ABSTRACT
This article describes
how cognitive apprenticeship instructional strategies and technology can be applied to
facilitate rapid learning of philosophy of education course by especially non-specialised (in philosophy)
students. These strategies are adopted from the cognitive apprenticeship
framework to support students in the development of strategic thinking to learn
and understand complex concepts in a
constructivist learning environment. They explore the elements of cognitive
apprenticeship, scaffolding,
mentoring, coaching, exploration and articulation.
On the intersection of technology and cognitive apprenticeship
it discusses systematically designed, computer-mediated instruction
with the use of innovative software tools that is based in the cognitive apprenticeship theories. The cognitive
apprenticeship instructional strategies offer a rigorous and robust approach to
teaching complex problem-solving skills and to developing important
competencies within the discipline. This process-oriented inquiry I believe can
help both preservice and inservice teachers develop their
meta cognitive skills . Empirical
studies have confirmed much of what these theories suggests. This instructional
approach provides the classroom environment on which situated learning strives.
The paper concludes with a call for more systematic and integrated program of
studies working toward the development of guiding principles to support
instructional design, teaching, and learning based on the cognitive
apprenticeship model.
Keywords;
Cognitive Apprenticeship,Scaffolding,Modeling,Coaching,Mentoring Cooperative learning, Instructional design
INTRODUCTION
To foster student
learning, educators regularly engage with a broad range of educational theories
and associated teaching strategies. It follows that philosophy of education literature employs teaching strategies that apply philosophical principles and theories to
instruction. For example, Cook and Sittler (2008) cover the pedagogical
terrain by presenting case studies that include a mixture of direct and
student-centered instruction. In this
exploration, the author considers the cognitive apprentice model (CA), which
unites the longstanding tradition of learning through apprenticeship programs with
classroom practices such as modeling, coaching, and scaffolding.
Apprenticeship is an
inherently social learning method with a long history of helping novices become
experts in fields as diverse as midwifery, construction, and law. Traditionally
apprenticeship has been associated with learning in the context of becoming
skilled in a trade or craft—a task that typically requires both the acquisition
of knowledge, concepts, and perhaps psychomotor skills and the development of
the ability to apply the knowledge and skills in a context-appropriate
manner—and far predates formal schooling as it is known today. Simply put, it
is a process through which a more experienced person assists a less experienced
one. Supporting students, especially non-specialized students,
in a course that is philosophical in nature, is always a concern of philosophers.
The standard approach to teaching philosophy is usually teacher-centered, which
emphasizes a particular learning style with students. With this method, the
lecturer tries to impose his/her knowledge upon the students,
who more often than not lose the connections of lessons when dealing with
various concept and their interrelationships. On the other hand, the effort to
engage students in a genuine learning experience and the application of
cognitive apprenticeship in original research is an approach proposed for the
teaching and learning of philosophy of education.
REVIEW
OF LITERATURE
COGNITIVE
APPRENTICESHIP- This is a way of
learning through experience guided by an expert. As a method of teaching, it is
aimed primarily at teaching the processes that experts use to handle complex
tasks. The focus of this learning-through-guided-experience is on cognitive and
meta cognitive skills, rather than on the physical skills and processes of
traditional apprenticeships. Cognitive apprenticeship is an instructional
design model that emerged from situated learning theory and was introduced in
1989) and developed by Allan Collins, John Seely Brown they propose an
alternative model of instruction that is accessible within the framework of the
typical American classroom. It is a model of instruction that goes back to
apprenticeship but incorporates elements of schooling. We call this model
cognitive apprenticeship.(Collins, Brown, and Newman, 1989). It can be
described an instructional model that draws upon authentic classroom activities
and guided experiences that enable the development of mental skills through
reflection, articulation, collaboration, and practice, and that are situated in
authentic contexts.(Educational Technology Research & Development, 47
(3),15-31) .An apprenticeship is distinguished from tutoring, mentoring,
coaching, and volunteerism by its focus on interaction that is a specific
socially and culturally valued activity at which the adult is more skilled
(Tisdale 2001). Applying apprenticeship methods to what
are largely cognitive skills requires the externalization of processes that are
usually carried out internally. Therefore, the thinking and reflection have to
be out loud. Observing the processes by which an expert thinks and practices
her skills can teach students to learn on their own more skillfully Collins,
A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1990)(pp. 453-494). Cognitive
apprenticeship is much like traditional or trade apprenticeship, learning
occurs as teachers and learners interact socially while focused on completing a
task, developing cognitive skills through participating in authentic learning
experiences but unlike trade apprenticeship where the process of carrying out a
task to be learned is usually easily observable. In cognitive apprenticeship,
one needs to deliberately bring the thinking to the surface, to make it
visible, whether it’s in reading, writing and problem solving.
The goal of cognitive apprenticeship is to address the problem of inert
knowledge and to make the thinking processes of a learning activity visible to
both the students and the teacher. The teacher is then able to employ the
methods of traditional apprenticeship (modeling, coaching, scaffolding, and
fading) to effectively guide student learning (Collins et al., 1991). To
achieve this goal, CA united instructional techniques found in traditional
craft apprenticeship programs to those practices enacted in a classroom. The resulting method comprises a learning
environment that consists of four dimensions
A. Content - Strategies
to acquire knowledge that involve not only obtaining the relevant concepts and
facts associated with a subject, but also with the best approach for the
acquisition of knowledge;
B. Method – Tactics
that synthesize modeling, coaching, and scaffolding teaching techniques with
methods that promote articulation, reflection, and exploration
C. Sequencing -
Approaches that support the increasing complexity of tasks combined with tools
that develop skills necessary to master a subject;
D. The sociology of a
learning environment – Policies that create a community of interactive
learners.
Within each of the
above building blocks are numerous strategies that work to implement the basic
CA practice of bringing to light the thought process of an expert. Educators
have implemented CA with positive results in a broad range of educational
settings from kindergarten to 12th grade and beyond (Dennen and Burner
2008). In higher education, Schoenfeld
(1980) documented
his success of employing modeling, coaching, and scaffolding techniques to
teach college students how to solve math problems. Palincsar and Brown’s (1984)
reciprocal teaching of reading exemplifies many of the features of cognitive
apprenticeship and explained that it has proved remarkably effective in raising
students’ scores on reading comprehension tests, especially those of poor
readers. It is believed to be equally effective in writing and problem solving.
Hendricks (2001) conducted an experimental study to determine whether situated
instruction was more likely to result in transferable knowledge than
traditional instruction. The content area was causality, with a learning goal
focused on students being able to determine whether or not a cause–effect
relationship was present in particular research studies. The control group
received “abstract instruction” in the form of a lecture and practice activity,
whereas the treatment group’s “situated instruction” followed the instructional
model set forth by J.S.Brownetal. (1989),beginning with discussion, then modeling
,and, finally, coaching and scaffolding to assist the learners in applying the knowledge.
Scaffolding was faded and control ceded to individual students as they
demonstrated the ability to identify causality ,and , finally,students were
asked to reflect aloud, articulating what they had learned. The results
demonstrated that students in the treatment group out performed the control
group on a posttest administered at the end of the instruction.
