A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it

Development Article

Abstract

Student-centered learning (SCL) identifies students as the owners of their learning. While SCL is increasingly discussed in K-12 and higher education, researchers and practitioners lack current and comprehensive framework to design, develop, and implement SCL. We examine the implications of theory and research-based evidence to inform those who seek clear guidelines to support students’ engagement and autonomous learning. SCL is rooted in constructivist and constructionist as well as self-determination theories. Constructs of these theories have been studied respectively; however, the intersections among the three theories require further exploration. First, we identify autonomy, scaffolding, and audience as key constructs of SCL engagement. Then, we propose a design framework that encompasses motivational, cognitive, social, and affective aspects of learning: Own it, Learn it, and Share it. It is recommended that students: (a) develop ownership over the process and achieve personally meaningful learning goals; (b) learn autonomously through metacognitive, procedural, conceptual, and strategic scaffolding; and (c) generate artifacts aimed at authentic audiences beyond the classroom assessment. Furthermore, we suggest ten design guidelines under the framework and conclude with questions for future research. 

Keywords

Student-centered learning Constructivism Constructionism Self-determination theory Autonomy Scaffolding 

References

  1. Aarts, H., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Hassin, R. R. (2004). Goal contagion: Perceiving is for pursuing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acee, T. W., Cho, Y., Kim, J. I., & Weinstein, C. E. (2012). Relationships among properties of college students’ self-set academic goals and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 32(6), 681–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. Advances in motivation and achievement, 10, 213–250.Google Scholar
  5. Andersen, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0?: Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Bristol: JISC.Google Scholar
  6. Andrade, H., Huff, K., & Brooke, G. (2012). Assessing learning. Education Digest, 78(3), 46–53.Google Scholar
  7. Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0, pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional social interaction among Swedish students. Internet & Higher Education, 13(4), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5), 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barrows, H. S. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 505–518). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blumberg, P. (2009). Developing learner-centered teaching: A practical guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible minds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bulu, S. T., & Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 507–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Casey, G. (2013). Building a student-centred learning framework using social software in the middle years classroom: An action research study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 12, 159–189.Google Scholar
  22. Chen, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2007). The effect of web-based question prompts on scaffolding knowledge integration and ill-structured problem solving. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group interaction. Instructional Science, 33, 484–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Christensen, C. R. (1987). Teaching and the case method. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  26. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clark, R., & Hannafin, M. (2011). Debate about the benefits of different levels of instructional guidance. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey, (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 367–382). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. P. (2010). The studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 755–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American educator, 15(3), 6–11.Google Scholar
  32. Conti, G. (1990). Identifying your teaching style. In M. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods (pp. 79–96). Malabar, FL: Krieger.Google Scholar
  33. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Toronto: Collier-MacMillan Canada Ltd.Google Scholar
  39. Dick, W. (1992). An instructional designer’s view of constructivism (p. 1). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation.Google Scholar
  40. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  42. Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Dym, C. L. (1999). Learning engineering: Design, languages, and experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(2), 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Erdogan, I., Campbell, T., & Abd-Hamid, N. H. (2011). The Student Actions Coding Sheet (SACS): An instrument for illuminating the shifts toward student-centered science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1313–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Estes, C. A. (2004). Promoting student-centered learning in experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(2), 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Evard, M. (1996). A community of designers: Learning through exchanging questions and answers. In M. Resnick (Ed.), Constructionism in practice: Rethinking the roles of technology in learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A phenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Flowerday, T., & Shell, D. F. (2015). Disentangling the effects of interest and choice on learning, engagement, and attitude. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Flynn, A., & Klein, J. (2001). The influence of discussion groups in a case-based learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gagne, R. M. (1988). Mastery learning and instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1(1), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gan, M. J., & Hattie, J. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42(6), 861–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gauvain, M. (2001). Cultural tools, social interaction and the development of thinking. Human Development, 44(2–3), 126–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ge, X., Chen, C., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers’ problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ge, X., & Land, S. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Glasgow, N. A. (1997). New curriculum for new times: A guide to student-centered, problem-based learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  56. Gorissen, C. J., Kester, L., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Martens, R. (2013). Autonomy supported, learner-controlled or system-controlled learning in hypermedia environments and the influence of academic self-regulation style. Interactive Learning Environments (ahead-of-print), 1–15.Google Scholar
  57. Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Research in Learning Technology, 3(2), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Re-examining cognition during student-centered, Web-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 767–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Land, S. M., & Lee, E. (2014). Student-centered, open learning environments: Research, theory, and practice. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 641–651). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 115–140)., A new paradigm of instructional theory Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT journal, 59(1), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Harel, I. E., & Papert, S. E. (1991). Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learning about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Huang, H. W., Wu, C. W., & Chen, N. S. (2012). The effectiveness of using procedural scaffoldings in a paper-plus-smartphone collaborative learning context. Computers & Education, 59(2), 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2015). ISTE Standards for Students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-students.
  70. Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Jonassen, D. H., Myers, J. M., & McKillop, A. M. (1996). From constructivism to constructionism: Learning with hypermedia/multimedia rather than from it. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  74. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  75. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2006). Spotlight on authentic learning: Student developed digital video projects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(2), 189–208.Google Scholar
  76. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10(3), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Keller, J. M. (2009). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  78. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualization of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kember, D. (2001). Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as a factor in adjusting to study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kim, C. (2012). The role of affective and motivational factors in designing personalized learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 563–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kim, C., & Bennekin, K. N. (2013). Design and implementation of volitional control support in mathematics courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(5), 793–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56, 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 549–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495–523. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lam, R. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Land, S., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student-centered learning environments. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 3–25). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  93. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Lee, E. (2011). Facilitating student-generated content using web 2.0 technologies. Educational Technology, 51(4), 36–40.Google Scholar
  95. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. MacGregor, S. K., & Lou, Y. (2004). Web-based learning: How task scaffolding and website design support knowledge acquisition. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Maclellan, E., & Soden, R. (2003). The importance of epistemic cognition in student-centered learning. Instructional Science, 32(3), 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (1992). Compliant cognition: The misalliance of management and instructional goals in current school reform. Educational Researcher, 21, 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  102. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(5), 45–53.Google Scholar
  104. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Montero-Fleta, B., & Pérez-Sabater, C. (2010). A research on blogging as a platform to enhance language skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences., 2(2), 773–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 270–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Morisano, D., Hirsh, J. B., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Shore, B. M. (2010). Setting, elaborating, and reflecting on personal goals improves academic performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Nelson, K. J., Quinn, C., Marrington, A., & Clarke, J. A. (2012). Good practice for enhancing the engagement and success of commencing students. Higher Education, 63(1), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Oliver, K. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Palenzuela, D. L. (1984). Critical evaluation of locus of control: Towards a reconceptualization of the construct and its measurement. Psychological Reports, 54(3), 683–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002). The effects of modeling expert cognitive strategies during problem-based learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26, 353–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. London: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Price, S., & Marshall, P. (2013). Designing for learning with tangible technologies. In R. Luckin, S. Puntambekar, P. Goodyear, B. Grabovski, J. Underwood, & N. Winters (Eds.), Handbook of Design in Educational Technology (p. 288). Rutledge.Google Scholar
  115. Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A., & Punie, Y. (2009). Learning 2.0: The Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe. Retrieved January 13, 2014, from http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/Learning-2.0.html.
  117. Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation & Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26(3), 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Reeves, T. C. (2006). How do you know they are learning? The importance of alignment in higher education. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(4), 294–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Ricoeur, P. (1966). Freedom and nature: The voluntary and the involuntary. Chicago: Northwestern University Press. (E.V. Kohak, Trans.).Google Scholar
  123. Rodicio, H. G., Sánchez, E., & Acuña, S. R. (2013). Support for self-regulation in learning complex topics from multimedia explanations: Do learners need extensive or minimal support? Instructional Science, 41(3), 539–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  125. Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2010). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: impact on students’ mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557–1586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Ryan, R. M., La Guardia, J. G., Solky-Butzel, J., Chirkov, V., & Kim, Y. (2005). On the interpersonal regulation of emotions: Emotional reliance across gender, relationships, and cultures. Personal Relationships, 12(1), 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Saettler, L. P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  132. Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Macmillan Publishing.Google Scholar
  134. Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition & Instruction, 16(4), 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Sharma, P., Xie, Y., Hsieh, P., Hsieh, W., & Yoo, S. (2008). Student learning outcomes in technology-enhanced constructivist learning environments. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (pp. 77–90). Westford, CT: Libraries Unlimited Inc.Google Scholar
  138. Sheppard, C., & Gilbert, J. (1991). Course design, teaching method and student epistemology. Higher Education, 22, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of research in science teaching, 40(1), 6–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Song, L., Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2007). Reconciling beliefs and practices in teaching and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Sweller, J. (2009). What human cognitive architecture tells us about constructivism. In S. Tobias, T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 127–143). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  143. Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  144. Trautmann, N. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 685–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. van Loon, A. M., Ros, A., & Martens, R. (2012). Motivated learning with digital learning tasks: What about autonomy and structure? Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 1015–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  147. Weigend, M. (2014). The Digital Woodlouse - Scaffolding in science-related scratch projects. Informatics in Education, 13(2), 293. doi:10.15388/infedu.2014.09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  150. Wolf, S. E., Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2003). Using an information problem-solving model as a metacognitive scaffold for multimedia-supported information-based problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Yang, Y. F., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Leadership, Technology, and Human Development, College of Education StatesboroGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboroUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational Psychology, College of EducationUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations