ReviewHow experts deal with novel situations: A review of adaptive expertise
Introduction
Today’s work environments are characterized by increasing complexity due to higher levels of required knowledge and task volatility (Howard, 1995, Molloy and Noe, 2009, Tannenbaum, 2001). It is no longer sufficient to be an expert in one domain, but employees need to be able to combine different specializations (Pink, 2006), adapt to changes in their domain (Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1996), and develop their expertise and become proficient in other domains (van der Heijden, 2002). In short, they must be able to deal effectively with novel situations and problems. Therefore, flexibility at the workplace becomes a critical ingredient for career success (van der Heijden, 2002). While some people quickly overcome changes in work requirements by inventing new procedures and using their expert knowledge in novel ways (Hatano and Inagaki, 1986, Holyoak, 1991), others do not possess this ability and find themselves thrown back performing as a novice. This ability to quickly get accustomed to change has been called adaptive expertise (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986).
Adaptive expertise is generally seen as important, but its characteristics and development are ill understood. Achieving a better understanding of the concept of adaptive expertise is necessary to design learning activities that contribute to its development. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to establish what the characteristics of adaptive expertise are and with which training and task characteristics it flourishes. By analyzing the characteristics that distinguish adaptive expertise from routine expertise, it will become possible to deduct what learning activities lead to it.
Hatano and Inagaki (1986) first coined the term adaptive expertise and contrast it with routine expertise. They conceptualize that both types of expertise comprise the same extent of domain knowledge and the ability to perform flawless in familiar situations. However, the difference becomes apparent once confronted with an unfamiliar situation: A situation in which the task, method or desired results are not known in advance (Ellström, 2001). While individuals with routine expertise struggle with the new demands, adaptive expertise allows for easily overcoming the novelty and quickly regaining a high level of performance thanks to a knowledge representation which allows for flexibility (Schwartz, Bransford, & Sears, 2005). In contrast to routine expertise, individuals with adaptive expertise possess the knowledge of why and under which conditions certain methods have to be used or new methods have to be devised.
Various authors studying adaptive expertise have provided numerous descriptions with features that fall apart in three groups. First, adaptive expertise entails all the basic components of routine expertise (e.g., Fisher and Peterson, 2001, Hatano and Oura, 2003, Martin et al., 2007, Mylopoulos and Woods, 2009, Varpio et al., 2009). Second, adaptive expertise is marked by better developed meta-cognitive skills than routine expertise (e.g., Crawford et al., 2005, Martin et al., 2006). Third, adaptive expertise is set apart through abilities such as flexibility, ability to innovate, continuous learning, seeking out challenges, and creativity (e.g., Barnett and Koslowski, 2002, Crawford et al., 2005, Hatano and Oura, 2003, Martin et al., 2006, Martin et al., 2007, Mylopoulos and Scardamalia, 2008, Varpio et al., 2009). These characteristics point to two important facets of adaptive expertise. Firstly, it develops out of routine expertise. This is based on the first characteristic and implies that both forms of expertise are observable through accurate and efficient performance on domain-relevant and familiar tasks. It is postulated that individuals with routine expertise maintain their performance but halt their learning (Chi, 2011) and thus do not further develop into the stage of adaptive expertise. Secondly, Hatano and Inagaki (1986) suggest that adaptive expertise is after all domain-dependent because it is through accumulated experiences that adaptive expertise develops. In line with this conceptualization, researchers typically define the situation in which adaptive expertise is beneficial over routine expertise as changes in work and/or job task requirements (Allworth and Hesketh, 1999, Blickle et al., 2011, Griffin and Hesketh, 2003), changes in the complexity of situations (Chen, Thomas, & Wallace, 2005), changes from usual to unusual situations (Joung, Hesketh, & Neal, 2006), or changes from common to exceptional situations (Neal et al., 2006).
The focus on ‘change’ distinguishes research on adaptive expertise from research on expert performance. The latter type of research tries to identify individuals who perform on a superior level on tasks representative for their domain (Ericsson, 2007, Ericsson and Towne, 2010). Through analysis of their performance on standardized tasks it is possible to identify abilities of experts within a domain. In contrast to expert performance research, the tasks with which to analyze adaptive expertise are not standardized tasks within the experts’ domain, but novel tasks within or even outside their domain. Research on adaptive expertise should thus not be placed within the research tradition of expert performance research. While this research is moving away from its classical focus on chess players, musicians and sportsmen, it still focuses on analyzing the performance of individuals who have achieved a sustainable and observable streak of top performance on standardized tasks within their domain.
Research on professional expertise distinguishes itself from traditional expertise research by perceiving expertise as a developmental process observable through the problem-solving skills of individuals (Tynjälä, Nuutinen, Eteläpelto, Kirjonen, & Remes, 1997). Another important difference is its strong focus on the social environment as a place in which learning happens. This is included in the dimensions of social recognition and growth and flexibility of professional expertise (Van Der Heijden, 2000). These two dimensions, a focus on development and the social environment, pinpoint the differences between expert performance and professional expertise. Adaptive expertise narrows the operationalizing lens further down by only looking at the developmental dimension of professional expertise. These differences between expert performance and adaptive expertise result in a number of characteristics of adaptive expertise research. Firstly, studied tasks need not be standardized nor representative for the domain; however, they need to represent a realistic problem. Secondly, participants are not selected for their track record of superior performance in their domain, but they should also not be novices. Ideally, they have some years of work experience. Thirdly, performance should be measured based on speed, accuracy and feasibility of proposed solutions to unfamiliar problems.
Starting from our preliminary description of adaptive expertise and how research on adaptive expertise differs from expert performance research, a systematic literature review was conducted to detail characteristics of adaptive expertise and the environments in which individuals with a high level of adaptive expertise excel. We aim to answer four research questions. To create a well-founded conceptual understanding of adaptive expertise, the aim of the first two questions is to pinpoint which learning and personality-related factors are characteristic for adaptive expertise and not for routine expertise:
- 1.
What learner characteristics (knowledge, skills, regulation processes, and past experience) influence adaptive expertise?
- 2.
What personality factors influence adaptive expertise?
The goal of the latter questions is to discover which environmental factors benefit behaviors indicating adaptive expertise:
- 3.
What task and training characteristics (e.g., instruction, task complexity) influence adaptive expertise?
- 4.
What characteristics of the learning climate (e.g., tolerance of mistakes, supervision) influence adaptive expertise?
Section snippets
Method
To answer the research questions a systematic review has been done. This method has been chosen for its transparency and reproducible process (Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997). A systematic review allows to discover the consistency and variation within studies in one field (Davies, 2000) and thus to provide an exhaustive summary on the relevant studies for the research questions. To retrieve the necessary studies, the databases of Business source premier, CINAHL, Emerald Insights, Eric, MedLine,
Sample descriptive
In the articles the dependent variable was defined as adaptive expert or adaptive expertise (5), adaptive performance (15), and adaptive transfer (1). Two articles were published before 2000, 12 before 2010, and 7 after 2010. Quantitative studies were conducted 14 times and seven studies used a mixed-method approach. Ten studies were conducted at the workplace, six in an educational context, and five were simulation studies. Workplace studies were conducted in several industries (hospitality = 2;
Discussion
The frequent changes in the current work environment driven by task and knowledge volatility (Howard, 1995, Molloy and Noe, 2009, Tannenbaum, 2001) calls for experts who possess the required domain expertise and can quickly overcome changes. Such experts are known as possessing adaptive expertise (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). To further the understanding of the concept, this review set out to synthesize the findings about adaptive expertise in terms of its characteristics (research questions 1 and
Conclusion
In this review we have synthesized the research on individual and environmental characteristics related to adaptive expertise. This advances the field by offering an empirical basis for characteristics of adaptive expertise and how they differ from routine expertise. By establishing these characteristics, research into its development can pick up, as a concept is better rooted in evidence. The review also unearthed areas, which need further research, most importantly the knowledge
References (61)
- et al.
How leaders influence the impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams
The Leadership Quarterly
(2002) Task complexity: Definition of the construct
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1986)Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns
Educational Psychologist
(1992)- et al.
Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related and contextually relevant future performance
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
(1999) - et al.
Adaptive expertise: Effects of type of experience and the level of theoretical understanding it generates
Thinking & Reasoning
(2002) - et al.
Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability
The Journal of Applied Psychology
(2008) - et al.
Role of political skill in job performance prediction beyond general mental ability and personality in cross-sectional and predictive studies
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
(2011) - et al.
Synthetic learning environments: On developing a science of simulation, games, and virtual worlds for training
Conceptual and empirical gaps in research on individual adaptation at work
- et al.
A Multilevel model of transformational leadership and adaptive performance and the moderating role of climate for innovation
Group & Organization Management
(2010)
A multilevel examination of the relationships among training outcomes, mediating regulatory processes, and adaptive performance
The Journal of Applied Psychology
Laboratory methods for assessing experts’ and novices’ knowledge
Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions
Annals of Inernal Medicine
The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy & practice
Oxford Review of Education
Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects
Human Resource Development Quarterly
Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work
British Journal of Educational Psychology
An expert-performance perspective of research on medical expertise: The study of clinical performance
Medical Education
Expertise
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science
An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Adaptable behaviours for successful work and career adjustment
Australian Journal of Psychology
A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts
Academy of Management Journal
Multilevel investigation of adaptive performance: Individual- and team-level relationships
Group & Organization Management
Two courses of expertise
Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research
Educational Researcher
Symbolic connectionism: Toward third-generation theories of expertise
Learner-controlled practice difficulty in the training of a complex task: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms
The Journal of Applied Psychology
Cited by (139)
Utilising previous professional expertise by second-career teachers: Analysing case studies using the lens of transfer and adaptive expertise
2023, Teaching and Teacher EducationCase studies in disaster and emergency management
2023, Case Studies in Disaster Recovery: A Volume in the Disaster and Emergency Management: Case Studies in Adaptation and Innovation SeriesHow workers meet new expertise needs throughout their careers: An integrative review revealing a dynamic process model of flexpertise
2024, International Journal of Management ReviewsAdaptive expertise, career adaptability, and career success of R&D personnel
2024, Technology Analysis and Strategic ManagementCritical design choices in healthcare simulation education: a 4C/ID perspective on design that leads to transfer
2023, Advances in SimulationAdaptiveness for Online Learning: Conceptualising ‘Online Learning Dexterity’ from Higher Education Students’ Experiences
2023, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies