The application of telecommunication technologies for

Student-Centered Learning

Running Head: STUDENT CENTERED LEARNING

Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and Learning

Atsusi Hirumi, Ph.D. University of Houston--Clear Lake

Published as: Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich, learning environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal for Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-537.

1


2

Abstract This article presents a model for creating student-centered, technology-rich learning environments (SCenTRLE). It is designed to help educators operationalize constructivist approaches to teaching and learning across disciplines. Based on constructivist learning theories (Piaget, 1952, 1969, 1971; Vygotsky, 1978, 1962; Bruner, 1974; von Glasersfeld, 1989, 1981; Rorty, 1991) and key principles associated with student-centered learning (New Report, 1997; APA, 1993; CTGV, 1992; Holmes Group; 1990), generative learning (Wittrock, 1974, 1978; CTGV, 1992, 1993), situated cognition (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Greeno, 1988), and performance assessments (Heywood, 1989; Loacker, 1991; Loacker, Cromwell, & O'Brien, 1986; Loacker & Mentkowski, 1993; Mentkowski & Loacker, 1985), the model presents eight instructional events for facilitating the social construction of knowledge and the development of life-long learners. First, the theoretical and conceptual foundations of the model are discussed. Then, the model is postulated, along with examples illustrating its application. Finally, key issues associated with the development and implementation of SCenTRLE are examined, including field-test data concerning the use of technology, student attitudes, levels of implementation, holistic vs. analytic performance assessment and the application of constructivist principles within the context of traditional instructional systems design (ISD) models.


3

Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and Learning An increasing number of educators advocate student-centered approaches to teaching and learning (e.g., New Report, 1997, APA, 1993; CTGV, 1992; Holmes Group; 1990; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Education, they say, should meet the needs of individual students, promote active participation, stimulate higher-order thinking and encourage life-long learning. Similarly, educational researchers and practitioners are positing instructional design principles associated with constructivist learning (c.f., Wilson, 1996; Duffy, Lowyck, & Jonassen, 1993). They suggest the development of environments that embed learning in authentic contexts, provide multiple perspectives toward problem-solving, encourage self awareness of and provide experience with knowledge construction, promote responsibility for and active participation in the learning process, facilitate the social construction and negotiation of knowledge and meaning, and encourage the use of multiple modes of knowledge representation (Cunningham, Duffy, & Knuth, 1993; Knuth & Cunningham, 1993). Many accede with such statements. The challenge is to operationalize these concepts with a class of 30 plus students in an educational system that is more inclined to resist change than embrace it. Discussions with both public school and university educators suggest a number of reasons for why classroom instruction remains predominately teacher-directed. The lack of time, training and incentives, environmental constraints, as well as incongruence with teacher beliefs, student expectations and administrative directives appear to be some of the more pervasive. When asked about their educational philosophy or practice, educators often indicate that they are now “student-centered.” However, when asked, “what do you do differently now that you are student-centered compared to when you were teacher-centered?” many hesitate, some fail to


4

reply, and others note that they now have students work on collaborative group projects. While group projects may play an integral role, they do not capture the true essence of student-centered learning. For educators, with little time and limited exposure to student-centered methods, it appears that interest and guidelines may not be sufficient for re-engineering their classroom. Concrete examples and generalizable models are needed to assist those with the motivation to change, but lack the necessary knowledge and experience. This article presents a model for creating student-centered, technology-rich learning environments (SCenTRLE). It is designed to enhance student learning and performance by helping educators operationalize constructivist approaches to teaching and learning across disciplines. Based on constructivist learning theories (Piaget, 1952, 1969, 1971; Vygotsky, 1978, 1962; Bruner, 1974; von Glasersfeld, 1989, 1981; Rorty, 1991) and key principles associated with student-centered learning (New Report, 1997; APA, 1993; CTGV, 1992; Holmes Group; 1990), generative learning (Wittrock, 1974, 1978; CTGV, 1992, 1993), situated cognition (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Greeno, 1988), and performance assessments (Heywood, 1989; Loacker, 1991; Loacker, Cromwell, & O'Brien, 1986; Loacker & Mentkowski, 1993; Mentkowski & Loacker, 1985), the model presents eight instructional events for facilitating knowledge construction and the development of metacognitive skills associated with life-long learning. The article is divided into three parts. First, the theoretical and conceptual foundations for the model are discussed. Second, the model is postulated, along with examples illustrating its application. Finally, key issues are examined, including field-test data associated with the use of technology, student attitudes, levels of implementation, holistic vs. analytic performance assessment and the application of constructivist principles within the context of traditional instructional systems design (ISD) models.


