Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing E-learning environments for flexible activity and instruction

  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The contributions to this issue share a focus on design of e-learning environments. Instructional designers stand at very early stages of knowledge in this area, but with great potential for growth and progress. This commentary offers an activity-based perspective on e-learning environments, resulting in a flexible stance toward instructional strategies, artifact design, emergent activity, and learning outcomes. This same flexibility should be evident as we in the field appropriate theories from other disciplines and develop some of our own. I support the contributors' call for more design research specifically addressing challenging problems of practice encountered by design practitioners.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.),Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment.Higher Education, 32, 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1994). From visual word problems to learning communities: Changing conceptions of cognitive research. In K. McGilly (Ed.),Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 157–200). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B., & Margaryan, A. (this issue). CSCL and work-based activities in multicultural corporate settings.Educational Technology Research and Development, this issue.

  • Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B., & Strijker, A. (2001/2002). New pedagogies and re-usable learning objects: Toward a new economy in education.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(2), 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foshay, W. R., Silber, K. H., & Stelnicki, M. B. (2003).Writing training materials that work: How to train anyone to do anything: A practical guide for trainers based on current cognitive psychology and ID theory and research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment.Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (3), 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Carr, C. S., Van Merriënboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malpas, J. (2003). Martin Heidegger. In R. C. Solomon & D. Sherman (Eds.),The Blackwell guide to continental philosophy (pp. 143–162). Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1997, November–December). Instructional strategies that teach. CBT Solutions, 1–11. Online: http://www.id2.usu.edu/Papers/Contents.html.

  • Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Public Radio. (2004, January 26). Online reality. Radio interview with Edward Castranova. Online: http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfld=1617878.

  • Palloff, R. N. and Pratt, K. (1999).Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • The PT3 Group at Vanderbilt. (2003). Three Amigo3s: Using “anchored module inquiry” to help prepare future educators.Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (this issue). A developmental research agenda for online collaborative learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, this issue.

  • Riel, M., & Fulton, K. (2001, March) The role of technology in supporting learning communities.Phi Delta Kappan, 3, 518–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, E. (Ed.). (in press).Educational Technology, special issue on cultural studies.

  • Saito, R. (2002). Anxiety and waiting: A Heideggerian view of instructional computing simulation.Educational Technology, 42(1), 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury, D. F., Richards, B. F., & Klein, J. D. (1985). Designing practice: A review of prescriptions and recommendations from instructional design theories.Journal of Instructional Development, 8(4), 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 183–214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997).Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off the learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning.Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, D. A., & Edwards, E. K. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning.Quarterly Review of Distance Education,3(1). Online: http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/ososs.pdf.

  • Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Lane (Eds.),Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B., & Ryder, M. (1996). Dynamic learning communities: An alternative to designed instruction. In M. Simonson (Ed.),Proceedings of selected research and development presentations (pp. 800–809). Washington DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Online: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/bwilson/dlc.html.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCD CB 106, P.O. Box 173364, 80217-3364, Denver, CO, USA

    Brent G. Wilson (Professor of Information and Learning Technologies)

Authors
  1. Brent G. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilson, B.G. Designing E-learning environments for flexible activity and instruction. ETR&D 52, 77–84 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504720

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504720

Keywords

Search

Navigation