Authentic Learning Environments

  • Jan Herrington
  • Thomas C. Reeves
  • Ron Oliver


Authentic learning is a pedagogical approach that situates learning tasks in the context of future use. Over the last two decades, authentic learning designs have captured the imaginations of innovative educators who see the approach as a means to enable students to develop robust knowledge that transfers to real-world practice. Authentic learning has its foundations in the theory of situated cognition, together with other pedagogical approaches developed over the last two decades, such as anchored instruction. It offers an alternative instructional model based upon sound principles for the design and implementation of complex and realistic learning tasks. The technologies associated with technology-based learning provide ideal conditions for the implementation of the approach, both in blended and fully online courses. New Web-based technologies and mobile devices provide affordances—as both cognitive tools and delivery platforms—for dissemination of polished and professional authentic learning experiences. As educational institutions increasingly embrace the internet and Web-supported learning, the potential exists for authentic learning environments to be used widely to improve student learning. This chapter reviews the seminal and recent literature in the field, and provides a model of authentic learning for the design of learning environments across educational sectors.


Authentic learning environments Authentic assessment Cognitive tools Situated cognition 



This research has been supported in part by the Australian Research Council, the Australian-American Fulbright Commission, the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, and Murdoch University.


  1. Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  2. Angus, M., & Gray, J. (2002). Description of a situated learning approach in a research methods postgraduate subject. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from
  3. Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A., Squire, K. D., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barton, K., McKellar, P., & Maharg, P. (2007). Authentic fictions: Simulation, professionalism and legal learning. Clinical Law Review, 14, 143–193.Google Scholar
  7. Bonk, C. J. (2009, October 5). Using shared online video to anchor instruction: YouTube and beyond. Faculty Focus. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from
  8. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 18–40). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., Vye, N., Kinzer, C., & Risko, V. (1990). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 381–413). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Brickell, G., & Herrington, J. (2006). Scaffolding learners in authentic problem-based e-learning environments: The geography challenge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 531–547.
  12. *Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge. Educational Technology, 33(3), 10–15.Google Scholar
  14. Callison, D., & Lamb, A. (2004). Authentic learning. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 21(4), 34–39.Google Scholar
  15. Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chang, C.-W., Lee, J.-H., Wang, C.-Y., & Chen, G.-D. (2010). Improving the authentic learning experience by integrating robots into the mixed-reality environment. Computers in Education, 55(4), 1572–1578. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Choi, J., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.Google Scholar
  21. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 121–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. *Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  24. Collis, C., Foth, M., & Schroeter, R. (2009). The Brisbane media map: Participatory design and authentic learning to link students and industry. Learning Inquiry, 3(3), 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deale, C. S., Elders, E., & Jacques, P. H. (2010). The Appalachian Growers’ Fair: An authentic learning, community engagement, sustainable tourism project. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 10(2), 143–162. doi: 10.1080/15313221003792001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  27. Diamond, S., Middleton, A., & Mather, R. (2011). A cross-faculty simulation model for authentic learning. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 48(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 1–16). Hillsdale NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 151–164). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  30. Fitzsimmons, J. (2006). Speaking snake: Authentic learning and the study of literature. In A. Herrington & J. Herrington (Eds.), Authentic learning environments in higher education (pp. 162–171). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  32. Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 390–393.Google Scholar
  33. Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 117–138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gulikers, J. T., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86. doi: 10.1007/bf02504676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gulikers, J. T., Bastiaens, T. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2008). Authenticity is in the eye of the beholder: Student and teacher perceptions of assessment authenticity. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 60(4), 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Herrington, J. (1997). Authentic learning in interactive multimedia environments. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Edith Cowan University, Perth.Google Scholar
  37. *Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (Eds.). (2006). Authentic learning environments in higher education. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2007). What is an authentic learning environment? In L. A. Tomei (Ed.), Online and distance learning: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 68–76). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. *Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.Google Scholar
  40. *Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59–71. Google Scholar
  41. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2007). Immersive learning technologies: Realism and online authentic learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(1), 80–99. doi: 10.1007/BF03033421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. *Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. *Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
  44. *Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 87–108). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (2007). Learning to solve complex scientific problems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Kantor, R. J., Waddington, T., & Osgood, R. E. (2000). Fostering the suspension of disbelief: The role of authenticity in goal-based scenarios. Interactive Learning Environments, 8(3), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Kemmis, S. (1985). Action research and the politics of reflection. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 139–163). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  49. Keppell, M., Gunn, J., Hegarty, K., Madden, V., O’Connor, V., Kerse, N., et al. (2003). Using authentic patient interactions to teach cervical screening to medical students. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), World Conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2003 (pp. 1439–1446). Norfolk, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  50. Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35(3), 207–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Knotts, G., Henderson, L., Davidson, R. A., & Swain, J. D. (2009). The search for authentic practice across the disciplinary divide. College Teaching, 57(4), 188–196.Google Scholar
  53. *Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lebow, D., & Wager, W. W. (1994). Authentic activity as a model for appropriate learning activity: Implications for emerging instructional technologies. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 23(3), 231–244.Google Scholar
  55. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. *Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Approaches that work: How authentic learning is transforming higher education. ELI Report No. 5. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative.Google Scholar
  57. *Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. ELI Report No. 1. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative.Google Scholar
  58. Luigi, D.-P., Tortell, R., Morie, J., & Dozois, A. (2006). Effects of priming on behavior in virtual environments. Retrieved August 8, 2010, from
  59. Marks, H. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Educational design research. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elan, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), The handbook of research on educational and communications technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. *McLellan, H. (Ed.). (1996). Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  62. Merrienboer, J., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2005). The pedagogical use of information and communication technology in education: A Dutch perspective. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Meyers, N., & Nulty, D. (2009). How to use (five) curriculum design principles to align authentic learning environments, assessment, students’ approaches to thinking and learning outcomes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 565–577. doi: 10.1080/02602930802226502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Morrissey, P. (2006). Not just a name on the wall. Retrieved August, 2010, from
  65. Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  66. Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8–12.Google Scholar
  68. Oh, E. (2011). Collaborative group work in an online learning environment: A design research study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  69. Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2000). Using situated learning as a design strategy for Web-based learning. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp. 178–191). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  70. Oliver, R., Herrington, J., Herrington, A., & Reeves, T. (2008). Representing authentic learning designs supporting the development of online communities of learners. Journal of Learning Design, 2(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  71. Palmer, P. J., Zajonc, A., & Scribner, M. (2010). The heart of higher education: A call to renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  72. Pellegrino, J. W., & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 277–303). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pellegrino, J. W., Hickey, D., Heath, A., Rewey, K., Vye, N. J., & the CTGV. (1991). Assessing the outcomes of an innovative instructional program: The 19901991 implementation ofThe Adventures of Jasper Woodbury Program” (Technical Report No. 91-1). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Learning & Technology Center.Google Scholar
  74. *Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis)application of constructivism to the design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 53–65.Google Scholar
  75. Petraglia, J. (2009). The importance of being authentic: Persuasion, narration, and dialogue in health communication and education. Health Communication, 24(2), 176–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Reeves, T. C., Laffey, J. M., & Marlino, M. R. (1997). Using technology as cognitive tools: Research and praxis. In R. Kevill, R. Oliver, & R. Phillips (Eds.), What works and why: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 269–275). Perth, WA: Curtin University.Google Scholar
  77. Reeves, T. C., & Okey, J. R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191–202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  78. Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 59–66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  79. Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S. M. (2004). A time and a place for authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 73–77.Google Scholar
  80. Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.Google Scholar
  81. Rule, A. (2006). The components of authentic learning. Journal of Authentic Learning, 3(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  82. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Saxe, G. B. (1988). Candy selling and math learning. Educational Researcher, 17(6), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  85. Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 9–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Smith, N. L. (1987). Toward the justification of claims in evaluation research. Evaluation and Program Planning, 10, 309–314.Google Scholar
  87. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33.Google Scholar
  88. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Whitehead, A. N. (1932). The aims of education and other essays. London: Ernest Benn.Google Scholar
  91. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  92. Wigginton, B. E. (1985). Sometimes a shining moment: The Foxfire experience. New York, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  93. Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  94. Wilson, J. R., & Schwier, R. A. (2009). Authenticity in the process of learning about instructional design. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 35(2). Retrieved from
  95. Woo, Y., Herrington, J., Agostinho, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Implementing authentic tasks in web-based learning environments. Educause Quarterly, 2007(3), 36–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationMurdoch UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional TechnologyThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.Edith Cowan UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations