Advertisement

Student-Centered, Open Learning Environments: Research, Theory, and Practice

  • Michael J. Hannafin
  • Janette R. Hill
  • Susan M. Land
  • Eunbae Lee

Abstract

New learning environment designs and frameworks have emerged that are consistent with constructivist-inspired views of learning. Collectively, student-centered, open learning ­environments provide contexts wherein the individual determines learning goals, learning means, or both the learning goals and means. The individual may also establish and pursue individual learning goals with few or no external boundaries as typical during spontaneous, self-initiated learning from the Web. The approaches represent fundamentally different learning and design paradigms and philosophies. However, student or self-directed learning has been criticized for lacking compelling evidence to document effectiveness. As new models emerge and technologies develop, we need to both document evidence that supports and challenges student-centered approaches and refine our approaches to designing effective environments. This chapter provides an overview and critical analysis of student-centered learning, and proposes directions for advancing needed research, theory, and practice.

Keywords

Student-centered learning Self-directed learning Problem-based learning Open learning environments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the support and contributions of our numerous colleagues, collaborators, and coauthors who have shaped both the ideas and contributed to the scholarship upon which this chapter is based.

References

  1. Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load—recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 12, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., Barnett, M. G., & Squire, K. (2002). Building a community of teachers: Navigating the essential tensions in practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 489–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benson, L., Chambliss, J., Martinez, J., Tomasek, K., & Tuten, J. (2009). Teaching with the History Engine: Experiences from the field. Perspectives on History, 47(5). Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2009/0905/
  6. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 269–292). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charsky, D., & Ressler, W. (2011). “Games are made for fun”: Lessons on the effects of concept maps in the classroom use of computer games. Computers in Education, 56(3), 604–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Open learning environments and the impact of a pedagogical agent. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(3), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. *Clark, R., & Feldon, D. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 97–115). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. *Clark, R., & Hannafin, M. (2011). Debate about the benefits of different levels of instructional guidance. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.), (pp. 367–382). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, D. B., Nelson, B., Sengupta, P., & D’Angelo, C. M. (2009). Rethinking science learning through digital games and simulations: Genres, examples, and evidence. Proceedings of The National Academies Board on Science Education Workshop on Learning Science: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. *de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeSchryver, M., & Spiro, R. (2009). New forms of deep learning on the Web: Meeting the challenge of cognitive load in conditions of unfettered exploration in online multimedia environments. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 134–152). New York: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  20. Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer’s view of constructivism. Educational Technology, 31(5), 41–44.Google Scholar
  21. Dochy, F., Segers, M., van den Bossche, P., & Struyven, K. (2005). Students’ perceptions of a problem-based learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 8(1), 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the ­technology of instruction: A conversation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Edelson, D., & Reiser, B. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hannafin, M. J. (2012). Student-centered learning. In N. Seel (Ed), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (Part 19, 3211–3214). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. *Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Reexamining cognition during student-centered, Web-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 767–785.Google Scholar
  26. *Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101–117.Google Scholar
  27. *Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J., & Glazer, E. (2011). Designing grounded learning environments: Linking epistemology, pedagogy, and design practice. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (3rd ed., pp. 179–189). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  28. Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Oliver, K., Glazer, E., & Sharma, P. (2003). Cognitive and learning factors in Web-based environments. In M. Moore & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 245–260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. *Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.Google Scholar
  30. Hannafin, M. J., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. II). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Hannafin, M. J., West, R., & Shepherd, C. (2009). The cognitive demands of student-centered, web-based multimedia: Current and emerging perspectives. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 194–216). New York: Information Science References.Google Scholar
  32. Hill, J. R., Domizi, D. P., Kim, M., & Kim, H. (2012). Learning perspectives on negotiated and informal technology-enhanced distance education: Status, applications and futures. In M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.), (pp. 372–389). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. *Hill, J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 3752.Google Scholar
  34. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoadley, C., & Kilner, P. G. (2005). Using technology to transform communities of practice into knowledge-building communities. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 25(1), 31–40.Google Scholar
  37. *Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(3), 5–14.Google Scholar
  38. Kester, L., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Effects of fading support on hypertext navigation and performance in student-centered E-learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(2), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Grounded design and Web-enhanced, case-based reasoning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. *Kim, M., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. (2007) Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical ­framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 96(6), 1010–1030.Google Scholar
  41. *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.Google Scholar
  42. Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental detectives—the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kolodner, J. L. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 225–242). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kumar, M., & Kogut, G. (2006). Students’ perceptions of problem-based learning. Teacher Development, 10(1), 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. *Land, S. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.Google Scholar
  47. Land, S., Draper, D., Ma, Z., Hsui, H., Smith, B., & Jordan, R. (2009). An investigation of knowledge building activities in an online community of practice at Subaru of America. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  48. *Land, S., & 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
  49. Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions, and design. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.), (pp. 14–37). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Lindsay, J., & Davis, V. (2007). Flat classrooms. Learning and Leading with Technology, 35(1), 27–30.Google Scholar
  51. Linn, M. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243–264). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mayer, R., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on ­multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (1992). Compliant cognition: The misalliance of management and instructional goals in current school reform. Educational Researcher, 21(3), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Merrill, M., Drake, L., Lacy, M., Pratt, J., & ID2 Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7.Google Scholar
  57. Oliver, K., & Lee, J. (2011). Exploring history in plantation letters. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38(6), 24–26.Google Scholar
  58. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. *Pea, R. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to ­reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.Google Scholar
  60. Perkins, D., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Quintana, C., Shin, N., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2006). Learner-centered design: Reflections on the past and directions for the future. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 119–134). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Roth, W. M. (1995). Inventors, copy cats and everyone else: The emergence of shared resources and practices as defining aspects of classroom communities. Science Education, 79(5), 475–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Spires, H., Rowe, J. P., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2011). Problem solving and game-based learning: Effects of middle grade students’ hypothesis testing strategies on science learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(4), 445–464.Google Scholar
  66. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Stickler, U., & Hampel, R. (2010). CyberDeutsch: Language production and user preferences in a Moodle virtual learning environment. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 49–73.Google Scholar
  68. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  69. *Sweller, J., Kirschner, P., & Clark, R. (2007). Why minimally guided techniques do not work: A reply to the commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121.Google Scholar
  70. Tal, T., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Urban schools’ teachers enacting project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 722–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. *Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. (Eds.) (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Young, M. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Hannafin
    • 1
  • Janette R. Hill
    • 2
  • Susan M. Land
    • 3
  • Eunbae Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations