Encyclopedia ofDistance LearningSecond Edition

Patricia RogersBemidji State, USA

Gary BergChapman University, USA

Judith BoettcherDesigning for Learning, USA

Carole HowardTouro University International, USA

Lorraine JusticeHong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

Karen SchenkUniversity of Redlands, USA & North Carolina State University, USA

Hershey • New YorkInformatIon ScIence reference

Volume IIIIns-Ret

Director of Editorial Content: Kristin KlingerDirector of Production: Jennifer NeidigManaging Editor: Jamie SnavelyAssistant Managing Editor: Carole CoulsonTypesetter: Sean Woznicki, Amanda Appicello, Larissa Vinci, Mike Brehm, Jen Henderson, Elizabeth Duke, Jamie Snavely, Carole Coulson, Jeff Ash, Chris HrobakCover Design: Lisa TosheffPrinted at: Yurchak Printing Inc.

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200Hershey PA 17033Tel: 717-533-8845Fax: 717-533-8661E-mail: cust@igi-global.comWeb site: http://www.igi-global.com/reference

and in the United Kingdom byInformation Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)3 Henrietta StreetCovent GardenLondon WC2E 8LUTel: 44 20 7240 0856Fax: 44 20 7379 0609Web site: http://www.eurospanbookstore.com

Copyright © 2009 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.

Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Encyclopedia of distance learning / Patricia Rogers ... [et al.], editors. -- 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: "This multiple volume publication provides comprehensive knowledge and literature on the topic of distance learning programs"--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-60566-198-8 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-199-5 (ebook) 1. Distance education--Encyclopedias. I. Rogers, Patricia. LC5211.E516 2009 371.35'03--dc22 2008042438

British Cataloguing in Publication DataA Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this encyclopedia set is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this encyclopedia set are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

If a library purchased a print copy of this publication, please go to http://www.igi-global.com/agreement for information on activating the library's complimentary electronic access to this publication.

1346

A Learner-Centered Perspective onE-LearningHyo-Jeong SoNanyang Technological University, Singapore

Curtis J. BonkIndiana University, USA

Robert A. WisherDepartment of Defense, USA

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

INTRODUCTION

For the past decade, e-learning has emerged as a prominent delivery mechanism in educational settings. Now, it is not uncommon to find courses that are de-livered fully online or in a blended learning (Bonk & Graham, 2006) mode. In addition, with the pervasive use of handheld, mobile, and wireless technologies, mobile learning (i.e., m-learning) and ubiquitous learning (i.e., u-learning) have received extensive attention as promising trends in the field of distance education. Indeed, our goals, related to the design of environments where learning happens at anytime and any place, seem more reachable with such emerging educational technologies that maximize mobility, connectivity, and versatility. Add to that options for learner participation and contribution within such an environment, as is seen with many online tools today, and there are many exciting opportunities for learner-centered online instruction.

Despite such significant shifts in technology, how-ever, a pedagogical shift from instructor-centered to learner-centered learning has been slow. A traditional text- or instructor-centered paradigm for teaching and learning is still dominant in many e-learning programs, while learners enrolling in online and blended courses are expecting more inquiry-based activities and learner-centered approaches than in the past. As the adoption of Web-based instruction grows, understanding how to facilitate or moderate student learning in virtual spaces has become an important issue. Online instruc-tors must create situations where students are building knowledge and sharing it with experts and peers who, in turn, offer authentic evaluation and timely feed-

back. Online instruction, therefore, must fit into an education and learning paradigm that is increasingly learner-centric.

BACKGROUND

Learner-Centered PsychologicalPrinciples

What is a learner-centered paradigm and where did it originate? During the early 1990s, the American Psychological Association (APA) announced a set of 14 learner-centered psychological principles (LCPs) (Alexander & Murphy, 1994; APA, 1993) (see Table 1). These principles were derived after an APA Presidential task force reviewed previous research on learning and instruction, motivation, and development since the emergence of cognitive psychology in the 1970s and 1980s. The final set of psychological principles has been widely accepted and assisted many school and university reform and restructuring efforts. The LCPs address areas such as fostering curiosity and intrinsic motivation, linking new information to old in mean-ingful ways, providing learner choice and personal control, nurturing social interaction and interpersonal relations, promoting thinking and reasoning strategies, constructing meaning from information and experience, and taking into account learner social and cultural background.

Another seminal publication emphasizing a learner-centered paradigm is the National Research Council report on “How People Learn” (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Based on the science of learning research in various disciplines such as cognition, hu-

1347

A Learner-Centered Perspective on E-Learning

L Cognitive and Metacognitive Factors

1. Nature of the learning process. The learning of complex subject matter is most effective when it is an intentional process of constructing meaning from information and experience.

2. Goals of the learning process. The successful learner, over time and with support and instructional guidance, can create meaningful, coherent representations of knowledge.

3. Construction of knowledge. The successful learner can link new information with existing knowledge in meaningful ways. 4. Strategic thinking. The successful learner can create and use a repertoire of thinking and reasoning strategies to achieve complex

learning goals. 5. Thinking about thinking. Higher order strategies for selecting and monitoring mental operations facilitate creative and critical

thinking. 6. Context of learning. Learning is influenced by environmental factors, including culture, technology, and instructional practices.

Motivational and Affective Factors

7. Motivational and emotional influences on learning. What and how much is learned is influenced by the learner’s motivation. Motivation to learn, in turn, is influenced by the individual’s emotional states.

8. Intrinsic motivation to learn. The learner’s creativity, higher-order thinking, and natural curiosity all contribute to motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation is stimulated by tasks of optimal novelty and difficulty, relevant to personal interests, and providing for personal choice and control.

9. Effects of motivation on effort. Acquisition of complex knowledge and skills requires extended learner effort and guided practice. Without the learner’s motivation to learn, the willingness to exert this effort is unlikely without coercion.

Developmental and Social Factors

10. Developmental influences on learning. As individuals develop, there are different opportunities and constraints for learning. Learning is most effective when differential development within and across physical, intellectual, emotional, and social domains is taken into account.

11. Social influences on learning. Learning is influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations, and communication with others.

Individual Differences

12. Individual differences in learning. Learners have different strategies, approaches, and capabilities for learning that are a function of prior experience and heredity.

13. Learning and diversity. Learning is most effective when differences in learners’ linguistic, cultural, and social backgrounds are taken into account.

14. Standards and assessment. Setting appropriately high and challenging standards and assessing the learner as well as learning progress, including diagnostic, process, and outcome assessment, are integral parts of the learning process.

For a full text of the principles listed as well as additional rationale and explanation, refer to the APA Website: http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp2/lcp14.html or write to the APA for the December, 1995 report The Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Redesign and Reform. Permission to reproduce this list has been granted by APA. This document is not copyrighted.

man development, neuroscience, and technology, this report suggests that learning environments should be learner-centered and linked to larger communities be-yond a single classroom or school. Teachers who are learner-centered recognize the importance of culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995) that consid-ers sensitivity to individual students’ cultural practices and incorporate them into their instruction. Additionally, teachers with a learner-centered philosophy are well aware of the needs, interests, and epistemological be-liefs that learners bring to educational settings, and use them to promote active learning for deep understanding, rather than passive learning with surface knowledge (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2006).

Previous studies have indicated that the LCPs hold great promise for designing e-learning environments (Bonk & Cummings, 1998; Bonk & Reynolds, 1997; McCombs & Vakili, 2005). For instance, Bonk and Cummings (1998) document a dozen recommendations for designing Web-based instruction from a learner-centered perspective. Their guidelines describe the need for psychologically safe online environments, changes in the instructor role from sage to moderator or facilitator of learning, the emergence of new electronic mentoring practices, and other related ideas.

Similarly, McCombs and Vakili (2005) suggest that learner-centered principles can be applied to enhance

1348

A Learner-Centered Perspective on E-Learning

learning experiences in distance education. At the same time, they caution, however, that the 14 LCP statements are not specific and practical enough. They argue that a learner-centered paradigm requires not only a shift of our focus from teachers to individual learners, but also recognition of learner perceptions about complex interaction among practices, programs, and policies. Based on a review of previous research, they propose a framework for creating learner-centered e-learning practices related to cognitive, affective, social, and individual-differences factors. In this framework, tech-nology is employed as a way to meet diverse needs, interests, and abilities of individual learners, and to support the building of communities of learners.

In a nutshell, the LCPs provide a backdrop for thinking about the benefits and implications as well as the problems and solutions of online instruction. Along these same lines, many educational technologists are advocating the need to shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered approaches (Hannafin & Land, 1997; Harasim, 1990). Learner-centered pedagogy asks what students need to learn, what their learning preferences are, and what is meaningful to them, not just what is considered basic knowledge in a given discipline or what instructors want to teach. In this regard, Web-based instruction provides a unique opportunity for learning materials, tasks, and activities to fit individual learning styles and preferences. Networks of learning information are available to stimulate student interests and ideas. Such environments also provide access to more authentic learning communities than typically found in conventional teacher-centered educational environments.

In accordance with the learner-centered movement, online tools provide opportunities to construct knowl-edge and actively share and seek information. Hannafin and Land (1997), for instance, offer a detailed look at the examples, functions, and supporting research for technology-enhanced learner-centered environments. There is mounting evidence that online course activities enable learners to generate a diverse array of ideas as well as appreciate multiple perspectives (Chong, 1998). In many online settings, there are opportunities to pose problems to others online, as well as solve them with authentic data. Using virtual classroom or synchronous presentation, learners can now construct meaning with their peers with application sharing, online surveys, real-time chats, collaborative writing exchanges, and live content presentations.

In addition, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) has emerged as a field that examines how online learning environments should be designed to promote intentional learning, collaborative inquiry, and learning communities. One of the foremost of these CSCL efforts was the development of Knowledge Forum, formerly known as computer-supported inten-tional learning environments (CSILE) (Scardamalia & Berieter, 1994). At the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) within the University of Toronto, Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter (2003) have developed a knowledge-building community model that utilizes a tool called the Knowledge Forum to support learner-centered pedagogy and collaborative-inquiry learning. Through idea sharing and community discourse with minimum guidance from teachers, learn-ers in knowledge-building environments can improve both their own and the community’s understanding (Hewitt, 2002).

As these brief examples illustrate, technology-rich environments support learner engagement in mean-ingful contexts, thereby increasing ownership. As a result, instructors need to configure their new roles as moderators of e-learning tools. Clearly, the “learn anytime, anywhere, by anyone” mentality will foster additional expectations for greater learner control and learning options. In online settings, learners can decide when to explore additional resources or progress to more complex concepts or modules.

MAIN FOCUS: PEDAGOGICALCONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES

With the proliferation of information and fast-changing job roles, there are increasing expectations that learn-ers will soon be guiding much of their own learning (Wisher, 2004). Consequently, instructors need to develop pedagogical strategies and employ technologi-cal tools that foster self-directed student inquiry and investigation. In such environments, tools and tactics for student discovery and manipulation of information, generation of artifacts, and sharing of knowledge are highlighted. In addition, students can examine problems at multiple levels of complexity, thereby deepening their understanding, while instructors provide the task structuring, feedback, and overall moderation or facilitation (Kim & Bonk, 2006).

1349

A Learner-Centered Perspective on E-Learning

LAdvances in interactive and collaborative technolo-

gies are forcing instructional designers and technology users to confront and envision learner-centered instruc-tion as well as their role within it (Doherty, 1998). Fortunately, the Web is emerging as a viable teaching and learning platform for learner-centered instruction at the same time that there is a call for incorporating learner-centered approaches in education. It is dif-ficult to tell whether this will lead to serendipitous or tremulous events or both. What is clear, however, is that there currently is a dearth of pedagogical tools and ideas for Web-based instruction (Bonk & Dennen, 1999, 2007; Bonk & Zhang, 2006; Carmean & Haefner, 2002, 2003; Oliver, 1999; Phipps & Merisotis, 1999). Consequently, most Web tools available today fail to transform or revolutionize education.

As John Stephenson (2001), from Middlesex Uni-versity, pointed out, online learning has the potential to give learners power and control over their own learning. One can now access experts for advice, download rel-evant documents, self-assess progress, and collaborate with others around the planet. Too often, however, online courseware is simply meant to facilitate course administration and registration procedures. Most fo-cus remains on how course management systems can help one to organize or manage a course, track student work and resulting grades, facilitate the turning in of assignments, post syllabi, and other administrative tasks (Kvavik, Caruso, & Morgan, 2004). As a result, support for rich and engaging learner interactions is noticeably absent (Hewson & Hughes, 2005). Instead of innovative and dynamic online experiences, providing access to knowledge repositories, portals, and content objects is in vogue (Oliver & McLoughlin, 1999).

Leading educators in the online field have not given up, however. They continue to point to the pedagogical promise of e-learning in finding ways to design inter-active and engaging learning activities (DeLacey & Leonard, 2002; Oliver, Herrington, & Reeves, 2006; Palloff & Pratt, 2001; 2005; Salmon, 2002), rather than ways to simply provide more content. For instance, there are dozens of ways to address student motiva-tion (Dennen & Bonk, 2007) and learning preferences (Bonk & Zhang, 2006) online. Additionally, Wisher and Graesser (2007) address how the process of ques-tion-asking and interpreting answers influence learning and student satisfaction in distributed learning environ-ments. Student questions are learner centric because

they reflect the learner’s lack of specific knowledge or inability to comprehend.

Perhaps satisfaction with one’s online content comes before embarking on innovative learner-cen-tered pedagogy. As support for this hypothesis, in a study of Web-enhanced pedagogy at seven different institutions in the United States, Wingard (2004) found that instructors tend to initially use technology for pragmatic reasons (e.g., posting course materials, announcements, etc.), instead of pedagogical ones (e.g., interactive debates or mock trials). However, Wingrad also found that pedagogically related issues and concerns rise to the forefront later on. Similarly, Carmean and Haefner (2003) point out that there may be pragmatic needs that often outweigh, and must be fulfilled prior to, more interesting and important pedagogical or instructional ideas.

Given the growth of learning management systems (LMSs) and course management systems (CMSs), it is clear that many educational institutes and organiza-tions are finding these tools valuable (Olsen, 2001). However, as noted, such management systems and tools, by themselves, do not guarantee quality learning. They do not foster student reflection, metacognition, interdis-ciplinary learning, collaborative knowledge building, or higher-order thinking. Additionally, students often display frustration and dissatisfaction with their online courses due to lack of interactions, engagement, and communication (Hara & Kling, 2000). As a result, many online learners are simply being warehoused on the Web instead of engaging in rich case experiences and interactive simulations as has been promised by e-learning vendors and other zealots. It is as though online learning tool designers have forgotten to consider learner and instructor needs.

The key question Stephenson (2001) argued is not whether online learners will be granted more respon-sibility for their own learning in the future, but how much they are going to be offered. Of course, the amount offered depends on the tools that are afforded, the pedagogical activities that are designed and used, and the general acceptance and promotion of any new tools and approaches within the online teaching com-munity.

The current situation facing many online learners and instructors is not surprising since the prevailing CMSs and LMSs (or virtual learning environments as some refer to them) emanate from a behavioral learning model (Firdyiwek, 1999). Most systems are embed-

1350

A Learner-Centered Perspective on E-Learning

ded with tracking and controlling devices for student learning, rather than innovative ways to nurture student ownership and progress for learning. At the same time, there are emerging instructional techniques, some for student creativity and others for student critical thinking, related to teaching on the Web, that hold great promise for fostering student learning in online environments (Bonk & Reynolds, 1997; Bonk, Hara, Dennen, Ma-likowski, & Supplee, 2000; Oliver et al., 2006). Levin and Waugh (1998) detailed approaches such as Web resource searching and evaluation, project generation and coordination, and student publication of work. Such techniques emphasize individual exploration as well as small group collaboration and sharing.

Some new models look at the degree to which the Web is embedded or integrated into a course (Bonk & Dennen, 2007; Bonk, Cummings, Hara, Fischler, & Lee, 2000; Mason, 1998) as well as the forms and directions of interaction utilized by such Web courses (Cummings, Bonk, & Jacobs, 2002). At the same time that such model building is taking place, researchers are reacting to the lack of pedagogical tools for the Web by building specific tools for team projects, critical thinking, mentoring, online debates, URL postings, reflection, concept mapping, student surveying, and electronic discussion (Oliver, 1999; Oliver et al., 2006). In addition, researchers have explored the use of interac-tive technologies such as two-way videoconferencing (Smyth, 2005), virtual chats (Stahl, 2006), and knowl-edge building tools (de Jong, Veldhuis-Diermanse, & Lutgens, 2002) to foster learner-centered interaction and more opportunities for collaborative problem solving. In step with the learner-centered movement, these camps are focused on building constructivist tools that foster active and authentic learning, goal setting, student articulation, social interaction on collaborative tasks, and metacognitive reflection.

FUTURE TRENDS

The Rise of Learner-CenteredTechnologies (i.e., the Web 2.0)

Recently, new types of Web technologies, known as Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2006) have emerged as promising tools for creating learner-centered online environments. With new Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and wikis, learn-ers can become active producers of learning content

and activities rather than passive consumers of prede-termined material and resources.

As John Seely Brown (2006) argued, with the Web 2.0, we are entering a participatory learning culture. In effect, participatory learning is based on notions of building, tinkering, reflecting, and sharing. Even Time agazine noticed these trends in late 2006 when it named “You” as the person of the year (Grossman, 2006/2007a). As this designation symbolizes, during the past few years, learners have been empowered with technology that encourages them to generate new ideas in personal blogs, share ideas with online friends and communities, and build new Web sites or pages within Wikipedia or Wikibooks, instead of simply reading or browsing through existing content. (Grossman, 2006/2007b).

This new read-write Web, with tools such as wikis, podcasts, blogs, online photo albums, social networking software, and RSS feeds, is a significant shift in the direction toward learner-centered online instruction. Such tools bring people together to share, collaborate, and interact in ways that previously were unheard of or imagined. This new read-write Web signals oppor-tunities for personalized learning environments (PLEs) and individualized instruction, thereby enhancing the power of individuals.

Emerging technologies change the role of instructors as well as learners. To maximize online learning suc-cess, online instructors who view learners as contribu-tors of knowledge or vital participants in the learning process need to act as both a partner and a facilitator or colearner (Beldarrain, 2006). What is more promising with Web 2.0 tools and resources are the socio-techni-cal aspects that foster social interaction and collective intelligence among the networked learners. For instance, some instructors now use wiki-related tasks wherein their students write the books that they read and use online, instead of, or in addition to, purchasing books from publishers (Allen, O’Shea, Curry-Corcoran, Baker, 2007; Evans, 2006; Sajjapanroj, Bonk, Lee, & Lin, 2007). Along these same lines, Rick and Guzdial (2006) found that collaborative learning among college students was successfully supported with the learning culture and learning tasks compatible with the use of a wiki.

As indicated earlier, another exciting movement toward a learner-centered paradigm is the emergent use of mobile and wireless technologies. As handheld and wireless devices have become pervasive in our

1351

A Learner-Centered Perspective on E-Learning

Ldaily lives, there have been increasing interests as to how mobile technologies can be utilized to create more effective learning experiences in both traditional and nontraditional settings, including the use of desktop computers and Web applications. Mobile and wireless tools have promising capabilities that can alter the re-lationship between teachers and learners by supporting learners as active participants and providing immersive learning experiences (Colella, 2000; Roschelle, 2003). While there has been scant research on the application of mobile technologies in e-learning and blended learn-ing environments, the exploration of m-learning and u-learning, mentioned earlier, should help nurture the digital learning skills required of twenty-first century learners.

CONCLUSION

Final Remarks and Next Steps

As documented in this chapter, opportunities for learner-centered online instruction continue to mount. Given governmental reports calling for more self-directed learners, widespread concerns about online student motivation and retention, and well documented needs for more meaningful and engaging online learning experiences, this is a fortunate occurrence. This is especially fortuitous for the generations of learners enrolling in blended and fully online courses who grew up with the technologies that allow for a more learner-centered approach. While course management systems remain stuck in an instructor-centered learn-ing paradigm that “manages” learners, the shift from online learning consumption toward the production of online learning content, in the form of podcasts, wikis, blogs, and other emerging technologies, has begun to arouse a significant change in online learning practices and expectations.

Today, instructors in all types of learning settings and sectors, including K-12, higher education, military, non-profit, and corporate settings, are no longer expected to simply lecture to students online or provide a set of prepackaged content materials for them to browse through in a semi-orderly and non-interactive fashion. Instead, the focus is on enhancing course interactiv-ity and learner engagement within such settings. As this occurs, it is likely that online environments will showcase exciting learner-centered events, activities,

and opportunities that will simultaneously boost online enrollments, as well as reverberate into significant changes in more traditional forms of instruction.

REFERENCES

Alexander, P., & Murphy, P. K. (1994). The research base for APA’s learned-centered psychological prin-ciples. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Allen, D. W., O’Shea, P. M., Curry-Corcoran, D., & Baker, P. (2007, April). New levels of student participa-tory learning: A wikitext for the introductory course in education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

American Psychological Association (APA). (1993). Learner centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.

