Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 167–202 | Cite as

The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments

  • MICHAEL J. HANNAFIN
  • SUSAN M. LAND
Article

Abstract

Direct instruction approaches, as well as the design processes that support them, have been criticized for failing to reflect contemporary research and theory in teaching, learning, and technology. Learning systems are needed that encourage divergent reasoning, problem solving, and critical thinking. Student-centered learning environments have been touted as a means to support such processes. With the emergence of technology, many barriers to implementing innovative alternatives may be overcome. The purposes of this paper are to review and critically analyze research and theory related to technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments and to identify their foundations and assumptions.

student-centered learning learning environments technology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackermann, E. (1991). From decontextualized to situated knowledge: Revisiting Piaget's water-level experiment, in I. Harel & S. Papert, eds., Constructionism (pp. 269–294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  2. APA (1992). Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: Guidelines for School Redesign and Reform (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J.R. & Reder, L.M. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing, in L. S. Cermak & F.I.M. Craik, eds., Levels of Processing in Human Memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R., Spiro, R. & Anderson, M. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal 15: 433–440.Google Scholar
  5. Bagley, C. & Hunter, B. (1992). Restructuring, constructivism, and technology: Forging a new relationship. Educational Technology 32(7): 22–27.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist 37: 122–147.Google Scholar
  7. Belmont, J. (1989). Cognitive strategies and strategic learning. American Psychologist 37: 122–147.Google Scholar
  8. Bereiter, C. (1991). Implications of connectionism for thinking about rules. Educational Researcher 20(3): 2–9.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J., Franks, J., Vye, N. & Sherwood, R. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can't be told, in S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony, eds., Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (pp. 470–497). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, J.S. (1985). Process versus product: A perspective on tools for communal and informal electronic learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research 1: 179–201.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18(1): 32–41.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge. Educational Technology 33(3): 10–15.Google Scholar
  13. Choi, J-I. & Hannafin, M.J. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development 43(2): 53–69.Google Scholar
  14. Chung, J. & Reigeluth, C. (1992). Instructional prescriptions for learner control. Educational Technology 32(10): 14–20.Google Scholar
  15. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology 31(5): 34–40.Google Scholar
  16. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development 40(1): 65–80.Google Scholar
  17. Collins, A., Brown, J.S. & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics, in L.B. Resnick, ed., Knowing, Learning and Instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Craik, F.I.M. & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 671–684.Google Scholar
  19. Craik, F.I.M. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104: 268–294.Google Scholar
  20. Crane, G. & Mylonas, E. (1988). The Perseus Project: An interactive curriculum on classical Greek civilization. Educational Technology 28(11): 25–32.Google Scholar
  21. Cunningham, D.J. (1987). Outline of an education semiotic. The American Journal of Semiotics 5(2): 201–216.Google Scholar
  22. Derry, S. & Murphy, D. (1986). Designing systems that train learning ability: From theory to practice. Review of Educational Research 56: 1–39.Google Scholar
  23. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
  24. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer's view of constructivism. Educational Technology 31(5): 41–44.Google Scholar
  26. Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1990). The Systematic Design of Instruction (3rd Ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company.Google Scholar
  27. diSessa, A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science 6: 37–75.Google Scholar
  28. diSessa, A. & White, B. (1982). Learning physics from a dynaturtle. Byte 7: 324.Google Scholar
  29. Driver & Scanlon (1988). Conceptual change in science. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning (5): 25–36.Google Scholar
  30. Edwards, L.D. (1995). The design and analysis of a mathematical microworld. Journal of Educational Computing Research 12(1): 77–94.Google Scholar
  31. Gagné, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  32. Gagné, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1988). Principles of Instructional Design (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  33. Gagné, R. & Merrill, M.D. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development 38: 23–30.Google Scholar
  34. Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of design. Review of Educational Research 46: 1–24.Google Scholar
  35. Guba, E.G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog, in E. Guba, ed., The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 17–27). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Hannafin, K.M. & Grumelli, M. (1993, February). Focusing Pedagogy on Problem Solving: Modeling Problem-Solving Strategies in an Undergraduate Humanities Course. Presented at the National Conference on Successful College Teaching and Administration, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  37. Hannafin, M.J. (1989). Interaction strategies and emerging instructional technologies: Psychological perspectives. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication 18: 167–179.Google Scholar
  38. Hannafin, M.J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development 40(1): 49–63.Google Scholar
  39. Hannafin, M.J. (1995). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, assumptions, and implications for automated design, in R. Tennyson, ed., Perspectives on Automating Instructional Design (pp. 101–129). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  40. Hannafin, M.J., Hall, C., Land, S.M. & Hill, J.R. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications. Educational Technology 34(8): 48–55.Google Scholar
  41. Hannafin, M.J., Hannafin, K.M., Hooper, S.R., Rieber, L.P. & Kini, A. (1996). Research on and research with emerging technologies, in D. Jonassen, ed., Handbook of Research on Educational Communication and Technology (pp. 378–402). New York: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  42. Hannafin, M.J., Hill, J. & Land, S. (in press). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implications. Contemporary Education.Google Scholar
  43. Hannafin, M.J. & Rieber, L.P. (1989a). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based instructional technologies: Part I. Educational Technology Research and Development 37: 91–101.Google Scholar
  44. Hannafin, M.J. & Rieber, L.P. (1989b). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based instructional technologies: Part II. Educational Technology Research and Development 37: 102–114.Google Scholar
  45. Harel, I. & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning environment, in I. Harel & S. Papert, eds., Constructionism (pp. 41–84). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  46. Hooper, S. & Hannafin, M.J. (1991). Psychological perspectives on emerging instructional technologies: A critical analysis. Educational Psychologist 26: 69–95.Google Scholar
  47. Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development 39: 5–14.Google Scholar
  48. Jonassen, D. (1992). What are cognitive tools? in P. Kommers & H. Mandl, eds., Cognitive Tools for Learning. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  49. Jonassen, D. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  50. Jonassen, D. & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools, in D. Jonassen, ed., Handbook of Research on Educational Communication and Technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  51. Karmiloff-Smith, A. & Inhelder, B. (1975). If you want to get ahead, get a theory. Cognition 3(3): 195–212.Google Scholar
  52. Kember, D. & Murphy, D. (1990). Alternative new directions for instructional design. Educational Technology 30(8): 42–47.Google Scholar
  53. Klatzky, R. (1975). Human Memory: Structures and Processes. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  54. Kozma, R. B. (1987). The implications of cognitive psychology for computer-based learning tools. Educational Technology 27(11): 20–25.Google Scholar
  55. Land, S.M. & Hannafin, M.J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development 44(3): 37–53.Google Scholar
  56. Land, S.M. & Hannafin, M.J. (in press). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments: A qualitative study. Educational Technology Research and Development.Google Scholar
  57. Language Development and Hypermedia Research Group (1992). Bubble Dialogue: A new tool for instruction and assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development 40(2): 59–67.Google Scholar
  58. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  59. Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivistic values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development 41(3): 4–16.Google Scholar
  60. Lebow D. & Johnson, D. (1993). Integrating emerging technologies into fitness education. FAHPERD Journal Fall: 38–42.Google Scholar
  61. Levin, J. & Waugh, M. (1987). Educational simulations, tools, games, and microworlds: Computer-based environments for learning. International Journal of Educational Research 12(1): 71–79.Google Scholar
  62. Lee, O., Eichinger, D., Anderson, C., Berkheimer, G. & Blakeslee, T. (1993). Changing middle school students' conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30(3): 249–270.Google Scholar
  63. Lewis, E., Stern, J. & Linn, M. (1993). The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educational Technology 28(11): 8–12.Google Scholar
  64. Li, Z. & Merrill, M. (1990). Transaction shells: A new apprach to courseware authoring. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 23(1): 72–86.Google Scholar
  65. Linn, M. & Muilenburg, L. (1996). Creating lifelong science learners: What models form a firm foundation? Educational Researcher 25(5): 18–24.Google Scholar
  66. Marchionin, G. (1988). Hypermedia and learning: Freedom and chaos. Educational Technology 33(1): 45–58.Google Scholar
  67. Mayer, R.E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist 19: 30–42.Google Scholar
  68. Mayer, R.E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research 59: 43–64.Google Scholar
  69. McCaslin, M. & Good, T. (1992). Compliant cognition: The misalliance of management and instructional goals in current school reform. Educational Researcher 21(3): 4–17.Google Scholar
  70. McDermott, L. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today 37: 24–32.Google Scholar
  71. Merrill, M.D., Li, Z. & Jones, M. (1990a). Limitations of first generation instructional design. Educational Technology 30(1): 7–11.Google Scholar
  72. Merrill, M.D., Li, Z. & Jones, M. (1990b). The second generation instructional design research program. Educational Technology 30(3): 26–31.Google Scholar
  73. Miller, G. (1956). Information and memory. Scientific American 8: 28–32.Google Scholar
  74. National Science Teachers' Association (1993). NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation: An NSTA Position Statement. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers' Association.Google Scholar
  75. Novak, J. & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal 28(1): 117–153.Google Scholar
  76. Olson, J. (1988). Schoolworlds/Microworlds: Computers and the Culture of the Classroom. New York: Pergammon Press.Google Scholar
  77. Palincsar, A. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1(2): 117–175.Google Scholar
  78. Papert, S. (1993a). The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  79. Papert, S. (1993b). Mindstorms (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  80. Pea, R.D., (1991). Learning through multimedia. IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications 7: 58–66.Google Scholar
  81. Pea, R.D., (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education, in G. Salomon's, ed., Distributed Intelligence (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  82. Perkins, D. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology 31(5): 18–23.Google Scholar
  83. Perkins, D. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning, in G. Salomon's, ed., Distributed Intelligence (pp. 89–109). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  84. Perkins, D. & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher 18(1): 16–25.Google Scholar
  85. Perkins, D. & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research 58: 303–326.Google Scholar
  86. Phillips, D.C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher 24(7): 5–12.Google Scholar
  87. Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Reigeluth, C.M. (1989). Educational technology at the crossroads: New mindsets and new directions. Educational Technology Research and Development 37(1): 67–80.Google Scholar
  89. Reigeluth, C.M. (1996). A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology 36(5): 13–20.Google Scholar
  90. Rieber, L.P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development 40(1): 93–106.Google Scholar
  91. Roth, W.M. & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal in Research in Science Teaching 30(2): 127–152.Google Scholar
  92. Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of Media, Cognition, and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  93. Salomon, G. (1986). Information technologies: What you see is not (always) what you get. Educational Psychologist 20: 207–216.Google Scholar
  94. Salomon, G., Globerson, T. & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions froma reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology 81(4): 620–627.Google Scholar
  95. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher 4: 2–8.Google Scholar
  96. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing, in S.F. Chipman, J.W. Segal & R. Glaser, eds., Thinking and Learning Skills: Research and Open Questions (pp. 563–577). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  97. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J. & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research 5: 51–68.Google Scholar
  98. Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  99. Schwartz, J. & Yerushalmy, M. (1987). The Geometric Supposer: Using microcomputers to restore invention to the learning of mathematics, in D. Perkins, J. Lockhead & J. Bishop, eds., Thinking: Proceedings of the Second International Conference (pp. 525–536). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  100. Shotsberger, P. (1996). Instructional uses of the World Wide Web: Exemplars and precautions. Educational Technology 36(2): 47–50.Google Scholar
  101. Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M. & Coulson, R. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology 5: 24–33.Google Scholar
  102. Spiro, R. & Jengh, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility, random access instruction, and hypertext: Theory and technology for non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter, in D. Nix and R. Spiro, eds., Cognition, Education, and Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  103. Steinberg, E. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 3: 84–90.Google Scholar
  104. Steinberg, E. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977–1988. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 16: 117–121.Google Scholar
  105. Strommen, E. & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Education and Urban Society 24: 466–476.Google Scholar
  106. Thurber, B.D., Macy, G. & Pope, J. (1991). The book, the computer, and the humanities. T.H.E. Journal 8: 57–61.Google Scholar
  107. Tobin, K. & Dawson, G. (1992). Constraints to curriculum reform: Teachers and the myths of schooling. Educational Technology Research and Development 40(1): 81–92.Google Scholar
  108. Trollip, S.R. & Lippert, R.C. (1987). Constructing knowledge bases: A promising instructional tool. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 14(2): 44–48.Google Scholar
  109. Twigger, D., Byard, M., Draper, S., Driver, R., Hartley, R., Hennessy, S., Mallen, C., Mohamed, R., O'Malley, C., O'shea, T. & Scanlon, E. (1991). The ‘conceptual change in science’ project. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning 7: 144–155.Google Scholar
  110. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  111. White, B. & Horwitz, P. (1987). ThinkerTools: Enabling Children to Understand Physical Laws. Cambridge, MA: BBN Laboratories.Google Scholar
  112. Whitehead, A.N. (1929). The Aims of Education. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  113. Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for mathematics education, in I. Harel & S. Papert, eds., Constructionism (pp. 193–203). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  114. Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership? Educational Technology 3: 16–20.Google Scholar
  115. Yankelovich, N., Haan, B., Meyrowitz, N. & Drucker, S. (1988). Intermedia: The concept and the construction of a seamless information environment. Computer 21(1): 81–96.Google Scholar
  116. Young, M. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 41(1): 43–58.Google Scholar
  117. Young, M. & McNeese, M. (1995). A situated cognition approach to problem solving, in J. Flach, P. Hancock & K. Vicente, eds., The Ecology of Human-Machine Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • MICHAEL J. HANNAFIN
    • 1
  • SUSAN M. LAND
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning and Performance Support LaboratoryUniversity of GeorgiaU.S.A

Personalised recommendations