USING COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP TO PROVIDE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT IN THE USE OF BLENDED LEARNING Carrianne Hayslett Ed O’Sullivan Heidi Schweizer Janna Wrench
1. USING COGNITIVEAPPRENTICESHIP TOPROVIDE FACULTY
DEVELOPMENTIN THE USE OFBLENDED LEARNINGCarrianne HayslettEd
OSullivanHeidi SchweizerJanna Wrench
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. 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. BLENDED LEARNING Blended Learning may become the educational
delivery method of choice in higher education. (Bonk, Kim, &
Zeng, 2006)
5. (contd) Ina survey of 300 colleges and universities,EDUCAUSE
found hybrid instruction usedmore widely, 80% of
surveyed.(Hayslett, OSullivan, Schweizer & Wrench, 2009, p.
93)
6. MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY COURSE DEFINITIONS F2FClasses 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 ofcourse content.(Hayslett, et al, 2009, p.
94)
7. REASONS FOR BLENDEDLEARNING Students report high levels of
learning andsatisfaction.(Campos, & Harasim, 1999)
Instructorsmay employ additional instructiontools.(Dzuiban,
Hartman, & Moskal, 2004) Studentsbetter able to direct own
learning.(Bhatti, Tubaisahat, & El-Qawasmeh, 2005)
8. CHALLENGES OFIMPLEMENTATION Studentsnot familiar with online
instructiontools .(Hayslett, OSullivan, Schweizer & Wrench,
2009, p. 94) Studentsmay lack self-regulation.(Schunk, &
Zimmerman, (Eds.). 1998). Instructor of hybrid classes are more
likely torequire multimedia classrooms.(Dzuiban, Hartman, &
Moskal, 2004)
9. ROLE OF FACULTYDEVELOPMENT Someform of organized support to
help faculty members develop. (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, &
Beach, 2006)
10. Withoutfaculty 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. COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP Developcognitive skills, rather
than manual skills. (Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 96) Teachlearners to
process information. (Collins, Brown, & Newman 1989)
12. COGNITIVEAPPRENTICESHIPPROCESSES Modeling Coaching
Scaffolding Articulation Reflection Exploration (Hayslett et al,
2009, p. 98)
13. DESIGNING AND TEACHING A HYBRID COURSE Six 1 hour F2F
course time Six online modules Discussion forum Assignments
Activities Resources(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 98)
14. Course was open to all faculty. Eleven disciplines
represented in class. Taught by panel of instructors.(Hayslett et
al, 2009, p. 101)
15. 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.
16. Articulation- ReciprocalTeaching that elicits
anarticulation of ideas.Reflection-Multiple opportunities toreflect
on their ownpractice.(Hayslett, et al, 2009, p. 102)
17. COURSE FEEDBACKFeedback was conducted with
semi-structuredinterviews with selected participants conductedby a
non-team member.(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 105)
18. PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK Courseand instruction superior. Would
recommend course to others. 60% agreed with hybrid to teach
hybridformat. 90% found components to model in their owncourses.
Largest feedback agreeing with level ofsupport given in the
learning process.(Hayslett et al, 2009, pp. 105-107)
19. HYBRIDCOURSE FOCUS ON ACTIVELEARNING
20. COGNITIVEAPPRENTICESHIP PEDOGOGYA
Student-CenteredPedagogy(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 109)
21. SUGGESTED COURSE IMPROVEMENTS Student award or credit. More
student accountability. Include more technology. Provide more
support.(Hayslett et al, 2009, pp. 110-112)
23. ReferencesBhatti, 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., OSullivan, 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.