The Effects of Exogenous Resources on the Domain Impact Level of Activities (DILA)

Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, Volume 57, 2015 (1), 94-110 Why experts can do what they do: The effects of exogenous resources on the Domain Impact Level of Activities (DILA) Tobias Debatin1, Manuel Hopp1, Wilma Vialle2 & Albert Ziegler1 Abstract In many domains, it is estimated that approximately 10,000 hours of planned learning activities are required to reach an expert level of performance. However, this poses a challenge for learners to balance such extensive learning times with the demands of everyday life. In our study we focused on activities in the domain of chess. We hypothesized that chess-related activities could be better integrated in an individual’s life if exogenous resources – specified in the educational capital approach (Ziegler & Baker, 2013) – are sufficiently available. In order to test this hypothesis we introduced the concept of the Domain Impact Level of Activities (DILA), that is, the degree to which a learner's activities are influenced by a certain domain. As expected, we found that the more exogenous resources (educational capital) chess players had at their disposal, the higher was their DILA in regard to social and everyday activities. Concerning social activities, we also found a direct effect of playing time hours and a small indirect effect of educational capital on the DILA via playing time hours. In the model predicting the DILA of everyday activities, these effects were not found. It was concluded that the availability of educational capital facilitates the integration of domain-related activities in a learner’s life. Keywords: Educational capital, actiotope, chess, expertise 1 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Tobias Debatin, PhD, Chair of educational psychology and excellence research, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Regensburger Straße 160, 90478 Nuremberg, Germany; email: [email protected] 2 University of Wollongong The effects of exogenous resources on the Domain Impact Level on Activities (DILA) 95 In order to attain expertise in a competitive domain like mathematics, music, sports or chess, a person has to spend many hours on practice. Research has clearly shown that the total lifetime amount of practice is related to performance in a variety of domains (Mac- namara, Hambrick, & Oswald, 2014). With regard to the particular example of chess, Simon and Chase (1973) claimed that nobody can play on an internationally competitive level “with less than about a decade’s intense preparation with the game” (p. 402), which corresponds to approximately 10,000 hours of planned learning (Simon & Chase, 1973a, 1973b). This 10-year rule has proved to be a valid estimation in virtually all domains in which studies have been conducted (e.g., Baker, Cote, & Abernethy, 2003; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993; Gobet & Campitelli, 2007; Hayes, 1981). For example, Gobet and Campitelli (2007) found in their sample of chess players that, on average, they needed 11,053 hours of deliberate practice in order to reach master level. The slowest player needed as much as 23,608 hours of deliberate practice. Thus, it is safe to conclude that a significant amount of time is needed to become an expert, whereby the aforementioned time estimations only relate to serious training hours. In fact, experts would have spent much more time on activities related to their domain of expertise. These include domain- specific activities not intended for improvement (and thus not accounted for in the deliberate practice assessments; e.g. Gobet & Campitelli, 2007), such as, commuting to the training venue, passively enjoying the domain (e.g., a music expert listening to music, a sports expert watching sports events, or a sculptor visiting art exhibitions), or talking about the domain with friends and family. Time management demands in chess Chess expertise is for a number of reasons an appropriate focus to address the question of how time demands can be met by future chess experts. First, chess has already attracted many research studies so that it has now a reputation as the “drosophila of cognitive psychology” (Grabner, Stern, & Neubauer, 2007). It might be the domain for which we have most data available and that is currently best understood. Secondly, expertise levels are quantifiable through a valid rating system (Elo, 1986; Hambrick et al., 2014). Third- ly, from a practical perspective the access to a larger number of experts, which is im- portant for such research, is relatively easy. Finally, the highly motivating character of the game makes it especially suited for the study of our research aim. With its strategic depth, its somewhat glorified reputation and its competitive environment, chess seems predestined to lead motivated players to a state in which their lives are increasingly influenced by chess. Puddephatt (2008) found in interviews with chess players of a wide skill range that many of his participants expressed concerns about over-involvement with chess. According to Puddephatt (2008), it had become for many chess players an “all- consuming activity” (p. 160), which constrained other life commitments including work or university studies. One player reported that he became totally absorbed in chess and was reading more than 100 books on the topic per year. Another player stated that he kept a chess book in his desk at work and when he went to the bathroom he took a look at it. Even for hobby players, chess can be classified as a so-called ‘serious leisure activi- 96 T. Debatin, M. Hopp, W. Vialle & A. Ziegler ty’ (Stebbins, 1992): “ ‘serious leisure’ refers to the cultural practices of amateur gamers, hobbyists, and the like as they invest so much time, money, and effort into their respec- tive amateur careers that the conceptual line between leisure and work begins to blur” (Puddephatt, 2008, p. 156). However, with increasing skill level, the expenditure of time increases further. In chess (Campitelli & Gobet, 2008), as well as in other sports (Baker et al., 2003; Baker, Côté, & Deakin, 2005), experts train more than do non-experts and a steady increase of weekly training hours (at least to a certain plateau) could be observed in the training histories of experts over time. It seems plausible that more training hours would be accompanied by more thinking about the domain of interest and subsequent limitations in other areas such as social activities. Space has to be created to fit in the increasing amount of training hours (plus the time and effort needed to reach training facilities multiple times a week, for example) in the daily schedules of aspiring chess players. To make room for their training time, chess players (Puddephat, 2008) and experts from other domains (e.g., Goodsell & Harris, 2011) reported, for example, that they rose earlier in the morning to get additional practice. From a certain level of expertise, the commitment to a domain can lead to conflicts with the environment (e.g., Goff, Fick, & Oppliger, 1997). While these conflicts may often start with having less time for other activities, other potential problems may be an in- creased financial demand to get to competitions or even talking about the domain at every possible opportunity. It seems clear from these considerations that chess, and most domains in which an expert level is desired, makes high demands on the time expenditure of a person. In general, research shows that the attrition rate in any competitive domain is high and most individuals are not able to maintain the high levels of time-consuming activities over a sufficiently long period of time in order to attain expert levels of performance (Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, & Hoffman, 2006). There is ample, but unfortunately scattered, evidence in the literature that various environmental resources such as mentors, understanding spouses and parents may facilitate the continuance of time invest- ment (e.g., Green & Chalip, 1997; Goff et al., 1997; Goodsell & Harris, 2011). Neverthe- less, a theory-based approach would offer a better and more complete understanding of the environmental resources that would be needed. Such an approach was recently introduced by Ziegler and Baker (2013) based on the Actiotope model (Ziegler, 2005; Zieg- 3 ler, Vialle, & Wimmer, 2013). Ziegler and Baker (2013) lay claim that their Educational Capital approach describes exhaustively the exogenous resources necessary for the ac- quisition of expertise. The underlying assumption of this contribution is that exogenous resources facilitate the integration of a domain in someone’s actiotope. 3 Ziegler, Vialle, and Wimmer (2013) offered a straightforward definition of an actiotope: “An actiotope includes an individual and the material, social and informational environment with which that individual actively interacts” (p. 3). The effects of exogenous resources on the Domain Impact Level on Activities (DILA) 97 The Educational Capital approach of Ziegler and Baker (2013) Initially excellence has been regarded as a function of internal factors such as genius, intelligence, talents, and so on (Ziegler & Phillipson, 2012). However, it is now widely accepted that the development of extraordinary achievements requires successful learning that, in turn, requires an optimal learning environment (Ziegler, Grigorenko, & Hard- er, 2014). Various attributes of such an optimal learning environment have been identi- fied, including personal mentors (Grassinger, Porath, & Ziegler, 2011), social promoters (Gruber, Jansen, Marienhagen, & Altenmueller,

Load more