Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Open-ended learning involves learning processes that are mediated by the unique intentions and purposes of individuals. Open-ended learning environments (OELEs) have been touted to support the building and evolving processes associated with self-directed learning. OELEs provide technological tools and resources for manipulating and exploring concepts. Whereas previous research has provided descriptions of OELE designs and case studies, little insight exists as to the processes used by learners to build and evolve their understanding. This paper describes a rationale for, and conceptual framework of, learning via open-ended environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • Atkins, M., & Blissett, G. (1992). Interactive video and cognitive problem-solving skills.Educational Technology, 32(1), 44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belmont, J. (1989). Cognitive strategies and strategic learning.American Psychologist, 44(2), 142–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Research, 18(1), 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education.American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervone, D., & Wood, R. (1995). Goals, feedback, and the differential influence of self-regulatory processes on cognitively complex performance.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19(5), 519–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C., Burtis, P., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Constructive activity in learning from text.American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol.1, pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J-I, & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed intelligence (pp. 1–46). New York: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., & Scanlon, E. (1988). Conceptual change in science.Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning (5), pp. 25–36.

  • Edwards, L.D. (1995). The design and analysis of a mathematical microworld.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(1), 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M.J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M.J. (1993).The cognitive implications of computer-based learning environments. Report prepared for USAF AL/HRTC, United States Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Bolling AFB.

  • 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 

  • Hannafin, M.J., Hannafin, K.M., & Dalton, D.W. (1993). Feedback and emerging instructional technologies. In J. Dempsey & G. Sales (Eds.),Feedback and interactive instruction (pp. 263–286). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hawkins, J. & Pea, R. (1987). Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday and scientific thinking.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 291–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. (1995).Cognitive strategies and the use of a hypermedia information system: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J.H., Holyoak, Nisbett, R., & Thargard. (1986).Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Inhelder, B. (1975). “If you want to get ahead, get a theory.”Cognition, 3(3), 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S.M. (1995).The process of developing theories-inaction with open-ended learning environments: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lewis, E, Stern, J., & Linn, M. (1993). The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding.Educational Technology, 33(1), 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E. (1989). Models for understanding.Review of Educational Research, 59, 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mestre, J., Dufresne, R., Gerace, W., & Hardiman, P. (1993). Promoting skilled problem-solving behavior among beginning physics students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 303–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, P. (1995). Information problem solving: A wider view of library skills.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1993a).The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1993b).Mindstorms (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R.D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed intelligence (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D.N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed intelligence (pp. 88–109). New York: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound?Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Piaget, J. (1970).The child's conception of movement and speed. New York: Ballantine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1976).The grasp of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L.P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. (1961).On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1986). Information technologies: What you see is not (always) what you get.Educational Psychologist, 20, 207–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies.Educational Researcher, April, 2–8.

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D.A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotsberger, P. (1996). Instructional uses of the World Wide Web.Educational Technology, 36(2), 47–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 31(5), 24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, E. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977–1988.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 117–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., & Dawson, G. (1992). Constraints to curriculum reform: Teachers and the myths of schooling.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 64–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41(4), 347–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development.Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations.Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 117–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Instructional Psychology and Technology Program at The University of Oklahoma, USA

    Susan M. Land (Assistant Professor)

  2. the Department of Instructional Technology at The University of Georgia, USA

    Michael J. Hannafin (Director of the Learning and Performance Support Laboratory and a Professor)

Authors
  1. Susan M. Land
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Hannafin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This manuscript is based on the doctoral dissertation conducted by the first author at The Florida State University. The authors wish to acknowledge Dr. Marcy P. Driscoll and Dr. Robert A. Reiser of the Instructional Systems Program, Florida State University and Dr. Richard K. Wagner of the Department of Psychology, Florida State University for their cooperation and support as committee members during the conduct of this study. The manuscript was prepared while the first author was working as a post-doctoral fellow at The University of Georgia's Learning and Performance Support Laboratory.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Land, S.M., Hannafin, M.J. A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments. ETR&D 44, 37–53 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300424

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300424

Keywords

Search

Navigation