Instructional
strategies and models associated with cognitive apprenticeship
Intentional teaching
and learning through cognitive apprenticeship require making tacit processes
visible to learners so they can observe and then practice them (Collins et al.,
1989).this model is slightly different
from Collins et al.’s (1989) five-stage model of cognitive apprenticeship which
included Modeling Coaching Reflection articulation exploration.Collins and
colleagues’ (1989) model generally is considered the foundational one, but
other slightly different versions have been proposed. Gallimore and Tharp
(1990) identified six forms of scaffolded assistance: (1) instructing, (2)
questioning, (3) modeling, (4) feeding back, (5) cognitive structuring, and (6)
contingency management. Enkenberg (2001) added scaffolding and explanation as
key strategies. LeGrand Brandt et al. (1993) presented a sequential model of
modeling (both behavioral and cognitive), approximating, fading, self-directed
learning, and generalizing. Liu (2005), who used a cognitive apprenticeship
approach to support preservice education, offers instructional designers a
three-phase Web-based CA model with a dynamic relationship between the initial
modeling–observing phase and the second scaffolding–practice phase, which then
is followed by the guiding–generalizing phase. The similarities across these
models are their reliance on instructional strategies that provide learner
guidance and engage learners in different types of practice until the guidance
is no longer needed.
This model consists of
the following strategies-
(i) Coaching
(iv) Scaffolding
(vii) Reflection and replay
(iv) Articulation
(v) Mentoring
(vii) Modeling
(viii) Exploration
(ix) Specific type of cooperative learning
These cognitive
apprenticeship methods and strategies are designed to give students the
opportunity to observe, engage in, and invent or discover expert strategies in
context. Such an approach will enable students to see how the strategies
combine with their factual and conceptual knowledge and how they use a variety
of resources in the social and physical environment. The teacher provides
guidance in the learning process, directs learning by presenting the
environment and technology that stimulates and encourages critical thinking and
problem solving skills in learners.
Modeling
This involves an expert
performing a task so that the students can observe and build a conceptual model
of the processes that are required to accomplish it. In cognitive domains, this
requires the externalization of usually internal processes and
activities-specifically, the heuristics and control processes by which experts
apply their basic conceptual and procedural knowledge. For example, a teacher
might model a decision-making process by talking aloud about the considerations
taken and explaining the rationale for the end result. Learners may observe the
reasoning as presented by an expert or the teacher .The learner in this case
would not be engaged in direct imitation but, rather, use of similar strategies
in a related context .The impact of modeling is strongest when it is an
explicit process. Individuals who engage in a process of expert observation,
reflection, and practice being more likely to be able to apply the learned
knowledge in a different setting than those who receive a passive model
(Cooper, 1999).
Coaching
This can be defined as
observing a learner‘s performance and providing encouragement, diagnosis,
directions, and feedback. Specifically, coaching involves providing motivational
prompts, monitoring, and regulating learner performance, provoking reflection,
and perturbing learners’ models. (K. L. Murphy et al 2005).Coaching consists of
observing students while they carry out a task and offering hints, scaffolding,
feedback, modeling, reminders, and new tasks aimed at bringing their
performance closer to expert performance. Coaching may serve to direct
students’ attention to a previously unnoticed aspect of the task or simply to
remind the student of some aspect of the task that is known but has been
temporarily overlooked. It can also be used to guide learners in developing
task management skills particularly in constructivist environments, which
require learners to be their own task managers. The content of the coaching interaction
is immediately related to specific events or problems that arise as the student
attempts to accomplish the target task.
Mentoring
This
can be defined as a one-on-one relationship between an expert and a novice in
which the expert guides the novice by behavioral and cognitive modeling,
academic and career counseling, emotional and scholarly support, advice,
professional networking, and assessment( K. L. Murphy et al (2005). A mentor is
one who mediates expert knowledge for novices, helping that which is tacit to
become more explicit. The many definitions of mentoring are related to the
social constructivist model of cognitive apprenticeship and often incorporate
collaboration, interaction, modeling, scaffolding, and communities of practice.
Mentoring support takes the form of expert-to-novice transfer of professional
information.
Scaffolding
Scaffolds (Rosenshine & Meister, 1992; West, Farmer, &
Wolff, 1991) include all devices or
strategies that support students' learning. One example of scaffolds for
writing instruction is reflected in the work of Englert and colleagues
(1991), who developed an acronym
to represent their approach to solving the problem of writing well (POWER: P refers
to planning; O to organizing, W represents
writing the preliminary draft, E is for editing, and R stands
for revision). Other expert writers may attach different labels and make
different divisions in the composing activities, but whatever the labels, the
common tasks include planning, organizing, drafting, revising, editing, and
proofreading. Scaffolds to support students' efforts to plan and organize their
writing may also be graphic in design. This can be used either during the
initial planning of an essay (as an alternative to the traditional outline, a
scaffold used frequently in composition) or may be used after the essay draft
has been completed. When it is used after a draft has been written, the writer
attempts to place all the text into one of the areas on the scaffold; in this
way missing elements or under-developed sections of the text can be revealed.
Instructors need to model the use of the scaffolds; without explicit
instruction, students may fail to accept their value or fail to understand how
to use them.
Reflection
In reflection, learners reflect on work
they have already performed and analyze or deconstruct it. Through this process, they can increase their
“awareness of their own knowledge” (also called meta cognition) and be able to
compare what they know with what others know. Here, the cognitive master role
is to provoke students to compare their problem solving processes with the
master's work, with that of other students, and with an internal cognitive
model of the relevant expertise. Such
comparisons aid students in diagnosing their difficulties and in incrementally adjusting
their performance until they achieve competence. Reflection is facilitated by
the provision of abstracted replay that contrasts students’ own performance
with that of the expert (Collins and Brown, 1989). Shared articulation and
reflection usually magnifies the benefits of these processes.
Exploration
It encourages the expansion of research
tools. In exploration, learners try out different hypotheses, methods and
strategies by exploring their project and work environment. Through exploration they can learn how to set
achievable goals, form and test hypotheses, and make independent
discoveries. Here, the cognitive master
role is to encourage students to be independent learners; identify personal interests; and pursue
personal goals. In fact, forcing students to engage in exploration teaches them
how to frame interesting questions and to identify difficult problems on their
own. Giving students an interesting
assignment with only generally formulated goals gives students the latitude to
explore and thus extend their understanding of a subject. Exploration can also
help students gain confidence in their ability to learn on their own
Articulation
It serves to foster explanations of how to
research a topic. In articulation,
learners are required to “explain and think about what they are doing”
by making their knowledge explicit. Therefore, they can see other applications
for their knowledge, and test their understanding of knowledge. The role of the cognitive master here is to
encourage students to explicate their knowledge, reasoning, and problem solving
strategies. Such activities provide the impetus for students to engage in the
refinement and reorganization of knowledge.
Such tasks require students to participate in generating knowledge and
evaluating the outcomes of knowledge building activities as part of
collaborative learning activities.
Specific
type of cooperative learning
Cooperative learning
has been defined as a classroom learning environment in which students work on
academic tasks in small, heterogeneous groups (Parker 1985).I highlight Johnson
and Johnson basic elements of cooperative learning . According to the Johnson
& Johnson model, cooperative learning is instruction that involves students
working in teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that include the
following elements (7): (Johnson, D. W.; Johnson et al 1998)
1.Positive
interdependence: Team members are obliged to rely on one another to achieve the
goal. If any team members fail to do their part, everyone suffers consequences.
2. Individual accountability:
All students in a group are held accountable for doing their share of the work
and for mastery of all of the material to be learned.
3. Face-to-face
promotive interaction: Although some of the group work may be parceled out and
done individually, some must be done interactively, with group members
providing one another with feedback, challenging reasoning and conclusions, and
perhaps most importantly, teaching and encouraging one another.
4. Appropriate use of
collaborative skills: Students are encouraged and helped to develop and
practice trust-building, leadership, decision-making, communication, and
conflict management skills.
5. Group processing:
Team members set group goals, periodically assess what they are doing well
The basic elements of
cooperative learning can be considered essential to all interactive methods.
Student groups are small, usually consisting of two to six members. Grouping is
heterogeneous with respect to student characteristics. Group members share the
various roles and are interdependent in achieving the group learning goal.
While the academic task is of primary importance, students also learn the
importance of maintaining group health and harmony, and respecting individual
views. These groups are where students learn and become comfortable applying
the different techniques of working together cooperatively. (Johnson, et al.,
2006, p.2:2)
Incorporating
CA strategies in philosophy instruction
One might ask why
instructors need another teaching approach given the rich instruction
literature available to date. The author believes that CA offers a flexible
framework for planning and implementing philosophical sessions from which all
levels of students may benefit. What’s
more, CA has the potential to provide instructors with a structure and
alternatives to fall back on or choose from, for what most consider stereotype
philosophy classroom lecture. My entry point for engaging with CA focuses on
the method dimension, which encompasses teaching strategies considered by
collins, brown, and newman (1989) to be the nucleus of CA. The method component
brings into play tactics that synthesize modeling, coaching, and scaffolding
teaching strategies with techniques that promote student articulation,
reflection, and exploration. Among these strategies, the modeling aspect stands
out as a critical component for introducing the students to philosophy
literature. Collins, brown, and newman
state that modeling “involves an expert’s carrying out a task so that students
can observe and build a conceptual model of the processes that are required to
accomplish the task” (1989, 481).this activity is deeply rooted in the
apprenticeship process where new apprentices devote considerable time to
pre-practice observation.
The structure of
enquiry of Philosophy differ from mathematics and other science disciplines depending on
what it questions. Scientific inquiry questions the world outside man,
while philosophical questions the world inside man. Philosophical inquiry,
though implicitly stated, can be summed up to this statement. It is the transcendence of common knowledge through
the entire involvement of the other through discourse and sharing of
common experiences with the hope of giving birth to new knowledge
through shared reflection. What is meant by this is simple, philosophical inquiry
involves another person in order for it to occur. There must be a
tension between one and another, a question must be asked regarding the
common knowledge that in which is comfortable to one or the other. Logic, Phenomenology, and
Meta-Pragmatics are the three modes of Philosophical Inquiry given by (Johann
1973). Logic deals with the rational and sensible organization
of experiences. Phenomenology is the process of making these
rational and sensible organizations of experience practical
and applicable to daily life. Logic must contain phenomenological adequacy so as
it to be pragmatic. Lastly, meta-pragmatics is making this phenomenological adequacy useful
to man and his community. It is transcending the sphere of knowledge
that has been set by society. Philosophy has made progress
through the development of these specialized methods that fragment the
knowledge that philosophy eternally seeks.
Think aloud modeling has been
used successfully in technical skills instruction, mathematics instruction,
reading and writing instruction. It would therefore seem to have potential as a
vehicle for the developing the Philosophical inquiry mind in students. When
preparing writing instructions or assignments
instructors can
"situate" assignments so that they more closely resemble the
writing done in the workplace (e.g., using workplace topics, including collaborative
writing and peer review in the classroom), students will be more likely to see the
connection to the real world. Brown,
Collins, and Duguid (1989), Gick and Holyoak (1987), and Perkins and Salomon (1988) are among the researchers who agree that learning can be
enhanced when content is contextualized-when authentic situations are created
during learning that are similar to the situations in which the knowledge will
ultimately be applied. Incorporating the instructional methods of
cognitive apprenticeship-specifically think aloud modeling and scaffolding-into
philosophy of education classrooms can take the form of writing instructions
for the students. Instructors can think aloud to model composing activities for
students, instructors must become aware of, and be able to articulate their own
writing processes. As instructors attempt to verbalize each thought, step, and
strategy that they employ while completing a task, they cannot mention everything because people think more rapidly than
they speak (Hayes & Flower, 1980). But, incomplete or not, these verbal
protocols provide the only available window into the mind of the expert writer.
Studies in the use of think aloud modeling have produced positive results (Bereiter
& Bird, Collins et al., 1991; Collins et al., 1987; 1985; Palincsar
& Brown, 1984; Schoenfeld,
1985). Students
have developed the skills that were modeled and learned to apply the strategies
they were taught.Think aloud modeling reveals the most complete description
possible of their cognitive activities and strategies, while providing
organizational scaffolds for the students. Instructors describe what they
are thinking and doing, why they are doing what they are
doing, and verbalize their self-correction processes. As the students try
to replicate this CA inspired model, they develop their understanding of meaning
and relationship of concepts in context. . I transition into the role of a coach. Coaching, according to Collins,
Brown, and Newman, “consists of observing students while they carry out a task
and offering hints, scaffolding, feedback, modeling, reminders, and new tasks
aimed at bringing their performance closer to expert performance” (1989,
481). To accomplish this procedure,
Instructors consult the students individually, proposing alternative-----
terms, solving problems, and giving encouragement. Students, in turn, work on their assignments using
the prompts both visual and verbal as guideline. Instructors also support students by demonstrating the use
of scaffolds and explaining the principles and rules that apply to the task. Each successive problem is designed to
be increasingly complex, and the instructor provides less and less assistance
as the students gain experience. Ultimately, students develop competency and
solve problems and develop their own expertise. .Bereiter
and Bird (1985), Collins,
Brown, and Newman (1987), Hayes (1990), and Flower (1993) and her colleagues (Flower, Wallace,
Norris, & Burnett, 1994) are just some of the individuals who have examined
cognitive apprenticeship in writing instruction. Stasz,
Ramsey, Eden, DaVanzo, Farris, and Lewis (1993) describe a college-preparatory English
course in which the instructor included workplace situations, situated
learning, modeling, scaffolding, and coaching.
Writing assignments about the literature in
context were "situated" in the
students' own cultural experiences by requiring them to consider how the
literature reflected existing problems in their own lives. By grounding the
work in realistic and meaningful contexts and purposes, the instructor made the
writing tasks relevant to students as individuals. The instructor included
think aloud modeling in his repertoire of teaching techniques. Scaffolding took
the form of optional organizational structures for the assignment or writing task on the board or screen.
Coaching consisted of providing hints to students, who knew that the hints were
directive and not answers in themselves. Rounding out the method dimension are
techniques to promote student articulation, reflection, and exploration.
Collins, Brown, and Newman consider articulation to include “any method of
getting students to articulate their knowledge, reasoning, or problem-solving
processin a domain” (1989, 482).
Reflection in the CA context assists learners to compare their own
performance with that of a teacher, another student, or their own thought
process from the beginning of class. It stands to reason that after students
have reflected upon and articulated what they have learned, they are ready for
further exploration. Exploration is an
outgrowth of the fading process, arising when students are ready to take on
variations of the assigned tasks. During the philosophy sessions, I foster articulation by asking students
to describe their reading strategy and
subsequent results. As the class winds
down, The instructor suggest that the students reflect upon what they
learned. The instructor inquire if they
have located enough meaningful research.
At the end of the session, the instructor encourage further exploration
by directing the students to additional philosophy resources or to the
reference desk for further assistance.
Sociology of learning
environment
The final dimension of
a CA classroom addresses the sociology of learning.
I provide a checklist
of 9 design elements.
1. Real-world
relevance: Students brainstorm on The various implications of the schools of
philosophy on the methods ,strategies, techniques and perspectives of the
actual practice teaching and learning employed in educational practise. they
examine these philosophies and concepts so as to develop an informed opinion on
their strengths and relevancy to educational practice and activities.
2. ill Defined problems: The Challenges posed by
this task cannot be solved easily by the application of the existing algorithm;
instead, authentic activities are relatively undefined and open to multiple
interpretations, requiring students to identify for themselves the tasks and
subtasks needed to complete the major task.
3. Sustained
investigation: These Problems cannot be solved in a matter of minutes or even
hours. Instead, authentic activities comprise complex tasks to be investigated
by students over a sustained period of time, requiring significant investment
of time and intellectual resources.
4. Multiple sources and
perspectives: Learners are given a list of resources as examples but are not
limited. Authentic activities provide the opportunity for students to examine
the task from a variety of theoretical and practical perspectives, using a
variety of resources, and require students to distinguish relevant from
irrelevant information in the process.
5. Collaboration:
Success is not achievable by an individual learner working alone. Authentic
activities make collaboration integral to the task, both within the course and
in the real world. This also refers to the creation of a learning environment
in which the participants actively communicate in dialogue comparing their
thoughts can develop higher learning strategies, skills and expertise, where
expertise is understood as the practice of solving problems and carrying out
tasks in a domain. Activities designed to engender a community of practice for
reading might engage students and teacher in discussing how they interpret what
they read and use those interpretations for a wide variety of purposes,
including those that arise in other classes or domains.
6.
Reflection ( meta cognition): Authentic activities enable learners to make
choices and reflect on their learning, both individually and as a team or community.
7. Interdisciplinary
perspective: Relevance is not confined to a single domain or subject matter
specialization. Instead, authentic activities have consequences that extend beyond a particular
discipline, encouraging students to adopt diverse roles and think in
interdisciplinary terms.
8. Appropriate
assessment: Assessment is not merely summative in authentic activities but is
woven seamlessly into the major task in a manner that reflects real-world
evaluation processes.
9. Multiple
interpretations and outcomes: Rather than yielding a single correct answer
obtained by the application of rules and procedures, authentic activities allow
for diverse interpretations and competing solutions culminating in the creation
of a whole product, valuable in its own right.
In adapting cognitive
apprenticeship as a method of instruction and learning in a philosophy of
education classroom, then, the challenge is to identify the task and its
processes and make them visible to students situate the abstract tasks of the
school curriculum in contexts that make sense to students i.e. situate abstract
tasks in authentic contexts, so that students understand the relevance of the
work so also vary the diversity of situations and articulate the common
aspects.
Computer-Mediated Learning
Within
the framework of cognitive apprenticeship, computer-based technologies can be
powerful pedagogical tools that enhance and expand the power and flexibility of
the resources that can be deployed to support the various component of
cognitive apprenticeship discussed earlier. In turn, cognitive apprenticeship
approach can serve as solid foundation for the instructional design of
computer-based environments whether it is a multimedia, hypermedia, web-based,
or any means of technological delivery systems (Casey, 1996). Using the cognitive apprenticeship framework,
innovative and successful software tools can be employed that enable students
to quickly learn the essentials of philosophy. Adobe captivate , articulate
storyline and moodle are just some few software that can be used to create
and/or supplement the tutorials for individual students by simulating the live
classroom experience and instructing students online in real time as they
conduct their studies.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
It is generally acknowledged that psychology, especially
learning theory, should inform the design of instruction In short, one need not
defend the claim that cognitive psychology is a primary source of basic
research that informs the applied research associated with instructional
science. However, how philosophy might inform the design of instruction has not
been well articulated. There is not such a clear connection between philosophy
and instructional design as there is between psychology and instructional design,
in spite of the excellent foundation laid by Dewey and other philosophers. Although
the historical roots of cognitive apprenticeship in education are clear, the
future is not. It seems likely that corporate and computer training will
continue to use methods of cognitive apprenticeship, which are appropriately
focused on moving one’s ability from novice-level to expert level skills
However,much cannot be said of its application to the liberal arts like
philosophy. The purpose of this article is to provide a general description of
how cognitive apprenticeship model can be applied to philosophy of education
instruction. Researchers should consider it imperative to explore and
understand the nature of philosophical inquiry along with the cognitive apprenticeship
framework. In doing this educators might consider how the foundational
principles of CA (content, method, sequencing, and sociology) can provide a theoretical
framework for philosophy of education instruction.
REFERENCES
Bereiter,
C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching
of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition
and Instruction, 2(2), 131-156.
Brown
JS, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated
cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher. 18: 32–42.
Casey, C. (1996).
Incorporating cognitive apprenticeship in multi-media. Educational technology research development 44(1),71-84
Collins, A., Brown, J.
S., and Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the craft of
reading, writing, and mathematics. In
Knowing , Learning , and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert
Glaser , edited by L. B. Resnick, pp. 453–494. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.*
Collins, A., Brown, J.
S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible.
American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of
Teachers, 15(3), 6-11, 38-46.
Cooper, M. A. (1999).
Classroom choices from a cognitive perspective
onpeerlearning.InA.M.O’Donnell&A.King(Eds.),Cognitive perspectives on peer
learning (pp. 215–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Cook, Douglas and Ryan
Sittler. 2008. Practical Pedagogy for Library Instructors: 17 Innovative Strategies to Improve Student
Learning. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries
Dennen, Vanessa P. and
Kerry J. Burner. 2008. "The Cognitive Apprenticeship Model in Educational
Practice." In Handbook of Research
on Educational Communications and Technology, edited by J. Michael Spector, M.
David Merrill, Jeroen Van Merrienboer, and Marcy P. Driscoll. 3rd ed., 425-439.
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Englert,
C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D.
(1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular
and special education classrooms. American Educational Research
Journal, 28(2), 337-372.
Enkenberg, J. (2001).
Instructional design and emerging teaching models in higher education. Comput.
Hum. Behav., 17(5–6), 495–506.
Gallimore, R. and
Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: teaching, schooling, and literate
discourse. In Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications
of Sociohistorical Psychology, edited by L. C. Moll, pp. 175–205. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Gick,
M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer.
In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning:
Contemporary research and application (pp. 9-46). San Francisco: Academic
Press.
Hayes, J. R.
(1989). The complete problem solver (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, J.
R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes.
In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing
(pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hendricks, C. C.
(2001). Teaching causal reasoning through cognitive apprenticeship: what are
results from situated learning? J. Educ. Res., 94(5), 302–311.
Johnson, D. W.;
Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Active Learning: Cooperation in the
CollegeClassroom, (2nd ed.); Interaction Book: Edina, MN. 1998.
Johnson, et al., 2006,
Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Interaction Book
Company, Edina, MN.
Karen L. Murphya, Sue
E. Mahoneyb, Chun-Ying Chenc, Noemi V. Mendoza-Diazd and XiaobingYangd Distance
Education Vol. 26, No. 3, November 2005, pp. 341–366
LeGrand Brandt, B.,
Farmer, J. A., and Buckmaster, A. (1993). A cognitive apprenticeship approach
to helping adults learn. In New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
edited by D. Flannery, pp. 69–78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Liu, T. C.
(2005). Web-based cognitive apprenticeship model for improving pre-service
teachers’ performances and attitudes towards instructional planning: design and
field experiment. Educ. Technol. Soc., 8(2), 136–149.
Palincsar, A.S., and
Brown, A. L. (1984)."Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-fostering and
Monitoring Activities." Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175
Parker, R.
(1985).Small-group cooperative learning. The Education Digest, 51, 44-46.
Perkins,
D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational
Leadership, 46(1), 22-32.
Rosenshine,
B. V., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching less
structured cognitive tasks. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26-33.
Schoenfeld, Alan H.
1985. Mathematical Problem Solving. Orlando, FL: Academy Press.
Stasz,
C., Ramsey, K., Eden, R., DaVanzo, J., Farris, H., & Lewis, M. (1993). Classrooms
that work: Teaching generic skills in academic and vocational settings.
Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, National Center for Research in
Vocational Education.
Tisdale, Kit. (2001).
Dissertation and distress in a cognitive apprenticeship in reading.Reading
Research and Instruction; 41, 51-82.
