Advertisement

Engaged Learning: Making Learning an Authentic Experience

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter attempts to make sense of engaged learning. Approaches such as problem-based learning should be advocated because it is an authentic form of learning encouraging students to be self-regulated and thus metacognitive towards their own thinking and behaviors. Contrary to passive forms of instruction where learners are not perceived to be active and engaged, neither reflective, we are highlighting alternative pedagogies which promote this sense of self-regulatory actions. We describe the engaged learning framework — focusing on both problem and process — which would be necessary for authenticity in learning experiences.

Keywords

engaged learning authentic experience self-regulated learning problem-based learning metacognitive strategies collaboration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barron, B.J.S., Schwartz, D.L., Vye, N.J., Moore, A., Petrosino, T., Sech, L., Bransford, J., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4), 271–313.Google Scholar
  3. Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2000). Process and product in Problem-Based Learning (PBL) research. In D.H. Evensen (Ed.) Problem-Based Learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 185–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self assessment. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  6. Boud, D. & Feletti, G. (Eds.) (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning. Stirling: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  7. Bredo, E. (1994). Reconstructing educational psychology: Situated cognition and Deweyan pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological learning theory and the design of innovative environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Shauble & R. Glaser (Eds.). Contributions of instructional innovation to understanding learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, D. (2002). Qualitative approaches to investigating self-regulated learning: Contributions and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1964). Science as subject matter and as method. In R.D. Archambault (Ed.). John Dewey on Education: Selected writings (pp. 121–127). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Edelson, D.C. (1998). Realising authentic science learning through the adaptation of science practice (pp. 317–331). In B.J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Edelson, D., Gordin, D., & Pea, R. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3 & 4), 391–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engle, R.A., & Conant, F.R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: The critique of functionalist reason. Vol 2. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hmelo, C., & Evensen, D.H. (2000). Problem-Based Learning: Gaining insights on learning interactions. In D.H. Evensen (Ed.) Problem-Based Learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 4–8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Hung, D. (2002). Situated cognition and Problem based learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(4), 393–414.Google Scholar
  18. Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with Technology: A constructivist perspective. NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, B.F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J. & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging in: Choosing and Using Educational Technology. Washington DC: Council for Educational Development and Research.Google Scholar
  20. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala.Google Scholar
  22. Myer, D.K., & Turner, J.C. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  24. Newmann, F.M., & Wehlage, G.G. (April, 1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8–12.Google Scholar
  25. Patrick, H., & Middleton, M.J. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paris, S.G., & Paris, A.H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patrick, H., & Middleton, M.J. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roth, W-M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Savery, J. & Duffy, T. (1998). Problem Based Learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In R. Fogarty (Ed.). Problem Based Learning: A collection of articles (pp. 73–92). IL: SkyLight Training and Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37–68.Google Scholar
  31. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge-building organizations. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental health and wealth of nations (pp. 274–289). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  32. Singer, J., Marx, R.W., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stepien, W., & Gallagher, S. (1998). Problem-Based Learning: As authentic as it gets. In R. Fogarty (Ed.). Problem Based Learning: A collection of articles (pp. 43–49). IL: SkyLight Training and Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Zimmerman, B. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D.H. Schunk & BJ. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational implications (pp. 3–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingapore

Personalised recommendations