Claims

Experts work forwards from givens while novices work backwards via means-ends analysis

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 1998 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Physics problem-solving studies found experts tend to work forwards from given information to the goal, whereas novices use a working-backwards strategy based on means-ends analysis. → Marcus 1998

Evidence

Marcus 1998

Marcus, N. (1998). Understanding Instructions. PhD thesis, University of New South Wales. https://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/70247

q2 · i? · causal · r?

The thesis reports, citing Larkin, McDermott, Simon, and Simon (1980) and Simon and Simon (1978), thinking-aloud comparisons of experts and novices on physics problems. Novices select equations containing the goal and set subgoals, using means-ends analysis, while schema-driven experts proceed directly forward.

"Overall, they found that experts tend to "work forwards" from the given information to the goal."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id experts-work-forwards-novices-means-ends
title Experts work forwards from givens while novices work backwards via means-ends analysis
description Experts work forwards from givens while novices work backwards via means-ends analysis
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 1998
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — marcus-1998

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.