Student-centered, open learning environments: Research, theory, and practice

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology: Fourth Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 641-651

  Hannafin, Michael J ^a   Hill, Janette R ^a   Land, Susan M ^b   Lee, Eunbae ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923817287     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_51     Document Type: Chapter

References (72)

1. Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load-recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 12, 139-146.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
17. de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105-134.
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.
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.
20. Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer's view of constructivism. Educational Technology, 31(5), 41-44.
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.
22. Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
29. Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167-202.
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.
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.
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.
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), 37 - 52.
34. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
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.
36. Hoadley, C., & Kilner, P. G. (2005). Using technology to transform communities of practice into knowledge-building communities. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 25(1), 31-40.
37. Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(3), 5-14.
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.
39. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Grounded design and Webenhanced, case-based reasoning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 161-179.
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.
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.
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.
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.
44. Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109-113.
45. Kumar, M., & Kogut, G. (2006). Students' perceptions of problembased learning. Teacher Development, 10(1), 105-116.
46. Land, S. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61-78.
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.
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.
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.
50. Lindsay, J., & Davis, V. (2007). Flat classrooms. Learning and Leading with Technology, 35(1), 27-30.
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.
52. Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517-538.
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.
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.
55. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.
56. Merrill, M., Drake, L., Lacy, M., Pratt, J., & ID2 Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.
57. Oliver, K., & Lee, J. (2011). Exploring history in plantation letters. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38(6), 24-26.
58. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
59. Pea, R. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
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.
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.
62. Quintana, C., Shin, N., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2006). Learnercentered 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
67. Stickler, U., & Hampel, R. (2010). CyberDeutsch: Language production and user preferences in a Moodle virtual learning environment. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 49-73.
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.
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.
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.
71. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. (Eds.) (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.
72. Young, M. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43-58.