Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 47–64

A review of cognitive teaching models

Article

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1990).Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Anderson, J. R., Farrell, R., & Sauers, R. (1984). Learning to program in LISP.Cognitive Science, 8, 87–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bereiter, C. (1991, April). Implications of connectionism for thinking about rules.Educational Researcher, 10–16.Google Scholar
  6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987).The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Branson, R. K., & Grow, G. (1987). Instructional systems development. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989, January–February). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 32–42.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Case, R. (1978). A developmentally based theory and technology of instruction.Review of Educational Research, 48, 439–463.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988).The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Clancey, W. J. (1986). FromGuidon toNeomycin andHeracles in twenty short lessons: ONR final report, 1979–1985.AI Magazine, 7(3), 40–60.Google Scholar
  20. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990, August–September). Anchored instruction and its relation to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 2–10.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. H. (in press).Instructional principles for constructivist learning environments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Gagné, R. M. (1966).The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  33. Gagné, R. M. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  34. Gagné, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1989).Essentials of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Gagné, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design.Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 23–30.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Glaser, R. (1982). Instructional psychology: Past, present, and future.American Psychologist, 37(2), 292–305.Google Scholar
  38. Glaser, R., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction.Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 631–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment.Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 1–32.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Lakoff, G. (1987).Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. Lippert, R. C. (1988, March). An expert system shell to teach problem solving.TechTrends, 22–26.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. McDaniel, M. A., & Schlager, M. S. (1990). Discovery learning and transfer of problem-solving skills.Cognition and Instruction, 7(2), 129–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Nelson, W. A. (1989). Artificial intelligence knowledge acquisition techniques for instructional development.Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(3), 81–94.Google Scholar
  53. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989).The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Palincsar, A. M., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983a).Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983b). Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is being learned to what a student knows.Instructional Science, 12(3), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1987).Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Reiser, R. A. (1987). Instructional technology: A history. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  65. Resnick, L. B. (1981). Instructional psychology.Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 631–666.Google Scholar
  66. Resnick, L. B. (1989, February). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 13–20.Google Scholar
  67. Riesbeck, C., & Schank, R. (1989).Inside case-based reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984).Everday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 95–116). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1988). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon.Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.Google Scholar
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. Schoenfeld (1985).Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  75. 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.Google Scholar
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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.Google Scholar
  80. 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.Google Scholar
  81. Wertsch, J. V. (1985).Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  82. 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
  83. Wilson, B. G. (1989). Cognitive psychology and instructional design. In S. Thiagarajan (Ed.),Proceedings of the National Society for Performance and Instruction, 317-333.Google Scholar
  84. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Colorado at DenverDenver

Personalised recommendations