Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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. 

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Andersen, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0?: Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Bristol: JISC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H., Huff, K., & Brooke, G. (2012). Assessing learning. Education Digest, 78(3), 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0, pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional social interaction among Swedish students. Internet & Higher Education, 13(4), 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumberg, P. (2009). Developing learner-centered teaching: A practical guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible minds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. R. (1987). Teaching and the case method. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American educator, 15(3), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti, G. (1990). Identifying your teaching style. In M. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods (pp. 79–96). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Toronto: Collier-MacMillan Canada Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. (1992). An instructional designer’s view of constructivism (p. 1). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L. (1999). Learning engineering: Design, languages, and experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(2), 145–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estes, C. A. (2004). Promoting student-centered learning in experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(2), 141–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A phenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1988). Mastery learning and instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1(1), 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauvain, M. (2001). Cultural tools, social interaction and the development of thinking. Human Development, 44(2–3), 126–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasgow, N. A. (1997). New curriculum for new times: A guide to student-centered, problem-based learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Research in Learning Technology, 3(2), 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT journal, 59(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harel, I. E., & Papert, S. E. (1991). Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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 

  • Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learning about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2015). ISTE Standards for Students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-students.

  • Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10(3), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (2009). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C. (2012). The role of affective and motivational factors in designing personalized learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 563–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, R. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. (2011). Facilitating student-generated content using web 2.0 technologies. Educational Technology, 51(4), 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclellan, E., & Soden, R. (2003). The importance of epistemic cognition in student-centered learning. Instructional Science, 32(3), 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (1992). Compliant cognition: The misalliance of management and instructional goals in current school reform. Educational Researcher, 21, 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(5), 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 270–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002). The effects of modeling expert cognitive strategies during problem-based learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26, 353–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. London: Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (1966). Freedom and nature: The voluntary and the involuntary. Chicago: Northwestern University Press. (E.V. Kohak, Trans.).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saettler, L. P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55, 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition & Instruction, 16(4), 475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sheppard, C., & Gilbert, J. (1991). Course design, teaching method and student epistemology. Higher Education, 22, 229–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trautmann, N. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 685–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigend, M. (2014). The Digital Woodlouse - Scaffolding in science-related scratch projects. Informatics in Education, 13(2), 293. doi:10.15388/infedu.2014.09.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y. F., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 72–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Leadership, Technology, and Human Development, College of Education Statesboro, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, 30460, USA

    Eunbae Lee

  2. Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Michael J. Hannafin

Authors
  1. Eunbae Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Hannafin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eunbae Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, E., Hannafin, M.J. A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 707–734 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation