Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Design of a learning-centered online environment: a cognitive apprenticeship approach

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

Abstract

The design of online course materials is rarely informed by learning theories or their pedagogical implications. The goal of this research was to develop, implement and assess a virtual learning environment (VLE), SOFIAA, which was designed using the cognitive apprenticeship model (CAM), a pedagogical model based on learning-centered theory. We present an instructional design case study that reveals the steps taken to improve student performance in a master’s level blended learning course on program evaluation. The case study documents four phases of improving on-line instruction in program evaluation, starting with Online Course Materials (OCM) that contained resources and information required to complete team field projects. In phase 1, quantitative analyses revealed that there was improvement of student test scores using the OCM, however, qualitative analyses of think-aloud sessions found that students failed to attain key course objectives. In phase 2, a team of experts reviewed the materials and suggested ways to improve opportunities for student learning. In phase 3, a (VLE) was designed based on the results of phase 2 using a reconceptualization of CAM as a design model. In phase 4, the VLE was validated using experts’ appraisal of content and presentation, and student achievement, which indicated that use of the VLE led to significant improvement in learning over use of OCM. The design process is discussed in terms of a reconceptualization of CAM as a general strategy for instructional design that can be used to improve both the content and quality of online course materials.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alger, C., & Kopcha, T. (2010). Technology supported cognitive apprenticeship transforms the student teaching field experience: Improving the student teaching field experience for all triad members. The Teacher Educator, 46(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2010.529986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 45–74). Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/99Z_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf.

  • Andrade-Santoyo, N. L. (2017) Diseño de un Entorno Virtual de Aprendizaje Centrado en Estrategias de Simulación. Unpublished B.A. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

  • Boling, E. C., & Beatty, J. (2010). Cognitive apprenticeship in computer-mediated feedback: Creating a classroom environment to increase feedback and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43, 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive online learning experiences. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 118–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning environments: Global perspectives, local designs. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.mx/books?isbn=1118429575.

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 487–524). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butz, N. T., & Stupnitsky, R. H. (2016). A mixed methods study of graduate students’ self-determined motivation in synchronous hybrid learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 28, 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butz, N. T., Stupnitsky, R. H., Peterson, E. S., & Majerus, M. M. (2014). Motivation in synchronous hybrid graduate business programs: A self-determination approach to contrasting online and on-campus students. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10, 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Jackson, K., & Dunlap, C. (2014). Design research: An analysis and critique. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (3rd ed., pp. 481–503). New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Kapur, M. (2014). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 109–127). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickey, M. D. (2008). Integrating cognitive apprenticeship methods in a web-based educational technology course for P-12 teacher education. Computers in Education, 51(2), 506–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. A., Pardo, A., & Han, F. (2016). Quality in blended learning environments—Significant differences in how students approach learning collaborations. Computers & Education, 102, 90–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 506–518). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavin, M. (2016). Disruptive conduct: The impact of disruptive technologies on social relations in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International., 53, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R. (2015). The rise of open and blended learning. In K. C. Lee & K.S. Yuen (Eds.), Studies and practices for advancement in open and distance education (pp. 93–103). Retrieved from http://aaou2014.ouhk.edu.hk/Studies-and-Practices-for-Advancement-in-ODE.pdf.

  • Fry, N., & Love, N. (2011). Business lecturer’s perceptions and interactions with the virtual learning environment. International Journal of Management Education, 9, 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Cabrero, B., Díaz-Camacho, J. E., Pineda, V. (2012). SOFIAA: Software interactivo para el aprendizaje auténtico. In G. Cárdenas (Ed.), De la evidencia empírica a la apropiación tecnológica en Psicología (pp. 39–55). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

  • Glazer, H. R., & Wanstreet, C. E. (2011). Connection to the academic community: Perceptions of students in online education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(1), 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). Retrieved from https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=tKdyCwAAQBAJ&printsec=copyright&hl=es#v=onepage&q&f=false.

  • Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2009). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education., 26, 49–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (Ed.). (2003). Technology, innovation and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education—International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

  • Kuo, F. R., Hwang, G. J., Chen, S. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2012). A Cognitive apprenticeship approach to facilitating web-based collaborative problem solving. Educational Technology and Society, 15, 319–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, M., Lam, K. M., & Lim, C. P. (2016). Design principles for the blend in blended learning: A collective case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 21, 716–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P. (2009). Developing professional expertise with a cognitive apprenticeship model: Examples from avionics and medicine. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), Development of professional expertise: Toward measurement of expert performance and design of optimal learning environments (pp. 61–83). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Wiseman, J. G., Chan, L. K., Lu, J., Khurana, C., et al. (2014). Using online digital tools and video to support international problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (CERC Studies in Comparative Education). Hong Kong: Springer, Comparative Education Research Centre.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, T. C. (2005). Web-based cognitive apprenticeship model for improving pre-service teachers’ performances and attitudes towards instructional planning: Design and field experiment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8, 136–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowyck, J. (2014). Bridging learning theories and technology-enhanced environments: A critical appraisal of its history. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56, 429–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (1994, April). Usability inspection methods. In Conference companion on human factors in computing systems (pp. 413–414). Boston, MA, USA: ACM.

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes, C. T., Gata-Parcon, R. F., & Rodríguez, E. B. (2015). A cognitive apprenticeship approach to teaching organic chemistry online: Challenges and opportunities. In K. C. Lee & K. S. Yuen (Eds.), Studies and practices for advancement in open and distance education (pp. 116–125). Hong Kong, China: Open University of Hong Kong Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saadati, F., Ahmad Tarmizi, R., Mohd Ayub, A. F., & Abu Bakar, K. (2015). Effect of internet-based cognitive apprenticeship model (i-CAM) on statistics learning among postgraduate students. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0129938. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1–18). NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital technology. Teaching in Higher Education., 21, 1006–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, B. R. (1971). The hidden curriculum. New York, NY: Knopf.

  • Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, May, 24–33.

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallvid, M. (2016). Understanding teachers’ reluctance to the pedagogical use of ICT in the 1:1 classroom. Education and Information Technologies., 21, 503–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C. Y., Jack, B. M., Huang, T. C., & Yang, J. T. (2012). Using the cognitive apprenticeship web-based argumentation system to improve argumentation instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 476–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from ERIC Web site: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505824.pdf.

  • Waddoups, G. & Howell, S. (2002). Bringing online learning to campus: The hybridization of teaching and learning at Brigham Young University. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/52/108.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Bruce Shore for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article, Enrique Díaz-Camacho and Vania J. Pineda-Ortega for help in the design of the Moodle platform and follow-up with students’ participation in the Moodle and VLE platforms, Sinayini Ruíz-Aguilar for content design in the Moodle platform and data collection in phase 1, Beatriz Capristán-Jimeno for her contribution to the VLE programming and collection of qualitative data, the experts in phases 2 and 4, and both cohorts of students.

Funding

This research was funded by a research grant from the Univeridad Nacional Autónima de México: PAPIIT-UNAM (Project Code IN305510) to the first author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

    Benilde García-Cabrero, Nadia L. Andrade-Santoyo & Lídice M. Quevedo-Rodríguez

  2. McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Michael L. Hoover & Susanne P. Lajoie

  3. Université du Québec à Trois Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada

    Janice Wong

Authors
  1. Benilde García-Cabrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael L. Hoover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susanne P. Lajoie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nadia L. Andrade-Santoyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lídice M. Quevedo-Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Janice Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael L. Hoover.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

García-Cabrero, B., Hoover, M.L., Lajoie, S.P. et al. Design of a learning-centered online environment: a cognitive apprenticeship approach. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 813–835 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9582-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9582-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation