Running head: CASE STUDY OF EXPERTISE

Case Study of Expertise: Tutoring

Federico R Lastra
Florida International University

CASE STUDY OF EXPERTISE

Case Study of Expertise: Tutoring

Background Information
Haverback and Parault, (2008), recognize that tutoring is customarily a mastery
experience that is positively correlated with the tutors self-efficacy; teaching skills and
meticulously applying learning theories in the university setting. This paper observes two tutors,
one expert and one novice, teaching SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite, and Review),
Cornell note-taking, and Back-Up System (how to prepare before, during, and after a lecture
class) to a tutee. A tutor performs the tutoring, and the tutee receives the tutoring instruction. The
master tutor, Ricardo, has been tutoring for over five years, totaling well over 10,000 hours of
tutoring experience, and the other tutor, Amaris, has only recently begun tutoring. This is her
first semester. Including her training she has only a little over 1,000 hours of experience. Both
tutors have received the same level one basic training from the Center for Academic Success
(CfAS), but Ricardo has exceeded level 5, the highest level of training offered by the CfAS of
Florida International University, Modesto Maidique Campus in Miami, Florida. Upon
completion of the instruction, the tutors were observed for their level of mastery experience and
subsequent expertise. I expect that the novice and expert will approach tasks differently. One of
the earliest studies of expertise demonstrated that the same stimulus is perceived and understood
differently, depending on the knowledge that a person brings to the situation (Haverback &
Parault, 2008, p. 32). This essay will address the four questions. (a) Does the expert
think in larger, more meaningful patterns? (b) Does the expert spend more time studying novel
problems at the beginning of the process, but take less time to complete the task? (c) Does the
expert conceptualize the problem on a deeper, more theoretical level? (d) Does the expert have
stronger self-monitoring skills?

CASE STUDY OF EXPERTISE

3
Patterns of Thinking

Meaningful Patterns
The expert, Ricardo, did think in a more meaning pattern when presenting the
information, he simultaneously explained how each of the three parts of the Cornell note-taking
functioned together, overlapped, and aided each other, how they operated together to form the
study system. Ricardo did not see the instruction as three separate areas but as one
functioning whole that can be used to help students better apply them academically by
recognizing the groupings and chunking them together. Whereas Amaris presented all three
individually as well as their applications, step-by-step, as the training taught her. As observed,
Lacking a hierarchical, highly organized structure for the domain, novices cannot use this
chunking strategy (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 33). Moreover, Ricardo was able to explain the
material without referring back to any printed handouts, unlike Amaris, who could only
explain it by reading the handouts. Ricardo, explain all three parts of Cornell note-taking
simultaneously (verbal cues, information, and summary), tying in the Back-Up system steps with
each step of SQ3R and the Cornell note-taking method. For example, he tied in the first step of
the Back-Up System, which is to read before class by applying the S in SQ3R: surveying the
chapter to have an idea of what will be covered in lecture and its benefits for general concept
understanding, recalling, following train of thought, and reducing note-taking. Moreover,
Ricardo said that the S in SQ3R applied to the first step of the Back-Up System to be applied
prior to lecture. He said Q was to read with a purpose, and the second step of the back-up system
was to take notes in class. Afterwards, with the notes in hand, performed the 3Rs with the
Cornell Notes (mentioning is serves as a study guide for final exams). Finally, tying it into the
last step of the Back-Up system. Ricardo said that incorporating them all into a system that

CASE STUDY OF EXPERTISE

becomes habit can be used for multiple classes. Afterwards, Ricardo modeled the desired
behavior and then offered the handouts for reference. By contrast, Amaris pulled out each
handout, read each section, and explained what verbal cues, information, and summary did
independently with Cornell note-taking. She never tied the concepts together but taught them as
three independent tools before finally modeling the behavior. Although both tutees received
instruction, Ricardos tutee was much more confident than Amariss tutee in regard to applying
the skills and their importance, most likely because Ricardo provided her with learning
experiences that taught her the importance of recognizing the links between the study strategies
(Bransford et al., 2000).
Time Spent
Ricardo did spend more time studying novel problems at the beginning of the process,
but took less time to complete the task. The tutoring session was content specific, but before any
of the actual study strategies could be addressed, a conversation had to take place. During this
conversation both the expert and novice tutors got to know their tutees. Although both did
engage in active listening and responded. He could detect what the underlying issues were
negatively influencing their study habits. Therefore, the expert tutor could predict
the tutee's novel problems and addressed those patterns of behavior. The expert could do this
because he simply had more experience. He could draw upon his repertoire of knowledge in
making associations between what the tutee was doing and what other students have done in the
past to overcome the same behaviors. It is precisely this experience that gives them the upper
hand, because he looked beyond the surface issues. The expert tutors knowledge is organized
around core conceptsthat guide thinking about their domains (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 36).
As far as tackling the task, the expert tutor was much faster because he did not feel the

