Theoretical models of learning are well-defined, research-based, tested and widely accepted by the scientific community (Kop & Hill, 2008). Instructional design models help make the theories tangible and enable putting them into practice by providing frameworks instructional designers can follow (Instructional Design Central, LLC, n.d.).  I think all too often, instructional designers and their clients brush past the theories and jump into the framework of how they will model the instruction. Perhaps the differentiation is assumed? If following a certain model, it means the instruction is using a particular theory. Perhaps the differentiation is ignored in the haste to get the job done? Most of the time my client seems unconcerned.

For this blog posting, I am examining the Cognitive Apprenticeship instructional design model. It falls under the Constructivism Learning Theory especially in regards to relating learning to meaningful world-based experiences. Mimicking four important aspects of traditional apprenticeship (modeling, scaling, fading, and coaching), the cognitive apprenticeship is based on expert teachers sharing their knowledge and skills with novice students incrementally leading and coaching until the novices become experts. Emphasis is also placed on applying learning to real-world situations with the support of a learning community. However, instead of the novices learning to create a trade object, this model is designed so expert teachers vocalize and share processes students follow to learn conceptual knowledge, such as reading, writing or math in an educational environment. The model consists of a framework of four dimensions that define a cognitive apprenticeship learning environment:

Content. This is the knowledge expert teachers bring to the learning environment. Not only do they provide the concepts, facts, and procedures, they also supply the heuristics and strategies for the best solutions. Also, they share how they continue to learn new knowledge.

Method. This is how the learning environment is designed to give students opportunities for observation, participation, discovery and invention. It consists of six teaching methods:

• Modeling – Expert demonstration of what is required.
• Coaching – Teacher observation and inquiry of student progress, supplying hints and reminders, promoting progression and encouraging new challenges.
• Scaffolding – Provided supports that help students perform a task. Fading is the opposite where supports are gradually removed.
• Articulation – Techniques to prompt students to discuss and share their thought processes.
• Reflection – Student comparisons of their solutions to the experts and their own ideal.
• Exploration – Motivation for students to frame and solve their own problems.

Sequencing. The environment includes tasks that structure learning but also provide meaningful direction in a balance of the following three principles:

• Global before local skills – Students are provided an overall concept of the process before delving into specific parts.
• Increasing complexity – Tasks are sequenced in order to control the increase in complexity with scaffolds aiding the early steps of student progression.
• Increasing diversity – Tasks requiring a wider range of strategies and skills are gradually introduced so students learn when and how to distinguish and apply different skills.

Sociology. The learning environment contains a community of experts and other students working on common projects and sharing experiences. It includes situated learning where students apply their knowledge to tasks that mimic future encounters outside of the educational environment. Goals for learning reach beyond just making a grade providing intrinsic motivation and students are investing in helping each other learn (Collins, Holum, & Brown, 1991).

The cognitive apprenticeship model reminds me of elements of other models. It has the balance between content, student social interactions, and teacher presence the Community of Inquiry model displays. It also has methods and processes similar to Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction (Instructional Design Central, LLC, n.d.). Where it differs for me is the connection to traditional apprenticeship and relation of more conceptual subject matter to worldly examples. I can visualize using this model to develop an online course design in several subject areas, especially ones that require students to learn and accomplish complex tasks such as putting together a business plan, programming a software application, or compiling a cosmetology portfolio.

References

Collins, A., Holum, A., & Brown, J. S. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. Retrieved from The 21st Century Learning Initiative: http://www.21learn.org/archive/cognitive-apprenticeship-making-thinking-visible/

Dabbagh, N. (2018, September 22). The Instructional Design Knowledge Base. Retrieved September 22, 2018, from Nada Dabbagh’s Homepage, George Mason University, Instructional Technology Program: http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/Resources/IDKB/index.htm

Garcia-Cabrero, B., Hoover, M. L., Lajoie, S. P., Andrade-Santoyo, N. L., Quevedo-Rodriguez, L. M., & Wong, J. (2018, June). Design of a learning-centered online environment: a cognitive apprenticeship approach. Education Technology Research and Development, 66(3), 813-835. doi:10.1007/s11423-018-9582-1

Instructional Design Central, LLC. (n.d.). Instructional Design Models. Retrieved from Instructional Design Central: https://www.instructionaldesigncentral.com/instructionaldesignmodels

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1103

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 22nd, 2018 at 9:33 pm and is filed under Instructional Design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.