USING COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP

TO PROVIDE FACULTY

DEVELOPMENT IN THE USE OF

BLENDED LEARNING

Carrianne HayslettEd O’SullivanHeidi SchweizerJanna Wrench

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY

Source: http://www.marquette.edu/

Educating Marquette students is "remarkable, sacred work," according to President Scott R. Pilarz, S.J.(http://www.marquette.edu/)

Enrollment: Approximately 8,400 undergraduate and 3,600 graduate and professional students; nearly all states and 68 countries represented.

Undergraduate programs: 116 majors and 65 minors and pre-professional programs in dentistry, law and medicine

Postgraduate programs: 50 doctoral and master's degree programs, more than 30 graduate certificate programs, and a School of Dentistry and Law School

Faculty: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)

In a 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 UNIVERSITYCOURSE 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

Develop cognitive skills, rather than manual skills.(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 96)

Teach learners to process information.(Collins, Brown, & Newman 1989)

COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP PROCESSES

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 SATISFIED

COGNITVE 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- Reciprocal Teaching that elicits an articulation of ideas.Reflection- Multiple opportunities to reflect on their own practice.

(Hayslett, et al, 2009, p. 102)

COURSE FEEDBACK

Feedback was conducted with semi-structured interviews with selected participants conducted by 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)

HYBRID COURSE FOCUS

ON

ACTIVE LEARNING

COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP PEDOGOGY

A Student-Centered Pedagogy(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)

CONCLUSION

Designing and Teaching a Hybrid Courseaffected change in faculty’s instructional practice.(Hayslett et al, 2009, p.114)

References 

Bhatti, A., Tubaisahat, A., & El-Qawasmeh, E. (2005). Using technology-mediated learning environment to overcome social and cultural limitations in higher education. Issues in Informing Science and InformationTechnology, 2, 67-76.  Bonk, C., Kim, K., & Zeng, T. (2006). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. In C. J Bonk & C. R. Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs (pp. 550-567). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. Campos, M., & Harasim, L. (1999). Virtual-U: Results and challenges of unique field trials. The Technology 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 or reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor 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 Provide Faculty Development in the Use of Blended Learning. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (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 faculty development. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing Co.