Novices and experts committed similar total error numbers but different error types in computer work¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Brodbeck et al. (1992) found no significant differences between computer novices and experts in total errors, but novices made far more knowledge-lacking errors while experts committed more routine errors. → M. Gartmeier 2008

Evidence¶

M. Gartmeier 2008¶

M. Gartmeier, J. Bauer, H. Gruber, H. Heid. (2008). Negative Knowledge: Understanding Professional Learning and Expertise. Vocations and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-008-9006-1

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The review reports, citing Brodbeck et al. (1992), a field study of error handling in office work with computers. Total error counts did not differ significantly between novices and experts; a closer examination showed novices made far more errors due to lack of domain-specific knowledge, while experts committed a larger amount of routine errors.

"Brodbeck et al. ( 1992), who surprisingly did not find any significant differences between computer novices and experts concerning the total number of errors that were committed."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Prior Knowledge — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Experts predict classroom phenomena and student errors far more than novices, who rarely anticipate misalgorithms — related
• Expert teachers interpret complex classroom phenomena more accurately and fluidly than novices and postulants — related
• Experts detect and correct small changes before events become full-blown, while novices are distracted by possibly irrelevant phenomena — related
• In object counting, deaf and hearing children make similar attention and principle errors, but deaf children make more number-string errors — related