Talk:Dreyfus model of skill acquisition

Incomplete.

I turned the lists into text and cleaned up a bit. However, the article, even as a stub, is incomplete, and I am not digging through that awful PDF to finish it. Hopefully a more interested editor will one day add the last 2 stages, and maybe turn it into a real article. :)

and out of date

The article appears to use the 1980s version. Newer lists use different names for the 5 levels... which makes sense... one would hope humans have learned a bit in the last 20 years or so.sinneed (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Added an overview model, the content is OK, but the layout perhaps less so, this Media wiki kills me. The Dreyfuss model fits into the same line of reasoning as Schön and Argyris, The reflective practitioner etc, really interessing stuff and very influential. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't a connection from Dreyfus' views to Argyris and Schon, from a theoretical perspective. Dreyfus comes from a foundation of phenomenology, which could be complementary to Schon, but I don't think Argyris comes at learning from the same way. The end thinking may not be incompatible, but I wouldn't say that they're both branches from the same root.Daviding (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely it should use the original version rather than someone else's re-interpretation. It's fair enough to say that more research has gone on and newer lists may use different terms but as a reflection of the topic, it seems wrong not to have the original terms. If we need to include a newer view then put it in a another section. If no one objects, I'll to edit it to the Novice, Competence, Proficiency, Expertise, Mastery.--Bloodredsun (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible connections to other content

I'm responding to the question about what the model of skill acquisition could be connected to. It might be connected be phenomenology, or being-in-the-world, or experience (in the Kantian sense of not being related to reason). Dreyfus' thinking has also been very influential with Patricia Benner, in the field of nursing (e.g. there's training to be a nurse, and then there's really being a nurse).

If you wanted to stretch, Dreyfus' reading of Heidegger puts us into the field of practice (or practice theory). There's a more direct lineage from Etienne Wenger (communities of pracitce) back to Pierre Bourdieu, who links back to Heidegger, so Dreyfus is close to that school. Daviding (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The original five-stage model

This section is a mish-mash of original and revised proposal, for instance in the original proposal there is no Advanced Beginner; it was only added in 2008 revision. chughtai (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A sixth stage for innovation

There are couple of mistakes in this section that need to be corrected; first, the two sources (Flyvbjerg, B) points to cloud files that are dead; second, the revised edition of 'On the Internet' neither reference to Flyvbjerg nor include/incorporate Innovation or Practical Wisdom as a valid stage of skill acquisition. However, there is a reference to Practical Wisdom in the conclusion but it is not treated as a Stage. Lastly, in the updated version, Dreyfus has 6 (not 7) stages which are identical to his original proposal with one one exception: between Novice and Competence, there is a new stage of 'Advanced Beginner'.

Therefore, the title should be called Criticism, if we can find the said interviews by Flyvbjerg. And created a new section called 'Updated Mode' that would incorporate the above said stage of Advanced Beginner.chughtai (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense

The Dreyfus model is detailed in a 30 year old paper, which while is enjoyable to read, does not introduce any empirical research, makes some arbitrary distinctions and does not seem to figure in any contemporary field of academic research. In their paper, Dreyfus and Dreyfus suggest that people should not learn by exploration and experimentation, but by reading manuals and theoretical instruction structured around five discrete modes of learning. It is surprising then that this model appears to be highly regarded among agile development proponents, who through a lot of squinting manage to fit it to the five stages of becoming an agile developer. For example this talk by Patrick Kua somehow invokes homeopathy in support of this rather fragile application of Dreyfus’ air pilot training manual design to agile development. This shouldn't be presented as if it were in any way reasonable contemporary research. Yaxu (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)