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, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
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.
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.
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.
Andersen, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0?: Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Bristol: JISC.
Andrade, H., Huff, K., & Brooke, G. (2012). Assessing learning. Education Digest, 78(3), 46–53.
Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0, pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional social interaction among Swedish students. Internet & Higher Education, 13(4), 197–205.
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.
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.
Barrows, H. S. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.
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.
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.
Blumberg, P. (2009). Developing learner-centered teaching: A practical guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible minds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Christensen, C. R. (1987). Teaching and the case method. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Tool use in computer-based learning environments: towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 389–411.
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.
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.
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.
Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 143–159.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American educator, 15(3), 6–11.
Conti, G. (1990). Identifying your teaching style. In M. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods (pp. 79–96). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134.
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.
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.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Toronto: Collier-MacMillan Canada Ltd.
Dick, W. (1992). An instructional designer’s view of constructivism (p. 1). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation.
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.
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dym, C. L. (1999). Learning engineering: Design, languages, and experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(2), 145–148.
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.
Estes, C. A. (2004). Promoting student-centered learning in experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(2), 141–160.
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.
Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A phenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 634.
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.
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.
Gagne, R. M. (1988). Mastery learning and instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1(1), 7–18.
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.
Gauvain, M. (2001). Cultural tools, social interaction and the development of thinking. Human Development, 44(2–3), 126–143.
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.
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.
Glasgow, N. A. (1997). New curriculum for new times: A guide to student-centered, problem-based learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT journal, 59(1), 31–38.
Harel, I. E., & Papert, S. E. (1991). Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing.
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.
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.
Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learning about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247–298.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.
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.
Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2006). Spotlight on authentic learning: Student developed digital video projects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(2), 189–208.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10(3), 2–10.
Keller, J. M. (2009). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York: Springer.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualization of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275.
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.
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.
Kim, C. (2012). The role of affective and motivational factors in designing personalized learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 563–584.
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.
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.
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.
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664–687.
King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307.
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.
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.
Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109–113.
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.
Lam, R. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 114.
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.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, E. (2011). Facilitating student-generated content using web 2.0 technologies. Educational Technology, 51(4), 36–40.
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.
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.
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.
Maclellan, E., & Soden, R. (2003). The importance of epistemic cognition in student-centered learning. Instructional Science, 32(3), 253–268.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14.
McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (1992). Compliant cognition: The misalliance of management and instructional goals in current school reform. Educational Researcher, 21, 4–17.
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.
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.
Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(5), 45–53.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.
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.
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 270–298.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002). The effects of modeling expert cognitive strategies during problem-based learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26, 353–380.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. London: Psychology Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ricoeur, P. (1966). Freedom and nature: The voluntary and the involuntary. Chicago: Northwestern University Press. (E.V. Kohak, Trans.).
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.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saettler, L. P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
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.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55, 79–88.
Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition & Instruction, 16(4), 475.
Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46.
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.
Sheppard, C., & Gilbert, J. (1991). Course design, teaching method and student epistemology. Higher Education, 22, 229–249.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York: Macmillan.
Trautmann, N. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 685–704.
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.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weigend, M. (2014). The Digital Woodlouse - Scaffolding in science-related scratch projects. Informatics in Education, 13(2), 293. doi:10.15388/infedu.2014.09.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
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.
Yang, Y. F., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 72–83.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.
About this article
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
- Student-centered learning
- Self-determination theory