Constructivist Foundations and Common Design Principles of Student-Centered Learning Environments

  • Sabine Hoidn


The constructivist perspectives outlined in this chapter contribute important insights about knowing, learning, and instruction as well as epistemological and theoretical foundations for designing principles-based constructivist learning environments. Findings from learning science research are synthesized and aligned discussing various ways of constructivist thinking: cognitive constructivism, social constructivism, and situativity theory, including selected learning and instruction models with relevance to teacher education. In addition, current critiques of and misconceptions about constructivist perspectives are presented. This chapter also derives common design principles of student-centered learning environments, drawing on findings from several established design frameworks that are based on a situative constructivist view of learning and instruction.


Learning Environment Knowledge Construction Deep Approach Assessment Task Constructivist Perspective 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aebli, H. (1980). Denken: Das Ordnen des Tuns. Band 1: Kognitive Aspekte der Handlungstheorie. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  2. Aebli, H. (1981). Denken: Das Ordnen des Tuns. Band 2: Denkprozesse. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  3. Aebli, H. (1983). Zwölf Grundformen des Lehrens [Twelve basic forms of teaching]. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). York, UK: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  5. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. San Francisco, CA: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Situative versus cognitive perspectives: Form versus substance. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 18–21.Google Scholar
  10. Atwood, S., Turnbull, W., & Carpendale, J. I. M. (2010). The construction of knowledge in classroom talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 358–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baer, M., Fuchs, M., Füglister, P., Reusser, K., & Wyss, H. (Eds.). (2006). Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage. Von Hans Aeblis kognitionspsychologischer Didaktik zur modernen Lehr- und Lernforschung. Bern: H.E.P.Google Scholar
  12. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  13. Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 1–15). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  15. Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Bielaczyc, K., Kapur, M., & Collins, A. (2013). Cultivating a community of learners in K-12 classrooms. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, A. M. O’Donnell, C. Chan, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 233–249). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning out-comes. Higher Education, 8, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  20. Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 8(1), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Biggs, J. B. (2012). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Blythe, T., & Associates. (1998). The teaching for understanding guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from
  25. Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 25–64.Google Scholar
  26. Brophy, J. (1999). Research on motivation in education: Past, present, and future. In T. C. Urdan (Ed.), The role of context, Vol. 11, Advances in motivation and achievement series (pp. 1–44). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  27. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  28. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Brown, S., Rust, C., & Gibbs, G. (1994). Strategies for diversifying assessment in higher education. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.Google Scholar
  30. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.Google Scholar
  31. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  33. Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn. Sausalito, CA: Scholastic/Math Solutions.Google Scholar
  34. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 (pp. 367–382). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  36. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33, 52–70.Google Scholar
  37. Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antimony in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Collins A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from;jsessionid=0417F33EA85079C2374AE5A3FD511643?doi=
  39. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Collins, A., & Greeno, J. G. (2011). Situative view of learning. In V. Grøver Aukrust (Ed.), Learning and cognition in education (pp. 64–68). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  41. Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. De Corte, E. (1996). Instructional psychology: Overview. In E. De Corte & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 33–43). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  43. De Corte, E. (2003). Designing learning environments that foster the productive use of acquired knowledge and skills. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. J. G. Van Merrienboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 21–33). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  44. De Corte, E. (2010). Historical developments in the understanding of learning. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice (pp. 35–67). Paris: OECD/CERI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. De Corte, E. (2012). Constructive, self-regulated, situated, and collaborative learning: An approach for the acquisition of adaptive competence. Journal of Education, 192(2/3), 33–47.Google Scholar
  46. De Corte, E., & Masui, C. (2009). Design and evaluation of a learning environment for self-regulation strategies: An intervention study in higher education. In Z. M. Charlesworth, C. Evans & E. Cools (Eds.), Learning in higher education – How style matters. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the European Learning Styles Information Network (ELSIN XIV) (pp. 172–183). Brno, Czech Republic: Tribun EU.Google Scholar
  47. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Masui, C. (2004). The CLIA-model: A framework for designing powerful learning environments for thinking and problem solving. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XIX(4), 365–384.Google Scholar
  48. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  50. Dubs, R. (1999). Scaffolding – mehr als ein neues Schlagwort. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 95(2), 163–167.Google Scholar
  51. Duckworth, E. R. (1964). Piaget rediscovered. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 172–175. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  52. Duckworth, E. R. (1987/2006). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and learning (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  53. Duckworth, E. R. (1999). Engaging learners with their own ideas: An interview with Eleanor Duckworth. The Active Learner, 4(1), 28–30.Google Scholar
  54. Duckworth, E. R. (Ed.). (2001). “Tell me more”: Listening to learners explain. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  55. Duckworth, E. R. (2009). Helping students get to where ideas can find them. The New Educator, 5, 185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Duffy, T. M. (2009). Building lines of communication and a research agenda. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 351–367). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  59. Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative account of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498.Google Scholar
  60. Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts and developments. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161–200). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  61. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Engle, R. A., & Faux, R. B. (2006). Fostering substantive engagement of beginning teachers in educational psychology: Comparing two methods of case-based instruction. Teaching Educational Psychology, 1(2), 3–24.Google Scholar
