1. USING COGNITIVE
APPRENTICESHIP TO
PROVIDE FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT
IN THE USE OF
BLENDED LEARNING
Carrianne Hayslett
Ed O’Sullivan
Heidi Schweizer
Janna Wrench

2. MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY
Educating Marquette students is
"remarkable, sacred work,"
according to President Scott R. Pilarz, S.J.
(http://www.marquette.edu/)
Source: http://www.marquette.edu/

3. Enrollment:
Approximately 8,400 undergraduate and 3,600 graduate and
professional students; nearly all states and 68 countries represented.
Undergraduate programs:
116 majors and 65 minors and pre-professional programs in dentistry,
law and medicine
Postgraduate programs:
50 doctoral and master's degree programs, more than 30 graduate
certificate programs, and a School of Dentistry and Law School
Faculty:
More than 1,100 (almost 700 full time)
(See About Marguette http://www.marquette.edu/)

4. BLENDED LEARNING
 Blended Learning may become the
educational delivery method of choice
in higher education.
(Bonk, Kim, & Zeng, 2006)

5. (cont’d)
 Ina survey of 300 colleges and universities,
EDUCAUSE found hybrid instruction used
more widely, 80% of surveyed.
(Hayslett, O’Sullivan, Schweizer & Wrench, 2009, p. 93)

6. MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY
COURSE DEFINITIONS
 F2F Classes 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 of
course content.
(Hayslett, et al, 2009, p. 94)

7. REASONS FOR BLENDED
LEARNING
 Students report high levels of learning and
satisfaction.
(Campos, & Harasim, 1999)
 Instructors may employ additional instruction
tools.
(Dzuiban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004)
 Students better able to direct own learning.
(Bhatti, Tubaisahat, & El-Qawasmeh, 2005)

8. CHALLENGES OF
IMPLEMENTATION
 Students not familiar with online instruction
tools .
(Hayslett, O’Sullivan, Schweizer & Wrench, 2009, p. 94)
 Students may lack self-regulation.
(Schunk, & Zimmerman, (Eds.). 1998).
 Instructor
of hybrid classes are more likely to
require multimedia classrooms.
(Dzuiban, Hartman, & Moskal, 2004)

9. ROLE OF FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT
 Some form of organized support to help
faculty members develop.
(Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006)

10.  “Without faculty 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. COGNITIVE
APPRENTICESHIP
 Developcognitive skills, rather
than manual skills.
(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 96)
 Teachlearners to process
information.
(Collins, Brown, & Newman 1989)

12. COGNITIVE
APPRENTICESHIP
PROCESSES
 Modeling
 Coaching
 Scaffolding
 Articulation
 Reflection
 Exploration
(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 98)

13. DESIGNING AND TEACHING A
HYBRID COURSE
 Six 1 ½ hour F2F course time
 Six online modules
 Discussion forum
 Assignments
 Activities
 Resources
(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 98)

14.  Course was open to all faculty.
 Eleven disciplines represented in class.
 Taught by panel of instructors.
(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 101)

15. MARQUETTE HYBRID COURSE SATISFIED
COGNITVE 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. Articulation- Reciprocal
Teaching that elicits an
articulation of ideas.
Reflection-
Multiple opportunities to
reflect on their own
practice.
(Hayslett, et al, 2009, p. 102)

17. COURSE FEEDBACK
Feedback was conducted with semi-structured
interviews with selected participants conducted
by a non-team member.
(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 105)

18. PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
 Course and instruction superior.
 Would recommend course to others.
 60% agreed with hybrid to teach hybrid
format.
 90% found components to model in their own
courses.
 Largest feedback agreeing with level of
support given in the learning process.
(Hayslett et al, 2009, pp. 105-107)

19. HYBRID
COURSE
FOCUS
ON
ACTIVE
LEARNING

20. COGNITIVE
APPRENTICESHI
P PEDOGOGY
A Student-Centered
Pedagogy
(Hayslett et al, 2009, p. 109)

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. CONCLUSI
ON
Designing and
Teaching a
Hybrid Course
affected change
in faculty’s
instructional
practice.
(Hayslett et al, 2009, p.114)

23. References

Bhatti, A., Tubaisahat, A., & El-Qawasmeh, E. (2005). Using technology-mediated learning environment
to overcome social and cultural limitations in higher education. Issues in Informing Science and
InformationTechnology, 2, 67-76.
Bonk, C., Kim, K., & Zeng, T. (2006). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and
workplace learning settings. In C. J Bonk & C. R. Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of Blended Learning: Global
Perspectives, Local Designs (pp. 550-567). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Campos, M., & Harasim, L. (1999). Virtual-U: Results and challenges of unique field trials. The
Technology 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 or
reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in
honor 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., O’Sullivan, E., Schweizer & Wrench, J., (2009) Using Cognitive Apprenticeship to Provide
Faculty Development in the Use of Blended Learning. Journal of the Research Center for Educational
Technology (RCET) Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 2009, 92-117)
Schunk, D. H, & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective
practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty
development. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing Co.