In this Short Paper on Cognitive Apprenticeship, I will first discuss the grounding of Cognitive Apprenticeship in Constructivist theory and the concept of Situated Learning/Contextual Learning. Next, I will discuss how Cognitive Apprenticeships work as a Constructivist method of instruction. Lastly, I will look at an application and research study of Cognitive Apprenticeship used in instruction.

The constructivist theory or philosophy is based on "the assumption that knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences. Learners therefore are not empty vessels waiting to be filled, but rather active organisms seeking meaning" (Driscoll, 1994, p 360). A learner’s understanding of something of something is constantly reconstructed as new evidence is presented which conflicts with the current understanding. Constructivists do not believe that there is one reality "out there" that everyone should learn, but that each person creates his or her own reality.

Many of these tenets developed from Bruner’s theoretical framework, which stressed that cognitive structure (in the form of schema and mental models) provides meaning and organization to experiences and allow the individual to use what is learned to generalize and go beyond the information given. Also influential in constructivism are Piaget’s developmental theory as well as Vygotsky’s and Bruner’s emphasis that individual development occurs in social and cultural contexts. Vygotsky’s theory on the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) has also influenced the development and implementation of constructivist learning environments (Driscoll, 1994).

Since the early 1990s, the focus on designing learning environments has been based on a Constructivist approach to learning. Some of the key tenets of Constructivism are that

learning is a process of internal negotiation of meaning, and that learning occurs best in functional context, social and cultural context, and usefulness. Constructivists believe that such learning environments facilitate higher-order thinking, metacognition/reflection, and promote experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn, a condition Bruner referred to as readiness (Driscoll, 1994).

Using the constructivist approach, the goals of instruction are to help learners develop learning and thinking strategies, focus on individuals’ active construction of knowledge, and facilitate learning by encouraging active inquiry. This approach is exemplified by Bruner’s concept of Discovery Learning, wherein learners are encouraged to find regularities and relationships in the environment, which serve as models to guide discovery. A constructivist instructor should guide learners to question tacit assumptions and help student to uncover meanings, taking on the role of a coach or guide and engaging students in active dialogue. A teacher using a constructivist approach would also provide student-centered instruction in complex learning environments with formats appropriate to the learner’s current state of understanding that incorporate authentic activities, provide for social negotiation, and include access to multiple modes of representation (Driscoll, 1994, p. 365). Techniques employed in constructivist instruction include: scaffolding, fading, cognitive apprenticeship, and collaborative learning.

An Instructional Designer using constructivist principles would leave the identification of relevant information and correct solutions open. It would be assumed that each learner is an individual and comes with his/her own prior knowledge. The development of learning environments should be presented from multiple perspectives and the designer should assess thinking and problem-solving skills through use of authentic domains.

As proposed by Bruner’s theory on spiral organization, curriculum should be organized in a spiral manner so that the student continually builds upon what she has already learned, and the new knowledge can most readily be grasped, creating a condition of student readiness. Instructors presenting material in effective sequencing and spiral organization would then result in the student being able to simplify, generate new propositions, and increase the manipulation of information. Instruction should also be designed to facilitate the learner’s ability to fill in the gaps and generalize to go beyond the information given. Then instruction, if properly contexualized, sequenced, and organized, would result in the student having a better predisposition toward learning through intrinsic motivation and more success in achieving a transformation of that information in the learner’s knowledge system. In terms of the learner’s cognitive information processing, this new understanding would also be reflected in that learner’s changed cognitive structure, or new schema/mind map.

Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) reported that investigations of learning challenged the didactic methods traditionally employed in education that separate knowledge in abstract, decontextualized formal concepts theoretically independent of the situations in which that knowledge is learned and used. They declared that the activity in which knowledge is developed and deployed is an integral part of what is learned. "Situations might be said to co-produce knowledge through activity. Learning and cognition, it is now possible to argue, are fundamentally situated" (Brown et al, p.32).

This concept of Situated Learning - sometimes called contextual learning - follows from recent findings in cognitive science that suggest that intelligence, as the cognitive capacity for learning, is much broader than traditional theories of intelligence measure (Stewart and Bristow, 1995). It follows, then, that learning environments must take into account the multiplicity of intelligences among the diverse student populations. Situated learning facilitates students’ use of their multiple intelligences and ability to make meaning out of what they are learning by teaching skill and content at the same time and having students work on real tasks offering contextualized practice.

Therefore, according to Duncan (1996), the "most appropriate instructional method is one that incorporates both (a) realistic presentation of knowledge, procedures, and skill and (b) opportunities for students to apply the knowledge and practice the procedures and skills in a realistic context" (Duncan, 1996, p. 67). Cognitive Apprenticeships thus serve to bridge the gap between school and work, school and community, and to enable the transfer of knowledge and skills through contextualized, situated learning that increases the learner’s intrinsic motivation and facilitates meaning-making during the learning process.

Cognitive Apprenticeships uses many of the instructional strategies of traditional apprenticeships but emphasizes cognitive skills rather than physical skills. Traditional apprenticeships have three primary components - modeling, coaching, and fading – utilized as the master craftsman models real world activities in a sequence geared to fit the apprentice’s level of ability. The master models expert behavior by demonstrating how to do a task while explaining what is being done and why it is being done that way. The apprentice observes the master, then copies her actions on a similar task, with the master coaching the apprentice through the task by providing hints and corrective feedback. As the apprentice become more skilled in the task, the master gives more and more authority to the apprentice by "fading" into the background (Johnson, 1992).

In addition to the traditional apprenticeship’s three primary components of modeling, coaching, and fading, Cognitive Apprenticeships have the instructor verbalize the activity while they are modeling it and verbally coach the student during her completion of the task. Duncan refers to this as "think aloud modeling, " and states that this type of 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" (1996, p.67). Cognitive Apprenticeship instruction then continues by instructors supporting and coaching students through similar problems, demonstrating the use of scaffolds and explaining the principles and rules that apply to their tasks. Using Bruner’s spiral approach, tasks or problems are designed to be increasingly complex, and the instructor provides less and less assistance as the students gain expertise and experience, a constructivist technique known as fading. The ultimate goal is for the students to become self-sufficient as they develop competency in their activities.

In contrast to usual school activities, in Cognitive Apprenticeships the activity is modeled within the context of real world situations (Johnson, 1992). Additionally, the cognitive apprenticeship method includes several other defining characteristics, including increasing complexity and diversity in lesson sequences and providing a learning environment which promotes intrinsic motivation, cooperation, and competition (Brown et al, 1989). Brown et al (1989) also found that when authentic situations are created during learning that are similar to the situations in which the knowledge will ultimately be applied, the closer the match between the learning situation and the ultimate workplace situation, the easier the transfer of learning will be.

Duncan (1996, p. 66) reports on a research study looking at the implications of using Cognitive Apprenticeship in classroom instruction for industrial and technical teacher education to improve the writing skills and knowledge of community-college students. The impetus for using Cognitive Apprenticeship in the community-college came from national reports that consistently predict students will need to greatly improve their deficits in mathematics, language, and other problem-solving skills to be qualified for positions of responsibility in the high-tech workplace of the future. Duncan’s study

The participants in this study were nine volunteer instructors and 159 students in current sections of writing courses at Danville Area Community College in Eastern Illinois. Each instructor participated in a single writing course and taught using one of the following techniques: modeling with scaffolds, scaffolds without modeling, and control groups. The instructors participating using modeling with scaffolds, were given six hours of modeling training before the semester began (Duncan, 1996). The study included statistical findings and qualitative findings; the qualitative findings included classroom observations and instructor interviews, and the instructors also kept journals.

The results of the research study were that the writing instructors who participated using modeling with scaffolds reported increases in student attention and enthusiasm, and statistical findings indicated significant gains in student’s writing skills development. Comments were made by the instructors that think aloud modeling can be taught, and were unanimous in their belief that training, opportunities to practice and extensive coaching and feedback would be necessary for continuos improvement in using this newly-acquired skill/technique (Duncan, 1996). Because the primary focus of the study was on think aloud modeling, Duncan’s study (1996) found that the scaffolding focus of the study was not successful. Instructors used their own scaffolding in their instruction, but did not employ the researcher’s tools.

Cognitive Apprenticeships go beyond the traditional apprenticeship in that the activity is modeled within the context of real world situations and emphasizes cognitive skills rather than physical skills. Additional methods employed beyond the traditional apprenticeship of modeling, coaching, and fading, include think-aloud modeling and scaffolding. It was found that integrating Cognitive Apprenticeship instructional methods and techniques such as think-aloud modeling would require scheduling adjustments, instructor training, and curricular revision. From Duncan’s study (1996), it is expected that such adjustments would be worthwhile to provide a "comprehensive education that incorporates academic and technical knowledge and skills and prepares [students] for the future" (Duncan , p.82). Instructors working with students in Cognitive Apprenticeships will also increase the complexity and diversity in lesson sequences and provide a learning environment that promotes intrinsic motivation, reflection/metacognition, cooperation, and competition.

Research findings consistently show that although students in schools are expected to learn abstract and universal principles for transfer to many settings, most knowledge is situation-specific and little transfer takes place automatically between inside-school and outside-school projects (Brown et al, 1989; Hill and Smith, 1998). Constructivist learning environments – and specifically, those using the constructivist method of cognitive apprenticeship - seek to remedy this situation by engaging learners in contextual, situated learning situations that enhance their ability to transfer their newly acquired skills and knowledge through their instructor’s use of specific techniques such as think aloud modeling and scaffolding.

In conclusion, Cognitive Apprenticeships have proven to be effective in implementing the conditions constructivists believe are essential for learning. As such, Cognitive Apprenticeships serve to implement multiple learning conditions required by the constructivist instructional goals of reasoning, critical thinking, problem solving, retention/understanding/use, cognitive flexibility, and mindful reflection (Driscoll, 1994, p. 373).

Berryman, S.E. (1993). Designing Effective Learning Environments: Cognitive Apprenticeship Models. (Document No. BI-1). Institute on Education and The Economy). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989, January/February). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.

Driscoll, M.P. 1994. Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

Hatcher, T. (1995). From apprentice to instructor: Work ethic in apprenticeship training. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33 (1), 24-45.