Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 3–29 | Cite as

Designing authentic activities in web-based courses

  • Jan Herrington
  • Thomas C. Reeves
  • Ron Oliver
  • Younghee Woo


INFLUENCED by constructivist educational theory and advances in technology, there is increasing interest in authentic activities as a basis for learning in both face-to-face and Web-based courses. Whereas traditionally, real-world activities have primarily served as vehicles for practice of skills or processes that are taught using traditional instructional methods, a more radical approach is to build a whole course of study around authentic activities and tasks. The authors of this paper argue that the value of authentic activity is not constrained to learning in real-life locations and practice, but that there are critical characteristics of authentic activities that can be incorporated into the design of Web-based courses to enhance learning online. We include a description of the theory, research, and development initiatives that provide the foundations for this approach. Finally, we present guidelines and examples for the design of complex authentic activities for online learning, together with the implications of this approach for teachers, students, and designers.


authentic activities characteristics of authentic activities Web-based learning environments online courses 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barab, S.A., & Landa, A. (1997). Designing effective interdisciplinary anchors.Educational Leadership, 54, 52–55.Google Scholar
  2. Barab, S.A., Squire, K.D., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, S., Harper, B., & Hedberg, J. (2001). Designing real-life cases to support authentic design activities. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Eds.),Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 73–81). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  4. Bottge, B. A., & Hasselbring, T.S. (1993). Taking word problems off the page.Educational Leadership, 50(7), 36–38.Google Scholar
  5. Boud, D., & Solomon, N. (Eds.) (2001).Work-Based Learning: A New Higher Education? Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R.D., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K., & Williams, S.M. (1990a). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J. D., Vye, N., Kinzer, C., & Risko, V. (1990b). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 381–413). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (1991). Activities as instructional tools: A framework for analysis and evaluation.Educational Researcher, 20(4), 9–23.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  10. Clayden, E., Desforges, C., Mills, C., & Rawson, W. (1994). Authentic activity and learning.British Journal of Educational Studies, 42(2), 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990a). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990b). Technology and the design of generative learning environments.Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.Google Scholar
  13. Cronin, J. C. (1993). Four misconceptions about authentic learning.Educational Leadership, 50(7), 78–80.Google Scholar
  14. Duchastel, P. C. (1997). A Web-based model for university instruction.Journal of educational technology systems, 25(3), 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1993).Designing environments for constructive learning. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Eyler, J., & D. E. Giles, J. (1999).Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Fitzsimmons, J. (2001).Designing an effective online unit: Theory and practice. Paper presented at the Teaching Online in Higher Education Online Conference, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, Indiana. [Online]. Available: http:/ / Scholar
  18. Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results.Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 390–393.Google Scholar
  19. Herrington, J., & Herrington, A. (1998). Authentic assessment and multimedia: How university students respond to a model of authentic assessment.Higher Education Research and Development, 17(3), 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T.C. (2002, December).The suspension of disbelief in authentic online learning environments, Paper presented at the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  21. Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.),Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 87–108). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998).Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Books.Google Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning.Educational Technology, 31(9), 28–33.Google Scholar
  24. Kantor, R.J., Waddington, T., & Osgood, R.E. (2000). Fostering the suspension of disbelief: The role of authenticity in goal-based scenarios.Interactive Learning Environments, 8(3), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koenders, A. (2002). Creating opportunities from challenges in on-line introductory biology. In A. Goody, J. Herrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.),Quality conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education, Volume 25 (pp. 393–400). Jamison, ACT: HERDSA.Google Scholar
  26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lebow, D., & Wager, W. W. (1994). Authentic activity as a model for appropriate learning activity: Implications for emerging instructional technologies.Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 25(3), 231–244.Google Scholar
  28. Luca, J., & Oliver, R. (2001). Developing generic skills through on-line courses. In C. Montgomerie & J. Viteli (Eds.),Proceedings of Ed-Media 2001 (Vol. 2, pp. 1163–1164). Tampere, Finland: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  29. McLellan, H. (1997). Creating virtual communities via the web. In B. H. Khan (Ed.),Web-based instruction (pp. 185–190). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  30. McLellan, H. (Ed.). (1996).Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Myers, S. (1993). A trial for Dmitri Karamazov.Educational Leadership, 50(7).Google Scholar
  33. Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (1999). Using online technologies to support problem based learning: Learners responses and perceptions.Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(158–79).Google Scholar
  34. Pennell, R., Durham, M., Ozog, M., & Spark, A. (1997). Writing in context: Situated learning on the web. In R. Kevill, R. Oliver, & R. Phillips (Eds.),What works and why: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 463–469). Perth, WA: Curtin University.Google Scholar
  35. Perreault, H.R. (1999). Authentic activities for business education.Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 41(1), 35–41.Google Scholar
  36. Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis)application of constructivism to the design of educational technology.Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reeves, T.C. (2002). Distance education and the professorate: The issue of productivity. In C. Vrasidas & G. V. Glass (Eds.),Distance education and distributed learning (135–156). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Reeves, T.C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In A. Goody, J. Herrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.),Quality conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education, Volume 25 (pp. 562–567). Jamison, ACT: HERDSA.Google Scholar
  39. Reeves, T.C., & Laffey, J.M. (1999). Design, assessment, and evaluation of a problem-based learning environment in undergraduate engineering.Higher Education Research and Development Journal, 18(2), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reeves, T.C., & Okey, J.R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191–202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.Google Scholar
  42. Schon, D.A. (1987).Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Shulman, L. (2000). Inventing the future. In P. Hutchings (Ed).Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Publications. [Online]. Available: inventing.htmGoogle Scholar
  44. Stanton, T.K., Giles, Jr., D.E., & Cruz, N.I. (1999).Service-learning: A movement’s pioneers reflection on its origins, practice, and future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Sternberg, R.J., Wagner, R.K., & Okagaki, L. (1993). Practical intelligence: The nature and role of tacit knowledge in work and at school. In J. M. Puckett & H. W. Reese (Eds.),Mechanisms of everyday cognition (pp. 205–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996).Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Wineburg, S.S. (1989). Remembrance of theories past.Educational Researcher, 18(5), 7–10.Google Scholar
  48. Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership.Educational Technology, 33(3), 16–21.Google Scholar
  49. Young, M.F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Young, M.F. (1995). Assessment of situated learning using computer environments.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(1), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Young, M.F., & McNeese, M. (1993). A situated cognition approach to problem solving with implications for computer-based learning and assessment. In G. Salvendy & M. J. Smith (Eds.),Human-computer interaction: Software and hardware interfaces, (Vol. II, pp. 825–830). New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Herrington
    • 1
  • Thomas C. Reeves
    • 2
  • Ron Oliver
    • 1
  • Younghee Woo
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Communications and MultimediaEdith Cowan UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.College of EducationThe University of GeorgiaUSA

Personalised recommendations