  63. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  64. EU-High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. (2013). Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. Report to the European Commission. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  65. European Students’ Union (ESU) & Education International (EI). (2010a). Time for a new paradigm in education: Student-centred learning toolkit. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  66. European Students’ Union (ESU) & Education International (EI). (2010b). Student centered learning. An insight into theory and practice. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  67. Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2000). On making determinations of quality in teaching. A paper prepared at the request of the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education of the National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  68. Fischer, F. (2001). Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion – Theoretische und methodologische Aspekte. Forschungsbericht Nr. 142. München: LudwigMaximilians-Universität, Lehrstuhl für Empirische Pädagogik und Pädagogische Psychologie.Google Scholar
  69. Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 225–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing/NCTM.Google Scholar
  70. Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2009). Understanding student learning. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. Enhancing academic practice (pp. 8–26). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Gibbs, G. (1992a). Assessing more students. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.Google Scholar
  72. Gibbs, G. (1992b). Assessing student-centred courses. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.Google Scholar
  73. Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of design. Review of Educational Research, 46, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Greeno, J. G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong question. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  75. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Theoretical and practical advances through research on learning. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 795–822). Washington, DC/Mahwah, NJ: American Educational Research Association/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  77. Greeno, J. G. (2011). A situative perspective on cognition and learning in interaction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instruction (pp. 41–72). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Greeno, J. G., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 128–148). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Greeno, J. G., & Van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2009). Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Harnad, S., & Dror, I. E. (Eds.). (2006). Distributed cognition. Special issue of Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  82. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. J. (2005). Engaged participation: A sociocultural model of motivation with implications for educational assessment. Educational Assessment, 10(3), 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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(2), 99–107.Google Scholar
  86. Hoidn, S. (2007). Selbstorganisiertes Lernen im Kontext – einige Überlegungen aus lerntheoretischer Sicht und ihre Konsequenzen. bwp@ Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik – online, Ausgabe 13, 1–26. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  87. Hoidn, S. (2014). Critical exploration in the university classroom: Implications for teaching and teachers. Global Journal of Human Social Sciences, 13(9), 1–14.Google Scholar
  88. Hoidn, S., & Gilbert, D. (2007). Teaching and learning in Wallenberg Hall’s experimental classrooms. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning (SCIL). Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  89. Hugener, I. (2008). Inszenierungsmuster im Unterricht und Lernqualität. Sichtstrukturen schweizerischen und deutschen Mathematikunterrichts in ihrer Beziehung zu Schülerwahrnehmung und Lernleistung – eine Videoanalyse. Dissertation an der Universität Zürich. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  90. Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009). Teaching patterns and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  92. Jonassen, D. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 89–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  93. Jonassen, D. (2009). Reconciling a human cognitive architecture. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 13–33). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  94. 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
  95. Klauer, K. J. (2006). Situiertes Lernen. In D. H. Rost (Ed.), Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (pp. 699–705). Weinheim: Beltz, PVU.Google Scholar
  96. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Mandl, H., Kopp, B., & Dvorak, S. (2004). Aktuelle theoretische Ansätze und empirische Befunde im Bereich der Lehr-Lernforschung. Schwerpunkt Erwachsenenbildung. Deutsches Institut für Erwachsenenbildung, Bonn. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  100. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I – outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11.Google Scholar
  101. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning: II – outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115–127.Google Scholar
  102. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 184–200). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  104. McCaslin, M. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 143–168). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  105. McCray, R., DeHaan, R. L., & Schuck, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Improving undergraduate instruction in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Report of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  106. Meek, A. (1991). On thinking about teaching: A conversation with Eleanor Duckworth. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 30–34.Google Scholar
  107. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  109. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes (pp. 55–73). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring talk in school. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  112. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  114. Messner, R., & Reusser, K. (2006). Aeblis Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage im Kontext der zeitgenössischen Didaktik. In M. Baer, M. Fuchs, P. Füglister, K. Reusser & H. Wyss (Hrsg.), Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage. Von Hans Aeblis kognitionspsychologischer Didaktik zur modernen Lehr- und Lernforschung (S. 52–73). Bern: h.e.p.Google Scholar
  115. Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Accountable talk sourcebook: For classroom conversation that works. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  116. Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load in novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2014). Learning as a cultural process. Achieving equity through diversity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 686–706). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. National Research Council of the USA (NRC). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  120. National Research Council of the USA (NRC). (2005). How students learn: History, math, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  121. Nelson Laird, T. F., Chen, D., & Kuh, G. D. (2008). Classroom practices at institutions with higher-than-expected persistence rates: What student engagement data tell us (pp. 85–99). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  122. Nelson Laird, T. F., Seifert, T. A., Pascarella, E. T., Mayhew, M. J., & Blaich, C. F. (2011, November). Deeply effecting first-year students’ thinking: The effects of deep approaches to learning on three outcomes. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC.Google Scholar
  123. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (2007). When is dialogue “dialogic”? Human Development, 50, 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centered learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? In G. O’Neill, S. Moore, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching (pp. 27–36). Dublin: AISHE.Google Scholar
  126. Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  127. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  128. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  129. Pauli, C. (2010). Lehrerexpertise, Unterrichtsqualität und Lernerfolg. Exemplarische Beiträge videobasierter Unterrichtsforschung. Kumulative Habilitationsschrift. Universität Zürich: Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft.Google Scholar
  130. Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2011). Expertise in Swiss mathematics instruction. In Y. Li & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Expertise in mathematics instruction. An international perspective (pp. 85–107). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Pauli, C., Reusser, K., & Grob, U. (2007). Teaching for understanding and/or self-regulated learning? A video-based analysis of reform-oriented mathematics instruction in Switzerland. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 294–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  133. Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(39), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Perkins, D. N. (1998). What is understanding? In M. Stone Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice (pp. 39–58). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  135. Perkins, D. N. (2008). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can transform education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  136. Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive development in children. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  137. Philips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence. In C. Cazden, D. Hymes, & V. John (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370–394). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  138. Piaget, J. (1972). To understand is to invent. New York: The Viking Press.Google Scholar
  139. Piaget, J. (1973). Das moralische Urteil beim Kinde. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  140. Piaget, J. (1976a). The grasp of consciousness: Action and concept in the young child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  141. Piaget, J. (1976b). Piaget’s theory. In P. B. Neubauer (Ed.), The process of child development (pp. 164–212). New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
  142. Piaget, J. (1977/1995). Sociological studies (2nd ed.; L. Smith et al., Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  143. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibrium of cognitive structures. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  144. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  146. Renkl, A., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1999). Situated learning in instructional settings: From euphoria to feasibility. In J. Bliss, R. Shaljho, & P. Light (Eds.), Learning sites: Social and technological resources for learning (pp. 101–109). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  147. Resnick, L. B. (1983). Toward a cognitive theory of instruction. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 5–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  148. Resnick, M., Bruckman, A., & Martin, F. (1996). Pianos not stereos: Creating computational construction kits. Interactions, 3(5), 40–50. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  149. Resnick, L. R., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, M. C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In D. D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 163–194). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  150. Reusser, K. (2012). KAFKA und SAMBA als Grundfiguren der Artikulation des Lehr-Lerngeschehens. Vorlesungsfolien zur Vorlesung 10. MA Pädagogische Psychologie Kernmodul. Zürich: Pädagogisches Institut der Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
  151. Reusser, K., & Pauli, C. (2015). Co-constructivism in educational theory and practice. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 913–917). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Reusser, K., Pauli, C., & Waldis, M. (Eds.). (2010). Unterrichtsgestaltung und Unterrichtsqualität. Ergebnisse einer internationalen und schweizerischen Videostudie zum Mathematikunterricht. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  153. Rick, J., & Lamberty, K. K. (2005). Medium-based design: Extending a medium to create an exploratory learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(3), 179–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. (2008). Making thinking visible. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 57–61.Google Scholar
  155. Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209–229.Google Scholar
  156. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  157. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination-theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  159. Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  160. Salomon, G. (1997). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: Some issues to be concerned with. Paper to an invited keynote address presented at the 7th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Athens. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  161. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1–24.Google Scholar
  162. Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Optimising learning: Implications of learning sciences research. In OECD (Ed.), Innovating to learn, learning to innovate (pp. 45–66). Paris: OECD/CERI.Google Scholar
  163. Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2014a). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  164. Sawyer, R. K. (2014b). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1–18). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Schuh, L. K., & Barab, A. S. (2008). Philosophical perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merriënboer, & M. P. Dirscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 69–80). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  167. Schwartz, D. L., Lindgren, R., & Lewis, S. (2009). Constructivism in an age of non-constructivist assessments. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 34–61). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  168. Snow, R. E., & Swanson, J. (1992). Instructional psychology: Aptitude, adaptation, and assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 583–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Stebler, R., & Reusser, K. (2000). Progressive, classical, or balanced? A look at mathematical learning environments in Swiss-German lower-secondary schools. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik (ZDM), 32(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Tobias, S. (2009). An eclectic appraisal of the success or failure of constructivist instruction. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 335–350). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  171. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009a). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  172. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009b). The success or failure of constructivist instruction. An introduction. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 3–10). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  173. Van de Pol, J. (2012). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: Exploring, measuring, promoting and evaluating scaffolding. Doctoral dissertation at the University of Amsterdam. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from
  174. Van de Pol, J., & Elbers, E. (2013). Scaffolding student learning: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Vygotsky, L. S. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 36, 414–434.Google Scholar
  176. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  177. Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  178. Weiner, B. (1990). The history of motivation research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 616–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Whetten, D. A. (2007). Principles of effective course design: What I wish I had known about learning-centered teaching 30 years ago. Journal of Management Education, 31, 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Whetten, D. A., Johnson, T. D., & Sorenson, D. L. (2009). Learning-centered course design. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami (Eds.), The Sage handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 255–270). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. H. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  182. Wiske, M. S. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  183. Wiske, M. S., Rennebohm Franz, K., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  184. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine Hoidn
    • 1
  1. 1.St. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations