Revealing Tacit Knowledge in Cognitive Apprenticeship

The instructional method used in a cognitive apprenticeship environment consists of 4 main phases (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1990):

• Modeling: Expert practice is modeled so that tacit knowledge is revealed.
• Scaffolding: 'Just enough' structure or support is provided for the learner to be able to practice while being challenged.
• Coaching: Experts provide useful feedback for improving practice of learners.
• Fading: Experts withdraw scaffolding and coaching as learners become more competent. 

Cognitive apprenticeship is a model that definitely resonates with some of the e-learning content I've worked on to date. Revealing the social context around information was an important philosophy driving some of the multimedia projects at the Libraries. The idea was to reveal some of the tacit expert knowledge that librarians and other academics on campus have learned over time, but are hidden or obscure to many students, as 'novice academics'. In the higher education context, (academic) information literacy can be considered a core metacognitive skill, like those related to critical reading, writing and mathematics.

Peer Review in 5 Minutes

Article Databases in 5 Minutes

The model of 'Watch it, Do it, Know it', (Darling-Hammond et al.), very closely maps to the design of another module I worked on last semester. Here is a flow chart I created to illustrate how the learner would navigate through that module.

G.A. Reference Training Module Flow Chart

The module was used for training graduate students who help staff the reference desk during evenings and weekends. Although I was aware of some aspects of situated learning and cognitive apprenticeship, I actually didn't intentionally try to map the design of the module to this theory at that time. However, looking back, the match is not too surprising since the training context is very similar to the apprenticeship settings studied by Lave, which partly informed these teaching methods (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1990). If anything, cognitive apprenticeship is even more relevant in the reference work setting, than say a tailor shop, since the nature of the expertise and skill is almost entirely intellectual.

One of the videos showed full time, experienced reference librarians reflecting
on personal strategies for dealing with in-depth reference questions and referrals to subject specialists.

It seems to me that the strength of cognitive apprenticeship methods is in being able to apply them in a variety of contexts, like teaching basic literacy skills for young learners in the K-12 environment, or developing professional practice for working adults. A challenge to using this approach is scalability, since the processes seem very 'high-touch'. Collins, Brown & Newman, writing in the early 1990s were hopeful that computer technologies will play a key role in augmenting the instructor's reach.

It is true that the ability to model expert processes has come a long way – it has never been easier to capture video of expert performance and share it many times at no additional cost. (For example, for the training module above, A Flip video camcorder was used to produce fairly high quality output given the low cost of the technology as well as the low learning curve for learning how to use it. There are also a range of options for free video hosting and broadcasting e.g., YouTube, Vimeo, BlipTV ). Providing scaffolding, in terms of being able to create simple interactive activities or experiences online, is also becoming easier (e.g. tools for designing and delivering quizzes with automated feedback). Given these trends, I imagine that simulations that adequately mimic live coaching experiences will eventually become easier to develop (I think at this point technologies for this purpose still require fairly sophisticated skills in order to develop even very rudimentary designs). Still, the ability to use technology for modelling and scaffolding means that face-to-face or synchronous online meetings can be reserved for the coaching process.

References

Collins, A., Brown, J.S. & Newman, S.E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (E.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Darling-Hammond, L., Austin, K., Lit, I., & Martin, D. (n.d.). Session 8: Watch it, do it, know it: Cognitive Apprenticeship.

PBL and Prior Knowledge

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional method that uses case studies taken from real professional practice as the stimulus for learning (Glenn, Koschmann & Conlee, 1995). Similar to the Guided Design (GD) method, students work in groups to scope the problem, use resources to bridge information gaps, deliberate on possible solutions and then recommend the best solution using judgment and supporting evidence (Glenn, Koschmann & Conlee, 1995). However, unlike GD, the cases may be presented as vaguely defined scenarios that require students to draw on relevant prior knowledge as well as that of a more advanced practitioner, who plays an active role in facilitating the deliberations (Glenn, Koschmann & Conlee, 1995).

