At the precipice of assessing adaptive expertise?

IF 3.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Maria Louise Gamborg
{"title":"At the precipice of assessing adaptive expertise?","authors":"Maria Louise Gamborg","doi":"10.1007/s10459-026-10526-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Adaptive Expertise is widely invoked as essential for navigating the uncertainty and complexity of contemporary professional practice, yet its conceptualization and measurement remain fragmented and imprecise. Building on the critical scoping review by Hissink et al. (Advances in Health Sciences Education, 1–27, 2025), this commentary argues that adaptive expertise assessment is currently at a precipice – a hazardous situation in which conceptual ambiguity, psychometric overreach, and operational vagueness threaten the construct’s theoretical integrity and practical utility. I trace the roots of adaptive expertise to Piaget’s interdependent processes of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration, emphasizing that adaptive expertise emerges from their dynamic interplay rather than from schema-changing accommodation alone. Contemporary uses of adaptive expertise, however, frequently conflate these processes or privilege accommodation, obscuring important distinctions in the cognitive work required of learners and professionals. This imprecision extends to existing adaptive expertise instruments, many of which rely on self-report, collapse vast psychological domains into coarse categories, or measure outcomes without interrogating underlying mechanisms. I argue that such approaches fail to capture the situated, practice-based nature of adaptive expertise and risk distorting the construct beyond recognition. To move forward, adaptive expertise assessment must shift from abstract traits to observable adaptive practices situated within real-world tasks, drawing on ecological and embodied theories of cognition while treating their vocabulary as a proxy for adaptive expertise, rather than a way for true introspection. Ultimately, if adaptive expertise is to serve as a meaningful guide for assessment and pedagogy, the field must resist the temptation to measure everything at once and instead develop context-sensitive, theoretically grounded, and explanatory assessments that honor the complexity, and promise, of adaptive expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-026-10526-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Adaptive Expertise is widely invoked as essential for navigating the uncertainty and complexity of contemporary professional practice, yet its conceptualization and measurement remain fragmented and imprecise. Building on the critical scoping review by Hissink et al. (Advances in Health Sciences Education, 1–27, 2025), this commentary argues that adaptive expertise assessment is currently at a precipice – a hazardous situation in which conceptual ambiguity, psychometric overreach, and operational vagueness threaten the construct’s theoretical integrity and practical utility. I trace the roots of adaptive expertise to Piaget’s interdependent processes of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration, emphasizing that adaptive expertise emerges from their dynamic interplay rather than from schema-changing accommodation alone. Contemporary uses of adaptive expertise, however, frequently conflate these processes or privilege accommodation, obscuring important distinctions in the cognitive work required of learners and professionals. This imprecision extends to existing adaptive expertise instruments, many of which rely on self-report, collapse vast psychological domains into coarse categories, or measure outcomes without interrogating underlying mechanisms. I argue that such approaches fail to capture the situated, practice-based nature of adaptive expertise and risk distorting the construct beyond recognition. To move forward, adaptive expertise assessment must shift from abstract traits to observable adaptive practices situated within real-world tasks, drawing on ecological and embodied theories of cognition while treating their vocabulary as a proxy for adaptive expertise, rather than a way for true introspection. Ultimately, if adaptive expertise is to serve as a meaningful guide for assessment and pedagogy, the field must resist the temptation to measure everything at once and instead develop context-sensitive, theoretically grounded, and explanatory assessments that honor the complexity, and promise, of adaptive expertise.

在评估适应性专业知识的悬崖边?
适应性专业知识被广泛认为是驾驭当代专业实践的不确定性和复杂性的必要条件,但其概念化和测量仍然是碎片化和不精确的。基于Hissink等人的批判性范围审查(《健康科学教育进展》,2025年1-27期),这篇评论认为适应性专家评估目前处于悬崖边——概念模糊、心理测量过度和操作模糊威胁到该结构的理论完整性和实际实用性的危险境地。我将适应性专业知识的根源追溯到皮亚杰的同化、适应和平衡的相互依存过程,强调适应性专业知识来自于它们的动态相互作用,而不是仅仅来自于改变模式的适应。然而,当代适应性专业知识的使用经常将这些过程或特权适应混为一谈,模糊了学习者和专业人员所需要的认知工作的重要区别。这种不精确延伸到现有的适应性专业知识工具,其中许多工具依赖于自我报告,将大量的心理领域分解为粗略的类别,或者在不询问潜在机制的情况下测量结果。我认为,这些方法未能捕捉到适应性专业知识的情境、基于实践的本质,并有可能将结构扭曲得面目全非。为了向前发展,适应性专业知识评估必须从抽象特征转向现实世界任务中可观察到的适应性实践,利用生态和体现的认知理论,同时将其词汇视为适应性专业知识的代理,而不是真正的内省方式。最终,如果适应性专门知识要作为评估和教学的有意义的指导,该领域必须抵制一次测量所有东西的诱惑,而是开发上下文敏感的、理论基础的和解释性的评估,以尊重适应性专门知识的复杂性和前景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书