• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Cognitve apprenticeship

Cognitve apprenticeship






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Cognitve apprenticeship Cognitve apprenticeship Presentation Transcript

    • MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY Educating Marquette students is "remarkable, sacred work," according to President Scott R. Pilarz, S.J. (http://www.marquette.edu/) Source: http://www.marquette.edu/
    • 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/)
    • BLENDED LEARNING Blended Learning may become the educational delivery method of choice in higher education. (Bonk, Kim, & Zeng, 2006)
    • (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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • ROLE OF FACULTY DEVELOPMENT Some form of organized support to help faculty members develop. (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006)
    •  “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)
    • COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP Developcognitive skills, rather than manual skills. (Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 96) Teachlearners to process information. (Collins, Brown, & Newman 1989)
    • COGNITIVEAPPRENTICESHIPPROCESSES  Modeling  Coaching  Scaffolding  Articulation  Reflection  Exploration (Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 98)
    • 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)
    •  Course was open to all faculty. Eleven disciplines represented in class. Taught by panel of instructors.(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 101)
    • MARQUETTE HYBRID COURSE SATISFIEDCOGNITVE APPRENTICESHIP PROCESSES Modeling – Hybrid course teaching how to teach hybrid courses. Coaching – Course set-up as peer- to-peer course. Scaffolding– Availability of instructors throughout class either F2F, online, office hours or discussion groups.
    • Articulation- ReciprocalTeaching that elicits anarticulation of ideas.Reflection-Multiple opportunities toreflect on their ownpractice.(Hayslett, et al, 2009, p. 102)
    • COURSE FEEDBACKFeedback was conducted with semi-structuredinterviews with selected participants conductedby a non-team member.(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 105)
    • 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)
    • COGNITIVEAPPRENTICESHIP PEDOGOGYA Student-CenteredPedagogy(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 109)
    • SUGGESTED COURSE IMPROVEMENTS Student award or credit. More student accountability. Include more technology. Provide more support.(Hayslett et al, 2009, pp. 110-112)
    • CONCLUSI ONDesigning andTeaching aHybrid Courseaffected changein faculty’sinstructionalpractice.(Hayslett et al, 2009, p.114)
    • 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-reflectivepractice. 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.