APA. (1993). Learner-centered psychological prin-ciples: Guidelines for school reform and restructur-ing. Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp2/lcp14.html

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student inter-action and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139-153.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 695-713). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bonk, C. J., & Cummings, J. A. (1998). A dozen rec-ommendations for placing the student at the centre of Web-based learning. Educational Media International,, 35(2), 82-89.

Bonk, C. J., Cummings, J. A., Hara, N., Fischler, R., & Lee, S. M. (2000). A 10-level Web integration continuum for higher education. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of Web-based education (pp. 56-77). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. P. (1999). Teaching on the Web: With a little help from my pedagogical friends.

1352

A Learner-Centered Perspective on E-Learning

Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 11(1), 3-28.

Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. (2007). Frameworks for de-sign and instruction. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd Ed.) (pp. 233-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Bonk, C. J., Hara, H., Dennen, V., Malikowski, S., & Supplee, L. (2000). We’re in TITLE to dream: Envi-sioning a community of practice, “The Intraplanetary Teacher Learning Exchange. ” CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(1), 25-39.

Bonk, C. J., & Reynolds, T. H. (1997). Learner-centered Web instruction for higher-order thinking, teamwork, and apprenticeship. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 167-178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Edu-cational Technology Publications.

Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world. Distance Education, 27(2), 249-264.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Brown, J. S. (2006, December 1). Relearning learn-ing—Applying the long tail to learning. Presentation at MIT iCampus. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://www.mitworld.mit.edu/video/419

Carmean, C., & Haefner, J. (2002). Mind over matter: Transforming course management systems into effec-tive learning environments. Educause Review, 37(6), 27-34. Retrieved February 19, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0261.pdf

Carmean, C., & Haefner, J. (2003). Next-generation course management systems. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 26(1), 10–13. Retrieved August 12, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0261.pdf

Chong, S. M. (1998). Models of asynchronous computer conferencing for collaborative learning in large college classes. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for lit-eracy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 157-182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Build-ing collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 471-500.

Cummings, J. A., Bonk, C. J., & Jacobs, F. R. (2002). Twenty-first century college syllabi: Options for online communication and interactivity. Internet and Higher Education, 5(1), 1-19.

de Jong, F. P. C. M., Veldhuis-Diermanse, E., & Lut-gens, G. (2002). Computer-supported collaborative learning in university and vocational education. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 111-128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

DeLacey, B., & Leonard, D. (2002). Case study on technology and distance in education at the Harvard Business School. Educational Technology & Society, 5(2). Retrieved from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_2_2002/delacey.html

Dennen, V., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). We’ll leave a light on for you: Keeping learners motivated in online courses. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Flexible learning in an information society (pp. 64-76). Hershey, PA: The Idea Group, Inc.

Doherty, P. B. (1998). Learner control in asynchronous learning environments. Asynchronous Learning Net-works Magazine, 2(2), 1-11.

Evans, P. (2006). The Wiki factor. BizEd. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://www.aacsb.edu/publica-tions/Archives/JanFeb06/p28-33.pdf

Firdyiwek, Y. (1999). Web-based courseware tools: Where is the pedagogy? Educational Technology, 39(1), 29-34.

Grossman, L. (2006/2007a). You. Time Magazine Person of the Year, 168(26), 38-41.

Grossman, L. (2006/2007b). Power to the people. Time Magazine Person of the Year, 168(26), 42-47, 50, 53-56, 58.

Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-cen-tered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25(3), 167-202.

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2000). Students’ distress with a Web-based distance education course. Information,

1353

A Learner-Centered Perspective on E-Learning

LCommunication, & Society, 3(4), 557-579.

Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: An environ-ment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Hewitt, J. (2002). From a focus on tasks to a focus on understanding: The cultural transformation of a Toronto classroom. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 11-41). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hewson, K., & Hughes, C. (2005). Social processes and pedagogy in online learning. AACE Journal, 13(2), 99-125.

Kim, K.-J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: The survey says… Educause Quarterly, 29(4), 22-30. Retrieved June 11, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/li-brary/pdf/eqm0644.pdf

Kvavik, R. B., Caruso, J. B., & Morgan, G. (2004, No-vember). ECAR study of students and information tech-nology, 2004: Convenience, connection, and control, volume 5. Boulder, CO: Educause. Retrieved February 19, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/ers0506/

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of cultur-ally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Levin, J., & Waugh, M. (1998). Teaching teleap-prenticeships: Electronic network-based educational frameworks for improving teacher education. Interac-tive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 39-58.

Mason, R. (1998). Models of online courses. Asynchro-nous Learning Networks Magazine, 2(2), 1-11.

McCombs, B. L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582-1600.

O’Reilly, T. (2006). What is Web 2.0: Design pat-terns and business models for the next generation of software? Retrieved 7 June, 2007, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Oliver, R. (1999). Exploring strategies for on-line teaching and learning. Distance Education, 20(2),

240-254.

Oliver, R., Herrington, J., & Reeves, T. C. (2006). Cre-ating authentic learning environments through blended learning approaches. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspec-tives, local designs (pp. 502-515). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1999). Curriculum and learning-resources issues arising from the use of Web-based course support systems, International Journal of Educational Telecommunication, 5(4), 419-435.

Olsen, F. (2001). Getting ready for a new generation of course management systems. Retrieved April 2, 2003, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i17/17a02501.htm

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons form the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating on-line: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Rick, J., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A scholarship of application. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 89-115.

Roschelle, J. (2003). Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260-272.

Sajjapanroj, S., Bonk, C. J., Lee, M., & Lin, M.-F. (2007, April). Challenges and successes of Wikibookian experts and Wikibook novices: Classroom and com-munity perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL.

Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: Kogan Page

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.

1354

A Learner-Centered Perspective on E-Learning

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (pp. 1370-1373). New York: Mcamillan Reference.

Smyth, R. (2005). Broadband videoconferencing as a tool for learner-centered distance learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 805-820.

Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stephenson, J. (2001). Learner-managed learning-an emerging pedagogy for online learning. In J. Stephen-son (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 219-224). London: Kogan Page.

Wingard, R. G. (2004). Classroom teaching changes in Web-enhanced courses: A multi-institutional Study. Educause Quarterly, 27(1). Retrieved February 18, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/pub/eq/eqm04/eqm0414.asp

Wisher, R. A. (2004). Learning in the knowledge age: Up front or at a distance. In T. M. Duffy & J. R. Kirkley (Eds.), Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education (pp. 183-197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wisher, R. A., & Graesser, A. C. (2007). Question-asking in advanced distributed learning environments. In S. M. Fiore & E. Salas (Eds.), Toward a science of distributed learning (pp. 209-234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

KEY TERMS

Blended Learning: The combination of face-to-face and online instruction.

Course Management Systems: Integrated learn-ing tools or packages that facilitate the tracking and monitoring of student online learning in technology settings.

Learner-Centered Paradigm: Viewpoint or learn-ing philosophy that takes the perspective of the learner when considering the design, delivery, or assessment of learning.

Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: 14 principles developed by the American Psychological Association based on decades of research on human learning, development, and motivation that focus on ways to help learners learn, and are intended to provide vital information for the redesign of schooling.

Mobile Learning: Learning that occurs across learning settings or locations through the use of hand-held, portable, or wireless devices by learners on the move.

Participatory Learning Culture: Situations wherein individuals can contribute to the knowledge building process instead of passively consuming pre-packaged knowledge and information; in such cases, anyone with access to the Web has an opportunity to build, tinker with, or share information that might be of value to a growing knowledge base or learning community.

Read-Write Web: Signifies that the Web is no longer limited as a read-only device for passive reception of information or casual browsing; instead, any individual can now contribute to it as seen in such tools as wikis, blogs, and social networking software.

Ubiquitous Learning: A type of learning that uti-lizes the capabilities of mobile and wireless technologies to support seamless and connected learning.

Web 2.0: Refers to a second generation of Web-based tools, services, and communities, such as blogs, podcasts, RSS feeds, wikis, and social networking software that allow users to interact, collaborate, share, and construct new knowledge collectively. From an educational standpoint, such technologies allow learn-ers to participate in their own learning and contribute to the learning of others, instead of simply passively receiving information and knowledge from experts and course resources. In effect, learning is more personal-ized, shared, and participatory.

Wiki: A collaborative online authoring technology wherein users can easily view, modify, update, delete, and share content in the form of Web pages, sometimes freely without a password or account registration. Such pages can also link to other online objects and resources.