Teaching Methods - Reference_03 - Additional Reading

8/14/2019 Teaching Methods - Reference_03 - Additional Reading

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/teaching-methods-reference03-additional-reading 1/41

Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education(2002) 10(4), 497-537

Student-Centered, Technology-Rich LearningEnvironments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing

Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and Learning

ATSUSI HIRUMIUniversity of Houston–Clear Lake

[email protected]

This article presents a model for designing student-centered,technology-rich learning environments (SCenTRLE). The

model helps educators operationalize constructivist and stu-dent-centered approaches to teaching and learning by delim-iting eight instructional events for facilitating knowledgeconstruction and the development of life-long learners. Thearticle describes theoretical and conceptual foundations forthe model, details the model and discusses enduring issues,including the use of technology, student attitudes, levels of implementation, holistic versus analytic performance assess-ment, and the application of constructivist principles withinthe context of traditional instructional systems design (ISD)

models.

Student-centered approaches to teaching and learning stress the impor-tance of students’ past experiences, exploring individual needs and interests,promoting active participation, stimulating higher-order thinking, and en-couraging life-long learning (e.g., Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; APA, 1993;CTGV, 1992; Holmes Group; 1990; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Sim-ilarly, constructivists advocate the development of environments that embedlearning in authentic contexts, present learners with multiple perspectives,

encourage self awareness and responsibility for learning and use moderntechnologies to facilitate telecommunications and the social construction of knowledge (Wilson, 1996; Duffy, Lowyck, & Jonassen, 1993; Cunningham,Duffy, & Knuth, 1993; Knuth & Cunningham, 1993). Many accede with



498 Hirumi

such pedagogical methods. The challenge lies in operationalizing student-

centered, constructivist instructional strategies with a class of 30 plus stu-dents in an educational system that is more inclined to resist rather than em-brace change.

The lack of time, training, and incentives, coupled with large class sizesand incongruence with teacher beliefs, student expectations, and administra-tive directives appear to be some of the more pervasive reasons why class-room instruction remains predominately teacher-directed. For educators withlittle time, scant resources and limited exposure to student-centered meth-ods, heuristics may not be sufficient for re-engineering their classrooms.

Table 1 compares a set of heuristic design principles and an algorithmfor designing and sequencing key instructional events. Heuristics define ba-sic principles or guidelines for solving problems (in this case, designing stu-dent-centered learning environments). Algorithms delineate a sequence of instructional events (or a step-by-step process) for facilitating learning. Forinstance, educators attempting to create a constructivist learning environ-ment as posited by Honebein’s (1996) must determine when instruction is toprovide experiences, present multiple perspectives, embed learning withinauthentic context, and so forth. In contrast, educators applying Gagné’s

(1977, 1974) nine events of instruction must still operationalize each event,but the basic sequencing is already defined. Heuristics leave considerableroom for interpretation, promoting creativity, and the development of alter-native environments but they still require educators to formulate an instruc-tional strategy for addressing each principle.

Table 1A Comparison of a Heuristic and an Algorithm for Designing Instruction

Design Heuristic Design Algorithm

Honebein’s (1996) Gagné’s (1974, 1977)Constructivist Learning Environments Nine Events of Instruction

1. Provide experience with knowledge 1. Gain attentionconstruction process 2. Inform learners of objective(s)

2.Present multiple perspectives 3. Stimulate recall of prior knowledge3.Embed learning in authentic context 4. Present stimulus materials4.Encourage ownership and voice in 5. Provide learning guidance

learning process 6. Elicit performance5.Embed learning in social experience 7. Provide feedback about performance6.Encourage use of multiple modes of 8. Assess performance

representation 9. Enhance retention and transfer7. Encourage reflection and self-awarenessof knowledge construction process.



Student-Centered Learning 499

A number of algorithms have been posited for applying behaviorist and

cognitive information processing theories of learning (Hirumi, 2002), butthere is a dearth of algorithms for creating student-centered and constructiv-ist learning environments. The major of published guidelines for creatingstudent-centered, constructivist learning environments are heuristic in na-ture. Algorithms are now needed to help educators apply constructivist de-sign principles and to generate, text, and refine strategies that will helptransform traditional, teacher-directed methods into more student-centeredapproaches to teaching and learning.

This article presents a model for creating student-centered, technology-

rich learning environments (SCenTRLE). It is designed to enhance studentlearning and performance by helping educators operationalize constructivistapproaches to teaching and learning. Based on constructivist learning theo-ries and key principles associated with student-centered learning, problem-based learning, and performance assessments, the model presents eight in-structional events for facilitating knowledge construction and the develop-ment of metacognitive skills associated with life-long learning. The article isdivided into three parts. First, the theoretical and conceptual foundations forthe model are discussed. Second, the model is postulated, along with exam-

ples illustrating its application. Finally, key issues are examined, includingfield-test data associated with the use of technology, student attitudes, levelsof implementation, holistic versus analytic performance assessment, and theapplication of constructivist principles within the context of traditional in-structional systems design (ISD) models.

SCENTRLE FOUNDATIONS

A number of factors influenced the development of the SCenTRLEmodel. Based, in part, on a framework for examining learning environmentsposited by Land and Hannifin (1996), the following describes four SCenTR-LE foundations.

Societal Foundation

We now live in an information-based, technology-driven society. Con-

servative estimates indicate that the amount of information available to hu-mankind is doubling every five to seven years. Technology also continues toadvance at an accelerating rate. Futurists suggested that 80% of the technol-ogies that will be in use in the beginning of 2000 AD had yet to be invented



500 Hirumi

prior to that year. For educators, the rapid accumulation of, and changes in,information and technology present a number of significant challenges. Forexample, so much information is being produced that it is nearly impossibleto cover the facts, concepts, rules, and procedures, not to mention the variedperspectives associated with a particular discipline within the context of acourse or program of study. Furthermore, with the increasing complexityand rate of change, self-directed learning and problem-solving become vital,along with interpersonal and team skills. It is evident that new ways of teaching and learning must be devised if our children are to be prepared forthe 21st century. Reading, writing, arithmetic, and discipline specific knowl-edge are still essential, but no longer sufficient (Hirumi, 1995). Educatorsmust also develop students’ ability to access and apply information, as wellas their ability to become independent, self-regulated, life-long learners. Thesocietal foundation of SCenTRLE suggests instruction should: (a) enhancelearner’s ability to search for, access, retrieve, interpret, synthesize, orga-nize, transfer, and communicate information; and (b) promote the develop-ment of metacognitive strategies and self-regulatory skills associated withlife-long learning.

Psychological Foundation

Psychological foundations reflect views about how individuals acquire,organize, and deploy skills and knowledge (Land & Hannifin, 1996). Con-structivist theories of human learning provide the psychological foundationfor the SCenTRLE model. Since space limitations prevent an extensive dis-cussion of constructivism, in addition to those cited in the following para-graphs, interested readers are referred to the works of von Glasersfeld(1981, 1989), Jonassen (1991, 1994), Duffy, Lowyck, and Jonassen (1993),Marra and Jonassen (1993), Lebow (1993), and Rorty (1991) among others.In brief, there is no single constructivist theory. Constructivist approaches toteaching and learning is grounded in several research traditions (Perkins,1991; Paris & Byrnes, 1989).

The roots of constructivism may be traced back to a little known Latintreatise, De antiquissima Italorum sapientia , written in 1710 by Giambattis-ta Vico (as cited in von Glasersfeld, 1991). Vico suggested that knowledgeis knowing what parts something is made of, as well as knowing how theyare related. “Objective, ontological reality, therefore, may be known to God,who constructed it, but not to a human being who has access only to subjec-tive experience” (von Glasersfeld, 1991, p. 31).




A second, related path to constructivism comes from Gestalt theories of

perception (Kohler, 1925) that focus on the ideas of closure, organization,and continuity (Bower & Hilgard, 1981). Like Vico, Gestalt psychologistssuggested that people do not interpret pieces of information separately andthat cognition imposes organization on the world.

Theories of intellectual development provide a third research traditioncontributing to the notion of cognitive construction (Piaget, 1952, 1969,1971; Baldwin, 1902, 1906-1911; Bruner, 1974). Developmentalists believethat learning results from adaptations to the environment that is character-ized by increasingly sophisticated methods of representing and organizing

information. Developmental scientists also forward the notion that childrenprogress through different levels or stages that allow children to constructnovel representations and rules (Carey, 1985; Case, 1985; Sternberg, 1984;Keil, 1984; Siegler, 1985).

A fourth line of research depicts learning as a socially mediated experi-ence where individuals construct knowledge based on interactions with theirsocial and cultural environment. Like Piaget and Bruner, Vygotsky (1962,1978) believed that the formation of intellect could be understood by study-ing the developmental process. However, like Bruner, Vygotsky believed

that intellectual development could only be fully understood within the so-cio-cultural context in which the development was occurring.

Developmental and social views of constructivism now prevail. It is im-portant to note that the two perspectives are not mutually exclusive; distinc-tions are more of a matter of emphasis than beliefs. Whereas developmentalconstructivists tend to concentrate on individuals and their interactions withthe environment, social constructivists focus on groups and their sociocul-tural contexts. Tables 2 lists cognitive constructivist and social constructivistteaching principles and practices (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998) that portray

the psychological foundations for SCenTRLE.



502 Hirumi

Table 2

Cognitive (Developmental) and Social Constructivist Principles andPractices as Posited by Bonk & Cunningham (1998)

Cognitive Constructivist Social Constructivist

Mind: The mind is in the head; hence, Mind: The mind is located in the socialthe learning focus in on active interaction setting and emerges fromcognitive reorganization. acculturation into an established communi-

ty of practice.

Raw Materials: Use raw or primary Authentic Problems: Learning environ-

data sources, manipulatives, and ments should reflect real-world complexi-interactive materials. ties. Allow students to explore specializa

tions and solve real-world problems asthey develop clearer interests and deeperknowledge and skills.

Student Autonomy: Ask students for Team Choice and Common Interest: Buildpersonal theories and understandings not just on individual student priorbefore any instruction. Allow student knowledge, but on common interests andthinking to drive lessons and alter experiences. Make group learninginstruction based on responses. activities relevant, meaningful, and both

Place thinking and learning respon- process and product oriented. Givesibility in students’ hands to foster students and student teams choice inownership. learning activities. Foster student and

group autonomy, initiative, leadership, andactive learning.

Meaningfulness and Personal Social Dialogue and Elaboration: UseMotivation : Make learning a person- activities with multiple solutions, novelty,ally relevant and meaningful en- uncertainty, and personal interest todeavor. Relate learning to practical promote student-student and student-

ideas and personal experiences. teacher dialogue, idea sharing andAdapt content based on student articulation of views. Seek studentresponses to capitalize on personal elaboration on and justification of theirinterests and motivation. responses with discussion, interactive

questioning, and group presentations.

Conceptual Organization/Cognitive Group Processing and Reflection: Framing: Organize information around Encourage team as well as individualconcepts, problems, questions, reflection and group processing onthemes, and interrelationships, while experiences.

framing activities using thinking-related terminology (e.g., classify,summarize, predict).

Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions: Teacher Explanations, Support, and Adapt the cognitive demands of Demonstrations: Demonstrate problemsinstructional tasks to students’ steps and provide hints, prompts, andcognitive schemes, while building on cues for successful problem completion.

(continued on next page)




Table 2 (continued)

Cognitive (Developmental) and Social Constructivist Principles andPractices as Posited by Bonk & Cunningham (1998)

Cognitive Constructivist Social Constructivist

prior knowledge. Design lessons to Provide explanations, elaborations, andaddress students’ previous miscon- clarifications where requested.ceptions, for instance, by posingcontradictions to original hypothesesand then inviting responses.

Questioning: Promote student inquiry Multiple Viewpoints: Foster explanations,and conjecture with open-ended examples, and multiple ways of under-questions. Also, encourage student standing a problem or difficult material.question-asking behavior and peer Build in a broad community of audiencesquestioning. beyond the instructor.

Individual Exploration and Collaboration and Negotiation: FosterGenerating Connections: Provide student collaboration and negotiation oftime for the selection of instructional meaning, consensus building, jointmaterials and the discovery of proposals, prosocial behaviors, conflictinformation, ideas, and relationships. resolution, and general social interaction.

Also, includes encouraging studentsto generate knowledge connections,metaphors, personal insights, andbuild their own learning products.

Self-Regulated Learning: Foster Learning Communities: Create a class-opportunity for reflection on skills room ethos or atmosphere wherein there isused to manage and control one’s joint responsibility for learning, studentslearning. Help students understand are experts and have learning ownership,and become self-aware of all aspects meaning is negotiated, and participationof one’s learning, from planning to structures are understood and ritualized.

learning performance evaluation. Technology and other resource explora-Given the focus on individual mental tions might be used to facilitate ideaactivity, the importance of cooperative generation and knowledge building withinthis community of peers. Interdiscipli- problem-based learning and thematicnary learning or peer interaction is in nstruction in incorporated whereverthe modeling of and support for new possible.individual metacognitive skill.

Assessment: Focus of assessment Assessment: Focus of assessment is onis on individual cognitive development team as well as individual participation inwithin predefined stages. Use of socially organized practices and interac-authentic portfolio and performance- tions. Educational standards are sociallybased measures with higher order negotiated. Embed assessment inthinking skill evaluation criteria or authentic, real-world tasks and problemsscoring rubrics. with challenges and options. Focus on

collaboration, group processing, teamwork,and sharing of findings. Assessment iscontinual, less, formal, subjective,collaborative, and cumulative.



504 Hirumi

No discussion of psychological principles is complete, however, without ex-

amining their epistemological assumptions.

Epistemological Foundations

Over the past century, social psychologists have taken a number of al-ternative approaches to explain how the mind acquires knowledge. One ex-treme is characterized by an objectivist epistemology that suggests that reali-ty is external to individuals and is based on natural laws, physical properties,

and their relationships. Objectivists believe that the mind processes symbolsand mirrors reality, and that thought is governed by, and reflects external re-ality. Objectivists believe that meaning is external to and independent of theunderstanding of individuals.

The polar opposite of objectivism is interpretivism. Interpretists believethat knowledge is constructed. The mind interprets sensory data and orga-nizes it through active and dynamic processes according to innate perceptualcategories such as numerosity and animacy (Keil, 1982; Herrnstein & Bor-ing, 1968; Bower & Hilgard, 1981). Furthermore, interpretists emphasize

concepts, such as perceptual relations (Gibson, 1966) and the structure of language (Chomsky, 1965) that are imposed upon the world by individuals.Interpretists believe that reality is internal to the organism and that meaningis dependent on individual understanding.

An alternative to objectivism and interpretivism is pragmatism(Driscoll, 1994). Similar to interpretists, pragmatists believe that reality is“constructed” and that meaning is negotiated within a social context. How-ever, pragmatists believe that an individual’s reality is mediated by their pri-or knowledge structures and their interactions with the environment. They

believe that the mind builds symbols and interprets nature, and that thoughtis governed by an individual’s perception that reflects their internal reality.Pragmatists believe that meaning is constructed by individuals based ontheir interpretation and understanding of reality. The SCenTRLE model fallsin the pragmatist camp.

One of the basic assumptions of SCenTRLE is the existence of an exter-nal reality that cannot be delineated directly through experience. Rather in-dividuals construct knowledge by manipulating information and by interact-ing with others. The belief that knowledge is constructed within a social

context is the epistemological foundation for the SCenTRLE model.




Pedagogical Foundation

Pedagogical foundations emphasize how information is conveyed tolearners and focus on the activities, methods, and structures of the environ-ment that are designed to facilitate learning (Land & Hannifin, 1996). Prin-ciples associated with student-centered learning (Bonk & Cunningham,1998; APA, 1993; CTGV, 1992; Holmes Group; 1990), problem-based learn-ing (Barrows, 1985, 1992) and performance assessments (Heywood, 1989;Loacker, 1991; Loacker, Cromwell, & O’Brien, 1986; Loacker & Ment-kowski, 1993; Mentkowski & Loacker, 1985) form the pedagogical founda-

tions for the SCenTRLE model.Figure 1 illustrates both teacher-centered and student-centered models

of instruction. Under the traditional teacher-centered approach, teachersserve as the center for epistemological authority, directing the learning pro-cess and controlling students’ access to information. This model evolved toincrease the number of students receiving instruction from an instructor; anecessity during the agricultural and industrial eras. Under this paradigm,students are treated as “empty vessels” and learning is viewed as an additiveprocess with new information simply being added on top of existing knowl-

edge. Instruction is geared to the “average” students and everyone is forcedto progress at the same pace. Parents and community members may contrib-ute to student learning, but rarely in any systematic fashion.

Figure 1. A comparison of teacher centered and student centered learningenvironments

InformationKnowledge

Class ofStudents

Teachers

Family &Community

Teacher-CenteredInstruction

InformationKnowledge

Individual &

CollaboratingStudents

TeachersFamily &

Community

Student-CenteredLearning



506 Hirumi

Research, however, indicates that students are not empty vessels. They

come to class with their own perceptual frameworks (Erickson, 1984) andlearn in different ways (Kolb, 1984). Learning is no longer viewed as a pas-sive process where static bodies of facts and formulas are passed along tothe uninitiated. Rather, learning is an active, dynamic process in which con-nections are constantly changing and the structure is continually reformatted(Cross, 1991). In short, students construct their own meaning by talking, lis-tening, writing, reading, and reflecting on content, ideas, issues and con-cerns, (Meyers & Jones, 1993). In student-centered environments, learnersare given direct access to the knowledge-base and work individually and in

small groups to solve authentic problems. In such environments, parents andcommunity members also have direct access to teachers and the knowledge-base, playing an integral role in schooling process. Key principles associatedwith teacher-centered and student-centered approaches to teaching andlearning are compared in Table 3.

Problem-based learning (PBL), as a model for instruction, has been adopt-ed by schools of medicine (Barrows, 1985, 1986, 1992), business (Stinson &Milter, 1996), education (Bridges & Hallinger, 1992; Duffy, 1994), architec-ture, law, engineering, and social work (Boud & Feletti, 1991), and in high

schools (Barrows & Myers, 1993). Although the model has been adapted tomeet the needs of each situation, there are a number of basic concepts thatare common to most approaches that are applied in SCenTRLE. In particu-lar, students are first presented with an authentic problem and are asked toassess the current knowledge of the problem, define learning requirements,and develop an action plan based on their analysis of the problem. Studentsthen engage in self-directed learning, gathering information from all avail-able resources (e.g., library, on-line databases, consultants). After self-di-rected learning, students meet again to discuss what they have learned and to

re-examine the problem. They repeat this cycle, revising their objectives,synthesizing facts, identifying further learning requirements and reformulat-ing plans until they feel that they have solved the problem. Students thenpresent their solutions and go through a series of self- and peer-evaluationsto assess their skills relative to self-directed learning, problem-solving, andgroup work.




Table 3

A Comparison of Instructional Variables Associated with Student-Centeredand Teacher-Centered Approaches to Teaching and Learning

Instructional Instructional ApproachVariables Teacher Centered Student Centered

Learning Outcomes • Discipline-specific verbal • Interdisciplinary informationinformation. and knowledge• Lower order thinking skills • Higher order thinking(e.g., recall, identify, define). skills (e.g., problem solving)• Memorization of abstract • Information processing skills

and isolated facts, figures, (access, organize, interpret,and formulas. communicate information)

Goals and Objectives • Teacher prescribes learning • Students work with teachersgoals and objectives based on to select learning goals andprior experiences, past objectives based on authenticpractices, and state and/or problems and students’ priorlocally mandated standards. knowledge, interests and

experience

Instructional Strategy • Instructional strategy • Teacher works with students

prescribed by teacher; to determine learning strategy• Group-paced, designed for • Self-paced, designed to“average” student meet needs of individual• Information organized and studentpresented primarily by teacher • Student given direct access(e.g., lectures) with some to multiple sources ofsupplemental reading information (e.g., books, on-assignments line databases, community

members)

Assessment • Assessments used to sort • Assessment integral part of

students learning• Paper and pencil exams • Performance based, used toused to assess students assess students ability toacquisition of information apply knowledge• Teacher sets performance • Students work with teacherscriteria for students to define performance criteria• Students left to find out • Student develop self-what the teacher wants assessment and peer

assessment skills

Teachers’ Role • Teacher organizes and • Teacher provide multiplepresents information to group means for accessingof students information• Teacher acts as gatekeeper • Teacher acts as facilitator,of knowledge, controlling helps students access andstudents access to information process information• Teacher directs learning • Teacher facilitates learning

(continued on next page)



508 Hirumi

Table 3 (continued)

A Comparison of Instructional Variables Associated with Student-Centeredand Teacher-Centered Approaches to Teaching and Learning

Instructional Instructional ApproachVariables Teacher Centered Student Centered

Students’ Role • Students expect teachers to • Students take responsibilityteach them what’s required to for learningpass the test • Active knowledge seekers• Passive recipients of • Constructs knowledge andinformation meaning

• Reconstructs knowledgeand information

Environment • Students sit in rows, • Students work atinformation presented through stations, with access tolectures, books and films. electronic resources.

Concepts associated with performance assessment represent the finalSCenTRLE pedagogical foundation. Performance assessments differ fromconventional paper and pencil tests in two key respects. First, unlike con-

ventional measures that tend to evaluate students’ possession of knowledge,performance assessments judge students’ ability to apply knowledge. Sec-ond, performance assessments are used as an integral part of learning (Hey-wood, 1989; Loacker, 1991; Loacker, Cromwell, & O’Brien, 1986; Loacker& Mentkowski, 1993; Mentkowski & Loacker, 1985). Rather than sortingstudents, such assessments tell students and their instructors how well theyare developing their skills and knowledge and what they need to do to devel-op them further. This provides students with profiles of their emerging skillsto help them become increasingly independent learners. The development

and implementation of performance assessments are key components of SCenTRLE.

The attributes delineated in Table 3, as well as many of the aforemen-tioned foundations provide useful heuristics for creating student-centeredlearning environments. However, for educators with limited resources, whohave been indoctrinated with decades of teacher-centered methods, a set of principles may not be sufficient for reinventing their classroom. The secondpart of this article presents a readily applicable, eight-event model for opera-tionalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning.




EIGHT EVENTS FOR STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING

SCenTRLE represents an instructional strategy for operationalizingconstructivist approaches to teaching and learning. It consists of eight basicevents for facilitating knowledge construction and the development of life-long learners that may be applied across disciplines. One context is de-scribed to illustrate the application of the model.

Context

The SCenTRLE model is now being applied in multiple contexts rang-ing from elementary schools to institutes of higher education (Hirumi,1996a; 1996b). For this article, the focus is placed on one specific applica-tion—in an introductory, undergraduate course on the educational applica-tions of computer technology.

Traditionally, introductory computer courses have been taught usingteacher-centered approaches to training and instruction. Under this ap-proach, the instructor acts as the center of epistemological authority, defin-

ing learning goals and objectives, organizing and presenting content infor-mation, and setting performance standards for students. Although studentsdo get a chance to develop and practice some basic computer skills, classesare often taught in lock-step fashion, moving from one technology to the next,emphasizing the use of different software applications. Though these methodshave proven useful, at least in relation to short-term use of technology, they of-ten fail to develop educators’ ability to become independent computer users ortheir ability to create innovative solutions to real-world problems.

Teacher-centered instruction often fails to address individual learner

needs. Students typically enter introductory computer classes with greatlyvarying skills and interests. When presented with group-paced instruction,learners with relatively advanced computer skills often get bored, work ahead, and become frustrated with the lack of materials, while learners withlittle prior experience fall behind because they lack the basic skills necessaryto keep up with the instructor. Research also suggests that elementary andsecondary teachers, school administrators, and counselors may need differ-ent skill sets, as well as exposure to different software applications and realworld examples (Hirumi & Grau, 1996). Furthermore, traditional technology

related coursework fails to model student-centered approaches to trainingand instruction, further perpetuating teacher-directed practices. Figure 2 de-picts eight events designed to address many of the shortfalls associated with



510 Hirumi

traditional teacher-directed instructional methods by operationalizing con-

structivist approaches to teaching and learning.

Figure 2. Eight events for student-centered learning

During the initial field-test, the model was applied in one section of a15 week, three- credit hour undergraduate course that consisted of 9 maleand 21 female students ranging from 22 to 35 years of age. Data were gath-ered from voluntary small group interviews held after the eighth and lastweek of class. The instructor also kept a journal of weekly activities, obser-

vations and comments heard before, during, and after class.Data collected during the first day of class indicated that seven students

were novice computer users (little to no prior experience), 17 were appren-tice computer users (e.g., having taken a computer course and used one tothree applications on a limited basis), and the remaining six were more pro-ficient computer users (used several applications on a consistent basis).Twenty-five students were undergraduate preservice teacher education ma-

jors with 19 seeking elementary and middle school certification and sixpursing high school teacher certification. Others included three students ma-

joring in educational leadership and two majoring in school counseling. Allwere either juniors or seniors in undergraduate school.

Event 2

Event 7

Event 3 Event 4 Event 5 Event 6

Event 8Event 1

SetChallenge

NegotiateLearning Goals& Objectives

NegotiateLearning

Strategies

ConstructKnowledge

NegotiatePerformance

Critieria

Monitor Performance & Provide Feedback

CommunicateResults

Conduct Self,Peer & ExpertAssessments




Event 1—Set Learning Challenge

The first event in the SCenTRLE model is to set the learning challengefor the course. The challenge may take the form of an instructional goal(Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1988), goal statement (Mager, 1997) or learningoutcome (Spady, 1994). The challenge should situate learning within an au-thentic context, describe what the students should be able to do as a result of learning, and state why it is important for students to address the challenge.

In many cases, it is the instructor’s responsibility is to delimit the learn-ing domain. Obtaining a degree or successful course completion often certi-

fies that students have acquired a specific set of skills and knowledge. Bysetting the challenge, educators can help ensure that students acquire appropri-ate skills and knowledge, while allowing them to take different paths towardachieving the goal based on their prior knowledge, interests, and experience.

For the introductory computer course, the challenge set during the firstday of class was:

...to enhance student learning and your own personal productivitythrough the application of computer technology. During the planning,

delivery, and analysis of instruction, effective computer using educa-tors select, apply, integrate, and evaluate the appropriate instructionaland information technologies to promote student learning and higher-order thinking. As a result, learners are able to use a variety of tech-nologies to explore ideas, pose questions, gather and disseminate in-formation, and support one another in learning. Educators activelyseek information on the application of emerging technologies fromvaried sources (e.g., journals, online databases, colleagues) to im-prove student learning. Educators also use technology to stimulatetheir own professional growth, facilitate communications, and en-

hance overall productivity.

Event 2—Negotiate Learning Goals and Objectives

The purpose of Event 2 is to develop students’ ability to assess theirown learning requirements by helping them set individual learning goals andobjectives for the course. The primary question addressed during this event

is, “What do you have to know and be able to do to meet the challenge forthe course?” To answer this question, students work with the instructorthrough a negotiation process that includes (a) a class discussion, (b) student



512 Hirumi

assessments, (c) preliminary definition of goals and objectives, (d) feedback

from the instructor, (e) revision if necessary, and (f) continuous monitoringand revisions throughout the semester.

After setting the learning challenge, a discussion is held about learninggoals and requirements on the first day. The instructor facilitates the discus-sion by helping students see that to address the challenge, educators must beable to:

! perform basic operations, such as starting and shutting down a comput-er, using a mouse, formatting disks, copying and saving files, navigating

the desktop, and trouble shooting basic problems;! address current trends and issues related to the application of computer

technology within educator’s chosen discipline;! use various computer applications to enhance personal productivity

such as (a) productivity tools, (b) telecommunication tools, (c) learningtools, (d) management and support tools, (e) authoring tools, (f) pro-gramming tools, and (g) collaborative tools;

! apply strategies for integrating the use of various applications with in-struction, administration and/or counseling to enhance students’ perfor-

mance;! self-direct your own learning by identifying goals and objectives, select-

ing and applying appropriate learning strategies, identifying appropriateresources, defining performance criteria, assessing learning, and revis-ing goals, strategies and criteria as necessary;

! search for, access, organize and interpret information gained from vari-ous resources (e.g., books, journals, online databases, experts); and

! effectively communicate the results of your learning through a combina-tion of text, audio, video and graphics.

After the class discussion, students are asked to assess their own entrylevel skills and knowledge using a Course Assessment Rubric. Table 4 rep-resents one of five standards contained in the Course Assessment Rubric,with others including: (a) the use of productivity tools (i.e., word processors,databases, spreadsheets, graphics); (b) the use of telecommunication tools(e.g., e-mail, listservs, WWW), (c) the use of multimedia and educationalsoftware; and (d) addressing technology related trends and issues. With therubric, students determine what they know and what they don’t know about

the educational applications of computer technology. They determine if theyconsider themselves to be novice, apprentice, proficient, or distinguishedcomputer users relative to each of the five course standards. At this point,




students are also informed of the minimum requirements for the class (i.e.,

to earn a “C,” students must at least demonstrate skills commensurate withan apprentice computer user).

Table 4Sample Self-Assessment Rubric for Computer Integration

Novice Apprentice Proficient Distinguished

• Little to no aware- • Describes some • Describes • Criticallyness of strategies ideas for integrating multiple strategies analyzes and

for integrating the computer applications. for integrating discussesuse of computer • Identifies and de- several computer numeroustechnology with scribes some applications with strategies forinstruction. conceptual instruction integrating a• Requires signifi- basis for integrat- • Discusses in number ofcant help to con- ing computer detail the con- different applica-struct a basic les- technology. ceptual basis tions withson plan that • Requires some help for integrating instruction.integrates the to construct a basic technology. • Analyzes anduse of computer lesson plan that • Describes multiple evaluatestechnology. integrates the use strategies for theoretical and

of a few applications. integrating technolo- conceptual basisgy within various for integratingroom and equipment computerconfiguration. technology.• Constructs instruct- • Analyzes andional units, with evaluates multiplelesson plans, teacher strategies forand student integratingmaterials, that in- technology withintegrate the use various room andof a combination equipmentof computer configurations.applications. • Designs

learning environ-ments thatintegrate the useof a combinationof applications.

All students, however, are not limited to the apprentice level. Toachieve an “A” or a “B,” students must demonstrate that they have increasedtheir computer skills and knowledge. For example, students entering withapprentice computer skills are encouraged to work towards becoming profi-cient computer users. Students use the self-assessment to determine whatthey already know and to identify what type of computer using educator they



514 Hirumi

want to be (i.e., novice, apprentice, proficient, or distinguished) at the end of

the course. The selected performance level becomes their individual learn-ing goals. Students further define individual learning objectives by statingspecific skills and knowledge necessary to achieve their goals. Students typi-cally complete this task as their first homework assignment, e-mailing theirtarget learning goals and objectives to the instructor for review and approval.

It is important to note that student goals and objectives may changeover time. As students learn more about the capabilities of computer tech-nology, they may choose to pursue different goals and objectives than thoseset at the beginning of the course. To modify individual goals and objectives

during the course, students must document the changes and communicatethem to the instructor to confirm their appropriateness.

The instructor is responsible for providing feedback on the goals andobjectives selected by each student. In this manner, the instructor can ensurethe appropriateness of the goals and objectives relative to course and pro-gram requirements, as well as make sure that each student has set challeng-ing, yet realistic expectations. At this point, some may ask, “that’s soundslike a lot of work, how will I find the time and energy to address all of thate-mail?” This is a good example of how the role of the instructor in a stu-

dent-centered environment changes from that of a “teacher” to a facilitator.The instructor actually spends similar amounts of time and energy during thecourse of the semester, but rather than spending time to prepare and presentlectures, the instructor use the time to guide the learning process.

Initially, students with little prior knowledge of the learning domainmay have difficulties determining their own learning requirements. To helplearners define their own goals and objectives, the instructor may recom-mend or require relevant readings. In this particular case, students are as-signed, A Review of Computer-Related State Standards, Textbooks, and

Journal Articles: Implications for Pre-service Teacher Education and Pro- fessional Development (Hirumi & Grau, 1996), after the initial class discus-sion before they identify their preliminary goals and objectives. Other class-es may also use an inventory of potential competencies, such as the courseassessment rubric generated for this course. Examples and templates (learn-ing scaffolds) are also used to help students identify appropriate learning ob-

jectives at the beginning of the semester.

Event 3—Negotiate Learning Strategy

The focus of Event 3 is to develop students’ learning strategies. The keyquestion to answer here is, “How will you achieve each of your learning




goals and objectives?” In class, students work with the instructor through a

similar negotiation process used to identify learning goals (i.e., class discus-sion, preliminary list, instructor feedback, revision, documentation, and on-going monitoring and refinement).

During the second class session, students and the instructor discuss vari-ous methods for acquiring computer related skills and knowledge. To sum-marize, class members work together to identify relevant learning strategiessuch as:

! going to the library to locate books, professional journals, government

publications, magazines and newspapers, using the ERIC, PsychLit, andDissertation Abstracts databases on CD ROM, and the VTLS catalogsystem;

! going to bookstores or looking through catalogs to find relevant booksand user manuals;

! using various search engines, or surfing the Internet to find relevantWorld Wide Web sites available through Netscape and/or other usefulresources (e.g., AskERIC, ERIC);

! searching for, accessing and participating in relevant newsgroups and

listservs;! practicing on the computer;! creating semantic maps to help organize and determine the relationship

between learned concepts;! identifying relevant professional organizations and going to local, state,

and/or national conferences, reading conference proceedings, and/orreading journal and newsletters published by the organization;

! talking to, or otherwise corresponding with fellow students, softwareand hardware vendors, practicing educators, and other recognized ex-

perts;! reading the articles, textbook and user manuals assigned for class and/or

made available through the Instructional Technology Center or theOpen Lab at the University of Houston–Clear Lake; and

! interacting with self-instructional text or WWW sites provided for class .

For homework, students are asked to list what they think are the beststrategies for achieving their own learning objectives. They e-mail their listto the instructor who again provides feedback as needed. Over the course of

the semester, students begin to realize that particular strategies are more ef-fective and efficient to achieve certain types of objectives than other strate-gies. For example, some may prefer interacting with a computer tutorial,



516 Hirumi

while others may find that a textbook, such as MS Office for Dummies is

more effective for learning basic technology skills. Whatever the case, stu-dents begin developing an important skill associated with independent learn-ers; that is, being able to discern the most useful strategies and resources forachieving particular classes of goals and objectives. Similar to Event 2, stu-dents are reminded that their learning strategies may change over time asthey begin to construct skills and knowledge.

Event 4—Construct Knowledge

Event 4 has students working individually and in groups to constructtheir skills and knowledge. After working with students to determine whatand how they are to learn, students apply their selected strategies and learn!In actuality, students are learning important problem-solving skills through-out the entire process. During Event 4, students concentrate on constructingsubject-matter specific skills and knowledge. Students spend considerabletime conducting research, working on computers, and discussing topics withone another. They actively partake in knowledge acquisition, critical evalua-

tion and knowledge validation that are essential for the development of higher-order thinking skills. The instructor monitors group and individual progress,answering questions, and facilitating learning when necessary.

Event 5—Negotiate Performance Criteria

The purpose of Event 5 is to help learners define performance criteriafor their selected goals and objectives. This event occurs after students are

given time (e.g., two to four weeks) to gain some experience with, and con-struct some knowledge of, the target learning domain. The first key questionto be answered during this event is, “How will you demonstrate that youhave achieved your learning goals and objectives?” Students again follow asimilar negotiation process as depicted in Events 2 and 3. During the classdiscussion, students and the instructor identify different methods, or work samples that may be used to demonstrate achievement of specified learninggoals and objectives. For example, a student may demonstrate performanceby creating work samples such as, but not limited to:

! Written reports ! Lesson plans! Computer generated documents ! Exams of students’ knowledge




! Rough drafts ! Student handouts! Notes ! Homework assignments! Revisions ! Student work samples! Descriptions ! Self-evaluations! Projects ! Supervisor evaluations! Peer reviews ! Student evaluations! Self-evaluations ! Peer evaluations! Anecdotal records ! Professional training! Reflective journal/writing ! Conferences/Workshops! Audiotapes/Videotapes ! Reflections on teaching! Artwork ! Instructional materials! Diagrams/Graphics/Charts ! Graphic presentations

For Event 5, students are asked to answer a second question, “For eachwork sample, what are the characteristics of excellent, satisfactory, and un-satisfactory performance?” It is believed that one of the key differences be-tween an expert and a novice is that an expert can look at his or her ownwork and judge its quality. Unfortunately, educators often do not developthis skill in students. Performance criteria are often not made explicit and

students are left wondering what the instructor wants. Event 5 not only helpslearners define their performance requirements for class, it also helps themdevelop their own ability to self-assess their own work, a key characteristicof self-directed, life-long learners.

