The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance: Expertise in History

Expertise, studied in a variety of domains, has referred to highly skilled performance in an activity such as violin playing or playing chess. Expertise has referred also to a person’s knowledge and/or ability to perform representational tasks of a particular domain. The term also may be based on a reputation established by publications and/or lectures, or on a “certification” such as a PhD. In the present context, an expert in history is assumed to have a general and a specialized knowledge of history as well as facility in the skills of historical research and writing. Although the study of expertise began in the late nineteenth century, the primary impetus occurred in the late twentieth century with the work on chess by de Groot (1965) and Chase and Simon (1973a, 1973b). This research, comparing expert, middlerange, and novice performance, demonstrated the importance of recognizing functionally related “chunks” of chess pieces. Similarly, physics experts were superior to novices in their conceptual understanding of physics problems, which in turn led to their better problem solving (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1980). The nature of expertise in any domain involves an interaction of a person’s knowledge (both domain-specific and general) and skills, and the characteristics of the domain that constrain performance. Some domains, because of their conceptual evolution, permit the use of mathematics, formal logic, or well-controlled experimentation. Such domains are generally termed “well structured,” frequently dealing with problems having a single answer, readily identifiable constraints, and agreed-upon solutions. Other domains such as history and political science have conceptual structures that allow relatively little opportunity to use mathematics, formal logic, or controlled experimentation. Instead, reasoning and problem solving usually are verbal (not mathematical), with evidence for a solution presented as an argument, usually developed in relation to particular facts and

[1]  F. Ringer Causal Analysis in Historical Reasoning , 1989 .

[2]  Mario Carretero,et al.  The collapse of the Soviet Union: A case study in causal reasoning , 1994 .

[3]  A. Teixeira The content of the Form: narrative discourse and historical representation , 1997 .

[4]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Dorothea P. Simon,et al.  Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems , 1980, Science.

[6]  C. Hempel The Function of General Laws in History , 1942 .

[7]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Expert and exceptional performance: evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[8]  J. Wertsch,et al.  Official and Unofficial Histories: The Case of Estonia , 1994 .

[9]  J. Wertsch,et al.  The russian revolution: official and unofficial accounts , 2001 .

[10]  S. Toulmin The uses of argument , 1960 .

[11]  Timothy A. Post,et al.  Problem-Solving Skill in the Social Sciences , 1983 .

[12]  William H. Dray,et al.  Laws and explanation in history , 1960 .

[13]  Timothy A. Post,et al.  On the solving of ill-structured problems. , 1988 .

[14]  M. Lemon VICO’S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY , 2003 .

[15]  Louis O. Mink,et al.  The Autonomy of Historical Understanding , 1966 .

[16]  D. Lowenthal Dilemmas and delights of learning history , 2000 .

[17]  H. Simon,et al.  Perception in chess , 1973 .

[18]  S. Wineburg Historical Problem Solving: A Study of the Cognitive Processes Used in the Evaluation of Documentary and Pictorial Evidence , 1991 .

[19]  Gaea Leinhardt,et al.  A sense of history , 1994 .

[20]  Sam Wineburg,et al.  Reading Abraham Lincoln: An Expert/Expert Study in the Interpretation of Historical Texts , 1998, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , 1971 .

[22]  J. W. Getzels Problem Finding: a Theoretical Note , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  W. Kintsch The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension : a construction-integration model , 1991 .

[24]  T. Epstein Deconstructing Differences in African‐American and European‐American Adolescents' Perspectives on U.S. History , 1998 .

[25]  William Cronon A Place for Stories: Nature, History, and Narrative , 1992 .

[26]  David A. Schum,et al.  Argument structuring and evidence evaluation , 1993 .

[27]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  THE MIND'S EYE IN CHESS , 1988 .

[28]  Gaea Leinhardt,et al.  Learning to reason in history: Mindlessness to mindfulness , 1994 .

[29]  Lawrence W. Levine The Unpredictable Past: Reflections on Recent American Historiography , 1989 .

[30]  O. Holsti,et al.  The Meaning of Vietnam: Belief Systems of American Leaders , 1977 .

[31]  J. Mackie,et al.  I . CAUSES AND CONDITIONS , 2008 .

[32]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives , 1996 .

[33]  Geaa Leinhardt,et al.  Two Texts, Three Readers: Distance and Expertise in Reading History. , 1996 .

[34]  J. F. Voss,et al.  Acquiring intellectual skills. , 1995, Annual review of psychology.

[35]  M. A. Britt,et al.  Studying and Using Multiple Documents in History: Effects of Discipline Expertise , 1997 .

[36]  A. D. D. Groot Thought and Choice in Chess , 1978 .

[37]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Theory-Driven Reasoning About Plausible Pasts and Probable Futures in World Politics: Are We Prisoners of Our Preconceptions? , 1999 .

[38]  P. Stearns Goals in history teaching , 2001 .

[39]  M. Carretero,et al.  Learning history through textbooks: are Mexican and Spanish students taught the same story? , 2002 .

[40]  Thucydides,et al.  Θογκγδιδης : the History of the Peloponnesian War , 1847 .