Cognitive Apprenticeship and Component Display Theory

Learning Theory Comparison

Cognitive Apprenticeship

Basics:

• Introduced by Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989)
• “embeds the learning of skills and knowledge in their social and functional context” (p. 454)
• “teach the processes that experts use to handle complex tasks” (p. 457)
• Conceptual and factual knowledge used “in solving problems and carrying out tasks” (p. 457)
• Important instructional strategies are modeling, coaching, scaffolding, fading and reflection
• Also emphasizes the importance of “self-correction and –monitoring skills” (p. 458) through the use of “discussion, alternation of teacher and learner roles, and group problem solving” (p. 458)

Strengths:

• Apprenticeship learning has endured for thousands of years
• Proven teaching strategies such as modeling, coaching, scaffolding, and fading
• Successful application in a variety of educational settings and subjects

Limitations:

• Situated learning in a classroom or training setting cannot ever hope to duplicate the complexity of the real world (Vera and Simon, 1993)
• May be time-consuming to implement; resources may simply not be present to implement such a strategy

Component Display Theory

Basics:

• Introduced by Merrill (1983, 1994)
• Like cognitive apprenticeship, it is a cognitive theory of instruction
• Two broad categories of learning outcomes: performance and content
• Objectives should be classified within the Performance-Content Matrix and should indicate conditions, behavior and criteria
• Performance broken into three categories: remember, use, and find
• Content broken into four categories: facts, concepts, procedures, and principles

• Performance
  • • • • Remember – “search memory in order to reproduce or recognize some item of information previously known”
        • Use – “apply some abstraction to a specific case”
        • Find – “derive or invent a new abstraction” (1994, p. 112)

• Content
  • • • • Facts – “arbitrarily associated pieces of information”
        • Concepts – “groups of objects, events, or symbols that all share some common characteristics”
        • Procedures – “an ordered sequence of steps necessary for the learner to accomplish some goal”
        • Principles – “or predictions of why things happen in the world” (1994, p. 113)

• Primary Presentation Forms
  • • • • Content mode represents the level of specificity of the subject matter
        • Presentation mode deals with the response expected from the learners

Strengths:

• Organization of both content and learner performance into a single matrix
• Primary Presentation Forms serve to guide the presentation of the instruction itself, allowing the instructor to ensure that instruction remains aligned with objectives

Limitations:

• Micro-level scope concerning ideas and concepts may not be applied at broader level by learners (Merrill, Li, & Jones, 1991)
• Relatedly, the question of time and resources comes into play; each concept would require a unique performance-content matrix

References:

• Collins, A., Brown, J., & 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. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component display theory. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Merrill, M. D. (1994). Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
• Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1991). Limitations of first generation instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(1), 7-11. Retrieved from http://mdavidmerrill.com/Papers/
• Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17(1), 7-48.