Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Situative Educational Model for the Design of Powerful Student-Centered Learning Environments

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

Abstract

This chapter introduces a situative educational model that involves the following core components: (1) aligned curricular design elements that allow the students to engage with relevant and challenging content to achieve high-level learning outcomes (i.e., performances of understanding, self-regulation, identity development); (2) students are positioned for active participation in knowledge construction and interactions—as accountable authors, active and vocal participants, and responsible co-designers; (3) instructors apply various adaptive instructional strategies to support students’ participatory processes of knowledge construction and to cultivate a productive and supportive classroom community of learners. The chapter concludes, drawing implications for higher education classrooms and institutions, reflecting on potential limitations of this research project and summarizing its main results and contributions.

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.

    Article  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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrpersonen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV model of teachers’ professional competence. 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. 25–48). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beddoes, K. D., Jesiek, B. K., & Borrego, M. (2010). Identifying opportunities for collaborations in international engineering education research on problem- and project-based learning. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 4(2), 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. C. (2008). Research, policy, and practice: The great disconnect. In S. D. Lapan & M. T. Quartaroli (Eds.), Research essentials: An introduction to designs and practices (pp. 295–325). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

    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 

  • Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED340272.pdf

  • Boyer, E. B. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. Priorities of the professoriate. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Barron, B., Pea, R. D., Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Bell, P., et al. (2006). Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 19–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., Rust, C., & Gibbs, G. (1994). Strategies for diversifying assessment in higher education. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Chism, N. V. N. (2004). Characteristics of effective teaching in higher education: Between definitional despair and certainty. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 15(3), 5–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R., & Hannafin, M. (2011). Debate about the benefits of different levels of instructional guidance. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 367–382). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, R. (1975/2009). Von der Psychoanalyse zur Themenzentrierten Interaktion. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

    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 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Introduction: Teaching and learning for understanding. In L. Darling-Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmerman, G. N. Cervetti, & J. L. Tilson (Eds.), Powerful learning. What we know about teaching for understanding (pp. 1–9). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E. (2012). Constructive, self-regulated, situated, and collaborative learning: An approach for the acquisition of adaptive competence. Journal of Education, 192(2/3), 33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubs, R. (2007). Selbstgesteuertes Lernen – ein Beitrag für den Unterrichtsalltag. In A. Gastager, T. Hascher, & H. Schwetz (Eds.), Pädagogisches Handeln: Balancing zwischen Theorie und Praxis. Beiträge zur Wirksamkeitsforschung in pädagogisch-psychologischem Kontext (pp. 7–18). Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.

    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 

  • 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 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J., Clarebout, G., Léonard, R., & Lowyck, J. (2007). Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environments: What students think. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 105–117.

    Article  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., Conant, F. C., & Greeno, J. G. (2007). Progressive refinement of hypotheses in video-supported research. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 239–254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    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 

  • European Commission. (2006). Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: Education, research and innovation. COM(2006) 208 final. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0208:FIN:en:PDF

  • European Commission. (2013). Education and training monitor 2013. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/publications/monitor13_en.pdf

  • European Students’ Union (ESU) & Education International (EI). (2010). Student centered learning. An insight into theory and practice. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.esu-online.org/pageassets/projects/projectarchive/2010-T4SCL-Stakeholders-Forum-Leuven-An-Insight-Into-Theory-And-Practice.pdf

  • Feldman, K. A. (2007). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 93–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2009). Understanding student learning. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. Enhancing academic practice (pp. 8–26). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geven, K., & Attard, A. (2012). Time for student-centred learning? In A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, & L. Wilson (Eds.), European higher education at the crossroads (pp. 153–172). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  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. (2006). Theoretical and practical advances through research on learning. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 795–822). Washington, DC/Mahwah, NJ: American Educational Research Association/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    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 

  • Greeno, J. G., & Van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9–23.

    Article  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 

  • Haeffel, G. J., Thiessen, E. D., Campbell, M. W., Kaschak, M. P., & McNeil, N. M. (2009). Theory, not cultural context, will advance American psychology. American Psychologist, 64(6), 570–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, E., DeHaan, R., et al. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522.

    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 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (2009). Reconciling a human cognitive architecture. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 13–33). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. A. (2006). The restructuring of academic work: Themes and observations. Higher Education in Europe, 31(3), 317–325.

    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 

  • Kember, D. (2009). Promoting student-centred forms of learning across an entire university. Higher Education, 58(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath-van Ewijk, C., Büttner, G., & Klieme, E. (2010). Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: Investigating frequency, quality, and consequences for student performance. Metacognition Learning, 5, 157–171.

    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). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2013). The COACTIV research program on teachers’ professional competence: Summary and discussion. 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. 345–368). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Results from the COACTIV project. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions, and design. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 3–25). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie, D., & Rosman, A. J. (2007). Using active student-centred learning-based instructional design to develop faculty and improve course design, delivery, and evaluation. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(1), 105–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student centred learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321–334.

    Article  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 

  • Mandl, H., & Friedrich, H. F. (Eds.). (2006). Handbuch Lernstrategien [Handbook learning strategies]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 319–383). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I – outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning: II – outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 184–200). New York: Routledge.

    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 

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Accountable talk sourcebook: For classroom conversation that works. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://ifl.pitt.edu/index.php/educator_resources/accountable_talk

  • 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 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    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). (2002). Scientific research in education. Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. Shavelson, R. J. & Towne, L., Editors. Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson Laird, T. F., Seifert, T. A., Pascarella, E. T., Mayhew, M. J., & Blaich, C. F. (2011, November). Deeply effecting first-year students’ thinking: The effects of deep approaches to learning on three outcomes. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC.

    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 

  • Pascarella, E. T. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future research. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 508–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2011). Expertise in Swiss mathematics instruction. In Y. Li & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Expertise in mathematics instruction. An international perspective (pp. 85–107). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (2008). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can transform education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1977/1995). Sociological studies (2nd ed.; L. Smith et al., Trans.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. London: Society for Research in Higher Education & Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravitz, J. (2009). Summarizing findings and looking ahead to a new generation of PBL research. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 4–11.

    Article  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 

  • Reusser, K. (2008). Empirisch fundierte Didaktik – didaktisch fundierte Unterrichtsforschung. Eine Perspektive zur Neuorientierung der Allgemeinen Didaktik. In M. A. Meyer, M. Prenzel, & S. Hellekamps (Eds.), Perspektiven der Didaktik (Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Sonderheft 9/2008) (pp. 219–237). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reusser, K. (2009). Unterricht. In S. Andresen, R. Casale, T. Gabriel, R. Horlacher, S. Larcher Klee, & J. Oelkers (Eds.), Handwörterbuch Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 881–896). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Approaches to studying, conceptions of learning and learning styles in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 288–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B. (2009). The empirical support for direct instruction. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 201–220). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K., & Greeno, J. G. (2009). Situativity and learning. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 347–453). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuh, L. K., & Barab, A. S. (2008). Philosophical perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merriënboer, & M. P. Dirscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 69–80). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., Lindgren, R., & Lewis, S. (2009). Constructivism in an age of non-constructivist assessments. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 34–61). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (2009). Cooperative learning. In G. McCulloch & D. Crook (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education. Abington, UK: Routledge.

    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 

  • Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 44–58.

    Article  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 

  • Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., & Meyer, D. K. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs about student learning and motivation. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 361–371). Boston: Springer.

    Chapter  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 

  • Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Saganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    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). Situative Educational Model for the Design of Powerful Student-Centered Learning Environments. In: Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education Classrooms. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94941-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94941-0_6

  • 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