Since its origins in medical education, PBL has been adopted by professional programs in other domains, and as well curricular programs at undergraduate and K-12 levels, though not without mixed results according to the research literature (Hung, Bailey & Jonassen, 2003). I thought it was interesting that Hung et al. defined one of the tensions as what they call 'breadth vs depth':

Critics may argue that PBL focuses on relative finite problems that require students to consider only limited content; therefore, the PBL method limits the possibility of students being exposed to broader content that may be a part of a course or program of studies but may not be directly related to the causes or solutions of the problem under investigation (p.13).

The authors counter argue that PBL may be justified on grounds that depth is sometimes more important than breadth, especially in the current information environment where it has never been easier to look up factual knowledge. I definitely agree with the latter aspect of this statement, but I wonder if the early successes in applying PBL in the original setting had a lot to do with the particulars of that setting. PBL not only has origins in medical education, but in particular, the clinical practice aspect of that training (I think), which typically comes after developing an extensive base of highly specialized knowledge. For this reason I think in the original application, the argument about breadth vs depth would be pretty much moot, or close to it. By the time interns or advanced medical students are asked to apply their 'prior knowledge', those students are actually being asked to draw upon focused, relevant specialized knowledge that they have already spent years developing – and not a random assortment of required and elective high school or undergraduate courses, as the case may be when applying PBL in other contexts.

However, I do think using PBL as a way to help develop self-directedness in students is a worthwhile endeavor, especially as they progress through secondary and post-secondary education. At a time when so much information or factual knowledge is so readily available, helping students develop a sense of curiosity as well as the information literacy skills to pursue those curiosities toward defining and solving problems is crucial. If “...students' lack of self-directedness is a common residue from studying under traditional instructional methods” (Hung, Bailey & Jonassen, 2003, p.18), I think we as educators, do a great disservice by limiting ourselves the use of such traditional methods.

One of the main challenges in applying PBL seems to lie in the use of correct timing and context, so as to prevent students from becoming unnecessarily frustrated by the process. In library instruction one of the key things I struggle with is how much scaffolding to provide students during workshops. I've tried assigning worksheets to students to take a first stab at trying things out based on their existing knowledge, before taking up the solutions together as a group. I've also tried providing a little bit of a presentation at the beginning before getting students to work on questions and then going around the room to check on each person to make sure they were at least somewhat successful with the worksheet questions. I've also tried going through one question at a time, with me showing an example, and then having the students try one out, and then moving on to the next question. So far I can't say which of these approaches seem to work the best, since there are often extraneous factors that contribute to motivation (e.g., whether the faculty instructor is present during the workshop or not). And so the experiment continues.

In an online environment I envision the use of something fancy like Cisco's Telepresence technology - applications would likely be limited to corporate or other professional learning environments at this point. I think I've also read about Second Life being used for virtual meetings in this way. Since deliberations are such a key factor in PBL, I wonder if Elluminate or Skype might be too limiting?

References

Glenn, P.J., Koschmann, T. & Conlee, M. (1995). Theory sequences in a problem-based learning group: A case study. Proceedings for Computer Support for Collaborative Learning '95. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, October 1995.

Hung, W., Bailey, J.H. & Jonassen, D.H. (2003). Exploring the tensions of problem-based learning: Insights from research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Fall(95), 13-23.

Cooperative Learning Environments and the Learning Commons

One of the weaknesses of the Guided Design method was that team performance was unpredictable – while most groups are likely to work well, there are bound to be one or more groups that inevitably become dysfunctional. The cooperative learning approach agrees that team based learning has much to offer – perhaps more than competitive learning arrangements, where student achievement is judged against a bell-curve; or individualistic learning constructs that emphasize personal mastery (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998). The cooperative learning approach goes a step further than the Guided Design method by stressing the importance of managing team dynamics in an intentional and purposeful way (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998). That is, instead of assigning projects or problems to a random assortment of individuals, instructors should aim to assemble well-structured teams that incorporate the following key elements:

• small group size (2 – 4 members)
• individual accountability
• positive interdependence (individual success and that of the group is perceived as being closely linked by all members)
• group processing skills development (assign roles such as leading, recording, reporting, monitoring; initiate process improvement strategies; encourage positive communication strategies, etc.)

Teams that incorporate these elements are more likely to allow for positive exchanges among group members and ultimately enhance individual student learning within the group (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998; Haller, 2000; Millis, 2002).

I think the greatest challenge in applying this approach in library instruction is that my interactions with students are often so short-lived and ad hoc in nature. Often I might work with a group that has already been established by the course instructor, or work with one or two members of a team who's role is to gather information. I forgot to mention this in my last week's post, but one of the things that stood out to me in Casada & DeShazer's (1995) discussion of using the guided design method was regarding the amount of time it took to get the students to understand the team learning process through out a semester long course – with some of them never quite getting it. That made me wonder to what extent any group based activity in a 50 minute session could be effective. Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1998) do offer three interrelated ways to use cooperative learning: formal cooperative learning, informal cooperative learning, and cooperative base groups. The informal category is definitely the most applicable to library workshop settings:

Informal cooperative learning groups are used primarily to enhance direct instruction (presentations, demonstrations, films, videos); they are typically temporary and ad hoc, formed for a brief period of time (such as intermittent two- to four-minute discussions during a class session). Instructors may use informal cooperative-learning groups during a class by having students turn to a classmate near them to discuss briefly a question posed by the instructor or to summarize what their instructor has just presented. Doing so focuses student attention on the material and ensures that students process it cognitively.

In the past I have conducted workshops where I prepared a bowl of candy and divided the class into small groups of 4 students or so. Then I got the students to work in those temporary groups to answer questions on a worksheet. The worksheet had three different sections and each section introduced different types of business information: industries, companies, markets. If a team completed a section first, then everyone in that team was allowed to 'partake of the candy bowl'. Since there were three sections, there were three chances for any of the teams to win. At the end of the class I also made a representative from each of the teams to come up and demonstrate how they got the answers for that section of the worksheet. I don't think I captured all of the elements of cooperative learning as listed above, but for a 50 minute session I thought it was not too shabby – also, it was before I really knew about the specific tenets of cooperative learning theory. I was just trying to make the session more enjoyable and interesting - therefore help with retention.

Beyond library workshops, I have observed in passing, some of the other types of cooperative learning taking place in the library. Particularly in the Learning Commons area, I often see students in pairs or small groups using whiteboards to review anything from physical anatomy to algebra equations.

Reading these articles made me wonder if there is anything more the Libraries could be doing to promote different types of cooperative learning, in addition to the spaces, furniture, and equipment that we provide.

In an online environment the instructor can't rely on direct observation of group dynamics and has to trust the reporting of individual members to a large extent. I guess if you have groups meet synchronously in live sessions using Elluminate or other chat/teleconference tools, you can drop in to 'observe' how things are going, but it is still more difficult to read than face to face instances. Online instruction often begins with introductions that are recorded, so in that sense it may be easier to note individual characteristics for assembling and monitoring them over time through discussion posts.



References

Haller, C.R., Gallagher, V.J., Weldon, T.L., & Felder, R.M. (2000). Dynamics of peer education in cooperative learning workgroups. Journal of Engineering Education 89(3), 285-293.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 27-35.

Millis, B.J. (2002). Enhancing learning and more! Through cooperative learning. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

Guided Design and Information Seeking

The Guided Design method originated with Dr. Charles and his colleagues at the Center for Guided Design of West Virginia University (Casada & DeShazer, 1995). This method is "based on a hierarchical model of thinking skills...used by effective problem solvers" (Casada & DeShazer, 1995, p. 1381). The goal of this method is "not to get the correct answer, but to know the process by which one gathers information, processes information, and arrives at an acceptable solution" (Trivette, 2005). The most interesting thing about this method for me as a librarian is that it calls for learners to assess their information needs and then go out and try to gather the necessary information. Such a component to the method offers a natural place for librarians to lend their expertise to any curricula applying this method.

In conducting a synthesis of various studies on Guided Design, Trivette simplifies the characterization of the original method into four basic components:

1. a sequential process for mastering course content,
2. a team or small-group processing component,
3. the provision of verbal or written feedback from a facilitator/teacher as a professional in the field concerning the solution reached or decision made, and
4. the use of realistic problems to be solved (2005, p.2).

In this simplified form, it is possible to see the Guided Design method as building on the other two methods we've already looked at – the PSI/Keller Plan, and the A-T System of instruction. The first three aspects of the method as Trivette outlines them, are not very different from the previous methods. What has been added, is the fourth component: problem-solving. It will be interesting to know how this differs with the Problem-Based Learning model, once we get to it later in the semester.

In applying the guided design method to case studies, Wilson (2004) cites the following factors as possible barriers:

• Free riding
• Uneven preparation
• Sporadic attendance
• Plagiarism
• Opportunity cost of material replaced by the in-class group exercise (p.10).

I'm not sure if these barriers are inherent to the guided design method. They seem to be related more closely with the nature of team work in general, or academic integrity. Having fresh and real problems to solve, and preparing meaningful feedback for each one – I can see that requiring a fair amount of effort to prepare a head of time. Despite these barriers, I agree with Wilson that incorporating some aspect of guided design into the curriculum offers advantages beyond more traditional lecture based delivery of content.

Similar to how Casada & DeShazer integrated the use of the library, our engineering librarians are fairly well integrated into the engineering curriculum at NC State. I've also worked with the Engineering Entrepreneurship Program (EEP), which is basically a senior design engineering course, but instead of using a simulated problem or random product design, students work in teams to select a real problem and then build not only a prototype to address that problem, but also plan a viable business around the prototype so that it can be applied in the real world. As the business librarian I would make class visits to introduce the various kinds of business information that is available (and typically not available or expensive), as well as establish contact for them to follow up with me when they have more specific questions. I've been very impressed by the work produced by these students – some of them have also secured venture funds to continue their work beyond the scope of the course!

A couple of times I worked with the instructor to organize a scavenger hunt in the library. It took place early in the semester and served as an ice-breaker activity to facilitate team building while learning more about some of the more specialized sources of information. When the same course was offered as an online course for graduate students, I reworked the activity for online delivery. The course was hosted on Moodle so I used the quiz module to create a simple questionnaire that assessed their level of awareness in terms of the key library services available to distance students, as well as the basic aspects of the library website for finding and accessing information. At the end of the quiz the correct answers were given so that if they were not sure of their responses they could be verified with links to additional information on the library website. Then I released to each team a set of questions and clues to guide the activity, and released additional clues if they ran into difficulties. I also provided some slides that introduced secondary sources of business information – I can't remember why I didn't do a narrated presentation but it may have been because of lack of time. Once each team submitted their responses I released the answers and tabulated the scores. An additional motivation for completing the activity effectively and efficiently was that we offered prizes for the winning team. As a follow up to the activity I also asked each individual to write a brief reflective post to the discussion board – and offered specific prompts to consider:

Your reflection may include what you learned about business research, thoughts on the usefulness and limitations of the resources encountered, assessments about how well you think your group worked as a team, how decisions were made, how well you communicated, noting any problems you encountered and how they were resolved (or not).

There were some technical glitches with some of the resources that introduced unnecessary frustrations but overall it allowed the teams to work together, and nobody raised any issues around communication or team work. Some reported that they were fairly fluent with navigating the landscape of business information while others were novices that appreciated the introduction of new resources.

References

Casada, M. E., & DeShazer, J. A. (1995). Teaching professionalism, design, and communications to Engineering freshmen. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Division (pp. 1381-1385). Anaheim, CA.

Trivette, C. M. (2005). Effectiveness of guided design learning strategy on the acquisition of adult problem-solving skills. Bridges, 3(1).

Wilson, P. N. (2004). Mutual gains from team learning: A guided design classroom exercise. Cardon Research Papers in Agricultural and Resource Economics (No. 2004-07). Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona.