Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating “The Coolest School in America”: how technology is used in a learner-centered school

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

Abstract

Reigeluth et al. (Educ Technol 48(6):32–39, 2008) proposed major and secondary functions for educational technology systems for the learner-centered paradigm of education. However, the functions proposed should be formatively evaluated and revised using a variety of cases to develop a better understanding of how technology can support student learning in the new paradigm. Using the Minnesota New Country School as a case, this study aimed to improve the selection and description of functions that educational technology should serve in the information age. Multiple mixed methods were used to collect and analyze data from the advisors (a role similar to teachers) and students. The findings identified the functions of the school’s major educational technology system (Project Foundry) and revealed how the key stakeholders, including the advisors and students, used it and what suggestions they had for its improvement.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Unlike descriptive theory, which is conclusion-oriented, a design theory is goal-oriented (Simon 1996), offering the best known means for accomplishing given ends under given conditions (Reigeluth 1999; Reigeluth and Carr-Chellman 2009).

  2. Teachers at MNCS are called advisors because their roles are so different from the traditional concept of teacher.

  3. For more thick descriptions of the results, refer to the doctoral dissertation of the first author (DELETED).

  4. Note that Project Foundry is a project management tool, whereas the websites were resources to use to conduct a project.

References

  • Aslan, S. (2012). Investigating “the coolest school in America”: A study of a learner-centered school and educational technology in the information age. (Order No. 3550777, Indiana University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 303. http://ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1316886672?accountid=11620. (prod.academic_MSTAR_1316886672).

  • Chen, L. H. (2011). Enhancement of student learning performance using personalized diagnosis and remedial learning system. Computers & Education, 56(1), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, P. (2013). Personalized Integrated Educational Systems (PIES) for the learner-centered information-Age paradigm of education: A study to improve the design of the functions and features of PIES. (Ph.D., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN).

  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., & Singer, E. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G. J., Sung, H. Y., Hung, C. M., Huang, I., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). Development of a personalized educational computer game based on students’ learning styles. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 623–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, B. L. (2013). The learner-centered model: From the vision to the future. In J. H. D. Cornelius-White, R. Motschnig-Pitrik, & M. Lux (Eds.), Interdisciplinary handbook of the person centered approach: Connections beyond psychotherapy. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1991). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota New Country School. (2012). http://www.newcountryschool.com/.

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 5–29). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. (2009). Theory building. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 385–386). Oxford: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Aslan, S., Chen, Z., Dutta, P., Huh, Y., Jung, E., et al. (2015). Personalized integrated educational system technology functions for the learner-centered paradigm of education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(3), 459–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 3–26). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 633–651). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Karnopp, J. R. (2013). Reinventing schools: It’s time to break the mold. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2011). Personalized integrated educational systems: Technology for the information-age paradigm of education in higher education. In S. P. Ferris (Ed.), Teaching and learning with the net generation. IGI Global: Hershey, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C., Watson, S. L., Watson, W., Dutta, P., Chen, Z., & Powell, N. D. P. (2008). Roles for technology in the information-age paradigm of education: learning management systems. Educational Technology, 48(6), 32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Software & Information Industry Association (2010). Innovate to educate: System [re]design for personalized learning: A report from the 2010 Symposium. In collaboration with ASCD and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, DC. Author: Mary Ann Wolf.

  • Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and practice. CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Szafir, D., & Mutlu, B. (2012). Pay attention!: designing adaptive agents that monitor and improve user engagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 11–20). ACM.

  • Thomas, D., Enloe, W., & Newell, R. J. (2005). “ The coolest school in America”: How small learning communities are changing everything. Lanham: Scarecrow Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2006). Charter High Schools: Closing the Achievement Gap. http://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/charterhs/report.pdf.

  • Watson, W. R., Lee, S. K., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2007). Learning management systems: An overview and roadmap of the systemic application of computers to education. In F. M. Neto & F. V. Brasileiro (Eds.), Advances in computer-supported learning (pp. 66–96). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2007). An argument for clarity: What are learning management systems, what are they not, and what should they become? TechTrends, 51(2), 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. R., Watson, S. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2012). A systemic integration of technology for new-paradigm education. Educational Technology, 52(5), 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. R., Watson, S. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Education 3.0: Breaking the mold with technology. Interactive Learning. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.764322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects (pp. 1–35). http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc.

  • Yildirim, Z., Reigeluth, C. M., Kwon, S., Kageto, Y., & Shao, Z. (2013). A comparison of learning management systems in a school district: Searching for the ideal personalized integrated educational system (PIES). Interactive Learning Environments. doi:10.1080/10494820.2012.745423.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Intel Corporation, Istanbul, Turkey

    Sinem Aslan

  2. Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

    Charles M. Reigeluth

Authors
  1. Sinem Aslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles M. Reigeluth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles M. Reigeluth.

Appendix

Appendix

Tables 11 and 12.

Table 11 Individual interview questions
Full size table
Table 12 Questionnaire
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aslan, S., Reigeluth, C.M. Investigating “The Coolest School in America”: how technology is used in a learner-centered school. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 1107–1133 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9450-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9450-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation