Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
The purpose of this case study was to explore the issues involved in implementing a technology-enhanced student-centered unit in order to provide recommendations to improve and enhance these types of learning activities. Specifically, the study examined problems students encountered in completing the unit activities, problems the teacher encountered in facilitating the delivery of the unit to her students, and strategies to improve and enhance these types of learning activities. One teacher and the 21 students in her intact United States history class participated in the study. The central unit problem required students to determine the strategies that should be pursued in 1968 to continue the struggle for a more just, equal United States society. Students worked in teams to gather data from an electronic database of primary- and secondary-source materials, and use the data to develop solutions to the unit problem. Results of this study suggest that a variety of factors impact the success or failure of student-centered activities, including student orientation to the unit problem, student collaboration, teacher management strategies, and student accountability mechanisms. These results also provide insight into how the design of these types of activities can be improved. Perhaps the most important considerations that need additional attention are the additional aids required by teachers as they struggle to implement these types of activities in their classrooms.
- Alper, L., Fendel, D., Fraser, S., & Resek, D. (1996). Problem-based mathematics: Not just for the college-bound.Educational Leadership, 53(8), 18–21.
- Angeli, C., Bonk, C., Supplee, L., & Malikowski, S. (1998). A case-based electronic learning environment for preservice teacher education.Technology and Teacher Education Annual—1998. Reston, VA: AACE.
- Barab, S., & Landa, A. (1997). Designing effective inter-disciplinary anchors.Educational Leadership, 54(6), 52–55.
- Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. Duffy and D. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Berson, M.J. (1996). Effectiveness of computer technology in the social studies: A review of the literature.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 486–499.
- Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(4), 32–42.
- Brush, T. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when using integrated learning systems in cooperative pairs.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 51–64. CrossRef
- Brush, T. (1998). Embedding cooperative learning into the design of Integrated Learning Systems: Rationale and guidelines.Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 5–18. CrossRef
- Brush, T., & Saye, J. (1999, February).Instructional tools for student problem-solving: The Decision Point project. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX.
- Choi, J., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53–69. CrossRef
- Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80. CrossRef
- Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited.Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.
- Dewey, J. (1938).Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
- Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology?Educational Technology, May, 3–16.
- Edmark. (1999).Millie's math house. [Computer Software]. Redmond, WA: Author.
- Ehman, L.H., Glenn, A.D., Johnson, V., & White, C.S. (1998). Using computer databases in student problem solving. In J.A. Braun, P. Fernlund, & C.S. White (Eds.),Technology tools in the social studies curriculum (pp. 164–187). Wilsonville, OR: Frankilin, Beedle.
- Felder, R., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction.College Teaching, 44(2), 43–47.
- Gallagher, S.A., & Stepien, W.J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American studies.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(3), 257–275.
- Glasgow, N. (1997).New curriculum for new times: A guide to student-centered, problem-based learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
- Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981).Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Hannafin, M., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications.Educational Technology, October, 48–55.
- Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101–117. CrossRef
- Hannafin, M., Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implication.Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94–99.
- Hannafin, M., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments.Instructional Science, 25, 167–202. CrossRef
- Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models, Volume II. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Hawley, C., & Duffy, T. (1997).Design model for learner-centered, computer-based simulations. ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED 423 838
- Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1999, February).An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology conference, Houston, TX.
- Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997).Open-ended learning environments: A theoretical framework and model for design. ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED 423 839
- Jackson, S., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1995, April).Making system dynamics modeling accessible to pre-college science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
- Jacobson, M., & Spiro, R. (1994). A framework for the contextual analysis of technology-based learning environments.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 5(2), 3–32.
- Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1991).Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning.Educational Technology, September, 28–33.
- Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. CrossRef
- Krajcik, J., Soloway, E., Blumenfeld, P., & Marx, R. (1998). Scaffolded technology tools to promote teaching and learning in science. In C. Dede (Ed.),ASCD 1998 Yearbook: Learning with Technology. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
- Land, S., & Hannafin, M. (1994).Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions, and implications. ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED 397 810
- Linn, M. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 103–126. CrossRef
- Linn, M., Shear, L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J.D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships: Case studies of students' learning about ‘rats in space’ and ‘deformed frogs.’Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 61–84. CrossRef
- Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate?Educational Researcher, 17, 13–17.
- McCombs, B., & Whisler, J.S. (1997).The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Means, B. (1994). Introduction: Using technology to advance educational goals. In B. Means (Ed.),Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Merriam, S.B. (1988).Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Oliver, K. (1996).Realizing the potential of scaffolded instruction in situated learning environments: Lessons from a formative evaluation. ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED 413 310
- Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching and comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities.Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
- Roehler, L., & Cantlon, D. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.),Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
- Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework.Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.
- Saye, J.W. (1997). Technology and educational empowerment: Students' perspectives.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 5–26. CrossRef
- Saye, J.W. (1998). Technology in the classroom: The role of dispositions in teacher gatekeeping.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13(3), 210–234.
- Saye, J.W., & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multimedia-supported learning environment.Theory and Research in Social Education, 27(4), 468–500.
- Scaradamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). An architecture for collaborative knowledge building. In E. DeCorte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.),Computer-based learning environments and problem solving. New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Schwartz, D.L., Brophy, S., Lin, X., & Bransford, J.D. (1999). Software for managing complex learning: Examples from an educational psychology course.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 39–59. CrossRef
- Scott, B., & Brush, T.A. (1998). Teaching instructional technology: A problem-based learning approach.Canadian Journal of Educational Communications, 27(1), 1–18.
- Sept, J. (1997).Investigating olduvai: Archaeology of human origins. [Computer Program]. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
- Slavin, R.E. (1995).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- Voss, J.F., Greene, T.R., Post, T.A., & Penner, B.C. (1983). Problem solving skill in the social sciences. In G.H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. New York: Academic.
- Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Wineburg, S.S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87. CrossRef
- Yin, R. (1984).Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Young, M. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43–58. CrossRef
- Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study
Educational Technology Research and Development
Volume 48, Issue 3 , pp 79-100
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors