Integrating Cognitive Apprenticeship Strategy with the Use of

2015 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering

Integrating Cognitive Apprenticeship Strategy with the use of Online Forum in Developing Product Assignments Mohd Fadzli Ali, Lokman Tahir, Mohd Nihra Haruzuan Md Said & Nursyakila Mat Tahir Faculty of Education, University Technology Malaysia 81310 Skudai, Johor, MALAYSIA help members to better explain, justify and reflect new knowledge.

Abstract—Regardless of majors that education students are pursuing, they must enrol in multimedia subjects where developing educational courseware is the most common type of assignment. However, it is not an easy task to develop courseware as it involves several important stages. Apart from meeting faceto-face, the students were required to have discussions online in completing their assignments. In the literature, the advantages of using online forum have been widely discussed. However, when the students’ online discussions at each stage are not guided systematically, the assignment development can be affected. To overcome this problem, a theoretical framework was developed. Through this framework, the teacher can guide the students throughout their online discussion with practical skills in developing their assignments and the processes of thinking within this learning activity, visible to both the students and the teacher. The research instruments used were questionnaires and the online forum. The questionnaires were used to gauge the respondents’ background skills in using online forum. The transcripts of the online discussion forum were analysed using coding procedures developed from the combination of cognitive apprenticeship methods and the interaction analysis model (IAM). The results show that the integration of cognitive apprenticeship strategies into students’ learning had successfully helped them in developing their courseware.

II.

To overcome this problem, a concept called cognitive apprenticeship was used. This approach was initially used for classroom instruction and was first introduced by Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989). Collins et al., (1989) describe it as a model of instruction that combines the elements of apprenticeship and schooling. This approach attempts to illustrate the processes of thinking within a learning activity visible to both the students and the teacher. This would enable the teacher to use apprenticeship skills in guiding the students to learn (Collins, et. al., 1991). This approach has a cognitive component, comprising both cognitive and meta-cognitive skills, which relates to problem solving, and the students are taught to learn these skills. According to Bransford et al. (2000), cognitive apprenticeship is a model of an instructional design which looks at how an individual learns. The cognitive apprenticeship method encourages students to take note of their practical skills for integrating technology into their future teaching practices. The model could also guide the students to complete their tasks by using technology such as online forums during the teaching and learning process so that they can learn about educational technology (Dickey, 2008). The cognitive apprenticeship proposed by Collins et al. (1991) consists of six important stages, including modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection and exploration

Keywords-cognitive apprenticeship, online learning, face-toface learning, product assignment, online community

I.

BACKGROUND

Education students, regardless of their majors, are obliged to enrol in multimedia subjects. The common product assignment is courseware. In developing courseware, there are several stages, such as determining the topic, selecting content materials and choosing either authoring or programming language software, that must carefully and systematically handled. Apart from meeting face-to-face, teachers required their students to discuss online while completing their product assignments. In the literature, the advantages of using online forum have been widely discussed. For example, Waterhouse (2005) states that online discussions can create active learning and thus develop critical thinking, as students exchange ideas among themselves. According to Radovic (2010), besides critical thinking, the online forum can also promote flexibility in choice of discussion topics, exchange of ideas and expansion of knowledge. Kirk and Orr (2003) state that the online forum is an “enabling tool” in developing productive discussions among students and producing better learning outcomes. Collaborative learning could also be used to involve students in activities related to concept learning (Boxtel et al., 2000). During students’ online discussion, conflicts may arise. According to Brown and Palincsar (1989), the appearance of conflict and controversy as a result of social interaction may 978-1-4799-9967-5/15 $31.00 © 2015 IEEE DOI 10.1109/LaTiCE.2015.47

COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP

MODELING: According to Bandura (1977), students learn by observing a new concept or approach that is demonstrated by an expert or teacher. However, Collins (1991) states that modeling in cognitive apprenticeship means showing how a process unfolds and giving reasons why it happens that way. COACHING: According to Brill, et. al., (2001), coaching and scaffolding are critical components of cognitive apprenticeship. Collins, et. al., (1989) defines coaching as ‘assistance from a master’. This is supported by Parsloe and Wray (2000) who indicate the importance of distinguishing between the roles of coach and mentor. A coach focuses on assisting learners to meet a specific goal, while a mentor provides on-going support. SCAFFOLDING: Scaffolding is like a structure that is put in place to help learners reach their goals and is removed bit by bit as it is no longer needed (Dennen & Burner, 2008) ARTICULATION: The goal of this stage is to make the learners’ thinking visible through the context of metacognitive. At this stage, the teacher can view the strategies and processes the learners use to solve tasks or problems. According to Oriol et al., (2010), the situations require the 42

V.

students to share their thinking through articulation. In addition, articulation can be done by conducting a discussion, demonstration, presentation and the exchange of work or ideas. REFLECTION: One of the most important things in this stage is reflection because it requires learners to think deeply about the approach they use and can compare with their expert. According to Preskill and Torres (1999), reflection is a cognitive process which, when executed, enables the ideas, understandings, and experiences of a learner to be reviewed. EXPLORATION: Exploration is a cognitive activity whereby students generate hypotheses which are then tested in order to construct new ideas and viewpoints (Enkenberg, 2001). After the reflection stage, students become aware and are more competent to solve tasks or problems by enhancing their approach based on the problem situations and eventually they were expected to master the skills. III.

The main purpose of this study is to investigate integrating the cognitive apprenticeship strategy with the use of the online forum among students at a Malaysian tertiary institution. The design used for this research is a qualitative interpretive case study. According to McDonough (1997), in interpretive case studies, the researcher aims to interpret the data by developing conceptual categories, supporting or challenging the assumptions made regarding them. In order to obtain views into a particular phenomenon of interest, Gay (2006) said that the collection, analysis and interpretation of comprehensive narrative data must be followed when doing the qualitative research VI.

RESEARCH SAMPLING

A purposive sampling of 11 final year students taking the multimedia subject was undertaken. According to Patton (1990), purposive sampling is used to study subjects which have the same characteristics. The respondents were divided into three small groups and worked as a group in completing the assignments. This research was conducted in a government institution of higher learning in Johor. The respondents of the study were undergraduates taking a full-time Bachelor’s Degree. The students were familiarised with the course syllabus and the features of a Moodle Learn discussion forum, Thus, they already know how to incorporate their learning with online mode.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The research objectives derived from the problem were: x to investigate how students integrated cognitive apprenticeship into their discussions through online forums. x to investigate how the integration of cognitive apprenticeship with online forum guides students in developing their multimedia projects. IV.

RESEARCH DESIGN

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK VII. RESEARCH PROCEDURE

In addressing the research objectives, a theoretical framework was developed based on cognitive apprenticeship developed by Collins (1989 & 1991), and is divided into 3 divisions, as suggested by Ghefaili (2003). The first division consists of the modeling, coaching and scaffolding stages where the learner is helped to acquire cognitive skills through observation and supported practice. The modeling phase builds mental models of experts’ cognitive processes so that students can learn to eventually work on their own (Brill, et. al. (2001). During the scaffolding phase, they will work at a higher ability level because they are supported by the scaffold. The second division includes the stages of articulation and reflection, and assists learners to gain control of their problem solving strategies. The third division comprises an exploration stage. This is the most important stage as it encourages learners’ autonomy.

The research procedure involved the six stages of cognitive apprenticeship suggested by Collins et al. (1991). During the modeling stage, the teacher showed some samples of courseware, developed by previous students, in class so that they could view them and start to plan their own projects. Through the coaching phase, the students had discussions through online forums and face-to-face, suggesting their topics and contents. When a group had selected the topic for their project, they showed their proposal to the teacher who provided comments and assistance in developing the proposals further. During the scaffolding phase, the group started to plan on developing the multimedia courseware and extended their discussions online. The teacher assisted the groups in developing further the difficult part of their proposals, especially on technical issues. During the Articulation and Reflection phases, the students started developing the courseware, using either authoring or programming language. During these phases, the teacher provided in-depth comments about the students’ on-going project so that they could improve their project performance in analysing and re-analysing the theoretical and technical components of the courseware. At this level, the students were getting temporary support from the teacher. Lastly, during the exploration stage, the teacher left the groups to make any further decisions on their projects. They were advised to refer to professionals so that they could explore and further improve their courseware. They made a comparison with the courseware from other groups, and also discussed through an online forum how to further improve their

43

messaging, and answering the quiz or test in the e-learning. The results showed that the students knew how to discuss through online forums, answering online quizzes and uploading or downloading learning materials included in learning activities, and posting messages through online forums.

coursework. Finally, they presented their courseware in class. The teaching-learning process took one whole semester VIII. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS The main research instruments used for this study were questionnaires and the transcript of online discussions. The questionnaires were used to collect data on the respondents’ level of knowledge of using online forum discussion. The questionnaires were divided into three sections. Section A consists of questions related to respondents' demographics (gender, courses, frequency of use of e-learning in a week, use of e-learning, and courses that require the use of an online forum for discussion). The questions were constructed based on the items by Nizam (2004), Su LihTeng (2007), and Azizol (2011) and were modified to suit this research. Section B consists of questions related to the students’ level of knowledge of online discussion forums while section C consists of questions related to the students’ skills in using online forum for discussion. Both section B and C were developed based on items by Khan (2005) and Cole and Foster (2007), with some modifications to suit this study. Section A B

C

B. Integrating Cognitive Apprenticeship with Online Discussions Before the transcripts of the online discussions from each group were analysed, a coding procedure was developed based on the four stages of cognitive apprenticeship (coaching, scaffolding, articulation and reflection) by Collins et al. (1991), and the interaction analysis model by Garrison and Anderson (2003). This addressed the first and second objectives of the research. According to the Garrison and Anderson model (2003), there are three dimensions present in e-learning – social, cognitive and teaching. The social presence refers to the ability of the community of inquiry participants to project themselves socially and emotionally, specifically in all aspects including their personality, through the communication media that they use. There are three main categories of collaborative interactions and each of these has their own specific indicators, where these indicators are based on the socio-affective interactions of individual and collective learning.

Table 1: The simplified items in the questionnaire Title Number of Total items Demography of students 1-4 4 Level of Students’ 6-20 16 Knowledge about Learning Management System (LMS) Level of Students’ Using 21-36 16 Online Discussion Forum Total: 36

Table 2: Categories of social presences and indicators (Garrison and Anderson, 2003)

For items in section B and section C, only two scales were used, ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’. Therefore, the respondents chose to agree or disagree, and the analyses in this section were based on the total numbers of respondents who agreed or disagreed with each item. The endorsements of the questionnaires were reviewed and approved by experienced lecturers/teachers in the field of educational multimedia.

Social presence is designed to substantiate the problem solving process of cognitive presence among learners. Cognitive presence refers to the degree to which the participants are able to construct and confirm meaning by using thought and dialogue in a learning community (Garrison and Anderson, 2003). There are four phases of categories of interactions which were borrowed from the Dewey model (1933), the practical inquiry model, and it can be described as a cognitive dimension of presence.

The transcripts of online discussions were derived from students’ online forums. Each group was provided with the online forum and were required to use this for online discussions. A new discussion topic in e-learning was proposed by the teacher, and the students discussed with their group members the task in e-learning’s forum based on a few guidelines given. Each group was headed by a leader who led the discussion. IX.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

A.

The Respondents’ E-Learning Background The data collected from the questionnaires were used to inform the students’ level of knowledge in using online forum. Based on the findings, the majority of the respondents knew how to manage e-learning, including downloading printed materials and notes, uploading assignments, communicating with lecturers and classmates through forums, chats or

44

four stages of cognitive apprenticeship – coaching, scaffolding, articulation and reflection. Table 5 shows the discussions from each group

Table 3: Categories of cognitive presences and indicators (Garrison and Anderson, 2003)

Table 5: The analysis of the groups’ online posting

There are three general categories of teaching presence where these are more specifically referred to the instructor in the design, facilitation and management of the cognitive and social processes from an educational point of view (Garrison and Anderson, 2003). Table 4: Categories of teaching presences and indicators (Garrison and Anderson, 2003)

Coaching - For group 1, the number of postings associated with coaching were categorised under social presence (10 postings), cognitive presence (18 postings) and teaching presence (18 postings) from Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) Interaction Analysis Model. For group 2, the numbers of their postings were social presence (53 postings), cognitive presence (41 postings) and teaching presence (27 postings). For group 3, the numbers of their postings were social presence (95 postings), cognitive presence (90 postings) and teaching presence (56 postings). These are shown in table 6. Table 6: The analysis of the groups’ online postings for cognitive apprenticeship (coaching) Groups

Coding Procedure - The cognitive apprenticeship was referred to as CA, while the four stages of cognitive apprenticeship were categorized as CA – C (coaching), CA – S (scaffolding), CA – A (articulation) and CA – R (reflection). As for Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) model of interaction analysis, all domains were referred to as SP, CP and TP for social, cognitive and teaching presence respectively. When a posting from the online forum discussions was labeled or categorized as scaffolding under the terms of social presence, it was marked as CA – S – SP. Within a social presence, there is further classification into three areas – IC (for Interpersonal Communication), OC (for Open Communication) and CC (for Cohesive Communication). Thus, when the posting was categorized as Interpersonal Communication, the coding was labeled as CA – S – SP – IC. The modeling and exploration stage were not taken into account for the coding because there were less online discussions as the students were mostly involved in face-to-face interaction with the teacher.

1 2 3

SP (Social presence) 10 53 95

Total number of postings CP TP (Teaching (Cognitive presence) presence) 18 18 41 27 90 56

From table 6, we can see that group 3 dominates the social, cognitive and teaching presence through their total number of postings in online forum discussions. These were followed, in order, by group 2 and group 1. For group 1, the total numbers of postings for cognitive and teaching presence were higher than the total number of postings for social presence. For group 1 and group 2, the total numbers of postings for social presence were higher than cognitive or teaching presence. Scaffolding - For group 1, the number of postings associated with scaffolding were further categorized under social presence (8 postings), cognitive presence (14 postings) and teaching

The Groups’ Online Posting - Based on the transcripts from each group, their online discussions were conducted mainly in

45

group 1 and group 2, the total numbers of postings for social presence were higher than the other presences.

presence (8 postings) from Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) Interaction Analysis Model. For group 2, the numbers of their postings were social presence (4 postings), cognitive presence (4 postings) and teaching presence (4 postings). For group 3, there were no postings related to social presence, cognitive presence and teaching presence. Based on the interview with the leader, the group preferred to meet face-to-face with the lecturer during the class. This is because they faced conflicts among members on deciding on the content analysis.

Reflection - For group 1, the number of postings associated with reflection were further categorized under social presence (1 posting), cognitive presence (1 posting) and teaching presence (0 postings) from Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) Interaction Analysis Model. For group 2, there were no postings related to social presence, cognitive presence and teaching presence. Based on the interview with the leader, the group preferred to meet face-to-face with the lecturer during the class. This is because they faced conflicts among members on deciding the content analysis.

Table 7: Analysis of the groups’ online postings for cognitive apprenticeship (scaffolding) Groups

1 2 3

The total number of postings SP CP TP (Social (Cognitive (Teaching presence) presence) presence) 8 14 8 4 4 4 0 0 0

Table 9: Analysis of the groups’ online postings for cognitive apprenticeship (reflection) Groups

1 2 3

From table 7, group 1 dominates the social, cognitive and teaching presence through their total number of postings in online forum discussions. These were followed by group 2 which has the same total number of postings for all presences. For group 1, there was no posting for presences at this stage. The total numbers of postings for cognitive presence were higher than others. For group 2 and group 3, the total numbers of postings for all presences were the same.

SP (Social presence) 1 0 0

Total number of postings TP TP (Cognitive (Teaching presence) presence) 1 0 0 0 1 0

From table 9, group 1 dominates social and cognitive presences through their total number of postings in online forum discussions. These were followed by group 3 with only one posting for cognitive presence and group 2 had no posting for any presences.

Articulation - For group 1, the number of postings associated with articulation were further categorized under social presence (13 postings), cognitive presence (27 postings) and teaching presence (27 postings) from Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) Interaction Analysis Model. For group 2, the numbers of their postings were social presence (68 postings), cognitive presence (64 postings) and teaching presence (51 postings). For group 3, the numbers of their postings were social presence (103 postings), cognitive presence (93 postings) and teaching presence (57 postings).

For group 1, the total numbers of postings for cognitive and social presence were higher than teaching presence. For group 3, there was only one post for cognitive presence, and no posting of all presences for group 2. C. Categorising Postings of Cognitive Apprenticeship within Interaction Analysis Model (IAM). The Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) Interaction Analysis Model consists of three dimensions of presence in e-learning – social, cognitive and teaching. For social presence, there are three main categories of interaction: interpersonal communication, open communication and cohesive communication. For cognitive presence, there are four main categories of interaction – triggering event, exploration, integration and resolution. For teaching presence, there are three main categories of interaction – design and organisation, facilitating discourse and direct instruction. The postings of online discussions in the online forums reflected the presence of social, cognitive and teaching in the overall group.

Table 8: Analysis of the groups’ online postings for cognitive apprenticeship (articulation) Groups Total number of postings SP CP TP (Social (Cognitive (Teaching presence) presence) presence) 1 13 27 27 2 68 64 51 3 103 93 57

Social presence - For group 1, postings show students socialize through different interaction categories of interpersonal communication (20 postings), open communication (13 postings) and cohesive communication (14 postings). For group 2, the numbers were: interpersonal communication (42 postings), open communication (37 postings) and cohesive communication (46 postings). For group 3, the numbers were: interpersonal communication (107

From table 8, group 3 dominates the social, cognitive and teaching presence through their total number of postings in online forum discussions. These were followed by group 2 and group 1. For group 1, the total numbers of postings for cognitive and teaching presence were higher than for social presence. For

46

From table 11, we can see from the total number of postings for TE (triggering event) that group 1 was higher than both other groups. The total number of postings for E (exploration) and I (integration) in group 3 was higher than both other groups. The total number of postings for R (reflection) in group 2 was higher than both other groups.

postings), open communication (67 postings) and cohesive communication (24 postings). Table 10: Analysis of the groups’ online postings for social presence Groups

1 2 3

Total number of postings IC OC CC (Open (Interpersonal (Cohesive communication) communication) communication) 20 13 14 42 37 46 107 67 24

The concept of critical thinking is closely related to the cognitive presence. The word “critical” can be defined as reasoning, evaluation and judgment, and these in turn have to do with the improvement of thinking (Lipman, 2003). For triggering event and exploration, all postings show students understood how to plan and develop their projects by presenting information that generates their curiosity and questions, and searching for relevant information and ideas. For integration, the postings showed that all students were integrating information, building on other ideas, offering messages of agreement, providing a rationale or justification and explicitly offering a solution. For resolution, the comments from the students contained offering direct solution to solve problems related to the project development.

From table 10, the total number of postings for the IC (interpersonal communication) and OC (open communication) in group 3 was higher than the other groups. Group 2’s total number of postings for CC (cohesive communication) was higher than the other two groups. The analysis showed that students socialise through different interaction categories of the interpersonal communication. It could be seen from their expression of respect and welcoming attitude through the use of symbols such as emoticons and capitalisation as well as expression of their feelings such as humour, personal references and selfdisclosure through the content of messages. For open communication, the postings revealed that the students continued their threaded discussions by quoting others’ messages, asking questions, complimenting, and expressing agreement. For cohesive communication, the students’ interactions involved greetings from members and addressing others by name and the group as “we”, “us”, “our” or “group”. Thus, it was through social presence the groups were establishing their familiarity by using greetings, encouragement, paralinguistic emphasis, for examples capitals, punctuation, emoticons and personal vignettes, for example self-disclosure (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Rourke & Anderson, 2002).

Teaching presence - For group 1, postings show that students facilitate and assist each other in developing their project. This can be seen from the number of postings of design and organisation (27 postings), facilitating discourse (15 postings) and direct instruction (11 postings). For group 2, the numbers of their postings were design and oraganisation (18 postings), facilitating discourse (37 postings) and direct instruction (27 postings). For group 3, the numbers of their postings were design and organisation (16 postings), facilitating discourse (57 postings) and direct instruction (40 postings). Table 12: Analysis of the groups’ online postings for teaching presence Groups Total number of postings DO FD DI (Design and (Facilitating (Direct organisation) discourse) instruction) 1 27 15 11 2 18 37 27 3 16 57 40

Cognitive presence - For group 1, postings show students understood how to plan and develop their projects. This can be seen from the number of postings of triggering event (10 postings), exploration (28 postings), integration (22 postings) and resolution (10 postings). For group 2, the numbers of their postings were triggering event (8 postings), exploration (32 postings), integration (53 postings) and resolution (16 postings). For group 3, the numbers of their postings were triggering event (8 postings), exploration (74 postings), integration (93 postings) and resolution (9 postings).

