Kiesewetter Jan, Fischer Frank, Fischer Martin R
Institut für Didaktik und Ausbildungsforschung in der Medizin, Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany.
Department of Educational Science and Educational Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany.
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 11;11(2):e0148754. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148754. eCollection 2016.
Is there evidence for expertise on collaboration and, if so, is there evidence for cross-domain application? Recall of stimuli was used to measure so-called internal collaboration scripts of novices and experts in two studies. Internal collaboration scripts refer to an individual's knowledge about how to interact with others in a social situation. METHOD—
STUDY 1: Ten collaboration experts and ten novices of the content domain social science were presented with four pictures of people involved in collaborative activities. The recall texts were coded, distinguishing between superficial and collaboration script information. RESULTS—
STUDY 1: Experts recalled significantly more collaboration script information (M = 25.20; SD = 5.88) than did novices (M = 13.80; SD = 4.47). Differences in superficial information were not found.
STUDY 2: Study 2 tested whether the differences found in Study 1 could be replicated. Furthermore, the cross-domain application of internal collaboration scripts was explored. METHOD—
STUDY 2: Twenty collaboration experts and 20 novices of the content domain medicine were presented with four pictures and four videos of their content domain and a video and picture of another content domain. All stimuli showed collaborative activities typical for the respective content domains. RESULTS—
STUDY 2: As in Study 1, experts recalled significantly more collaboration script information of their content domain (M = 71.65; SD = 33.23) than did novices (M = 54.25; SD = 15.01). For the novices, no differences were found for the superficial information nor for the retrieval of collaboration script information recalled after the other content domain stimuli.
There is evidence for expertise on collaboration in memory tasks. The results show that experts hold substantially more collaboration script information than did novices. Furthermore, the differences between collaboration novices and collaboration experts occurred only in their own content domain, indicating that internal collaboration scripts are not easily stored and retrieved in memory tasks other than in the own content domain.
是否有证据表明存在协作方面的专业知识？如果有，是否有证据表明其能跨领域应用？在两项研究中，通过对刺激物的回忆来测量新手和专家所谓的内部协作脚本。内部协作脚本指的是个体关于在社交情境中如何与他人互动的知识。
方法——
研究1：向十位社会科学内容领域的协作专家和十位新手展示四张人们参与协作活动的图片。对回忆文本进行编码，区分表面信息和协作脚本信息。
结果——
研究1：专家回忆出的协作脚本信息（M = 25.20；标准差 = 5.88）显著多于新手（M = 13.80；标准差 = 4.47）。未发现表面信息方面的差异。
研究2：研究2测试了在研究1中发现的差异是否能够被复制。此外，还探讨了内部协作脚本的跨领域应用。
方法——
研究2：向二十位医学内容领域的协作专家和二十位新手展示四张其内容领域的图片和四段视频，以及另一个内容领域的一段视频和一张图片。所有刺激物均展示了各自内容领域典型的协作活动。
结果——
研究2：与研究1一样，专家回忆出的其内容领域的协作脚本信息（M = 71.65；标准差 = 33.23）显著多于新手（M = 54.25；标准差 = 15.01）。对于新手而言，在表面信息以及在其他内容领域刺激物之后回忆出的协作脚本信息方面均未发现差异。
有证据表明在记忆任务中存在协作方面的专业知识。结果显示，专家拥有的协作脚本信息比新手多得多。此外，协作新手和协作专家之间的差异仅出现在他们自己的内容领域，这表明内部协作脚本在除自身内容领域之外的记忆任务中不容易被存储和提取。
