How expertise and
its relationship with intelligence is viewed in the everyday world.
Julia Koffel
University assignment for School of Education
Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia
julaikoffel@gmail.com
Introduction
The
concept of expertise and its relationship to intelligence has been reviewed by
many in the field of education. This paper inspects 2 very different experts; a
leadership centre director and a professional drummer, to explore how these
concepts are seen in the real-world. Data collected on their personal views was
evaluated and the findings show they shared several key ideas to those viewed in
the literature. It is essential to understand the nature of expertise and how
it develops, in both the academic world and outside of it, because the need to have experts in all domains is constantly
growing. Education guidelines often focus on an academic
intelligence-based system, but many argue a more multidimensional view, one
beyond IQ, offers a deeper depiction of one’s potential for expertise and life
success. Additionally, the process of “lifelong learning” (LLL) plays an
important role in developing expertise, so understanding this will help to
guide future learners into greater success in all fields.
Work
by Tennant & Pogson (2000) differentiates between academic and practical
intelligence. They define expertise as “practical intelligence applied to a
domain.” It requires domain specific knowledge and skills developed over a
lifetime, but is uncorrelated to IQ. Furthermore, they describe wisdom as “a high level, peak form of
expertise” and those with crystallised intelligence as having the ability to
use prior learned knowledge and experience. This intelligence generally increases
with age. They consider having an
understanding of knowledge, rather
than just the analytical use of knowledge, as an important aspect. Creativity
is discussed as complementary to
intelligence. Social competence is highlighted. However, their study found researchers
in expertise contradictory. Goleman (1995) also claims that academic ability
and IQ, both which are unchanged by experience or education, contribute
minimally to “factors that determine life success.” Goleman recognizes
practical intelligence and emotional intelligence (EI) as distinct from, or as aspect of IQ. He stresses it is EI that
determines how well we use our skills, including intellect, and how
successfully we process information. He discusses Gardner’s (1983) multiple
kinds of intelligence which are crucial for life success e.g. verbal, musical,
“personal,” and that a multifaceted view allows a “richer picture” of one’s
ability and potential for success.
Sternberg
(1997) believes intelligence is key to LLL, defining intelligence as having the mental abilities necessary for
adaptation, selection and shaping of environmental contexts. There is an
important distinction between intelligence and intelligent behaviour; behaviour
may differ from one context to the next, while the fundamental mental processes
remain the same. He describes intelligence as one who has a high degree of external correspondence/internal cohesion of
their knowledge. Like Goleman (1995), he explores distinct and alternative
concepts relevant to intelligence: analytical, EI, social, creative, practical,
musical, etc. While appreciating analytical intelligence as important to some
extent, Sternberg argues that success in any job requires creative and
practical skills.
Alexander
et al (1992) explores the development of factual knowledge followed by
procedural (“know-how”) knowledge, which then eventuates in automation. This
development is possible with time, experience and practice; a concept known as
“proceduralisation.” They believe these types of knowledge are rarely useful in
isolation, but like Tennant & Pogson (2000), they state it is the
“know-how” that sets the expert apart. Additionally, they highlight
metacognition (an understanding of the nature of tasks and cognitive processes
required for successful completion) as a concept that can be improved with
instruction.
Herrington
et al (2010) sees authentic learning as necessary for developing the ability to
re-contextualize acquired knowledge and skills, believing this ability is
required for one to be an expert. They emphasize learning knowledge in
real-life contexts, in interacting with environments and in practicing newly
acquired skills. They recognize experts as able to share knowledge, but
understand no one individual represents all knowledge or expertise; that
experience does not equal expertise. Consequently, a single perspective may be
correct, but is inadequate. Learners must become aware of differences in
opinion and see problems from numerous perspectives in order to enhance their understanding of skills. To achieve
this, Herrington et al (2010) believes learners need access to several experts
and models of expertise-in-use and need to be able to compare themselves to
different levels of expertise.
During his exploration of LLL, Candy (2000) acknowledges that experts in all fields have a narrow spectrum of
specialism with dependence on a complex and growing body of knowledge. While
discussing knowledge as something that can be acquired and traded, Candy
explores work by Sveiby (1992) that, like Alexander et al (1992) refers to
“know-how” as the active process of constructing meaning or managing knowledge.
This is done through means such as problem solving and analysis and
interpretation of information. Candy found that experts describe themselves as either
applying existing knowledge to new problems, as creating new knowledge or as
preserving pre-existing knowledge. However, the distinction here between
creating and applying knowledge is unclear. Furthermore, he states it is
assumed people who have objective knowledge are expected to make considered
judgments and act accordingly, but this is a personal matter that takes place
in one’s head (thus he is perhaps acknowledging the concept of EI).
Understanding
how people outside the academic world also conceptualise expertise is valuable because
the need to have experts in all domains
is indispensable and this understanding plays a
vital role in preparing for the process of LLL and success in the real world
beyond academia.
Methodology
The aim of this
study is to assess the perspectives of 2 very different real-life, everyday
experts, to see how these concepts are viewed by those outside of the academic
world. Data was collected in the
form of brief, informal semi-structured interviews, where the experts were
asked the following questions:
1. What in your view
qualifies someone as an expert?
2. How do you think
they became an expert?
3. To what extent do
you think it is possible to “make” someone an expert? If so, explain how could
it be done. If not, explain why
it may be difficult or even not possible.
4. Do you think
there is a relationship between expertise and intelligence?
“Chris”* is an
experienced and intrinsically motivated professional drummer. His strengths
include practical and academic intelligence. He is highly educated, with 5
years of tertiary music education at a well-recognized institution. He credits
his own expertise to the many experts he had access to as his teachers and
mentors and is now a reputable educator himself. He had the privileged of
opportunity and the support required to develop expertise, including the
facilitation his first band in childhood, saying this allowed early application
of his skills in diverse real-world settings.
“Doug”* progressed
from being a teacher to school principal, then to director of a principal
leadership center. He has developed crystallized intelligence through many
decades of experience in a leadership role as well as life outside of work,
where he is also a civil celebrant. He has what I believe to be “wisdom”. Much
of his success is due to strong EI, especially Garder’s interpersonal
intelligences: extraordinary leadership, communication, conflict resolution,
social analysis, networking skills and the ability to nurture relationships.
Findings / discussion
Like many authors (Tennant & Pogson
(2000); Sternberg (1997); Alexander et al (1992)), both experts believe
expertise is a LLL process that is experience-based;
a view I believe is representative of the general population. A key concept
they agree on is the need to gain exposure to several experts and differing
perspectives, a view shared by Herrington et al (2010). Both appreciate this is
in the development of their own expertise. They describe Alexander et al’s
(1992) concept of metacognition as something that can be improved through this exposure
and instruction. Neither expert
delves much into Sternberg’s (1997) concept of intelligent behavior, that which
differs according to the environmental context, perhaps because of their own
limited context and culture in which they live and work. They also fail to
acknowledge creativity as a form of
intelligence. Much like Candy (2000) explained, neither could describe their
own expertise with regards to the distinction between applying and creating
knowledge.
Chris values Tennant & Pogson’s (2000)
concept of requiring domain specific knowledge, emphasizing the importance of
factual (e.g. theoretical, music history) and procedural (practical skills)
knowledge. He believes an expert must be strong in all types. Like Herrington et al’s (2010) ideals, he values the
ability to use this knowledge in
context, when applied to real-life settings. Comparably, Doug expands on this by
saying although extensive knowledge and
experience cannot be overstated; it is the understanding
of it that differs. He also emphasized
the ability to use knowledge, but especially to engage and promote in a way that
motivates others’ own inquiry. He says, again similar to Herrington et al
(2010), “when people collaborate with experts, they build their skills in a
non-threatening way and at the same time experts can intrinsically affirm their
own knowledge base.” Similarly, Chris states he has learned considerable
expertise from those with not just significant expertise, but an ability to
teach. He poses the need to “network” and
form relationships. Thus, both appreciated and articulated Tennant &
Pogson’s (2000) need for social competence (EI) to succeed, although
neither directly acknowledged this as a form of intelligence per se. Additionally, like Herrington et al (2010), Doug
stresses the need to be cautious, as just because one is an expert it does not
mean they are correct, using the example of 2 experts with diametrically opposing views. Chris emphasized exposure
to good quality expertise.
Both Chris and
Doug believe experts, like themselves, build an extensive knowledge and understanding over time, then the expertise
develops as they have opportunities to test and apply these in real-life
contexts. They describe Herrington et al’s (2010) “re-contextualization”, but also Alexander et al’s (1992)
“proceduralisation”: Doug saying he refines his learnt approaches with ongoing
practice, Chris stressing the requirement of repetition and practice.
Chris believes
it is possible to “make” someone an expert with correct instruction and with
time and dedication from both learners and teachers. Doug believes one must first have the intellectual or
physical capacity to build peak expertise, accepting not everyone can be a
champion sportsperson or rocket scientist, but he still acknowledges people can
build significant expertise if able to collaborate with others. Chris has a
strong belief in needing the correct disposition, in having passion, motivation
and crucially, the ability to see meaning and value in the learning. He
believes a favorable environment and circumstances enhance these characteristics.
Doug believes learners first need to be given the opportunities to test their knowledge and once proven successful,
they can then build expertise.
Like
many others, Chris’ idea of
intelligence is based solely around IQ. Thus, using the example of truck
driving, he finds little relationship between expertise and intelligence. He does not acknowledge aspects of
emotional, practical or crystallized intelligence. I believe our western
education, with its academic intelligence-based teaching and testing, has
influenced his and many others’ limited view of intelligence. I found this
surprising as one of his own strengths lies in practical intelligence.
Doug believes,
as a general rule, the most successful people have superior intelligence as it
empowers them to build their expertise further. However, he acknowledges one
can have exceptional expertise but not be intelligent when measured against the
rest of society, when society focuses on an IQ-based intelligence. He understands that,
while there is a relationship between expertise and intelligence in an academic sense, expertise is not restricted to
academia. He believes intelligence includes one’s “intuitiveness in their life
interest” i.e. EI. Doug has strong emotional aptitude and life-experience behind
him, thus his views were perhaps more well rounded and comprehensive.
Conclusions
In the everyday
world, there seems to be an appreciation of LLL, of understanding and applying knowledge in an authentic context and
also of the need for experts to share their knowledge for others to gain
expertise. While social competence was acknowledged, it was only the one with
high EI that deemed EI as a crucial aspect of intelligence. However, there seems to be lack of acknowledgement
of creativity altogether, despite is being seen as crucial by some authors. The
concept of intelligent behavior was overlooked. I believe one’s own limited
environmental context restricts the ability to appreciate this concept, which
in today’s multicultural society, may put learners from differing contexts at a
disadvantage. I believe many have a narrowed view of intelligence, seeing it as
IQ-based, due to the limitations of their own education. However, I believe
this view is detrimental to those strong in the other types of intelligences,
as it may hinder their access to opportunities, preventing them from gaining
the adequate education or LLL skills necessary to succeed in developing
expertise and in life. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of understanding of
how LLL develops over one’s life and the views of many experts in the field of
expertise and intelligence differ. Experts themselves do not always appreciate
the strengths they have as a form of intelligence, which may not only hinder
their own development, but may also limit their ability to guide others into
expertise.
(*names
have been changed)
References
Alexander, P.A., Ash, M.J. & Goetz, E.T. (1992). Educational Psychology: A Classroom
Perspective (pp. 390 – 411). Toronto: Merill.
Candy, P.C. (2000). Knowledge navigators and lifelong
learners: Producing graduates for the information society. Higher Education Research & Development. 19(3) 261 – 277.
Gardner, H.
(1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of
Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1995)
Emotional Intelligence (pp. 33 – 45).
New York: Bantam Books.
Herrington, J., Oliver, R. &
Reeves, T.C. (2010). A Guide to Authentic e-Learning. Routledge: New
York.
Sternberg, R.J. (1997). The concept of intelligence
and its role in lifelong learning and success. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1030-1037.
Sveiby, K.E.
(1992). The knowledge company: Strategy formulation in knowledge-intensive
industries. International Review of
Strategic Management Vol. 3. D.E Hussey (Ed.). West Sussex, U.K.: John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Tennant, M. & Pogson, P. (2000). Understanding
Adult Learners. In Foley, G. (Ed.), Understanding
Adult Education and Training (2nd Ed.) (pp. 23 - 33). St.
Leonards, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin.
