mixed-methods study of engineering designers’ use of language. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, S., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, S., & Koslowski, B (2002). Adaptive expertise: Effects of type of experience and the level of theoretical understanding it generates. Thinking & Reasoning, 8(4), 237–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordogna, J., Fromm, E., & Ernst, E. W. (1993). Engineering education: Innovation through integration. Journal of Engineering Education, 82(1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.Google Scholar
Broudy, H. S. (1977). Types of knowledge and purposes of education. In Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Montague, W. E. (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 1–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 10, 333–356.Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1996). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, L. L. (2003). Designing and learning: A disjunction in contexts, Design Studies, 24(3), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, E. C., & Nelson, G. D. (1991). Promoting positive transfer of different types, Cognition and Instruction, 8(1), 69–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carberry, A. R., Lee, H-S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring engineering design self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. D. (2002). The transfer dilemma. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts' characteristics. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 21–30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M, Feltovich, P., & Glaser, P. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., & Ohlsson, S. (2005). Complex declarative learning. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J. Y., Linsenmeier, R. A., Molina, E., Glucksberg, M. R., & McKenna, A. F. (2011). Assessing engineering students’ mathematical modeling abilities in capstone design. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Crawford, V. M. (2007). Adaptive expertise as knowledge building in science teachers’ problem solving. In Proceedings of the Second European Cognitive Science Society (EuroCogSci07), Delphi, Greece.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (1998). Expertise in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, 10(3), 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Corte, E. (1999). On the road to transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 555–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detterman, D. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as epiphenomenon. In Detterman, D. K. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone.Google Scholar
diSessa, A. A., & Wagner, J. F. (2005). What coordination has to say about transfer. In Mestre, J. P. (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
Di Vesta, F. J., & Peverly, S. T. (1984). The effects of encoding variability, processing activity, and rule-example sequence on the transfer of conceptual rules. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, Larry (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, A. K., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Cambridge handbook on expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, A. K., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007, July). The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review, 114–121.
Ericsson, A. K., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Eris, O., & Leifer, L. (2003). Facilitating product development knowledge acquisition: Interaction between the expert and the team. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 142–152.Google Scholar
Fisher, F. F., & Peterson, P. (2001). A tool to measure adaptive expertise in biomedical engineering students. In Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 855–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gott, S., Hall, P., Pokorny, A., Dibble, E., & Glaser, R. (1992). A naturalistic study of transfer: Adaptive expertise in technical domains. In Detterman, D. & Sternberg, R. (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 258–288). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Greeno, J., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In Detterman, D. K. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Hall, R., Kibler, D., Wegner, E., & Truxaw, C. (1989). Exploring the episodic structure of algebra story problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 6(3), 223–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In Stevenson, H., Azuma, H., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan, (pp. 262–272). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, M. A., & McKenna, A. F. (2008a). The influence of problem structure on students’ use of innovative learning strategies. Paper presented at the Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES), Davos, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Hutchison, M. A., & McKenna, A. F. (2008b). Promoting innovative design. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, ASEE 2008, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Beng Lee, C. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(20), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, D. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (2000). Transfer and expertise. In Tulving, E. & Craik, F. I. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 109–122). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(4450), 1335–1342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, and challenges for future research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marini, A., & Genereux, R. (1995). The challenge of teaching for transfer. In McKeough, A., Lupart, J., & Marini, A. (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 1–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Martin, T., Petrosino, A. J., Rivale, S., & Diller, K. (2007). The development of adaptive expertise in biotransport. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 108, 35–49.Google Scholar
Martin, T., Rayne, K, Kemp, N. J., Hart, J., & Diller, K. R. (2005). Teaching for adaptive expertise in biomedical engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(2), 257–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, L., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Prospective adaptation in the use of external representations. Cognition and Instruction, 27(4), 370–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1974). Acquisition processes and resilience under varying testing conditions for structurally different problem-solving processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 644–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, A. F. (2007). An investigation of adaptive expertise and transfer of design process knowledge. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(7), 730–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, A. F., & Carberry, A. (2012). Characterizing the role of modeling in innovation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(2), 263–269.Google Scholar
McKenna, A. F., Linsenmeier, R., & Glucksberg, M. (2008). Characterizing computational adaptive expertise. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, ASEE 2008, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
McMartin, F., McKenna, A., & Youseffi, K. (2000). Scenario assignments as assessment tools for undergraduate engineering education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2), 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 510–520.Google ScholarPubMed
Pandy, M. G., Petrosino, A. J., Austin, B. A., & Barr, R. E. (2004). Assessing adaptive expertise in undergraduate biomechanics. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, V. L., & Groen, G. J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise. In Ericsson, K. A. & Smith, J. (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limitations (pp. 93–125). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Popovic, V. (2004). Expertise development in product design – strategic and domain-specific knowledge connections. Design Studies, 25(5), 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayne, K., Martin, T., Brophy, S., & Diller, K. R. (2006). A cross-sectional examination of the development of adaptive expertise in bioengineering ethics. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebello, N. S., Zollman, D., Albaugh, A. R., Engelhardt, P. B., Gray, K. E., Hrepic, Z., & Itza-Ortiz, S. F. (2005). Dynamic transfer: A perspective from physics educaiton research. In Mestre, J. (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 217–250). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
Reed, S. K. (1993). A schema-based theory of transfer. In Detterman, D. K. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 39–67). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Reed, S. K., Ernst, G. W., & Banerji, R. B. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 436–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Literate expertise. In Ericsson, K. A. and Smith, J. (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limitations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L. (1993). The construction and analogical transfer of symbolic visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1309–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In Mestre, J. (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives (pp. 1–51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., Chang, J., & Martin, L. (2008a). Instrumentation and innovation in design experiments: Taking the turn toward efficiency. In Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.), Handbook of innovative design research methods in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (pp. 183–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., Varma, S., & Martin, L. (2008b). Dynamic transfer and innovation. In Vosniadou, S. (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Starfield, A. M., Smith, K. A., & Bleloch, A. L. 1994. How to model it: Problem solving for the computer age. Edina, MN: Burgess.Google Scholar
Verschaffel, L.Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). Conceptualizing, investigating, and enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(3), 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, J. M. T., Cordray, D. S., King, P. H., & Brophy, S. P. (2006). Design scenarios as an assessment of adaptive expertise. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 645–651.Google Scholar
Webb, N. M. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In Berliner, D. & Calfee, R. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wineburg, S. S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×