Renninger, K. Ann

Winegar, L. T.

English

Works

Swarthmore College Works Educational Studies Faculty Works Educational Studies 1985 Emergent Organization In Expert-Novice Relationships K. Ann Renninger Swarthmore College, krennin1@swarthmore.edu L. T. Winegar Follow this and additional works at: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-education  Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation K. Ann Renninger and L. T. Winegar. (1985). "Emergent Organization In Expert-Novice Relationships". Genetic Epistemologist. Volume 14, Issue 1. 14-20. https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-education/77 This work is brought to you for free by Swarthmore College Libraries' Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Educational Studies Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact myworks@swarthmore.edu. Emergent Organization in Expert-Novice Relationships K. ANN RENNINGER,' Swarthmore College and LUCIEN T. WINEGAR, Bryn Maur College Abstract The processes resulting in knowledge acquisition within an expert-novice dyad are intricate, individual, and for the most part, reflectively inaccessible. Examination of expert-novice relationships reveals progressive differential con-straining by the expert, enabling the progressive empower-ment of the novice. The occurrence of this same organiza-tion in a wide variety of settings strongly supports the conten-tion that the organization of the relationship emerges, rather than being controlled by a member of that relationship. It is the premise of this paper that a relationship is an ongoing exchange between the self and another, as in the process of knowledge acquisition. As such, the processes which result in knowledge acquisition are described as intricate, individual, and for the most part reflectively inaccessible. The framework we employ for conceptualizing social relations emphasizes the similarity in role relationship across a wide variety of interactions: teacher-student, caretaker-child, therapist-client. Each relationship is seen as a dynamic, organized system of roles. The organization which characterizes the expert-novice relationship, here used as an exemplar, is neither expert-directed, nor novice-influenced. Rather, it is an emergent property of a par-ticular interrelationship of individuals within situations with particular demands/ goals. We propose a reconsideration of the expert-novice relationship such that its organization is recognized as a property of the relationship rather than the result of control by the participants. The expert-novice relationship is seen as self-organizing. As such, the coordinated changes which occur in this rela-tionship result from the organization of the relationship rather than originating from the conscious control of participants in the relationship. Program in Education, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania 19081. 14 THE GENETIC EPISTEMOLOGIST 15 We classify this process in the relationship between expert-novice as an emergent property of a particular configuration of self and subject which is the expert-novice relationship. The use of emergent implies that the organiza-tion of lbis relationship is a transcendent, a posteriori property. As such, while it can be influenced by the members of the relationship and may be predictable from the nature of this relationship, it is not controlled within the relationship and it is neither planned nor determined prior to its existence. This is not to imply that a member of the relationship cannot become aware of the organization and influence it, nor that someone outside the rela-tionship cannot become aware and predict that organization, but that the properties of the relationship are not dependent either on reflection and influ-ence or on classification and prediction. Thus, we employ emergent organiza-tion as used elsewhere (Sameroff, 1983; Priogogine, 1976; Kugler, Kelso, & Turvey, 1982) and here extend it to the social domain. The developmental literature is full of examples of such organization in social environments as varied as: adults use of motherese with newly verbal children (e.g., Bruner, 1978); older children talking to younger children (e.g., Gleason, 1973; Shatz & Gelman, 1973), infant's learning to return balls to their mother (e.g., Hodapp, Goldfield, & Boyatzis, in press), matched-mismatched pairings of students and teachers (e.g., Brophy & Evertson, 1976; Hunt & Hardt, 1969); teacher-decision making processes in applying knowledge cues about students to instructional practice (e.g., Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Fogarty, Wang, & Creek, 1983); teacher expectancies for student performance (e.g., Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Rosenthal & Rubin, 1971; Brophy & Good, 1974; Raudenbaush, 1984); and mothers encouraging preschoolers's learning of appropriate social behaviors ( e.g. ,Rogoff &Gardner, in press). The occurrence of the same organization in such a wide variety of expert-novice relationships, with participants of varied developmental capabilities, examined by researchers with a variety of theoretical perspec-tives, strongly supports the contention that the organization of relationships emerge, rather than being controlled by a member of the relationship. We see the expert-novice relationship as an open system functioning in a physical and social environment. This relationship's organization is a function of the requirements of the individuals in the relationship and the constraints imposed upon the relationship. In expert-novice relationships individual requirements of the expert could include desire for independence from the novice, or the fulfillment which comes from shared perception. Individual requirements of the novice could include desire for independence from the expert (Mahler, Pine, & Bergman, 1978), or the satisfaction which comes from mastery of the environment (White, 1959). Shared requirements in this rela-tionship include the comfort and facility which arises from social consensus (Packer, 1983). Requirements of individuals are active at both a role level and an instantiation level and may apply to one or both members of the relationship. 16 THE GENETIC EPISTEMOLOGIST The process of fulfilling individual and shared requirements is a progres ion which proceeds within constraints imposed by both the physical/social environ-ment and the biological/psychological organism (Winegar & Renninger, in preparation). Psychological constraints have been defined as the formal proper-ties of cognitive structures and processes that are tailored for particular domains and that limit the class of learnable structures in each domain (Kiel, 1981). Rather than limit our discussion to psychological contraints as we understand Kiel's description of them, we extend this concept to at least include social con-straints across domains. Further, we propose that movement in fulfillment of these constraints is accomplished by the process of social constraining. Social constraining is the aid given by others to help manage the task of acquiring knowledge of the world. This includes directing perceptual experience, orienting action, limiting stimuli and supplying verbal labels. We suggest as examples of such general social constraining: Feursteio's (1980) discussion of expert directed learning situations in which experts employ a repertoire of techniques to define the relevant dimensfons of the environment for the novi,ce, Sigel and Cooking's (1977) taxonomy of parental distancing strategies which results in discrepancies between the child's knowledge and the child's environment, and Freyd's (1983) theory of a "shareability" con-straint which results in simplification of information during the process of communication. Any changes in either constraints or requirements can result in change in organization of a relationship. This type of "second-order" change (Waltzawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974) is exhibited in the expert-novice rela-tionship when, as the novice' knowledge grows, the expert-novice relation-ship passes through an awkward stage of transition, and then is either abandoned or reorganized. Such reorganization is often U1e case in teacher-student relationships which reorganize as peer relationships. This last point again demonstrates the spontaneous nature of movements in the organization of relationships. While organization can be influenced by members of the relationship system and may be predictable from the nature of the relationship, it need not be controlled within the relationship and need be neither planned nor determined prior to its existence. This does not mean that members of the relationship cannot become aware of the organization and influence it, nor that others outside the relationship cannot become aware of and predict that organization, however we are claiming that the pro-perties of the relationship are not dependent either on reflection and influence or on classification and prediction. To summarize briefly, similarity in requirements of members and com-monality in constraints within environment results in comparable organiza-tion across systems. In expert-novice situations specifically, this organization includes the process of constraining which enables the acquisition of knowledge. THE GENETIC EPISTEMOLOGIST 17 The fine tuning necessitated by the intricacy of role requirements has long been noted in language development (e.g., Brown, 1958; Bruner, 1978), and more recently has been pointed out in problem-solving interactions. Rogoff, Gilbride, and Malkin (1983) have explicitly detailed changes in types of inter-actions between adults and children. They found that adults adjust their inter-actions on the basis of children's eye contact, smiles and cooperation. With younger children, adults often modeled appropriate affective responses as a means of focusing attention. For example, they report with a child of four months, adults jumped at the appearance of a jack-in-the-box bunny as a means of focusing attention on this event. In contrast, with older children adults modeled affect in order to direct the child's attention to the causal rela-tionship between action and consequences. Specifically, the adult helped a child of six-and-a-half months to turn the crank and then acted excited when a bunny popped out. Thus, while at both ages adults used similar techniques in teaching children, the purpose of each technique was adapted to the adult's perception of the child's performance and ability. Such examples of adult adjustment in accordance with child behavior are becoming more common (e.g., Wertsch, McNamee, McLane, & Budwig, 1980), and are considered important both for parent-child interactions (Thomas & Chess, 1977) and teacher-student interac-tions (Caldwell & Pullis, 1983). In addition, the phenomenon is not limited to adult-child interactions. Expert adjustment in accordance with novice's capabilities is reported in both teacher-student and therapist-client interactions as well. In the expert-novice interaction the expert's differential constraining of information is the progressive empowerment of the novice. As constraints come to be initiated by the novice they no longer need be controlled by the expert. Thus, as in Vygotsky's (1978) notion of internalization, there is a shift from external social constraining by others to internal cognitive constraints of others by self. In all cases of expert-novice interaction, as constraining comes to be initiated by the novice, constraints no longer need be exercised by the expert. Movement in constraint control can be viewed as one dimension of social relations. That is, initiation of constraining passes from expert to novice. In any environment there is a variety of co-constructions of potential perceptions, potential representations and potential actions. The expert's differential constraining of available information is the complement to the progressive empowerment of the novice. Any examination of a system, especially an examination which details a partic-ular aspect of a system, risks oversimplification and a resulting loss of compre-hensiveness. It is for this reason that we again state that while in this discussion we focus on the expert-novice aspect of particular interpersonal relationships, and while here we are especially concerned with the processes enabling the effi-cient acquisition of knowledge within this relationship, we are not suggesting that these foci are the only aspects of interpersonal relationships which arc of 18 THE GENETIC EPISTEMOLOGIST importance, nor that these processes occur some how segregated from any other system activities. We are aware (although overwhelmed) that in addition to being considered as an expert-novice relationship, a caretaker-infant rela-tionship can alternatively be understood as a power relationship, a provider relationship or even a peer relationship. Further, processes in this same caretaker-infant relationship also enable affection, sustenance and control. All of these aspects and processes of the caretaker-infant relationship contain, and occur within, other systems which themselves have many aspects and processes. Given the number and extent of those factors that might be considered in a discussion of interpersonal relationships, we have chosen to focus on single expert-novice systems as prototypical of dyads of all types. This examination of the expert-novice relationship provides support for the role of social constraining in the knowledge acquisition process. This is a characterization of self-other relationships as emerging, complementary, and dynamic processes. The appearance of similar processes in a variety of expert-novice situations suggests that developmental psychology should not only be concerned with specific structural constraints on development but with the general process of constraining in learning as well. References Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. (1976). Learning from teaching: A developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Brown, R. (1958). Words and things. Illinois: The Free Press. Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. J. Jarvella, & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The child's conception of language. New York: Springer-Verlig. Cadwell, J., & Pullis, M. (1983). Assessing changes in the meaning of children's behavior: Factorial invariance of teachers' temperament ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 553-560. Feurstein, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment. Baltimore: University Park Press. Fogarty, J. L., Wang, M. C., & Creek, R. (1983). A descriptive study of experienced and novice teachers' interactive instructional thoughts and actions. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 22-32. Freyd, J. J. ( 1983). Shareability: The social psychology of epistemology. Cognitive Science, 7, 191-210. Gleason, J. B. (1973). Code switching in children's language. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press. THE GENETIC EPISTEMOLOGIST 19 Hodapp, R. M., Goldfield, E. C., & Boyatzis, C. (1984). The use and effective-ness of maternal scaffolding in mother-infant games. Child Develop-ment, 55, 772-781. Hunt, D. E., & Hardt, R. H. (1969). The effect of Upward Bound programs on the attitudes, motivation, and academic achievement of Negro students. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 117-129. Kiel, F. C. (1981). Constraints on knowledge and cognitive development. Psychological Review, 88, 197-227. Kugler, P. N., Kelso, J. A. S., & Turvey, M. T. (1982). On the control and coordination of naturally developing systems. In J. A. S. Kelso, & J. E. Clark (Eds.), The development of motor control and coordination. New York: Wiley. Mahler, M. S., Pine, F., & Bergman A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant: Symbiosis and individuation. New York: Basic Books. Packer, M. J. (1983). Communication in early infancy: Three common assumptions examined and found inadequate. Human Development, 26, 233-248. Prigogine, I. (1976). Order through fluctuation: Self-organizing and social systems. In E. Jantsch & C. H. Waddington (Eds.), Evolution and consciousness: Human systems in transition. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Raudenbaush, S. W. (1984). Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a function of the credibility of expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 experiments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 85-97. Rogoff, R., & Gardner, W. (in press). Guidance in cognitive development: An examination of mother-child instruction. In B. Rogoff, & J. Lane (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rogoff, B., Gilbride, K., & Malkin, C. (1983). Interaction with babies as guidance in development. Paper presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit, Michigan. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1971). Pygmalion reaffirmed. In J. D. Elashoff, & R. E. Snow (Eds.), Pygmalion reconsidered. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones. Sameroff, A. J. (1983). Developmental systems: Contexts and evolution. In W. Kessen (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Volume 1: History, theory and methods. New York: Wiley. Shatz, M., & Gelman, R. (1973). The development of communication skills: Modifications in the speech of young children as a function of listener. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38. 20 THE GENETIC EPISTEMOLOGIST Shavelson, R., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-498. Sigel, I. E., & Cocking, R. R. (1977). Cognition and communication: A dialectical paradigm for development. In M. Lewis, & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), Interaction, conversation, and development of language: Origins of behavior, 5. New York: Wiley. Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner / Maze!. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Waltzawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem solving and problem resolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Wertsch, J. V., McNamee, G. D., McLane, J.B., & Budwig, N. A. (1980). The adult-child dyad as a problem-solving system. Child Development, 51, 1215-1221. White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333. Winegar, L. T., & Renninger, K. A. (in preparation). The role of social constraining in knowledge acquisition. 

Emergent Organization In Expert-Novice Relationships

https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=fac-education

Emergent Organization In Expert-Novice Relationships

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Works