Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- 2 Foundations of the Learning Sciences
- 3 Scaffolding
- 4 Project-Based Learning
- 5 Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning
- 6 A History of Conceptual Change Research
- 7 Learning in Activity
- 8 Cognitive Apprenticeship
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
8 - Cognitive Apprenticeship
from Part I - Foundations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- 2 Foundations of the Learning Sciences
- 3 Scaffolding
- 4 Project-Based Learning
- 5 Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning
- 6 A History of Conceptual Change Research
- 7 Learning in Activity
- 8 Cognitive Apprenticeship
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter reviews how people learn during apprenticeships, ways of guiding beginners while they engage in authentic situated activity with more experienced people. Apprenticeship practices are found throughout the world both in cultures with formal schooling and in those without. Traditional apprenticeship practices tend to focus on physical and visible activities, but most schooling is directed toward conceptual learning outcomes which are usually not physical and visible – like formulas in mathematics or theories in physics. This chapter extends apprenticeship research to cognitive apprenticeship, and describes apprenticeships that are designed to lead to abstract or conceptual knowledge. These involve scaffolding, metacognitive reflection, problem-based learning, and situated social practices. Effective apprenticeship often involves productive failure, when learners initially develop potential solutions that are wrong but that can be productively guided toward conceptually correct answers.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 156 - 174Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school (expanded ed.) Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can’t be told. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–497). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In Schauble, L. & Glaser, R. (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, R., Brown, J. S., & Fischer, G. (1984). Skiing as a model of instruction. In Rogoff, B. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its developmental and social context (pp. 139–150). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182.Google Scholar
Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Collins, A., & Brown, J. S. (1988). The computer as a tool for learning through reflection. In Mandl, H. & Lesgold, A. (Eds.), Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Collins, A., & Smith, E. E. (1982). Teaching the process of reading comprehension. In Detterman, D. K. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), How much and how can intelligence be increased? (pp. 173–185). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Collins, A., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). A cognitive theory of interactive teaching. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview (pp. 247–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (Eds.). (2004). Special issue: Scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–451.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1989). Zero-based arts education: An introduction to Arts Propel. Studies in Art Education, 30(2), 71–83.Google Scholar
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In Resnick, L., Levin, J., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331–348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651–672.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008–1022. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12107Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2015). The preparatory effects of problem solving versus problem posing on learning from instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83.Google Scholar
Kapur, M., & Rummel, N. (2012). Productive failure in learning and problem solving. Instructional Science, 40(4), 645–650.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.Google Scholar
Lampert, M., Rittenhouse, P., & Crumbaugh, C. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse. In Olson, D. & Torrance, N. (Eds.), Handbook of education and human development (pp. 731–764). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1988). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding (Report No. IRL88–0007). Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Learning.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1979). The hidden costs of reward. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Loibl, K., Roll, I., & Rummel, N. (2017). Towards a theory of when and how problem solving followed by instruction supports learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 693–715. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9379-xGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1973). Memory, knowledge, and the answering of questions. In Solso, R. L. (Ed.), Contemporary issues in cognitive psychology: The Loyola symposium (pp. 135–165). Washington, DC: Winston.Google Scholar
Nowakowski, A., Campbell, R., Monson, D., et al. (1994). Goal-based scenarios: A new approach to professional education. Educational Technology, 34(9), 3–32.Google Scholar
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.Google Scholar
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.Google Scholar
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8(2), 173–190.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1994). The design of goal-based scenarios. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(4), 305–346.Google Scholar
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.Google Scholar
Sinha, T., & Kapur, M. (2021). When problem-solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. Review of Educational Research, 91(5), 761–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, T., Kapur, M., West, R., Catasta, M., Hauswirth, M., & Trninic, D. (2020). Differential benefits of explicit failure-driven and success-driven scaffolding in problem-solving prior to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1037/edu0000483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W. B. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 209–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes (Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E., Eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, B. Y. (1984). Designing computer games to help physics students understand Newton’s laws of motion. Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 69–108.Google Scholar
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 1
- Cited by