Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristic Curricular Design Elements and (Deeper-Level) Quality Features of the Student-Centered Classrooms Under Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education Classrooms

  • 1624 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents the results of the cross-case analysis comparing and synthesizing the empirical findings of each case study. The chapter provides a rich data-based outline of the curricular design elements characteristic of the three selected courses, including students’ perceptions based on course evaluation data from several cohorts. Moreover, the instructors’ scaffolding of students’ participation in the prevalent course activities is analyzed in terms of both the content of interaction and the interactional processes in which knowledge is constructed elucidating deeper-level quality dimensions and features that are embodied in these classrooms. Apart from that, the classroom community of learners that was cultivated over time as well as the teaching and learning challenges of each classroom as perceived by instructors and/or students are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  • Abrami, P. C., d’Apollonia, S., & Rosenfield, S. (2007). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 385–445). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aebli, H. (1983). Zwölf Grundformen des Lehrens [Twelve basic forms of teaching]. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). York, UK: Dialogos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. San Francisco, CA: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atwood, S., Turnbull, W., & Carpendale, J. I. M. (2010). The construction of knowledge in classroom talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 358–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 1–15). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bembenutty, H., Cleary, T. J., & Kitsantas, A. (Eds.). (2013). Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergan, S. (2006). Promoting new approaches to learning (EUA Bologna handbook, Article B_1.1–1). Berlin: Raabe Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K., Kapur, M., & Collins, A. (2013). Cultivating a community of learners in K-12 classrooms. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, A. M. O’Donnell, C. Chan, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 233–249). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (2012). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blythe, T., & Associates. (1998). The teaching for understanding guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 25–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=0417F33EA85079C2374AE5A3FD511643?doi=10.1.1.124.8616&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Greeno, J. G. (2011). Situative view of learning. In V. Grøver Aukrust (Ed.), Learning and cognition in education (pp. 64–68). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E. (1996). Instructional psychology: Overview. In E. De Corte & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 33–43). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E., & Masui, C. (2009). Design and evaluation of a learning environment for self-regulation strategies: An intervention study in higher education. In Z. M. Charlesworth, C. Evans & E. Cools (Eds.), Learning in higher education – How style matters. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the European Learning Styles Information Network (ELSIN XIV) (pp. 172–183). Brno, Czech Republic: Tribun EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckworth, E. R. (1987/2006). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and learning (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckworth, E. R. (Ed.). (2001). “Tell me more”: Listening to learners explain. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T. M. (2009). Building lines of communication and a research agenda. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 351–367). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative account of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts and developments. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161–200). London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A., & Faux, R. B. (2006). Fostering substantive engagement of beginning teachers in educational psychology: Comparing two methods of case-based instruction. Teaching Educational Psychology, 1(2), 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A., Nguyen, P. D., & Mendelson, A. (2011). The influence of framing on transfer: Initial evidence from a tutoring experiment. Instructional Science, 39(5), 603–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting student self-regulated learning in problem- and project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 7(2), 128–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong question. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (2009). A theory bite on contextualizing, framing, and positioning: A companion to Son and Goldstone. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 269–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (2011). A situative perspective on cognition and learning in interaction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instruction (pp. 41–72). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 128–148). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2009). Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. (1974). The informed vision: Essays on learning and human nature. New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HGSE. (2010a). Course evaluation survey fall 2009 – Smith’s course. Cambridge, MA: HGSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • HGSE. (2010b). Course evaluation survey spring 2010 – Lee’s course. Cambridge, MA: HGSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • HGSE. (2011). Course evaluation survey fall 2010 – Brown’s course. Cambridge, MA: HGSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. J. (2005). Engaged participation: A sociocultural model of motivation with implications for educational assessment. Educational Assessment, 10(3), 277–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoidn, S. (2010a). Smith’s case (Case study I). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoidn, S. (2010b). Lee’s case (Case study II). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoidn, S. (2011). Brown’s case (Case study III). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugener, I. (2008). Inszenierungsmuster im Unterricht und Lernqualität. Sichtstrukturen schweizerischen und deutschen Mathematikunterrichts in ihrer Beziehung zu SchĂĽlerwahrnehmung und Lernleistung – eine Videoanalyse. Dissertation an der Universität ZĂĽrich. MĂĽnster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009). Teaching patterns and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 66–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., et al. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). MĂĽnster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., & Voss, T. (2013). The model of instructional quality in COACTIV: A multicriteria analysis. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 97–124). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt, G., & Steele, M. D. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 87–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leutwyler, B., & Maag Merki, K. (2009). School effects on students’ self-regulated learning. A multivariate analysis of the relationship between individual perceptions of school processes and cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational dimensions of self-regulated learning. Journal for Educational Research Online, 1(1), 197–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCroskey, J. C., & McVetta, R. W. (1978). Classroom seating arrangements: Instructional communication theory versus student preferences. Communication Education, 27(2), 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes (pp. 55–73). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring talk in school. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 195–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middendorf, J., & Kalish, A. (1996). The “change-up” in lectures. The National Teaching & Learning Forum, 5(2), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, H. G. (2007a). Low-inference behaviors and college teaching effectiveness: Recent developments and controversies. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 145–183). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, H. G. (2007b). Research on low-inference teaching behaviors: An update. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 184–200). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council of the USA (NRC). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council of the USA (NRC). (2005). How students learn: History, math, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (2007). When is dialogue “dialogic”? Human Development, 50, 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centered learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? In G. O’Neill, S. Moore, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching (pp. 27–36). Dublin: AISHE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(39), 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 249–284). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1998). Teaching for learning in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. R., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, M. C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In D. D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 163–194). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rex, L. A., & Schiller, L. (2009). Using discourse analysis to improve classroom interaction. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination-theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Optimising learning: Implications of learning sciences research. In OECD (Ed.), Innovating to learn, learning to innovate (pp. 45–66). Paris: OECD/CERI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2014a). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (2007). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stier, W. (1999). Empirische Forschungsmethoden (2., verb. Auflage). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (2009). An eclectic appraisal of the success or failure of constructivist instruction. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 335–350). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twigg, C. A. (2000). Course readiness criteria: Identifying targets of opportunity for large-scale redesign. Educause Review, 35(3), 40–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Pol, J., & Elbers, E. (2013). Scaffolding student learning: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2, 32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinbaum, A., Allen, D., Blythe, T., Simon, K., Seidel, S., & Rubin, C. (2004). Teaching as inquiry. Asking hard questions to improve practice and student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A. (2007). Principles of effective course design: What I wish I had known about learning-centered teaching 30 years ago. Journal of Management Education, 31, 339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2006). Accountable talk in reading comprehension instruction (CSE Tech. Rep. 670). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zusho, A., & Edwards, K. (2011). Self-regulation and achievement goals in the college classroom. In H. Bembenutty (Ed.), Self-regulated learning (pp. 21–31). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Sabine Hoidn

Authors
  1. Sabine Hoidn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hoidn, S. (2017). Characteristic Curricular Design Elements and (Deeper-Level) Quality Features of the Student-Centered Classrooms Under Study. In: Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education Classrooms. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94941-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94941-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-94940-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-349-94941-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation