Episode 36 | Connected Knowledge

From The Knowledge Architects: Building Wisdom in the Information Age · 24:57

Show by ElysFlow

AI-generated audio: the two voices and their conversation in this episode are created by AI. The hosts are not real people.How we make it: our team chooses each topic and edits the audio. The research and these notes are drafted with AI and read by us before publishing.Why AI? It lets us bring peer-reviewed science to you for free, in English and German. Sources are below.Episode SummaryGive a physicist and a first year student the same twenty four physics problems and ask them to sort the problems into piles. They make about the same number of piles. They take about the same time. Reading a problem, they underline the same words on nineteen of twenty problems. And the two diagrams that textbooks reproduce as the picture of expert versus novice knowledge have seventeen nodes and sixteen. So where exactly is the difference?In this episode we open up the story everybody has been told: experts have rich, hierarchical, densely connected knowledge networks, and novices have fragments. Half of that turns out to be unsourced, and the other half rests on studies with four to sixteen participants and no statistics. The words "fragmented" and "piecemeal" appear nowhere in the 125 page report that everyone cites for them. What survives the audit is better than the myth. Almost everything you can count comes out the same for both groups, and the single count that does separate them is a count of conditions, not of nodes. When an expert says "conservation of energy," the next words are "if the plane is smooth." When a novice says it, the next words are nothing. That is the whole difference, and it is why a link matters: an isolated fact cannot tell you when to use it.Key Topics CoveredThe survey of nulls: same number of piles, same sorting time, same summary length, same keywords, same number of facts per conceptWhere the counts differ they run the wrong way: the expert's object description has eight nodes against the novice's sixteen, and instructor pilots had forty links against their trainees' fifty oneWhat Chi, Glaser and Rees actually wrote, including their own verdict that the study "is not definitive"The vocabulary audit: "fragmented," "piecemeal" and "organizing principles" occur zero times in their 125 pagesWhere the fragments framing really enters the canon, in a 2000 summary chapter written for teachersConditionalisation: nineteen conditional statements out of forty three for experts against one out of thirty five for novicesKnowledge that is not conditionalised is inert: relevant, and never retrievedThe chunking claim that did not replicate, and Chi's own group finding the oppositeEylon and Reif's 1979 experiment: structure helps on questions that span several facts and does nothing at all on local onesOne child, forty dinosaurs, and a retention result a year later with the amount of knowledge held roughly equalKnowledge encapsulation in medicine: the store gets shorter, and a twelve link causal chain becomes two wordsThe intermediate effect, and the failure to replicate it at ninety six participants by two of its own authorsWhy more connections should hurt: Anderson's 1974 interference resultReder and Ross's resolution: the same people, the same facts, and a fan effect of opposite sign depending only on the question askedDensity is not the variable, diagnosticity is: a link costs you when it competes and pays you when it narrowsThe rival account: diSessa's knowledge in pieces, p-prims, and elements that are neither right nor wrong until a context cues themThe replication contest that the challengers won, and the twist that both camps predict expertise means becoming better connectedWhether a knowledge network can be measured at all: Pathfinder scaling, the shrinking correlation, and the circularity objection published by the method's own authorsThe Knowledge Integration rubric and the SOLO taxonomy as classroom ways of scoring links rather than factsThe modern birdwatcher study, and the modularity null inside it: experts do not have more structure, they have differently made structureResearchers MentionedMicheline Chi (Pittsburgh, later Arizona State) : the founding studies of expert knowledge organisation, and unusually candid about how the famous result was foundRobert Glaser and Ernest Rees (Learning Research and Development Center, Pittsburgh) : coauthors of the 1982 chapter, and of the argument that novice difficulty sits in the knowledge base and not in the architectureBat-Sheva Eylon (Weizmann Institute) and Frederick Reif (Berkeley, later Carnegie Mellon) : ran the earliest causal experiment in this literature, in 1979, and it is barely citedJill Larkin (Carnegie Mellon) : proposed that expert knowledge is stored in tight chunks, on the evidence of one expert and one noviceVimla Patel and Guy Groen (McGill, later Columbia), with José Arocha : found that accurate diagnosticians reason forward, a property of getting it right rather than of being an expert, and then showed themselves that the pattern…

More episodes of The Knowledge Architects: Building Wisdom in the Information Age

More episodes

PodSearch is a free, independent podcast search engine. Read about PodSearch, the privacy policy or contact us.