From table 12, the total number of postings for DO (design and organisation) in group 1 was higher than in the other groups. The total number of postings for FD (facilitating discourse) and DI (direct instruction) in group 3 was higher than the other groups. The teaching presence reflected the importance of an instructor’s support and expertise (Paechter, Maier & Macher, 2010). According to Shea, et. al. (2006), the strong teaching presence is related both to students’ sense of connectedness and learning and also associated with a sense of community (Ice, Curtis Phillips & Wells, 2007; Perry & Edwards, 2005; Shea et. al., 2006). All postings show students facilitated each other in developing their projects and assisted by the teacher. For design and organisation, the comments from students revealed that each member was aware that they had similar responsibilities and functioned as one effective group. For

Table 11: Analysis of the groups’ online postings for cognitive presence Groups

1 2 3

TE (Triggering event) 10 8 8

Total number of postings E I (Exploration) (Integration) 28 32 74

22 53 93

R (Resolution) 10 16 9

47

Table 13: Content materials and learning theories of the groups 1 2 3 Group The Law of Manners to Tayamum Content Tajwid parents materials Cooperative Mapping Demonstration Learning theories

facilitating discourse, students were helping each other in identifying their points of agreement and/or disagreement and seeking an understanding by an encouragement and recognition and reinforcement of each other’s contribution. For direct instruction, students were provided direction of the exchanges by teacher towards specific dimensions and contribution of knowledge from various sources. Overall, based on the analysis of students’ online posting using the three dimensions of presence in e-learning: social, cognitive and teaching (Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) Interaction Analysis Model [IAM]), it is proven that students enhanced their learning by integrating cognitive apprenticeship into their discussions through online forums. This has addressed the first objective of the study.

After completing the three stages of cognitive apprenticeship (modeling, coaching and scaffolding), the students understood the topic and content materials for their projects. The Second Division (Articulation and Reflection) - The second division of cognitive apprenticeship comprised articulation and reflection stages. During the articulation phase, courseware using video software was developed. A lecturer assisted the students with the difficult part of their proposals, especially on software and technical issues.

D. Integrating Cognitive Apprenticeship in Completing Product Assignment The integration of cognitive apprenticeship with online discussion was based on Ghefaili’s (2003) three divisions. The first division consisted of the modeling, coaching and scaffolding stages which help the learner to acquire cognitive skills through observation and supported practice. The second division included the stage of articulation and reflection; it assisted learners to gain control of their problem solving strategies. The third division comprises an exploration stage. This is the most important stage as it encourages learners’ autonomy.

During the reflection phase, every group showed their video project and presented the learning theories that they used in delivering the content materials in the video in front of the class. After presenting their project, the lecturer gave comments on each group so that they could improve their group performance by looking back and analysing their tasks. Other groups were also required to comment on each other’s projects. Thus, through the articulation and reflection stages, students were able to start developing their projects.

The First Division (Modeling, Coaching and Scaffolding) While learning this subject, students were divided into 3 groups. These groups remained together until the end of the semester. Each group was given assignments to complete in a given time. The task assigned by the lecturer was to create a teaching aid, in the form of video, on Islamic Education in secondary schools. While carrying out their assignments, they had face-to-face and online forum discussions.

The Third Division (Exploration) - The third division of cognitive apprenticeship comprised the exploration stage. During this stage, the groups improved by referring to, and exploring other professional projects. They also made comparisons with other groups’ projects. In addition, they also had discussions through an online forum on how to improve and further their projects.

During the modeling stage, the teacher showed the samples of previous coursework in class so that they could view the courseware and start to plan their own projects. According to the leader of each group, the good previous projects selected by the teacher had really helped them in planning their teachingaided videos.

At this stage, the students looked confident in completing their assignments and thus were able to decide what was best for their projects, as they had exercised their autonomy. Discussion through online forums took place mainly in coaching, scaffolding, and the articulation and reflection stages. This shows that the integration of cognitive apprenticeship with online forum guides students in developing their multimedia projects. This has addressed the second objective of the research.

Through the coaching phases, students discussed their topics and contents through online forums and face-to-face suggestions. After deciding their group topic, they brought the proposal to the class. The lecturer provided assistance in further developing the proposals in class. The proposals for each group were as follows: x x x

X.

CONCLUSION

Apprenticeship is basically a process through which a more experienced person assists a less experienced one, providing support and examples, so that the less experienced person gains new knowledge and skills. Therefore, by implementing these strategies, learners are required to understand the visible processes, by observing and practicing them. Through cognitive apprenticeship, the teacher was able to guide the students in developing their product assignments through online and face-to-face discussions. Overall, it proved that through cognitive apprenticeship, the students were able to

Group 1 – Manners in reading the Qur'an Group 2 – Manners to parents Group 3 –Tayamum

During the scaffolding phases, based on proposals suggested and agreed by group members, they planned the content materials and learning theories in their video’s project through online and face-to-face discussions. These are shown in Table 13.

48

community.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3-25, 2007 [18] Khan, B. H. E-learning QUICK Cheklist. Washington: Information Science Publishing, 2005 [19] Kirk, J. J., & Orr, R. L. A primer on the effective use of threaded

think with higher order thinking skills as well as building social interactions between teachers and students in problem solving. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

discussion forums. (ERIC Document No. 472 738), 2003 [20] Lipman, M. Thinking in education (2nded.). Cambridge:

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Ministry of Education (MOE) and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for providing financial assistance for this research (vote no: 09H00)

Cambridge University Press, 2003 [21] McDonough, J. and McDonough, S., (1997). Research Methods

REFERENCES

for English Language Teachers. London: Arnold.

Bandura, A.. Social Learning Theory. New York: General

[22] Mohd Azizol Bin Mohamed. Penggunaan Sistem E-Learning Di

Learning Press, 1977 Brill, J., Kim, B., & Galloway, C. Cognitive Apprenticeships as an Instructional Model:Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved January 2, 2013, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ , 2001 [3] Dennen, V. P., & Burner, K. J. The Cognitive Apprenticeship Model in Educational Practice. In Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Merriënboer, J. V., & Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd edi.) (pp. 425–437). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008 [4] Boxtel, C. V., Linden, J. V. D. and Kanselaar, G. Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge.

Fakulti Pendidikan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Degree’s thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Skudai) Retrieved from http://www.fp.utm.my/epusatsumber/pdffail/ptkghdfwP/AZIZ OLAP050105TTP, 2001 Nizam A. L. Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Kejayaan Penggunaan Di Maktab Perguruan (Doctoral dissertation). Universiti Putra Malaysia Serdang, 2004 Oriol, M. D., Tumulty, G., & Snyder, K. Cognitive apprenticeship as a framework for teaching, online. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 210-217, 2010 Paechter, M., Maier, B. &Macher, D. Students’ expectations of and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers and Education, 54(1), 222-229, 2010 Parsloe, E., & Wray, M. Coaching and mentoring: Practical methods to improve learning. London: Kogan Page, 2000 Perry, B. & Edwards, M. Exemplary online educators: Creating a community of inquiry. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education,6(2), 46-54, 2005 Preskill, H. S., & Torres, R. T. Evaluative inquiry for learning in organisations. SAGE Publications, Incorporated, 1999 Radović, M. M. Advantages and Disadvantages Of E-Learning In Comparison To Traditional Forms Of Learning. Annals of the University of Petroşani, Economics, 10(2), 289–298, 2010 Rourke, L. & Anderson, T. Exploring social communication in computer conferencing.Journal of Interactive Learning Research,

[1] [2]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12] [13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[23]

[24]

[25]

Learning and Instruction (10), 311–330, 2000 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. .How People

[26]

Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000 Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick, Knowing, learning and instruction: essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 395–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989 Cole, J., & Foster, H. Using Moodle- Teaching with the Popular Open Source Course Management System (2nd ed.). Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2007 Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. 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. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989 Collins, A., Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B.F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implication for reform (pp. 121- 138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991 Collins, A., Brown, J. S. and Holum, A. Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. American Educator, 15 (3), 6-11, 38-46, 1991 Dickey, M. D. Integrating cognitive apprenticeship methods in a Web-based educational technology course for P-12 teacher education. Computers & Education, 51(2), 506-518, 2008 Enkenberg, J. Instructional design and emerging models in higher education.Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 495–506, 2001 Garrison, D.R., & Anderson, T. e-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York, Routledge, 2003 Garrison, D. R. & Arbaugh, J. B. Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions.Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172, 2007 Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., &Airasian, P. Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2006 Ghefaili, A. Cognitive apprenticeship, technology, and the contextualization of learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing, Design & Online Learning, 4(Winter), 1-27, 2003 Ice, P., Curtis, R., & Wells, J. Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students’ sense of

[27]

[28] [29]

[30]

13(3), 259-275, 2002 [31] Shea, P., Li, C. S. & Pickett, A. A study of teaching presence and

student sense of learning community in fully online and webenhanced college courses.The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190, 2006 [32] Su LihTeng. KemahiranTeknoogiMaklumat Di KalanganPelajarFakultiPendidikan, UTM Dan HubungannyaDenganSikapTerhadap E-Pembelajaran(Master's thesis). UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia Skudai, 2007 [33] Waterhouse, S. The power of e-learning: the essential guide for teaching in the digital age. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Publishers (A Pearson Company), 2005

49