Group items tagged

The authors (Collins, Brown, & Holum, 1991; Collins, Brown, & Newman,1989) as well as other researchers (Herrington & Oliver, 2000) have refined this model to the belief that useable knowledge is best gained in learning environments featuring the following characteristics:   Authentic context that allows for the natural complexity of the real world Authentic activities Access to expert performances and the modeling of processes Multiple roles and perspectives Collaboration to support the cooperative construction of knowledge Coaching and scaffolding which provides the skills, strategies and links that the students are initially unable to provide to complete the task Reflection to enable abstractions to be formed Articulation to enable tacit knowledge to be made explicit

The goal of learning, therefore, is to engage learners in legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991). Through community, learners interpret, reflect, and form meaning. Community provides the setting for the social interaction needed to engage in dialogue with others to see various and diverse perspectives on any issue. Community is the joining of practice with analysis and reflection to share the tacit understandings and to create shared knowledge from the experiences among participants in a learning opportunity (Wenger 1998).

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.  T

Kuali Members i

Brown University

nal University Boston College

The posting below looks at best practices for teaching online.

Why is presence so important in the online environment? When faculty actively interact and engage students in a face-to-face classroom, the class evolves as a group and develops intellectual and personal bonds. The same type of community bonding happens in an online setting if the faculty presence is felt consistently.

One online instructor (Alley 1996) has described this changing pedagogical consciousness as an �instructional epiphany�.� Alley tells of a personal transformation, stimulated by online instruction, marked by two "milestones". First, he had to totally redesign his course to fit and leverage the new learning environment. Second, he had to rethink what he calls his �basic approach�: �As long as I held on to the traditional �sage-on-stage� style of teaching, I would keep reinventing ways for students to be a passive audience� (1996:51).� Similar changes in pedagogical belief and practice have been reported by other faculty who have taught web-based courses (Brown 1998; Jaffee 1997; Cremer 1998) as well as researchers who have interviewed online instructors (Frank 2000).�� There are clearly some �structural constraints� built into the virtual classroom ecology that make it difficult to implement traditional modes of delivery and, in this sense, almost force instructors to entertain active learning strategies. As Frank (2000) discovered in her study of online instructors, "All of the participants saw online learning as empowering for students. The most valuable benefits were the facilitation of active learning, critical thinking, collaboration, confidence, and lifelong learning habits. A common theme was the way in which the teacher is forced to give up the control that one has in a face-to-face environment and re-examine the traditional role of content deliverer".� Just as the physical classroom architecture imposes constraints on, and opportunities for, particular pedagogical practices, so too does the virtual classroom. John Seely Brown (2000) has described the environment of the world-wide-web as a �learning ecology� that is a self-organized evolving collection of cross-pollinating overlapping communities of interest.� Asynchronous web-based courses that include a discussion forum possess many of the same ecological features. All members of the class can receive and broadcast information at any time. This critical communication feature distinguishes the virtual classroom from prior forms of instructional technology.�� While instructors can mediate and guide, they cannot entirely control the flow of communication. Thus, instructor and student roles and relations are less hierarchical and more overlapping and interactive. These greater opportunities for participation can contribute to a greater diversity of opinion and perspective. It is hard work to establish these social dynamics in a physical classroom constrained by a fixed space, a designated time block, and trained inhibitions. The virtual classroom, in contrast, has the potential to establish new patterns of instructor and student interaction and, accordingly, different teaching and learning roles and practices (Girod and Cavanaugh 2001; Becker and Ravitz 1999). ��������� In making comparisons between the physical and virtual classroom, it is important to emphasize a cautionary caveat. The pedagogical ecology, be it a physical classroom or a virtual interface, cannot entirely determine a particular pedagogical practice or learning outcome. The pedagogical ecology offers opportunities and constraints that will shape and influence classroom dynamics and learning outcomes, but much will also depend on the principles informing, and the actual design of, the teaching and learning process (see Chamberlin 2001). The various practices that are employed in both a physical and a virtual classroom indicate the range of possibilities. However, if we believe that, for the purpose of student learning, active student engagement and interaction is preferable to the passive reception of information, we should consider the degree to which this principle is advanced or facilitated by the expanding virtual learning ecology.�

Sociological theories and concepts have an important role to play in analyzing and interpreting these developments. A central sociological proposition is that structural environments influence the social perceptions, roles, and relations of human actors.� As increasing numbers of students and faculty find themselves operating in virtual learning environments, we might also expect to find some changing instructional dynamics. More specifically, there are a number of questions worth exploring. What are the relationships between the technical, the social, and the pedagogical infrastructures?� How has the introduction of new instructional technologies influenced established pedagogical practices? How does the shift from a physical classroom to a virtual learning environment shape and reconfigure the social roles and relations among faculty and students? What consequences will these technologies have for developing pedagogical practices?

have less to do with the proven effectiveness of the particular practice than the desire to appear legitimate or conform to normative expectations.�

. In fact we encourage that kind of exploration. It is how children explore and gain information about the world around them.

Can you share some of what you learned about student-directed learning

What we are essentially doing when we move to student-directed learning is undermining our own relatively stable (though I would argue obsolete) notions of expertise and replacing them something new and different.

There are several factors that affect learning transfer. These include whether students understand or simply memorize knowledge, the amount of time spent on learning the task, the amount of deliberate practice that is done beyond learning the task, the motivation of the student, how the problem is represented, the transfer conditions, and the metacognition of the solver (Dweck, 1989; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993; Johnson et al., 2011; Palinscar & Brown, 1984; Singley & Anderson, 1989).

A student’s comprehension of a problem and his or her ultimate ability to transfer concepts learned previously to the current problem is inextricably linked to his or her ability to properly represent the problem.

ognitive research shows that the organization of learning and how new learning relates to what a student already knows are the strongest predictors of how well a student will transfer knowledge (National Research Council, 2000). Schunn and Silk (2011) articulated, however, that in science and engineering students often “lack relevant conceptual frameworks or have frameworks that are not developed enough to support new learning adequately” (p. 9). The absence of such frameworks makes it difficult for students to connect and apply other knowledge where relevant.

emphasis on dialogue

informal education is a dialogical (or conversational) rather than a curricula

should not involve one person acting on another, but rather people working with each other. Too much education, Paulo Freire argues, involves 'banking' - the educator making 'deposits' in the educatee.

Metacognitive experiences involve the use of metacognitive strategies or metacognitive regulation (Brown, 1987). Metacognitive strategies are sequential processes that one uses to control cognitive activities, and to ensure that a cognitive goal (e.g., understanding a text) has been met. These processes help to regulate and oversee learning, and consist of planning and monitoring cognitive activities, as well as checking the outcomes of those activities.

Self-questioning is a common metacognitive comprehension monitoring strategy. If she finds that she cannot answer her own questions, or that she does not understand the material discussed, she must then determine what needs to be done to ensure that she meets the cognitive goal of understanding the text.

Knowledge is considered to be metacognitive if it is actively used in a strategic manner to ensure that a goal is met. For example, a student may use knowledge in planning how to approach a math exam: "I know that I (person variable) have difficulty with word problems (task variable), so I will answer the computational problems first and save the word problems for last (strategy variable)." Simply possessing knowledge about one's cognitive strengths or weaknesses and the nature of the task without actively utilizing this information to oversee learning is not metacognitive.

Collins, Brown, and Holum suggested we adopt a model of cognitive apprenticeship as a teaching strategy.  This model encourages teachers and students to verbalize their thinking in order for the student to recognize gaps and to be brought to a more expert level of thinking. 

Modeling – This method requires the teacher to perform a task and to allow the student to observe and to build a mental model of the processes required to complete that task. Coaching – This method requires the student to perform a task while the teacher provides hints, feedback, and reminders to bring their performance closer to an expert performance. Scaffolding – This method requires the teacher to provide supports for the student to perform the task.  As the task is repeated and mastered less supports are provided to the student. Articulation – This method requires the teacher to pull out the student’s problem-solving processes through inquiry or by the student assuming the role of a critic to a set of activities. Reflection – This method requires the student to compare their own problem-solving processes with that of an expert. Exploration – This method requires the teacher to cultivate an environment of problem-solving independent of the expert