Cognitive apprenticeship2

136
-1

Published on

Case Submission for Cognitive AP

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
136
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cognitive apprenticeship2

  1. 1. USING COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP TO PROVIDE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT IN THE USE OF BLENDED LEARNINGCarrianne HayslettEd O’SullivanHeidi SchweizerJanna Wrench
  2. 2. MARQUETTE UNIVERSITYEducating Marquette students is"remarkable, sacred work,"according to President Scott R. Pilarz, S.J.(http://www.marquette.edu/)Source: http://www.marquette.edu/
  3. 3. Enrollment: Approximately 8,400 undergraduate and 3,600 graduate andprofessional students; nearly all states and 68 countries represented.Undergraduate programs:116 majors and 65 minors and pre-professional programs in dentistry,law and medicinePostgraduate programs:50 doctoral and masters degree programs, more than 30 graduatecertificate programs, and a School of Dentistry and Law SchoolFaculty:More than 1,100 (almost 700 full time)(See About Marguette http://www.marquette.edu/)
  4. 4. BLENDED LEARNING Blended Learning may become the educational delivery method of choice in higher education. (Bonk, Kim, & Zeng, 2006)
  5. 5. ( cont’ d) Ina survey of 300 colleges and universities, EDUCAUSE found hybrid instruction used more widely, 80% of surveyed. (Hayslett, O’Sullivan, Schweizer & Wrench, 2009, p. 93)
  6. 6. MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY COURSE DEFINITIONS F2F Classes with web facilitated to deliver 1-29% of course content. Hybrid (Blended) Classes to deliver 30-79% of course content. Online Classes to deliver 80% or more of course content.(Hayslett, et al, 2009, p. 94)
  7. 7. REASONS FOR BLENDED LEARNING Students report high levels of learning and satisfaction. (Campos, & Harasim, 1999) Instructors may employ additional instruction tools. (Dzuiban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004) Students better able to direct own learning. (Bhatti, Tubaisahat, & El-Qawasmeh, 2005)
  8. 8. CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTATION Students not familiar with online instruction tools . (Hayslett, O’Sullivan, Schweizer & Wrench, 2009, p. 94) Students may lack self-regulation. (Schunk, & Zimmerman, (Eds.). 1998). Instructor of hybrid classes are more likely to require multimedia classrooms. (Dzuiban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004)
  9. 9. ROLE OF FACULTY DEVELOPMENT Some form of organized support to help faculty members develop. (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006)
  10. 10.  “Without faculty development, faculty may be even less likely to incorporate technology into their instruction…” (Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 96) Faculty development providers must shift the pedagogical foundations. (Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 96)
  11. 11. COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP Develop cognitive skills, rather than manual skills. (Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 96) Teach learners to process information. (Collins, Brown, & Newman 1989)
  12. 12. COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP PROCESSES  Modeling  Coaching  Scaffolding  Articulation  Reflection  Exploration (Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 98)
  13. 13. DESIGNING AND TEACHING A HYBRID COURSE Six 1 ½ hour F2F course time Six online modules Discussion forum Assignments Activities Resources (Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 98)
  14. 14.  Course was open to all faculty. Eleven disciplines represented in class. Taught by panel of instructors. (Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 101)
  15. 15. MARQUETTE HYBRID COURSE SATISFIEDCOGNITVE APPRENTICESHIP PROCESSESModeling –Hybrid course teachinghow to teach hybridcourses.Coaching –Course set-up as peer-to-peer course.Scaffolding–Availability of instructorsthroughout class eitherF2F, online, office hoursor discussion groups.
  16. 16. Articulation- ReciprocalTeaching that elicits anarticulation of ideas.Reflection-Multiple opportunities toreflect on their ownpractice.(Hayslett, et al, 2009, p. 102)
  17. 17. COURSE FEEDBACKFeedback was conducted with semi-structuredinterviews with selected participants conductedby a non-team member.(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 105)
  18. 18. PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK Course and instruction superior. Would recommend course to others. 60% agreed with hybrid to teach hybrid format. 90% found components to model in their own courses. Largest feedback agreeing with level of support given in the learning process.(Hayslett et al, 2009, pp. 105-107)
  19. 19. HYBRIDCOURSE FOCUS ON ACTIVELEARNING
  20. 20. COGNITIVEAPPRENTICESHIPPEDOGOGYA Student-CenteredPedagogy(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 109)
  21. 21. SUGGESTED COURSE IMPROVEMENTS Student award or credit. More student accountability. Include more technology. Provide more support.(Hayslett et al, 2009, pp. 110-112)
  22. 22. CONCLUSIONDesigning andTeaching aHybrid Courseaffected changein faculty’sinstructionalpractice.(Hayslett et al, 2009, p.114)
  23. 23. ReferencesBhatti, A., Tubaisahat, A., & El-Qawasmeh, E. (2005). Using technology-mediated learning environmentto overcome social and cultural limitations in higher education. Issues in Informing Science andInformationTechnology, 2, 67-76.Bonk, C., Kim, K., & Zeng, T. (2006). Future directions of blended learning in higher education andworkplace learning settings. In C. J Bonk & C. R. Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of Blended Learning: GlobalPerspectives, Local Designs (pp. 550-567). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.Campos, M., & Harasim, L. (1999). Virtual-U: Results and challenges of unique field trials. TheTechnology Source. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://technologysource.org/article/virtualu/Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts orreading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays inhonor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Dzuiban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. Educause Research Bulletin,2004(7), 1-12.Hayslett, C., O’Sullivan, E., Schweizer & Wrench, J., (2009) Using Cognitive Apprenticeship to ProvideFaculty Development in the Use of Blended Learning. Journal of the Research Center for EducationalTechnology (RCET) Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 2009, 92-117)Schunk, D. H, & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: The Guilford Press.Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of facultydevelopment. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing Co.

×