CASE STUDY OF EXPERTISE

need to explain every detail, only ones that would provide the tutee with the best possible
outcomes based on their needs. As Bransford et al. (2000) state: Experts do not have to search
through everything they know in order to find what is relevant (p. 42). The expert knows that he
should address the tutees current knowledge first and then build upon it. Whereas the novice
tutor goes through the entire process, disregarding what is already known and repeating the
instruction anyway. When the tutee was asked how he felt about the instruction, he said it was a
waste of time to be retaught what you already know and a little insulting that the tutor
assumed he had no basic study skills. Moreover, the tutoring sessions last one hour, and there
was a noticeable difference in the time spent with each tutee. Ricardo spent about 45 minutes
teaching, leaving time for the tutee to ask questions and clarifying understanding. Amaris took
up the entire hour and was unable to take questions. In fact, she ran into the following
appointment and was interrupted, being told the time was up. So although Ricardo took more
time getting started than Amaris did, he finished well before she did, approximately 25% faster.
This is supported the theory in that Ricardo took longer trying to understand the problems before
immediately jumping into suggesting solutions; his tutoring style appeared fluid, which is an
important characteristics of expertise (Bransford et al., 2000).
Conceptualization
Ricardo also conceptualized the problem on a deeper, more theoretical level. He did not
immediately jump into instruction but spent a significant amount of time getting to know the
tutee and making her more receptive by creating a connection. As an expert Ricardo recognized
cognitive, emotional, and environmental influences, like setting and mood, largely due to his
experience. He set the stage for learning and reinforcement of the skills being transmitted,
which is a desired outcome of any tutoring session. Amaris said hello and was kind but she made

CASE STUDY OF EXPERTISE

no real connection with the student. Amariss tutoring style was very methodical and structured.
This behavior is not wrong because it was how she was trained, but you can clearly see the
differences in the ease of flow of their tutoring sessions. As tutors grow from novice to expert,
they adapt and change, learning to approach new tutees differently and they gain more
experience. They build upon what they already know and continually push themselves to become
better tutors, perfecting their expertise (Bransford et al., 2000). They dont simply attempt to do
the same things more efficiently; they attempt to do things better (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 48).
Furthermore, Ricardo mentioned that he likes to use chunking to not overwhelm the
tutee. This approach is in line with Cognitive Load Theory because he is trying to not
overload her working memory, extraneous information can negatively affect learning (Malamed,
2011).
Self-Monitoring
Finally, Ricardo had stronger self-monitoring skills. Is a resounding yes. He paid
attention to his own performance, his delivery of the information, and the tutee's reactions to his
instruction. Moreover, Ricardo accommodated his instruction to her reactions, verbal and facial;
he was highly responsive to the social cues she exhibited during the tutoring session (Bandura,
1991). When the tutee smiled at him and nodded her head as if she understood what he got more
excited, responded with like emotions, and saw it as his cue to explain how the technique will
serve her in the long run. For example, he explained how Cornell Notes do not just provide a
record of the lecture and readings, they also organize (chunk) the material into understandable
topics that Ricardo added, is a great way to begin creating your exam study guides. Moreover,
when applying Blooms Taxonomy with it to create possible exam questions. Cornell Notes serve
as study guides so that the tutee does not have to go back and reread the book come exam time,

CASE STUDY OF EXPERTISE

especially if the final exam is cumulative. Ricardo displayed a characteristic of expertise here
because he was able to detect and concentrate more on information that has instructional
significance (Hattie, 2003, p. 5). By contrast, Amaris simply followed the steps and was
unaware or simply too engaged in reading the handouts to note her tutees facial
expressions such as eye rolling and other facial signs of frustration. However, since she is a
novice she could misread these signs. Either way, she simply kept on teaching without
interruption. Amaris simply does not have the experience Ricardo possesses, and apparently she
lacks the expertise to self-monitor. Moreover, Amaris, as a novice tutor, was unable to recognize
the possible learning barriers that her tutee was experiencing, and therefore could not try to find
methods to overcome them (Hattie, 2003).
Conclusion
Teaching and tutoring are very similar, and as Haverback and Parault (2008) express, can
foster experience and create expertise in teaching. Hattie (2003) identifies five major dimensions
of exceptional teachers: (a) can identify essential representations of their subject, (b) can guide
learning through classroom interactions, (c) can monitor learning and provide feedback, (d) can
attend to affective attributes, and (e) can influence student outcomes. Amaris, a novice tutor, fell
short with respect to these five major dimensions with her tutee; yet, Ricardo, the expert, was
able to display these traits fluidly. The differences between Ricardo, the expert, and Amaris, the
novice, varied greatly and had to do with more than subject or content mastery. Ricardos
mastery extended well beyond the obvious and flowed into the realm of social cues and being
able to interpret what was not being said and used it to adjust the tutoring style. Ultimately, the
only way expertise can be achieved is not through training but through practice, not experience
alone. The study suggests that mastery experience occurs at approximately 10,000 hours. With

CASE STUDY OF EXPERTISE

mastery and expertise comes fluidity, being able to pick out the relevant information and apply
it effortlessly. Ricardo displayed an exceptionally high level of self-monitoring and was able to
read his tutee and adjust his delivery to make the information meaningful. He displayed this by
expressing his knowledge that the final exam would be difficult, based on prior student
comments. Emphasizing how she could use her Cornell Notes to make it easier to study for.
Where Amaris only tried to teach the task at hand, Ricardo adapted to his tutees perspectives in
an attempt to have her become independent and achieve learning goals besides just taking notes,
and to also do well on her subsequent exams, and ultimately her final exam (Bransford et al.,
2000).

CASE STUDY OF EXPERTISE

9
References

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 248-287. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How experts differ from novices. How
people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (31-50). Washington D. C: National
Academy Press
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Australian Council
for Educational Research Annual Conference on: Building Teacher Quality. Queensland,
New Zealand: University of Auckland.
Haverback, H. R., & Parault, S. J. (2008). Pre-service reading teacher efficacy and tutoring: A
review. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 237-255. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9077-4
Malamed, C. (2011). What s cognitive load? Retrieved from
http://theelearningcoach.com/learning/what-is-cognitive-load/