At first, students may have some difficulty developing assessment ru-brics for their work samples. For this course, examples are provided to facil-itate the process (Table 5). Students e-mail their answers to the two ques-tions posed during this event to the instructor who then provides appropriatefeedback. Students revise their work if necessary and document their results.

The results are then used for self-assessments, peer assessments, and expertassessments.



518 Hirumi

Table 5

Sample Assessment Rubric for Oral Presentations

Distinguished ! Information is complete and accurate. Clear evidence ofresearch.! Presenters speak in a clear voice and show a flair for communi-cating with the audience.! Rates of speech are appropriate.! Speakers make eye contact with everyone and has no nervoushabits, is appropriately dressed, and has excellent posture.! Presentation involves audience, allowing time for audience tothink and respond.! Presentation is well organized with a beginning, middle, andend. There is a strong organizing theme, with clear main ideas andtransitions.! Visual aids are well done and are used to make presentationmore interesting and meaningful.! Handout(s) attractive, well organized, and includes relevantinformation.! Appropriate length.

Proficient ! Presenters speak in a clear voice and show a flair for communi-cating with the audience.!

Rates of speech are appropriate.! Speakers make eye contact with most participants, has nonervous habits and good posture.! Presentation involves audience in meaningful ways.! Presentation has clear beginning, middle, and end.! There is an organizing theme, with main ideas and transitions.! Information is accurate. Clear evidence of research.! Visual aids are well done and are used to make presentationmore interesting and meaningful.! Handout(s) attractive, well organized and includes relevantinformation.! Appropriate length.

Novice ! Presenters are difficult to hear. The rates of speaking are toofast or too slow.! The speakers do not show much interest and/or enthusiasm inthe topic. May sound like the speakers are reading the presentation .! Eye contact is made with only some of the audience.! The speakers may have nervous habits that distract formpresentation. The speakers are not presentable.! Speakers do not involve audience.! Presentation shows little organization, unclear purpose, unclearrelationship, and/or transition between presenters, rambles, or mayseem like a list of facts. Lacks conclusion.! Details and examples are lacking or not well chosen for thetopic or audience. Lacks evidence of research.! Very little use and/or poor use of visuals with no handouts.




Event 6—Conduct Self, Peer and Expert Assessments

For Event 6, students are required to assess each of their work samples,as well as ask at least one other adult (e.g., classmate, colleague) to assesstheir work using the performance criteria and assessment rubrics generatedduring Event 5. Materials may also be turned into the instructor or other ex-perienced computer using educators for expert assessments.

Students conduct the assessments to evaluate progress toward their objectives and to help produce quality products. Although this is the first timestudents are asked to formally “assess” something, it is important to note

that students should always be encouraged to reflect on their activitiesthroughout the entire learning process and to adjust their goals, strategies,and performance criteria accordingly. Students demonstrate completion of Event 6 by submitting documents that illustrate that they, as well as one oth-er person, have compared the work samples to defined performance criteria.The key is for students to also obtain corrective feedback for improvingtheir work samples.

Event 7—Monitor Performance and Provide Feedback

A SCenTRLE component of the model is that it is iterative. Up to thispoint, the eight events appear to be fairly linear. Event 7, however, occursthroughout the entire learning process. The instructor monitors students’work, examining documents, replying to e-mail, walking around the class-room, and continuously asking how students are doing and providing feed-back as necessary. This is one of the most important events to ensure thatstudents are managing their time effectively and are on track to meet their

goals and objectives. It is recommended that instructors carry a class rosteras they monitor students’ performance and check off names each time theyinteract with someone to ensure that everyone is being monitored.

Students also provide feedback to each other. Informally, this occursthroughout the semester as students work individually and in groups to de-velop their skills and knowledge. Formally, they are to assess at least two orthree pieces of work from classmates throughout the semester, and providefeedback based on their assessments. Students use the feedback to revisetheir goals, objectives, strategies, performance criteria, and work samples.



520 Hirumi

Event 8—Communicate Results

Finally, students are expected to formally communicate the results of their learning. During the entire process students are communicating the re-sults of their efforts in an informal manner and discussing what they havelearned with other students as well as with the instructor. The informal com-munications are used for self, peer, and expert assessments to generate feed-back. During this event, however, communications are formal and are usedfor both summative and formative evaluation purposes and to reach closureon a particular topic and/or unit of instruction. To formally communicate

their results, students prepare, present, and submit a portfolio.Student portfolios consist of three items; (a) assessment rubrics, (b)

work samples, and (c) a narrative description. The assessment rubrics in-clude the Course Assessment Rubric (Table 6) and the rubrics generated bystudents for each of their work samples. Students produce and select work samples that best illustrate achievement of their goals and objectives. Thenarratives describe what they (the students) did to learn (e.g., identify goalsand objectives, apply and revise learning strategies) and how the work sam-ples demonstrate that they have learned. Students must also reflect on their

learning, documenting trials and tribulations and formulating personal opin-ions about their experience (e.g., what was most and least useful and why?what more do they want and need to learn?). The narrative may be written in

journal fashion, describing day-to-day thoughts and activities, or may bewritten more as summary statements, discussing a week or more of work.

At the end of the course, students present their portfolios, showing oth-ers what they have done and discussing what they learned. Portfolio presen-tations may or may not be graded based on the goals and objectives for thecourse. The instructor then grades each portfolio based either on the amount

of growth exhibited during the semester (e.g., novice to apprentice computerusing educator), or on mastery (e.g., proficient computer using educator).For this course, if students decide to be graded on growth, they may receiveup to 20 points for each complete level they advance for each of the fivecourse standards. If students choose to be evaluated for mastery, they re-ceive a “C” for obtaining an apprentice level, a “B” for proficient and an“A” for distinguished performance. The decision on whether to be graded ongrowth or mastery is left to individual students.




SCENTRLE ISSUES

A number of challenges remain in the implementation of the SCenTR-LE model. This section discusses five SCenTRLE issues, including: (a) theuse of technology, (b) student attitudes, (c) levels of application, (d) holisticversus analytic portfolio assessment, and (e) the application of the eightevents within the context of traditional systematic design models. Field-testdata, including observations and anecdotal reports from small group inter-views are presented within the context of each issue.

Use of Computer Technology

As the name implies, one of the SCenTRLE issues is the use of technol-ogy. Taylor’s (1980) three classes of educational computer use provide aframework for organizing this discussion.

Computer as a tutor. When a computer is used as a tutor, it provides in-struction, content information and/or remediation for learning. For the un-

dergraduate introductory class on the educational applications of computertechnology, students most frequently used Microsoft’s online tutorials tolearn how to use the word processor, database management, spreadsheet, andgraphic presentation applications included in Microsoft Office ™ Other tutorialsused by students included, but were not limited to online tutorials available for

Netscape ™ related search engines, and basic HTML programming.

Computer as a tutee. When a computer is the tutee, it is the object of in-struction. For this class, the computer is the tutee when students learn about

basic operations, the use and integration of productivity tools (e.g., wordprocessor, database, spreadsheet, graphics), the use and integration of tele-communications (e.g., e-mail, listservs, IRC, WWW), the development of multimedia, the use of educational software, and trends and issues related tothe educational applications of computer technology (e.g., copyright, onecomputer classroom).

Computer as a tool. When a computer is used as a tool, it helps users per-form a task. In this course, students use the computer as a tool to conduct re-

search (e.g., using web browsers, search engines and online databases, suchas ERIC, to search for, access, and retrieve information), to facilitate com-munications among students and the instructor (e.g., using e-mail to facili-tate negotiations and a listserv to advance class discussions), and to produce



522 Hirumi

student portfolios (e.g., using a word processor, database management,

spreadsheet and graphics to produce work samples, and PowerPoint ™and Hyperstudio ™to prepare and present portfolios).

The SCenTRLE philosophy behind the use of technology is that educa-tors should integrate technology in their curriculum as professionals usetechnology within their disciplines. Over the past two decades, educatorshave applied different computer related curricula. In the beginning, studentswere taught how to program and learned concepts such as data input, loop-ing, and logical operations (programming curriculum). Then, in the comput-er literacy curriculum, students learned such things as computer vocabulary,

computer ethics, how a computer works, and the advantages/disadvantagesof computers, along with an introduction to computer programming. Thecomputer as a tool curriculum ensued where students learned to use variousapplications such as word processing, database management, spreadsheets,and graphics, followed by what has been labeled as the problem-solvingcomputer curriculum (Norton, 1993).

The curriculum posited here is termed the authentic computer curricu-lum. Educators applying an “authentic” curriculum should study, integrateand model the use of technology as professionals apply technology within

their chosen disciplines. For instance, in a biology course, rather than teach-ing students biology facts and figures, educators are now trying to teach stu-dents how to be a biologist, asking students to addresses biological problemsrather than presenting them with biological topics. To extend the analogy,biology teachers should research how biologists typically use computer tech-nology, and integrate and model the use of technology accordingly.

For the sample course, educators apply and model the use of technologyas proficient and expert computer using educators apply technology. In otherwords, to conduct research, keep abreast of current trends and issues, devel-

op educational materials, facilitate communications, manage resources, andto facilitate student learning and performance.

