1. 1. USING COGNITIVEAPPRENTICESHIP TOPROVIDE FACULTY DEVELOPMENTIN THE USE OFBLENDED LEARNINGCarrianne HayslettEd OSullivanHeidi SchweizerJanna Wrench
2. 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. 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. 4. BLENDED LEARNING Blended Learning may become the educational delivery method of choice in higher education. (Bonk, Kim, & Zeng, 2006)
5. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9. ROLE OF FACULTYDEVELOPMENT Someform of organized support to help faculty members develop. (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006)
10. 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. 11. COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP Developcognitive skills, rather than manual skills. (Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 96) Teachlearners to process information. (Collins, Brown, & Newman 1989)
12. 12. COGNITIVEAPPRENTICESHIPPROCESSES Modeling Coaching Scaffolding Articulation Reflection Exploration (Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 98)
13. 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. 14. Course was open to all faculty. Eleven disciplines represented in class. Taught by panel of instructors.(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 101)
15. 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. 16. Articulation- ReciprocalTeaching that elicits anarticulation of ideas.Reflection-Multiple opportunities toreflect on their ownpractice.(Hayslett, et al, 2009, p. 102)
17. 17. COURSE FEEDBACKFeedback was conducted with semi-structuredinterviews with selected participants conductedby a non-team member.(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 105)
18. 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. 19. HYBRIDCOURSE FOCUS ON ACTIVELEARNING
20. 20. COGNITIVEAPPRENTICESHIP PEDOGOGYA Student-CenteredPedagogy(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 109)
21. 21. SUGGESTED COURSE IMPROVEMENTS Student award or credit. More student accountability. Include more technology. Provide more support.(Hayslett et al, 2009, pp. 110-112)
22. 22. CONCLUSIONDesigning andTeaching aHybrid Courseaffected changein facultysinstructionalpractice.(Hayslett et al, 2009, p.114)
23. 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.