A learner-centered framework for e-learning

Teachers College Record

Volumn 107, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 1582-1600

  Mccombs, Barbara L ^a,c   Vakili, Donna ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

^b Idaho Digital Learning Academy   (United States)

^c Learning and Development Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27744499159     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00534.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. APA Task Force on Psychology in Education. (1993). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.
2. APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Barab, S. A., Makinster, J. G., Moore, J. A., Cunningham, D. J., & the IFL Design Team. (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry learning forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 71-96.
4. Bates, A. W. (1997). The impact of technological change on open and distance learning. Distance Education, 18(1), 93-109.
5. Black, J. (2001, November). Go with the flow: Streaming media isn't a ubiquitous technology in the enterprise now, but it soon will be. Internet World, 24-25.
6. Bonk, G., & Cunningham, D. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. Bonk & K King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Bonk, C., & Dennen, V. (1999). Learner issues with WWW-based systems. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 5(4), 401-417.
8. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
9. Christensen, D., Anakwe, U., & Kessler, E. (2001). Receptivity to distance learning: The effect of technology, reputation, constraints, and learning preferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 263-279.
10. Coe, M. T., & Ault, P. C. (2001, September). Students, teachers, and technology building better schools: Generation www. Y Project evaluation. Portland, OR; Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
11. Combs, A. W. (1976). Fostering maximum development of the individual. In W. Van Til & K. J. Rehage (Eds.), Issues in secondary education (pp. 65-87). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Cyrs, T. (1997). Visual thinking: Let them see what you are saying. In T. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning al a distante: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs (pp. 27-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Dede, C. (1998). Learning with technology: ASCD yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
14. Egan, M., & Gibb, G. (1997). Student-centered instruction for the design of telecourses. In T. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs (pp. 33-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley.
16. Goodyear, P., & Steeples, C. (1999). Asynchronous multimedia conferencing in continuing professional development: Issues in the representation of practice through user-created videoclips. Distance Education: An International Journal, 20(1), 31-48.
17. Hardy, D., & Boaz, M. (1997). Learner development: Beyond the technology. In T. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and, evaluate programs (pp. 41-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18. Harmon, C., & Dorman, M. (1998). Enriching distance teaching and learning of undergraduate mathematics using videoconferencing and audiographics. Distance Education: An International Journal, 79(2), 299-318.
19. Harper, D. (1998). Generation www. Y: Second annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
20. Harper, D. (2002, March). Generation www. Y White Paper 2. Olympia, WA: Generation Y Organization.
21. Haythornwaite, C., Kazmer, M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6. Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issuel/haythornthwaite.html
22. Jonassen, D. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
23. Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
24. Jonassen, D., Prevish, T., Christy, D., & Stavrulaki, E. (1999). Learning to solve problems on the Web: Aggregate planning in a business management course. Distance Education: An International Journal, 20 (1), 49-61.
25. Ko, S. S., & Rossen, S. (2001). Teaching online: A practical guide. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
26. Mather, M. (2000). In-service to go: Professional development online. Technology & Learning, 20(6), 18-28.
27. McCombs, B. (2000a, September). Assessing the role of educational technology in the teaching and learning process: A learner-centered perspective. Paper presented at the Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology: Measuring the Impacts and Shaping the Future, Washington, DC. Retrieved September 10, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/Technology/techconf/2000/mccombs_paper.html
28. McCombs, B. L. (2000b, July). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for technology evaluation. Paper presented at the U.S. Department of Education's Regional Conference "Evaluating Technology in Education," Atlanta.
29. McCombs, B. L. (2001a). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A phenomenological view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, 'research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 67-123). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. McCombs, B. L. (2001b, September). The learner-centered framework on teaching and learning as a foundation for electronically networked communities and cultures. Paper prepared at the PT3 Vision Quest on Assessment in e-Learning Cultures. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Retrieved from http://www.pt3.org/VQ/
31. McCombs, B. L. (2003). Applying educational psychology's knowledge base in educational reform: From research to application to policy. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology. Volume 7: Educational psychology (pp. 583-607). New York: Wiley.
32. McCombs, B. L. (2004). The Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: A framework for balancing a focus on academic achievement with a focus on social and emotional learning needs. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New York: Teachers College Press.
33. McCombs, B. L., & Lauer, P. A. (1997). Development and validation of the Learner-Centered Battery: Self-assessment tools for teacher reflection and professional development. Professional Educator, 20(1), 1-21.
34. McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35. McKinnon, D., & Nolan, C. (1999). Distance education for the gifted and talented: An interactive design model. Roeper Review, 21(4), 320-325.
36. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-39). New York: Routledge.
37. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in Cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education (Report No. HE 032019). Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED429524).
39. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education, (Report No. 2000-175). Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
40. Sherry, L., & Wilson, B. (1997). Transformative communication as a stimulus to Web innovations. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction, (pp. 67-73). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
41. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching and learning at a distance: foundations of distance education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
42. Thorsen, C. (1998). Teaching with presentation software: Thinking in 3-D. Technology-based models for classroom teachers (Vol. 3). Boise, ID: Author.
43. Vakili, D. (1996). Telecommunications: Modeling a process and a content. Unpublished master's thesis, Boise State University, Boise, ID.
44. Vakili, D. (2001). Applying the American Psychological Association's principles of learning to an online environment. Boise, ID: Author.
45. Wagner, K. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. In T. Cyrs (Kd.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs (pp. 19-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
46. Wagner, E., & McCombs, B. (1995). Learner-centered psychological principles in practice: Designs for distance education. Educational Technology, 35(2), 32-35.
47. Zucker, A., & Kozma, R. (2003). The virtual high school: Teaching generation V. New York: Teachers College Press.