Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications: introduction to the special issue

Abstract

The formulation of robust and empirically-funded instructional principles is one of the major goals of instructional science. Research on aptitude-treatment interactions (ATIs) have, however, shown that instructional principles usually do not apply to any type of learner. As learners’ prior knowledge is the most important learning pre-requisite, it is clear that instructional principles should take prior knowledge into account: What could be beneficial for beginning learners might get detrimental for advanced learners. In recent years, the concept of the expertise reversal effect—developed within the framework of cognitive load theory—has inspired a renewed interest on the interactions between levels of learner prior knowledge and effectiveness of different instructional techniques and procedures. The expertise reversal is a reversal in the relative effectiveness of instructional methods as levels of learner knowledge in a domain change. The effect has been investigated since mid-1990s (see Kalyuga 2005, 2007; Kalyuga et al. 2003, for available overviews). It has been replicated in many studies with a large range of instructional materials and participants either as a full reversal (a disordinal interaction with significant differences for both novices and experts) or, more often, as a partial reversal (with non-significant differences for novices or experts, but with a significant interaction). The major instructional design implication of these studies is the need to adjust instructional methods and procedures as learners acquire more experience in a specific domain. The expertise reversal effect fits well some empirical findings obtained in ATIs studies initiated in mid-1960s (Cronbach and Snow 1977). However, although learners’ prior knowledge was recognized as an essential aptitude within the ATI approach (e.g., see Tobias 1976, 1989 for overviews), aptitudes and instructional treatments were investigated without taking into account underlying cognitive processes, and psychometric measurement tools used in ATI studies were not suitable for realistic instructional systems that could tailor instructional methods to individual learners.