E-mail deserves further attention due to its substantial reliance in facili-tating student-centered learning. E-mail is the primary vehicle used to nego-tiate learning goals and objectives, learning strategies and performance cri-teria. After general class discussions about each of these events, students uti-lize e-mail to negotiate individualized goals and objectives, strategies andcriteria with the instructor. Initially, educators may think this unmanageablewith classes of over 30 students. However, two factors help alleviate this

concern. First, the change in emphasis from “teaching” to “facilitating” re-duces the amount of time educators spend of preparing lessons. Instead of generating lecture notes, overheads, handouts and lesson plans, the instruc-tor may spend the same time answering e-mail. In addition, field-test datasuggest that learners’ messages fall into several categories. For example,students’ initial goals and objectives generally fell into three basic groups(Table 6).




Table 6

Sample E-Mail Messages for Negotiating Learning Goals and Objectives

Novice Intermediate Advanced

Initial “I’ve never touched “I took an introductory “I used a computerStudent a computer before. course my freshmen quite often in myMessage I’d just like to be able year but didn’t previous job. I can

to turn one on and learn much. I’ve word process asuse it without break- got a computer and well as createing it. My school just modem at home dbases andgot ClarisWorks and and word process spreadsheets. I

I am supposed to learn a lot but that’s also subscribe tohow to use some type about it. I’d like America On-Line.of grade book to learn how to: However, I don’tprogram. However, I • use my modem know much aboutonly have one computer • create graphics education.in my classroom. I took • use PowerPoint Basically, I want tothe self-assessment to make presentations learn how to usequestionnaire and • locate software different applica-found that I basically for my elementary tions such asdon’t know anything. students.” Microsoft Office ,I’m not sure where to Multimedia, and

start." the Internet toenhance studentlearning.”

Instructor’sResponse In response, I encour- In response, I In response, I

aged the student to: encouraged the encouraged the• start with small goals, student to examine: student to:and expand later • how telecommuni- • take advantage• begin with basic cations may be of prior experienceoperations used to enhance • analyze• learn how to use student learning and theoreticalfundamental functions personal productivity foundations forand features of Claris - in greater detail applying computerWorks • programs such as technology• examine capabilities Kidspix & Hyperstudio • use self-of one-computer class- that elementary assessmentroom students can use questionnaire to• explore some to create graphics define moretelecommunication and presentations specific goalstechnologies and learn • the educational (particularlyhow to search for and applications of dbases multimedia andaccess information and spreadsheets telecommunicathrough the Internet tions)

• learn alternativestrategies forintegrating differentapplications withinstruction• explore capabili-ties of one-computer classroom



524 Hirumi

In general, novices had difficulty articulating their learning requirements

and were encouraged to start by identifying relatively simple and concreteobjectives. Learners with some prior computer experience (apprentice)wanted to learn how to use familiar hardware and software and had to bechallenged to address new topics. Relatively advanced computer users weremore apt to target topics that were considered new to them, but neededsome assistance in refining their objectives. Due to their similar nature, theinstructor could use the same basic feedback to respond to each category of responses. Although some customization was necessary, the instructor didnot have to generate totally unique responses to each student comment,

thereby, curtailing the amount of time that was necessary to address e-mail.

Student Attitudes

Student attitudes toward self-directed learning may present educatorswith one of the greatest challenges, particularly during initial efforts to re-structure their class. Several strategies were implemented during initialfield-testing to help alleviate students’ anxiety toward, and establish the rele-

vance of, student-centered learning. First, the importance of metacognitiveskills, particularly in light of accelerating rates of change, was stressed dur-ing SCenTRLE Events 1, 2, 3 and 5. Second, it was noted during theseevents that student-centered learning freed the instructor from group-pacedinstruction, allowing him/her to provide increased individualized attention.Third, students were encouraged to turn in work samples as soon as possibleso that they could receive feedback and revise their work prior to submittingtheir portfolio. Finally, a detailed description of the SCenTRLE model andportfolio requirements were included in the course syllabus that students

were asked to review after the first day of class. These strategies, however,proved insufficient for allying students’ fears and discontent, particularly atthe time of initial implementation.

During the first month, a significant number of students felt that it is theinstructor’s job to define learning objectives, gather, organize and presentcontent information, and to prescribe performance requirements. Remarks,such as “isn’t this what the teacher is supposed to do?” “I wish you would

just tell me what to do?” and “I don’t see why we have to do all of this extrawork?” were recorded during initial field-testing. Two students dropped the

class after the second week, noting that the instructional method was neitherwhat they expected nor desired. Such statements present somber testimoniesfor an educational system that appears to make students more reliant upon a




teacher to tell them what to do, than foster a healthy desire to direct their

own learning.The voluntary small group interview held at mid-term revealed that the

lack of exposure to student-centered methods, coupled with computer anxi-ety felt by novice and intermediate computer users were the primary reasonsfor the negative attitudes experienced during the initial weeks of class. Twoof the seven who participated in the interview were relatively advancedcomputer users. Both liked the SCenTRLE method and were appreciative of the opportunity to define and pursue their own learning objectives. The re-maining participants, who were either novice or intermediate computer us-

ers, felt that if they were either more experienced computer users or moreexperienced with the SCenTRLE model, they would not have had as manydifficulties during the first several weeks of class. The fact that many wereanxious about using computers to begin with, and were then confronted witha “new” instructional strategy appeared to cause the initial dissatisfactionwith the model.

After the seventh week, the majority of students no longer expresseddiscontent with the course. It appeared that after experiencing some successwith computers and with the SCenTRLE model, students, in general, felt

more confident in their ability to meet course requirements and were satis-fied that the amount of time and effort put into coursework was worthwhile.Students participating in the mid-term interview suggested that submitting aportfolio item and receiving feedback on its appropriateness was the singlemost important factor in helping improve student attitudes toward class.

Twelve of the 15 students, who participated in the second voluntarysmall group interview, thought that the SCenTRLE model was an effectivemethod for addressing individual needs and interests, and for providing under-graduate introductory computer instruction. Ten indicated that they would be

interested in taking more classes that applied the SCenTRLE model and 12believed that SCenTRLE could be applied successfully across disciplines.Two students did not feel that SCenTRLE was appropriate for this, or anyother class, noting that some students need and want direct instruction andshould be presented with explicit performance criteria, rather than having togenerate and negotiate their own.

Three anecdotal reports obtained during the second group interview fur-ther illustrate students’ attitudes, particularly in relation to the developmentof metacognitive skills and life-long learners. Student 1, who started class as

a novice computer user said:

I was really confused in the beginning. I found it really difficult to de-fine my own learning objectives, learning strategies and performance



526 Hirumi

criteria. I know it’s important to become an independent, life-long

learner, and I can see how these activities might help me in the future,but I think I would have learned more if someone gave me more [di-rect] instruction.

Student 2, who was an apprentice computer user commented:

At first, I wasn’t sure if I would like this class. Not receiving grades[on assignments] during the semester made me really uneasy. Howev-er, after awhile, I found that I could really learn a lot on my own andthe instructor was always there if I couldn’t figure out something. Ireally feel a lot more confident using computers now and feel that Ican now continue to learn about them without taking a class. I am re-ally glad I decided to stay in class and I think I’m going to try to setup class like this when I start teaching.

Student 3, who began as a relatively proficient computer user noted that:

[this] class allowed me to learn different programs and explore topicsthat I don’t think I would have been able to in a typical college class.So many of the other students were novice computer users, if I had todo what they did, I would have been totally bored! I wish more of myclasses used this [SCenTRLE] format. Maybe then, I wouldn’t feellike I’m wasting my money.

Interview participants suggested that sample portfolio items and exam-ples of students’ input for Events 2, 3, and 4 would have enhanced their per-formance and ameliorated students’ attitudes. They also recommended thatadditional efforts be made earlier in the semester to provide students withconcrete feedback on their performance (e.g., a score on an assignment).They felt that the instructor’s comments made during Events 2, 3 and 4 wereuseful, but insufficient for them to assess their progress relative to course ex-pectations.

Level of Application

During initial field-testing, the eight events of student-centered learningwere applied at the course level; that is, students went through each of theeight events once during the 15 week semester. However, two commentsfrom students made during both small group interviews suggest that it may bemore effective to apply the eight events at a unit level, particularly in situationswhen the majority of students have either little prior content knowledge and/orexperience with self-directed learning.




First, the interviews revealed that the detailed course syllabus increased,

rather than decreased students’ anxiety. Apparently, the 36-page syllabusprovided during the first day of class contained too much information. Eventhough students were given a week to read the syllabus and over an hour of the second class period was spent reviewing the syllabus and answeringquestions, students felt overwhelmed with the number of “new” conceptsthat were presented relative to the use of technology and the implementationof the SCenTRLE model. It was recommended that the syllabus, as well asthe course, be divided and presented in smaller chunks.

Second, although feedback was given throughout the semester on the

appropriateness of individual objectives, learning strategies, and perfor-mance criteria, as well as the quality of work samples, the majority of stu-dents wanted finite scores on which to base their progress. They recom-mended that the course be broken down into three-five units and that gradesbe assigned at the end of each unit so that students could better determinetheir performance relative to individual and course standards.

Holistic versus Analytic Portfolio Assessment and Students’ Performance

When grades are required, educators must decide whether to baseachievement scores on either a holistic or analytic assessment of studentportfolios. Holistic or global analysis provides a single score based on anoverall impression of students’ work samples. Analytic or point scoring pro-vides separate scores based on different dimensions or components of stu-dents’ work. For the field test, grades were based on a holistic analysis of students’ portfolios. Students’ work samples were compared to the CourseAssessment Rubric to determine if they achieved apprentice, proficient or

distinguished levels of performance along five standards. Since all 28 stu-dents completing the course decided to base their grades on growth, theirperformance level at the end of the course, as demonstrated by their portfoli-os, was compared to their entry level skills and knowledge, as measured bystudents’ self-assessment, to determine their final grade (see “Event 8” forfurther details on how final grades were determined).

Based on students’ portfolios, it appears that the SCenTRLE modelwas, in general, an effective method for developing students’ computerskills. Table 8 depicts the amount of growth exhibited by class members. In

short, 12 out of 28 students completing the course received an “A” (43%),advancing one full level along all five course standards. Thirteen studentsreceived a “B” (47%), advancing one level in three or four standards and



528 Hirumi

demonstrating some progress in the other one or two. Two students obtained

a “C” (7%), exhibiting some progress in three areas, and one student re-ceived an “F” (3%), demonstrating little to no progress in any of the coursestandards (Table 7).

Table 7Summary of Students’ Performance as Measured by Students’ Portfolios

Final Number of Entry Skills & Final DemonstratedGrade Students Knowledge Performance

A 2 Novice Apprentice6 Apprentice Proficient4 Proficient Distinguished

B 3 Novice Apprentice/Novice8 Apprentice Proficient/Apprentice2 Proficient Distinguished/Proficient

C 2 Apprentice Apprentice/Proficient

F 1 Apprentice Apprentice

All 15 students, who participated in the second small group interview,indicated that they felt that the use of the holistic assessment method to de-termine their grades was fair and equitable, especially considering that theywere given the opportunity to submit and revise their work samples through-out the semester. However, a majority of those interviewed said that theywould have preferred more concrete feedback on their progress during thecourse of the semester. Although they received comments from peers andthe instructor on the quality of their work samples, they wanted a specific

grade or score on which to base their progress. This suggests that some stu-dents may prefer an analytic, rather than holistic approach to portfolio as-sessments. Additional research is needed to determine the advantages anddisadvantages of holistic and analytic portfolio assessment methods.

Integration with Systematic Design Models

Some argue that traditional instructional design models (e.g., Dick &

Carey, 1996) are grounded in behaviorist theories that do not account for thedynamic nature of human learning (Halff, 1988), and thus, are unsuitable forfacilitating student-centered learning. It is argued here that methods posited




by Dick and Carey, as well as others should, in fact, be used to systematical-

ly design student-centered learning environments. The key is redefining thepurpose of various steps posited by each model.

For example, in the Dick and Carey (D&C) model (Dick, Carey &Carey, 2001), educators and instructional designers are directed to conductlearner, task, content, subject-matter, and context analysis to define and pre-scribe learning objectives. In the SCenTRLE model, educators and instruc-tional designers are urged to conduct analyses, not to prescribe objectives,but to identify objectives to be used later by the instructor as a foundationfor negotiating learning goals and objectives (SCenTRLE Event 2). Similar-

ly, the D&C model directs designers to develop and prescribe instructionalstrategies for facilitating learner achievement of defined objectives. ForSCenTRLE, educators and instructional designers identify strategies, butagain, not to prescribe, but rather to identify them for later use by the in-structor as a foundation for negotiation (SCenTRLE Event 3). The D&Cmodel also presents steps for establishing and prescribing performance crite-ria. SCenTRLE also recommends that educators and instructional designersuse similar techniques to define performance criteria that are to be used as abasis for negotiation, rather than prescription.

In essence, the D & C model is applied twice during the developmentand implementation of SCenTRLE. Initially, educators or instructional de-signers apply systematic design models to identify relevant learning goals,objectives, instructional strategies, and assessment criteria and to guide laternegotiation with students. Then, students apply similar processes, not to de-sign instruction, but rather to define their own learning goals and objectives,strategies, and performance criteria. The literature and research on “studentsas designers” (Erickson, 1997; Wilhelm, 1995) and micro-teaching strate-gies (Jerich, 1989; Hatfield, 1989) support such an approach, which is be-

lieved to be SCenTRLE to the development of life-long learners.

CONCLUSIONS

SCenTRLE was first developed to address the range of entry-level skillsand knowledge confronted in an introductory undergraduate course on theeducational applications of computer technology. It was also designed to fa-cilitate knowledge construction and the development of metacognitive skills

associated with life-long learning. In short, SCenTRLE provides educatorswith a concrete model for operationalizing constructivist approaches toteaching and learning, and for creating student-centered learning environ-ments that may be applied across disciplines.



530 Hirumi

Field-test data indicates that the model was effective in helping the ma-

jority of students learn how to use and integrate computer technology and tobecome independent computer using educators. Twelve out of the 28 stu-dents who completed the course prepared portfolios that demonstrated sig-nificant growth along five dimensions of computer use in education, and 13students exhibited significant growth in three or four dimensions and someprogress in the other standards. However, it appears that the SCenTRLEmodel, as operationalized for the field test, may be more appropriate for stu-dents with some prior knowledge related to the content matter. Two stu-dents, exhibited only “average” or “C” performance, one performed unsatis-

factorily, and two students dropped the class after the second week. All of these students had either little to no prior experience with computer technol-ogy. One solution would be to administer some type of pre-test and to directnovice computer users into a different course that uses more direct forms of instruction. However, it is believed that with some modifications, the SCen-TRLE model may be effective for facilitating learning between novice, aswell as more proficient learners.

Planned revisions, based on recommendations derived from the field-test, include: (a) dividing the class into four units and having students go

through the eight-events during each unit; (b) reducing the size of the coursesyllabus by presenting students with unit specific information at the onset of each unit; (c) developing and implementing additional learning scaffolds,such as partially completed templates for identifying learning goals and ob-

jectives, learning strategies and performance criteria, particularly for thefirst unit of instruction; (d) providing examples of student portfolios andwork samples, along with graded feedback; (e) providing some optional di-rect instruction for novice computer users for a least the first two units cov-ered in class.

Evidently, students have little experience taking responsibility for theirown learning. Educators attempting to create SCenTRLE must develop strat-egies for addressing students’ attitudes toward self-directed learning. Signif-icant effort must be made, particularly during the first several weeks of classto address students’ concerns and alleviate students’ fears. A number of strategies were implemented during the initial field-test (see “Student Atti-tudes”). However, students’ comments indicated that gaining experiencewith the model, along with submitting work samples and receiving feedback were the most significant factors for increasing students’ confidence and im-

proving their attitudes toward class.Along with the issues mentioned earlier in the article, a number of addi-

tional questions remain unanswered, such as:




1. Should time be taken to address learning strategies in further detail?

During the field-test, the negotiation of learning strategies was limitedto a discussion and identification of learning resources (e.g., places ormaterials students can use to facilitate learning). Should additional timebe taken to discuss and possibly identify and address different learningstyles (McCarthy, 1987)? This would obviously reduce the amount of time that is spent on developing content related skills and knowledge,but the increased time spent on developing self-directed learning skillsmay be worth it.

2. Under what conditions is the application of the SCenTRLE model ap-

propriate? Field-test data suggests that the SCenTRLE model may notbe effective for students with little prior knowledge of the subject mat-ter and limited experience with student-directed learning environments.Learning a topic that students’ may already be anxious about (e.g., com-puter technology), coupled with what is perceived by some as a totallynew instructional method may cause too much cognitive dissonance andresult in feelings of helplessness and lack of control.

In addition, in cases where students may already have well-developed

metacognitive strategies and/or when time and the acquisition of verbalinformation or a relatively straight-forward procedure are of utmost im-portance, SCenTRLE may not be as appropriate as more direct forms of instruction. In contrast, when dealing with complex problems wherethere may be multiple methods for deriving alternative “correct” solu-tions, SCenTRLE may optimize student learning and performance. De-termining when student-centered and other instructional strategies aremost appropriate is an area that definitely deserves further research.

3. What is optimal growth? Should optimal, as well as other levels of

growth be established on an individual basis? Or, can levels of growthbe pre-established by instructional designers and instructors for differ-ent groups of learners? In the SCenTRLE model, the instructor definedfour levels of performance along five course standards with related pro-ficiencies based on experience and input from colleagues. Studentswere then evaluated on individual growth along the five standards. Sev-eral students indicated that they felt that the final portfolio evaluationswere fair and equitable. However, it is believed that additional effortsmust be made to establish the reliability and validity of standards and

assessment rubrics for this, as well as for other courses implementingthe SCenTRLE model.

4. How do we ensure equitable access to learning resources? An increas-ing number of educators are putting learning resources and course related



532 Hirumi

materials online. This gives students with access from home a signifi-

cant advantage over those that must travel to school or some place elsein their community to gain access. Is this fair or another example of technology increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots? Whatcan be done to ensure equitable access and to integrate technology in away that facilitates learning among most, if not all individuals? Yes,telecommunications and the Internet is providing access to educationalopportunities for many non-traditional students, but it is believed thatthe question of equity must soon be addressed in a serious, proactivemanner or the Internet will do more to increase, rather than reduce the

division between the economically advantaged and disadvantaged.

It is appears that traditional, teacher-centered modes of instruction areinadequate for meeting the needs of an information-based, technology-driv-en society. New methods and models of instruction are necessary if studentsare to be prepared for the 21st century. SCenTRLE represents one model foroperationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning that maybe applied across disciplines. It is recognized that data on the effectivenessand the generalizability of the model are still limited and that the field-test

results were neither comprehensive, nor conclusive. They were reported togive readers a better picture of the model in action, rather than to presentformal evaluation data. Initial testing with undergraduate and graduate stu-dents in an introductory computer class, as well as in other learning environ-ments are promising (Hirumi, 1996a; 1996b). Educators, attempting to re-structure their classes and create student-centered environments, whetherthey use the SCenTRLE model or not, are encouraged to persist. Significantchange takes time and the first several attempts may even result in lower stu-dent achievement scores and negative student ratings. However, instead of

thinking of, “what will happen to me if I do try to change?” consider “whatwill happen to our children if we do not change?”

References

American Psychological Association (APA) (1993). Learner-centered psychologi-cal principles . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED371994)

Baldwin, J.M. (1902). Development and evaluation . London: Macmillan

Baldwin, J.M. (1906-1911). Thought and things or genetic logic: A study of the development and meaning of thought, Vol. 1-3 . New York: MacMillan.




Barrows, H.S. (1985). How to design a problem based curriculum for the pre-

clinical years . New York: Springer.Barrows, H.S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem based learning methods. Medi-cal Education, 20 , 481-486.

Barrows, H.S. (1992). The tutorial process . Springfield, IL: Southern IllinoisUniversity School of Medicine.

Barrows, H.S., & Myers, A.C. (1993). Problem based learning in second-ary schools . Unpublished monograph. Springfield, IL: Problem BasedLearning Institute, Lanphier High School, and Southern Illinois Uni-versity Medical School.

Bonk, C.J., & Cunningham, D.J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered,

constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educa-tional learning tools. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic Col-laborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprentice-ship, and Discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds.) (1991). The challenge of problem-based learning . New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bower, G.H., & Hilgard, E.R. (1981). Theories of learning (5th ed.). Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bridges, E., & Hallinger, P. (1992). Problem based learning for administrators .Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University

of Oregon.Brown, A.L., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and theculture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-43.

Bruner, J. (1974). Beyond the information given . London: George Allen & Unwin.Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development from birth to adulthood . Orlando,

FL: Academic Press.Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . Cambridge. MIT Press.Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) (1992). The Jasper

experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (1), 65-80.Cross, K.P. (1991, June 12). Every teacher a researcher, every classroom alaboratory. The Chronicle of Higher Education , p. B2.

Cunningham, D.J., Duffy, R.M., & Knuth, R. (1993). Textbook of the future.In C. McKnight (Ed.), Typertext: A psychological perspective . London:Ellis Horwood.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4thed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J.O. (2000). The systematic design of instruc-tion (5th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.

Driscoll, M.P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction . NeedhamHeights, MA: Paramount.Duffy, T.M. (1994). Corporate and community education: Achieving suc-

cess in the information society . Unpublished paper. Bloomington, IN:Indiana University.



534 Hirumi

Duffy, T.M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D.H. (1993). Designing environ-

ments for constructive learning . Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Erickson, J. (1997). Building a community of designers: Restructuringlearning through student hypermedia design. Journal of Research in

Rural Education, 13 (1), 5-27.Erickson, S.C. (1984). The essence of good teaching: Helping students

learn and remember what they learn . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1988). Principals of instruc-

tional design (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Gibson, J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems . Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

Halff, H.M. (1988) Curriculum and instruction in automated tutors. In M.C.Polson & J.J. Richardson (Eds.), Foundations of Intelligent TutoringSystems (pp. 79-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hatfield, R.C. (1989). Developing a procedural model for the practice of mi-cro-teaching . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED313340)

Herrnstein, R.J., & Boring, E.G. (1968). A sourcebook in the history of psy-chology . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Heywood, J. (1989). Assessment in higher education (2nd ed.). Dublin, Ire-land: The University of Dublin and John Wiley & Sons.

Hirumi, A. (1995). What performance technologists need to know about

public schools to affect change in education. Performance Improve-ment Quarterly, 8 (4), 89-114.Hirumi, A. (1996a, February). Student-centered, technology-rich learning

environments: A cognitive-constructivist approach . Concurrent sessionheld at the Association for Educational Communication and Technolo-gy Conference, Indianapolis, IN.

Hirumi, A. (1996b, February). Student-centered, technology-rich learningenvironments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approachesto teaching and learning . Presentation given at the Annual ENRONTeaching Excellence Symposium, Houston, TX.

Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing and sequencingplanned elearning interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Educa-tion, 3 (2), 141-160.

Hirumi, A., & Grau, I. (1996). A review of state standards, textbooks, and journal articles: Implications for pre-service teacher education and pro-fessional development. Journal for Computers and Teacher Education,12 (4), 6-17.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools . East Lansing, MI: H.G. Inc.

Honebein, P.C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learn-

ing environments. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist Learning Envi-ronments: Case Studies in Instructional Design . (pp. 3-8). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.




Jerich, K. (1989). Using a clinical supervision model for micro-teaching

experiences. Action in Teacher Education, 11 (3), 24-32.Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a philo-sophical paradigm shift? Educational Technology: Research and Develop-ment, 39 (3), 5-14.

Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist de-sign model. Educational Technology, 34 (4), 34-37.

Jonassen, D.H. (1995, June). An instructional design model for designingconstructivist learning environments . Paper presented at the WorldConference on Educational Media, Graz, Austria.

Keil, F.C. (1982). Semantic and conceptual development . Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Keil, F.C. (1984). Mechanisms in cognitive development and the structureof knowledge. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive devel-opment (pp. 81-100). New York: Freeman Press.

Knuth, R.A., & Cunningham, D. (1993). Tools for constructivism. In T.Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 163-187). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Kohler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learn-

ing and development . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Land, S.M. & Hannifin, M.J. (1996). Student-centered learning environ-ments: Foundations, Assumptions and Implications . Paper presented atthe 1996 AECT Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN.

Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for systems design: Five principlestoward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Develop-ment, 41 , 4-16.

Loacker, G. (1991). Designing a national assessment system: Alverno’s in-stitutional perspective . Paper commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education Statistics, in response to the National Education Goals Pan-el: America 2000: An Education Strategy. Milwaukee, WI: Alverno

Productions. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED340758)Loacker, G., & Mentkowski, M. (1993). Creating a culture where assessmentimproves learning. In T. Banta (Ed.), Making a difference: Outcomes of adecade of assessment in higher education (pp. 5-24). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Loacker, G., Cromwell, L., & O’Brien, K. (1986). Assessment in higher ed-ucation: To serve the learner. In C. Adelman (Ed.), Assessment in high-er education: Issues and contexts (pp. 47-62) (Report No. OR 86-301).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Mager, R.F. (1997). Goal analysis (3rd ed.). Atlanta: The Center for Effec-

tive Performance.McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4MAT system: Teaching to learning styles withright/left mode techniques . Barrington, IL: EXCEL.



536 Hirumi

Mentkowski, M., & Loacker, G. (1985). Assessing and validating the out-

comes of college. In P. Ewell (Ed.), Assessment educational outcomes: New directions for institutional research (pp. 47-64). San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

Meyers, C., & Jones, T.B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Norton, P. (1993). In search of a computer curriculum. In T.R. Cannings &L. Finkel (Eds.). The Technology Age Classroom . Wilsonville, OR:Franklin, Beedle, & Associates.

Paris, S.G., & Byrnes, J.P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulationand learning in the classroom. In Zimmerman & Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulat-

ed learning and academic theory, research, and practice: Progress in cogni-tive development research (pp.169-199). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Perkins, D.N. (1991, May). Technology meets constructivism: Do they

make a marriage? Educational Technology, 31 , 19-21.Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children . New York: Inter-

national Universities Press.Piaget, J. (1969). The mechanisms of perception . London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.Piaget, J. (1971). Genetic epistemology . New York: W.W. Norton.Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth . Cambridge, UK: Cam-

bridge University Press.Siegler, R.S. (1985). Children’s thinking . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Spady, W.G. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and an-

swers . Arlington VA: American Association of School Administrators.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED380910)

Sternberg, R.J. (1984). Mechanisms of cognitive development: A compo-nential approach. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive de-velopment (pp. 163-186). New York: Freeman Press.

Stinson, J.E., & Milter, R.G. (1996). Problem-based learning in businesseducation: Curriculum design and implementation issues. New Direc-

tions for Teaching and Learning, 68 , 33-42.Taylor, R.P. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee . NewYork: Teachers College Press.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1989a). Cognition, construction of knowledge, andteaching. Syntheses, 80 , 121-140.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1989b). Constructivism in education. In A. Lewy(Ed.), The international encyclopedia of curriculum (pp. 31-32). Ox-ford, UK: Pergamon.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Constructivism in education. In A. Lewy (Ed.),The International Encyclopedia of Curriculum (pp. 31-32). Oxford,

England: Pergamon Press.Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.




Wilhelm, J.D. (1995). Creating the missing links: Student-designed learn-

ing on hypermedia. English Journal, 84 (6), 34-40.Wilson, B. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies ininstructional design . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Documents

Teaching Methods - Reference_03 - Additional Reading