Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A review of cognitive teaching models

  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to review from an instructional-design (ID) perspective nine teaching programs developed by cognitive psychologists over the last ten years. Among these models, Collins' cognitive apprenticeship model has the most explicit prescriptions for instructional design. In the article, the cognitive apprenticeship model is analyzed, then components of the model are used as an organizing framework for understanding the remaining models. Differences in approach are noted between traditional ID prescriptions and the cognitive teaching models. Surprisingly, no design strategies were found to be common to all the model programs. Key differences among programs included: (1) problem solving versus skill orientation, (2) detailed versus broad cognitive task analysis, (3) learner versus system control, and (4) error-restricted versus error-driven instruction. The article concludes with an argument for the utility of continuing dialogue between cognitive psychologists and instructional designers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (1990).Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Yost, G. (1985). The Geometry Tutor. InProceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1–7). Los Altos, CA: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Farrell, R., & Sauers, R. (1984). Learning to program in LISP.Cognitive Science, 8, 87–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design.Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (1991, April). Implications of connectionism for thinking about rules.Educational Researcher, 10–16.

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987).The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Goin, L. I., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., Sherwood, R. D., & Williams, S. (1988). Learning with technology: Theoretical and empirical perspectives.Peabody Journal of Education, 64(1), 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Vye, N. J. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.),Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branson, R. K., & Grow, G. (1987). Instructional systems development. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, co-operative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, C. V., & Inouye, D. K. (1987). The evaluation of computer-aided educational delivery systems. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. R., & Brown J. S. (1979). An investigation of computer coaching for informal learning activities.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 11, 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, R. (1978). A developmentally based theory and technology of instruction.Review of Educational Research, 48, 439–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, R., & Bereiter, C. (1984). From behaviourism to cognitive behaviourism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design.Instructional Science, 13, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Bassock, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988).The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clancey, W. J. (1986). FromGuidon toNeomycin andHeracles in twenty short lessons: ONR final report, 1979–1985.AI Magazine, 7(3), 40–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990, August–September). Anchored instruction and its relation to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 2–10.

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (in press). Anchored instruction approach to cognitive skills acquisition and intelligent tutoring. In J. W. Regian & V. J. Shute (Eds.),Cognitive approaches to automated instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.),Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Brown, J. S. (1988). The computer as a tool for learning through reflection. In H. Mandl & A. Lesgold (Eds.),Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and arithmetic. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glasser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Stevens, G. (1983). Inquiry teaching. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 247–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1991, April).Feedback control and learning to program with the CMU Lisp Tutor. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

  • Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986).Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. H. (in press).Instructional principles for constructivist learning environments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Eckert, P. (1990). Adolescent social categories—Information and science learning. In J. Gardner, J. G. Greeno, F. Reif, A. H. Schoenfeld, A. A. diSessa, & E. Stage (Eds.),Toward a scientific practice of science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erasmus, D. (1974).The correspondence of Erasmus. Volume 1: Letters 1 to 141, 1484 to 1500. Translated by R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thomson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulconer, J. E., & Williams, R. N. (1990). Reconsidering psychology. In J. E. Faulconer & R. N. Williams (Eds.),Reconsidering psychology: Perspectives from continental philosophy. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1966).The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1989).Essentials of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design.Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, M. K. (1985). Cognitive psychological approaches to instructional task analysis. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.),Review of Research in Education, 12, 157–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1982). Instructional psychology: Past, present, and future.American Psychologist, 37(2), 292–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction.Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 631–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gott, S. P. (1988a, April).The lost apprenticeship: A challenge for cognitive science. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

  • Gott, S. P. (1988b). Apprenticeship instruction for real-world tasks: The coordination of procedures, mental models, and strategies. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.),Review of Research in Education, 15, 97–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment.Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Sternberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1987).Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., & Chabay, R. W. (1989). Research on teaching scientific thinking: Implications for computer-based instruction. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.),Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1988). Socializing intelligent tutors: Bringing empathy to the computer tutor. In H. Mandl & A. Lesgold (Eds.),Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 242–257). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W., Wilson, R., & Anderson, J. R. (1987). Designing an intelligent authoring system for high school mathematics. In G. Kearsley (Ed.),Artificial intelligence and instruction: Applications and methods. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippert, R. C. (1988, March). An expert system shell to teach problem solving.TechTrends, 22–26.

  • Lippert, R. (1990). Teaching problem solving in mathematics and science with expert systems.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1(3), 27–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Schlager, M. S. (1990). Discovery learning and transfer of problem-solving skills.Cognition and Instruction, 7(2), 129–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. (pp. 279–333). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., Kowallis, T., & Wilson, B. G. (1981). Instructional design in transition. In F. Farley & N. Gordon (Eds.),Psychology and education: The state of the union. Chicago: McCutcheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, W. A. (1989). Artificial intelligence knowledge acquisition techniques for instructional development.Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(3), 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989).The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. M., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R. W. (1990). Critical and reflective thinking: A philosophical perspective. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 445–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (1990). The nature and nurture of creativity. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. K., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change.Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983a).Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983b). Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is being learned to what a student knows.Instructional Science, 12(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1987).Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., Wilson, B. G., & Spiller, R. T. (1980). The elaboration theory of instruction: A model for structuring instruction.Instructional Science, 9, 195–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, R. (1983). Elaboration theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 335–381). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (1987). Instructional technology: A history. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1981). Instructional psychology.Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 631–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1989, February). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 13–20.

  • Riesbeck, C., & Schank, R. (1989).Inside case-based reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984).Everday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 95–116). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmoni, A. W., Schmit, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal.Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 355–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1988). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon.Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing. In S. F. Shipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions (pp. 563–577). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., & Jona, M. Y. (1991). Empowering the student: New perspectives on the design of teaching systems.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 7–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld (1985).Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherwood, R. D., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991, April).The development and preliminary evaluation of anchored instruction environments for developing mathematical and scientific thinking. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.

  • Smith, P. L., & Wedman, J. F. (1988). Read-think-aloud protocols: A new data source for formative evaluation.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1(2), 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988, October).Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains (Technical Report No. 441). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. J. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (in press). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.),Philosophy of science, cognitive science, an educational theory and practice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

  • Van Haneghan, J. P., Barron, L., Young, M. F., Williams, S. M., Vye, N. J., & Bransford, J. D. (in press). The Jasper Series: An experiment with new ways to enhance mathematical thinking. In D. Halpern (Ed.),The development of thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1985).Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1986).Progressions of quantitative models as a foundation for intelligent learning environments (Technical Report #6277). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek, & Newman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (1989). Cognitive psychology and instructional design. In S. Thiagarajan (Ed.),Proceedings of the National Society for Performance and Instruction, 317-333.

  • Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1992, April).Returning the “theory” to Elaboration Theory: Strategies for organizing instruction based on cognitive conceptions of learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Colorado at Denver, Campus Box 106, P. O. Box 173364, 80217-3364, Denver, CO

    Brent Wilson & Peggy Cole

Authors
  1. Brent Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peggy Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brent Wilson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilson, B., Cole, P. A review of cognitive teaching models. ETR&D 39, 47–64 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296571

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296571

Keywords

Search

Navigation