Model, Coach, Fade = Authentic learning: My Love affair with Cognitive Apprenticeship

You know that phrase/realization that young couples make early in the honeymoon period that they learn to love each other more and more with each passing day? (I'm not being cynical - because I do believe this is true!)

Well - this pretty much feels like my experience with all of these learning theories. I know we've only just scratched the surface of what we're going to learn this semester (actually, I think we're at halfway now that I really think about it) but it seems like with each passing week I like/love that week's theory moreso than the previous weeks'. And here we have my love affair with SL/CA (Situated Learning/Cognitive Apprenticeship). I say love affair because love is confusing and complicated and messy and deep ... and that's how I'm feeling right now about SL/CA. :)

One the one hand I was pseudo-relieved that all of this research had been completed providing a true, theoretically based alternative to "formal" schooling. (If you've read any of my previous posts you'll know that I have quite a bone to pick with traditional modes of education.) On the other hand - I was kind of pissed! Why hadn't I thought of all of this... dismissing, of course, the fact that I was in elementary school when all of this research was being done. Ha!

I just love this theory. Normally every week I carve out a few hours for my 517 reading and I dutifully peruse, skim, highlight, pencil my thoughts in the margins the articles that we are to read for the week. Not so with this theory - I (for lack of a better expression) inhaled the articles this week. Couldn't get enough of it. I'm thinking about being Lave or Collins when I grow up.

Even the name - cognitive apprenticeship - it just sounds sexy! And it makes so much SENSE. In the Collins piece they open their conclusion with "Apprenticeship is the way we learn most naturally." Thank you, God, for someone else putting this into print. But they don't totally discount other traditional, information transmission models - because (drum roll....) There is no one right way to do anything. Whew. Just had to get that out there.

Another interesting reflection is the cognitive dissonance that I'm experiencing as I try to "fit" the SL/CA model in my brain (thank you, Piaget). I consider myself to be a pretty good teacher/educator. And I'm one hell of a storyteller when it comes to direct, information transmission instruction. But I also feel like there are pieces of the SL/CA process that I used... for lack of a better way of putting it... naturally - meaning I was never "formally" trained to use these processes. I'm thinking in particular about the Model, Coach, Fade trilogy. But then something interesting happened as I was trying to figure out whether I was living the theory all this time or I was trying to make my own teaching fit the theory... I realized that how I learned the Model, Coach, Fade process was by observing it in other master teachers. Throw in the reflection and the post-game analysis as well - I never realized the value in the conversations I used to have after class with my teachers/professors where I became privy to their background and rationale for doing what they did in the classroom. I was a wee little apprentice!

Another component/observation that I found fascinating was that in each of the articles (realizing that I'm not going to realistically be able to talk about each one of them here) there is not that air/feeling that grades and "high achievement" (whatever that means) are lurking in the shadows. (The, "Oh yes, this is a nice theory alright... but what about the grades? What about the test scores?") I also appreciated the depth of the Collins article in particular for its providing detailed examples of the theory in action, thoughts on intrinsic emotion, as well as a framework for future study.

I do have some questions about the De Bruijn article's methodology - but I think some of there statements are fascinating. (Adult learners that are lower educated have a harder time self-directing their learning for instance.) Mainly - they were concerned that students (the adults) didn't take the "coaching" help by clicking the help button to get assistance. I wonder if assuming/imposing the structure of computer help button = coaching might be the problem... not that the students didn't want or wouldn't accept coaching. Also, they make a huge, broad, sweeping claim about lower-educated adult learners being generally passive. Um, if you sat me down with that program I'd probably be pretty "passive" as well. How much of this passiveness that they saw in their participants was culture driven/bound? How much was due to (maybe) a poorly chosen task? (I don't feel particularly motivated by being able to make change, for example.) I have more, but getting away from the point here.

Integrating this into a computer-mediated environment. Hrm. The two examples we read about (the money problem, the business course project) sounded like the software that was produced was costly and time-consuming. So I've been stuck trying to think of ways to get around having to "build" or create a whole other learning environment. Maybe SecondLife could be used as one of the tools to help students? YouTube could surely be used to store videos of relative material. I think it would largely depend on the nature of the skill set and the domain that we're talking about (duh, context) as we're considering possibly technologies to support the instruction. For online instruction, there would need to be a sort of hub... the availability for the student to "observe" (maybe via YouTube or a video-chatting software) the teacher/model... some form of two-way communication like chatting or conferencing to encourage the coaching... and then fading would come naturally... reflection and acquirement strategies could be used via a blog or Twitter account.

I've written too much - but this is pretty much a love note, so I'm okay with it. I'll have to continue to reflect on ways to use technology for SL/AC... but I think that might be a career-long problem. :) Wonder if I'll be as in love next week with Goal Based Scenarios...

Have a great weekend, all!

PBL: Teacher as transmitter of knowledge/information vs. facilitator of thinking/learning

I have to admit - I find the theory for the week, the PBL, pretty alluring. I found myself wrapped up in its utter uniqueness. I mean, for some reason the earlier theories felt familiar and homey... but for me this PBL, this based on problems and role-playing solutions, felt kind of racy to me. In a good way, of course. :)

I appreciated the background/application pieces this week from the medical field as I think that really gives us a good perspective on this model. And honestly, it's how I'll remember this theory. My mind wanders to my experiences teaching a "mock" lesson during my methods courses before student teaching. I know that PBL has its basis in the group work, and my mock lessons were just little ol' me, though.

Sidenote - how interesting were the medical articles, talking about their eTalk and the whole new room/lab they created for this new and experimental type of instruction. I had one of those moments where I wondered what the authors would have thought if they could have fast-forwarded 15 years later. Wow, 15 years. Didn't realize how long it was until I just typed it.

I think the piece weighing the pros/cons/research on PBL (come on, they were leaning towards the pro side a little) - the one by Hung, Bailey, and Jonassen - was quite nice. Quite an easier read, if I do say so myself, much more "accessible" and some interesting ideas and arguments. While I do love the PBL, I'm not 100% sold on their reasoning/rationale in the piece. That's another post altogether.

This theory, more than the others for me I think, requires the redefining of the role of "instructor" - yay! Cooperative learning, yea a little bit. But to truly present students (of any age) with a "real" problem and give them the tools to solve it (or they go after them themselves) - that's the racy part. Love it. I'd love to see myself more in the role of facilitator of learning ... even though I love myself as the transmitter of knowledge, I can't lie. ;)

Accomplishing this via technology is where I'm a bit stumped. And I'm going to have to go to my peers for help on this one. I can see how you can provide a common space or meeting ground like Elluminate or GoogleWave or something like that (wikis too, maybe) for a group engaged in PBL... and then let them hunt for the tools/websites/research articles they'll need... and then have them re-engage online... but is that too simplistic?

My group met this week to really nail down our next module and we considered only for a fleeting moment doing our module using PBL... but quickly steered in another direction because we felt like PBL required SO MUCH preparation - or at least that's what it seemed like. I mean - those medical guys had to build a whole new learning center...

And hell yeah for the depth vs breadth. I'm in the depth camp. Subject matter/disciplines are holographic by definition, thus by studying a few components you can grasp the whole. (Plus, you can never realistically teach ALL of a subject matter... or we'd all be out of a job. :))

Here's an idea... what if a group using PBL used something like Twitter to communicate with each other - and part of their process is to engage "others" along the way to their solution? Maybe they don't "meet officially on Twitter - but in the course of their normal day they use Twitter to continue the ongoing discussion...

Or set up a Ning for the group to work together in...

Okay, the ideas are starting to flow more now. Will have to read my peers' posts tomorrow. Onward! Enjoy the weekend!

"Learning, like living, is inherently social" - Cooperative Learning

I'm finding that if I constantly search for the on-liner in these articles that we have to read, week by week, I'm constantly looking for the hook - the phrase that will help me remember these theories long after I've completed the requirements of the course. I also like to think that I might have found the "thesis" of the articles. ;) But that is more likely wishful thinking.

I'm honestly going to have to refresh myself on the GD theory - because my brain seems to have collapsed much of CL & GD (I also like to come up with little acronyms because it helps me to type faster...) together. It's almost as if GD could be a component of CL, really. But enough of that... on to CL.

First and foremost, YAY for CL! I think I might have appreciate most the Johnson, Johnson, & Smith article surveying (or trumpeting/sounding the rallying call) CL theory, research and practice. I know I enjoyed their exposition on the theoretical side of things.

There's a line in the article - "Cooperative learners cognitively rehearse and restructure information to retain it in memory and incorporate it into existing cognitive structures." That's some sexy stuff right there - and I used to always talk about Piaget and Vygotsky with my middle school students... I just love brain research.

Back to CL. So, in sum, CL = Good. That's what all of the articles point to. And, here we're at another one of those Matthew moments when I'm realizing that someone did 90 years of research to find out that ... drum roll ... working together is better than working alone. (Simplified explanation of course - and all due respect to researchers for I aim to become one of them!) But hey, you have to laugh at yourself a bit.

There are a few things that I want to mention that stirred me a bit, however. One of the JJS (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith) points is that, "For a learning situation to be cooperative, students must believe that they sink or swim together." Now - I get the sentiment, I've heard the cliched phrase before and have probably used it before. What I want to point out is two-fold. One is that even in a team there is the implied other - other teams. I worry that some teachers use CL to get away from individualistic competition in the classroom... only to actually turn it into a macroscopic version of competition between teams. The second point, and this is part of a longer, larger tirade, is that there is inherent in the imagery and vocabulary of the phrase that implies that survival is somehow inextricably tied to completion of the CL activity. (See what I mean? I'm splitting hairs here - but we did just read three articles espousing on the philosophy of CL... I think it's a point worth exploring.)

Debunking for a minute. Survival not being connected to the successful completion of CL activity. While all teachers would like to believe that all students put their assignments and readings first, often this is not true. Thus, we try (using grades, threats, etc.) to get them to do what we want - which is complete our assignments to the best of their ability. But if they don't do the assignment (or do a poor job), and therefore get a "bad" grade, all is not lost. They won't end up homeless and ultimately reach the end of their lives if they do not successfully complete the assignment.

Now that that is out of the way there is a much larger fish to fry. Grades. Now - I realize I might make myself incredibly unpopular with this next bit, so just fast forward if you're worried.

I worked in an environment that gave no grades to children - none. We can discuss at a later date how we provided accurate feedback to students.

There's the section in the JJS article that talks about past studies. First thing on the top of the list that was studies was student achievement/academic success, which means grades. Grades that were, quite frankly, made up out of thin air. And as objective as we'd like to make these "grades" they're not. So it is incredibly frustrating for me to see reports based upon student grades. Especially with something as important as CL. How do you test self-esteem? I mean really - I know there are tests out there, but seriously. How do you quantify increased relationships between peers? "Members of cooperative groups also became more socially skilled than do students working competitively or individualistically." Um... no way. Really?

(Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to be critical in an angry or conflictual way - merely some healthy, academic critiquing.)

I appreciated the piece by the group of professors from NCSU. Have been reading a lot of literature lately, nice to see something from State... and about Engineering and CL (and, the authors are from differing departments! How nice to see!)

But my true shout out goes to the Millis article. Citation after citation I find myself trying to remember all of these important names - the big wigs of this theory and that - and for the first time in this article (M's) I knew two of them off the bat! (Citations that is.) One is Eric Jensen who did all of the brain research and wrote a couple of books about it and the other is Parker J. Palmer - a Quaker who also happens to be an author and professor of sociology/education. Go Millis! In fact, the title for this post comes from her article.

You should see my notes from reading her article... let's just say lots of "YES!" in the margins.

And "deep learning" - oooh, shivers down my spine! (Motivational context, Learner activity, interaction with others, well-structured knowledge base) LOVE IT.

Trying to bring this plane in for a landing soon. Online? Gee, I don't know. I was thinking about blogs first of all - but then about using GoogleWave because it could be more real-time. However, now that I think about it, you might be able to think through a lesson enough to use Elluminate. Have groups meet via Elluminate to work together.

I'm off to think about how to get deep learning via CL online. And read my peers' thoughts. Have a great week!

The "monster" or "miracle" of group work - Guided Design Learning Strategy

I have to admit that I was a little excited by this week's work with Guided Design (hereafter referred to as GD). Hear me correctly - there are fabulous qualities and appropriate venues for PSI and AT, but GD feels a little more... I don't know, racy? :)

At first glance, I love this theory. I love the group work, I love the stating of the problem and laying out the goals and strategies and the whole process of it. I also (in the middle of my love-fest) had one of those -- "Wow, it took research to prove something we kinda already 'knew'..." -- moments. Of course (in general) people work better together than separately or apart. Of course the GD process is an effective process. I appreciated in the Wilson article the first table showing the different interpretations/iterations of the process (analysis or decision making). I say of course it's an effective process - because if you look at the first step of all of the models in the Wilson piece - the first step is some variation on "define the problem." Seems that, most of the time, folks can spin and spin and spin and not get anywhere because they haven't done an effective job defining the problem. Once the problem has truly been adequately defined... most of the hard work is done.

Instruction wise - from my own experience as a student - wow! How many group projects have I been in that have used GD! I mean really, at least once or twice in each one of my undergraduate courses. And (from the Wilson article again) I've done that survivor-ish group problem before in a psychology course I believe. My group did not survive. ;)

I think that this is a fairly useful method of instruction - for some types of learning and learners. There's a note in the Trivette piece... the 5th point about GD creating the space to "individualize to the learner's style" - and I think here's where it broke down for me in practice (me as a student, here). The professors that used this method (knowingly or not) did not take into consideration how I learn best! Interestingly enough... the next sentence after the individualized instruction is "The goal of guided design is not to get the correct answer, but to know the process by which on gathers information, processes information, and arrives at an acceptable solution." Doesn't this then counter Wilson's experiment... with the survivors and the "one right way" to ensure survival?? (I love, by the way, that the survival game is the basis on this research - tongue in cheek.) Just a pondering...

I'm intrigued and puzzled a bit as I consider whether or not GD would work well in today's 2.0 environment. Feeling myself out... if I was in a group and given a problem (literally a problem, not just a normal old group assignment) - I'd want to roll up my sleeves and get face to face in a room with my group and have at it! Don't know if I could get that same feeling or feel as effective in a chat room. Hm.

But all the same, I could see being in a small group and using some form of video-conferencing (like iChat on the Mac where I can video chat with up to 3 other people) and being able to meet "virtually" in that way. There's always Elluminate that could be used... you could also use some form of document creation software (online) like GoogleDocs where every member of the group could work on defining the problem, making a plan, solutions, evaluating - synchronously. You could also do it on a wiki I guess - I'd just want to be careful that group members didn't accidently overwrite each others' work. (By the way, does anyone know if PBWiki and Wikispaces have figured out a fix for that? Other than warning you... I've been away from wikis for a few months now...)

The only article I've not mentioned is the Casada & DeShazer article. Hm. I think there methods show that GD works quite nicely in the classroom - when done well and explained enough, as they note. Am going to have to turn to my peers now to see what they've got to say on this theory...

Until next week!