SCenTRLE Foundations A number of factors contributed to the development of the SCenTRLE model. Based, in part, on a framework for examining learning environments (Land & Hannifin, 1996), the following describes four SCenTRLE foundations.

5


6

Societal Foundation We now live in an information-based, technology-driven society. Conservative estimates indicate that the amount of information available to humankind is doubling every five to seven years. Technology also continues to advance at an accelerating rate. Futurists suggest that 80% of the technologies that will be in use in the beginning of 2000 AD have yet to be invented. For educators, the rapid accumulation of and changes in information and technology presents a number of significant challenges. In short, educators are finding it increasingly difficult to include “essential” content information into their curriculum. So much information is being produced that it is nearly impossible to cover the facts, concepts, rules and procedures, not to mention the varied perspectives associated with a particular discipline within the context of a course or program of study. Furthermore, with the increasing complexity and rate of change, self-directed learning and problem-solving become vital, along with interpersonal and team skills. It is evident that we must devise new ways of teaching and learning if we are to prepare our children for the 21st century. Reading, writing, arithmetic and discipline specific knowledge are still essential, but no longer sufficient (Hirumi, 1995a). Educators must also develop students' ability to search for, access, retrieve, interpret, synthesize, organize, transfer and communicate information, as well as their ability to become independent, self-regulated, life-long learners. Psychological Foundation Psychological foundations reflect views about how individuals acquire, organize and deploy skills and knowledge (Land & Hannifin, 1996). Constructivist theories of human learning provide the psychological foundation for the SCenTRLE model. Since space limitations prevent an extensive discussion of constructivism, in addition to those cited in the following paragraphs,


7

interested readers are referred to the works of von Glasersfeld (1989, 1981), Jonassen (1994, 1991), Marra and Jonassen (1993), Lebow (1993) and Rorty (1991) among others. In brief, there is no single constructivist theory. Constructivist approaches to teaching and learning is grounded in several research tradition (Perkins, 1991; Paris & Byrnes, 1989). The roots of constructivism may be traced back to a little known Latin treatise, De antiquissima Italorum sapientia , written in 1710 by Giambattista Vico (as cited in von Glasersfeld, 1991). Vico suggested that knowledge is knowing what parts something is made of, as well as knowing how they are related. “Objective, ontological reality, therefore, may be known to God, who constructed it, but not to a human being who has access only to subjective experience” (von Glasersfeld, 1991, p. 31). A second, related path to constructivism comes from Gesalt theories of perception (Kohler, 1924) that focus on the ideas of closure, organization and continuity (Bower & Hilgard, 1981). Like Vico, Gesalt psychologists suggest that people do not interpret pieces of information separately and that cognition imposes organization on the world. Theories of intellectual development provide a third research tradition contributing to the notion of cognitive construction (e.g. Piaget, 1952, 1969, 1971; Baldwin, 1902, 1906-1911; Bruner, 1974). Developmentalists believe that learning results from adaptations to the environment which are characterized by increasingly sophisticated methods of representing and organizing information. Developmental scientists also forward the notion that children progress through different levels or stages which allow children to construct novel representations and rules (Carey, 1985; Case, 1985; Sternberg, 1984; Keil, 1984; Siegler, 1983). A fourth line of research depicts learning as a socially mediated experience where individuals construct knowledge based on interactions with their social and cultural environment.

Student-Centered Learning Like Piaget and Bruner, Vygotsky (1962, 1978) believed that the formation of intellect could be understood by studying the developmental process. However, like Bruner, Vygotsky felt that intellectual development could only be fully understand within the socio-cultural context in which the development was occurring. These four sources provide the foundations for constructivism applied to education and SCenTRLE. No discussion of learning theories, however, is complete without examining their epistemological assumptions.

8


9

Epistemological Foundations Over the past century, social psychologists have taken a number of alternative approaches to explain how the mind acquires knowledge. One extreme is characterized by an objectivist epistemology that suggests that reality is external to individuals and is based on natural laws, physical properties and their relationships. Objectivists believe that the mind processes symbols and mirrors reality, and that thought is governed by, and reflects external reality. Objectivists believe that meaning is external to and independent of the understanding of individuals. The polar opposite of objectivism is interpretivism. Interpretists believe that knowledge is constructed. The mind interprets sensory data and organizes it through active and dynamic processes according to innate perceptual categories such as numerosity and animacy (Keil, 1982; Herrnstein & Boring, 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 meaning is dependent on individual understanding. An alternative to objectivism and interpretivism is pragmatism (Driscoll, 1994). Like interpretists, pragmatists believe that reality is “constructed” and that meaning is negotiated within a social context. However, pragmatists believe that an individual’s reality is mediated by their prior knowledge structures and their interactions with the environment. They believe that the mind builds symbols and interprets nature, and that thought is governed by an individual’s perception that reflects their internal reality. Pragmatists believe that meaning is constructed by individuals based on their interpretation and understanding of reality. The SCenTRLE model falls in the pragmatist camp. One of the basic assumptions of SCenTRLE is the existence of an external reality that can not be delineated directly through experience. Rather individuals


10

construct knowledge by manipulating information and by interacting with others. The belief that knowledge is constructed within a social context is the epistemological foundation for the SCenTRLE model.


11

Pedagogical Foundation Pedagogical foundations emphasize how information is conveyed to learners and focus on the activities, methods, and structures of the environment that are designed to facilitated learning (Land & Hannifin, 1996). Principles associated with student-centered learning (e.g., New Report, 1997, APA, 1993; CTGV, 1992; Holmes Group; 1990), generative learning (CTGV, 1991a, 1991b; Wittrock, 1985a, 1985b), situated cognition (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; CTGV, 1990), problem-based learning (Barrows, 1985, 1992; Savery & Duffy, 1996) and performance assessments (e.g., Heywood, 1989; Loacker, 1991; Loacker, Cromwell, & O'Brien, 1986; Loacker & Mentkowski, 1993; Mentkowski & Loacker, 1985) form the pedagogical foundations for the SCenTRLE model. Figure 1 illustrates both teacher-centered and student-centered models of instruction. Under the traditional teacher-centered approach, teachers serve as the center for epistemological authority, directing the learning process and controlling students’ access to information. This model evolved to increase the number of students receiving instruction from an instructor; a necessity during the agricultural and industrial eras. Under this paradigm, students are treated as “empty vessels” and learning is viewed as an additive process with new information simply being added on top of existing knowledge. Instruction is geared to the “average” students and everyone is forced to progress at the same pace. Parents and community members may contribute to student learning, but rarely in any systematic fashion. __________________________________ Figure 1. About Here __________________________________


12

Research, however, indicates that students are not empty vessels. They come to class with their own perceptual frameworks (Erickson, 1984) and learn in different ways (Kolb, 1984, Briggs-Myers, 1980). Learning is no longer viewed as a passive process where static bodies of facts and formulas are passed along to the uninitiated. Rather, learning is an active, dynamic process in which connections are constantly changing and the structure is continually reformatted (Cross, 1991). In short, students construct their own meaning by talking, listening, writing, reading, and reflecting on content, ideas, issues and concerns (Meyers & Jones, 1993). In student-centered environments, learners are given direct access to the knowledge-base and work individually and in small groups to solve authentic problems. In such environments, parents and community members also have direct access to teachers and the knowledge-base, playing an integral role in schooling process. Key principles associated with teacher-centered and student-centered approaches to teaching and learning are compared in Table 1. __________________________________ Table 1. About Here __________________________________

In generative learning, students are presented with multiple perspectives and are directed to take deliberate action to construct meaning from what they are studying (Wittrock, 1974, 1978). Students are also asked to engage in argumentation and are encouraged to reflect on what they read, learned and experienced (CTGV, 1992, 1993). Multiple perspectives, active participation, the construction of meaning, argumentation and reflection are all key components of SCenTRLE.


13

Situated cognition suggests that learning is determined by both contextual and human factors (Gibson, 1979; Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Greeno, 1988). For knowledge to be useful, it is believed that learning must be situated in authentic tasks to enable transfer to similar situations. In short, instruction should be embedded in real-life contexts, and address issues that are familiar to students, and are relevant to their needs and interests (Knuth & Cunningham, 1993). The concept of situating learning within an authentic context is another SCenTRLE foundation. Problem-based learning (PBL), as a model for instruction, has been adopted by schools of medicine (Barrows, 1985, 1986, 1992), business (Milter & Stinson, 1994), education (Bridges & Hallinger, 1992; Duffy, 1994); architecture, law, engineering, and social work (Boud & Feletti, 1991), and in high schools (Barrows & Myers, 1993). Although the model has been adapted to meet the needs of each situation, there are a number of basic concepts that are common to most approaches that are applied in SCenTRLE. In particular, students are first presented with an authentic problem and are asked to assess the current knowledge of the problem, define learning requirements, and develop an action plan based on their analysis of the problem. Students then engage in self-directed learning, gathering information from all available resources (e.g., library, on-line databases, consultants). After self-directed 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 reformulating plans until they feel that they have solved the problem. Students then present their solutions and go through a series of self- and peer-evaluations to assess their skills relative to self-directed learning, problem-solving and group work.


14

Concepts associated with performance assessment represent the final SCenTRLE pedagogical foundation. Performance assessments differ from conventional paper and pencil tests in two key respects. First, unlike conventional measures that tend to evaluate students’ possession of knowledge, performance assessments judge students’ ability to apply knowledge. Second, performance assessments are used as an integral part of learning (Heywood, 1989; Loacker, 1991; Loacker, Cromwell, & O'Brien, 1986; Loacker & Mentkowski, 1993; Mentkowski & Loacker, 1985). Rather than sorting students, such assessments tell students and their instructors how well they are developing their skills and knowledge and what they need to do to develop them further. This provides students with profiles of their emerging skills to help them become increasingly independent learners. The development and implementation of performance assessments are key components of SCenTRLE. The attributes delineated in Table 1, as well as many of the aforementioned concepts provide useful heuristics for creating student-centered learning environments. However, for educators with limited resources, who have been indoctrinated with decades of teacher-centered methods, a set of guidelines may not be sufficient for reinventing their classroom. The second part of this article presents a readily applicable, eight event model for operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Eight Events for Student-Centered Learning SCenTRLE represents an instructional strategy for operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. It consists of eight basic events for facilitating knowledge construction and the development of life-long learners that may be applied across disciplines. One context is described to help better understand the application of the model.


15

Context The SCenTRLE model is now being applied in multiple contexts ranging from elementary schools to institutes of higher education (Hirumi, 1996a; 1996b). For this article, focus is placed on one specific application–in an introductory, undergraduate course on the educational applications of computer technology. Traditionally, introductory computer courses have been taught using teacher-centered approaches to training and instruction. Under this approach, the instructor acts as the center of epistemological authority, defining learning goals and objectives, organizing and presenting content information, and setting performance standards for students. Although students do get a chance to develop and practice some basic computer skills, classes are often taught in lock-step fashion, moving from one technology to the next, emphasizing the use of different software applications. Though these methods have proven useful, at least in relation to short-term use of technology, they often fail to develop educators’ ability to become independent computer uses or their ability to create innovative solutions to real-world problems. In such situations, teacher-centered instruction fails to address individual learner needs. Educators typically enter introductory classes with greatly varying computer skills and interests in elementary or secondary education, school administration, or counseling. When presented with group-paced instruction, learners with relatively advanced skills often get bored, work ahead and become frustrated with the lack of stimuli, while learners with little prior experience fall behind because they lack some basic foundations. Research also suggests that elementary and secondary teachers, school administrators, and counselors may need different skill sets, as well as exposure to different software applications and real world examples (Hirumi & Grau,


16

1996). Furthermore, traditional technology related coursework fails to model student-centered approaches to training and instruction, further perpetuating teacher-directed practices. The following eight events (Figure 2) are designed specifically to address these shortfalls by operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. __________________________________ Figure 2. About Here __________________________________

During the initial field-test, the model was applied in one section of a fifteen week, three credit hour undergraduate course that consisted of nine (9) male and twenty-one (21) female students ranging from twenty-two to thirty-five years of age. Data were gathered from voluntary small group interviews held after the eighth and last week of class. The instructor also keep a journal of weekly activities, observations and comments heard before, during and after class. Data collected during the first day of class indicated that seven (7) students were novice computer users (little to no prior experience), seventeen (17) were apprentice computer users (e.g., having taken a computer course and used one to three applications on a limited basis), and the remaining six (6) were more proficient computer users (used several applications on a consistent basis). Twenty-five (25) students were undergraduate pre-service teacher education majors with nineteen (19) seeking elementary and middle school certification and six (6) pursing high school teacher certification. Others included three (3) educational leadership majors and two (2) school counseling majoring. All were either juniors or seniors in undergraduate school. Event 1 - Set Learning Challenge


17

The first event in the SCenTRLE model is to set the learning challenge for the course. The challenge may take the form of an instructional goal (e.g., Gagne, Briggs & Wager, 1988), goal statement (e.g., Mager, 1997) or learning outcome (e.g., Spady, 1994). The challenge should situate learning within an authentic 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. It is believed that the instructor’s responsibility is to delimit the learning domain. In many programs, obtaining a degree or successful course completion certifies that students have acquired a specific set of skills and knowledge. By setting the challenge, educators can ensure that students acquire such skills and knowledge, while allowing them to take different paths toward achieving the goal based on their prior knowledge, interests and experience. The challenge set during the first day of the introductory class on the application of computer technology in education was: “.....to enhance student learning and your own personal productivity through the application of computer technology. During the planning, delivery, and analysis of instruction, effective computer using educators select, apply, integrate, and evaluate the appropriate instructional and information technologies to promote student learning and higher-order thinking. As a result, learners are able to use a variety of technologies to explore ideas, pose questions, gather and disseminate information, and support one another in learning. Educators actively seek information on the application of emerging technologies from varied sources (e.g., journals, on-line databases, colleagues) to improve student learning. Educators also use technology to stimulate their own professional growth, facilitate communications, and enhance overall productivity.” Event 2 - Negotiate Learning Goals and Objectives The purpose of Event 2 is to develop students’ ability to assess their own learning requirements by helping them set individual learning goals and objectives for the course. The primary question addressed during this event is, “What do you have to know and be able to do to


18

meet the challenge for the course?” To answer this questions, students work with the instructor through a negotiation process which includes: (a) a class discussion, (b) student assessments, (c) preliminary definition of goals and objectives, (d) feedback from the instructor, (e) revision if necessary, and (f) continuous monitoring and revisions based on student learning throughout the semester. On the first day of class, after setting the learning challenge, a discussion is held about learning goals and requirements. The instructor facilitates the discussion by helping students understand that to address the challenge, educators must be able to: • perform basic operations, such as starting and shutting down a computer, 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) learning tools; (d) management and support tools; (e) authoring tools; (f) programming tools; and (g) collaborative tools; • apply strategies for integrating the use of various applications with instruction, administration and/or counseling to enhance students’ performance • self-direct your own learning by identifying appropriate goals and objectives, selecting and applying appropriate learning strategies, identifying and access appropriate resources, defining performance criteria, assessing learning, and revising goals, strategies and criteria as necessary; • search for, access, organize and interpret information gained from various resources (e.g., books, journals, on-line databases, experts); • effectively communicate the results of your learning through a combination of text, audio, video and graphics. After the class discussion, students are asked to assess their own entry level skills and knowledge using the Course Assessment Rubric. Table 2 represents one of five standards contained in the Course Assessment Rubric, with others including: (a) the use of productivity


19

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 educational software; and (d) addressing technology related trends and issues. With the rubric, students determine what they know and what they don’t know about the educational applications of computer technology. They determine if they consider themselves to be novice, apprentice, proficient or distinguished computer 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., everyone must demonstrate that they are at least an apprentice computer user for each standard by the end of the course). __________________________________ Table 2. About Here __________________________________

All students, however, are not limited to the apprentice level. To achieve a good grade, students must demonstrate that they have increased their computer related skills and knowledge. For example, students entering with apprentice computer skills are encouraged to work towards becoming proficient computer users. Students utilize the self-assessment to identify what type of computer using educator they want to be (i.e., novice, apprentice, proficient or distinguished) at the end of the course for each course standard. This becomes their individual learning goals. Students further define detailed learning objectives by stating specific skills and knowledge they wish to acquire for each standard. Students typically complete this task as their first homework assignment, e-mailing their target learning goals and objectives to the instructor for subsequent review.


20

It is important to note that students’ goals and objectives may change over time. As students learn more about the capabilities of computer technology, they may choose to pursue different goals and objectives than those set at the beginning of the course. All they have to do is document the changes and communicate them to the instructor to confirm their appropriateness. The instructor is responsible for providing feedback on the goals and objectives selected by each student. In this manner, the instructor can ensure the appropriateness of the goals and objectives relative to course and program requirements, as well as make sure that each student has set challenging, yet realistic expectations. At this point, some may ask, “that’s sounds like a lot of work, how will I find the time and energy to address all of that e-mail?” This a good example of how the role of the instructor in a student-centered environment changes from that of a “teacher” to a facilitator. The instructor actually spends similar amounts of time and energy during the course of the semester, but rather than spending time preparing presentations and lecture notes, the instructor expends that time guiding the learning process. Initially, students with little prior knowledge of the learning domain may have difficulties determining their own learning requirements. To help learners define their own goals and objectives, the instructor may recommend or require relevant readings. In this particular case, students are assigned, A Review of Computer-Related State Standards, Textbooks, and Journal Articles: Implications for Pre-service Teacher Education and Professional Development (Hirumi & Grau, 1996), after the initial class discussion before they identify their preliminary goals and objectives. Other classes may also utilize an inventory of potential competencies, such as the course assessment rubric generated for this course. Examples and templates (learning scaffolds) are also used to help students identify appropriate learning objectives at the beginning of the semester.


21

Event 3 - Negotiate Learning Strategy The focus of Event 3 is to develop students’ learning strategies. The key question 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 processes used to identify learning goals (i.e., class discussion, preliminary list, instructor feedback, revision, documentation, and on-going monitoring and refinement). During the second class session, students and the instructor discuss various methods for acquiring computer related skills and knowledge. To summarize, class members work together to identify relevant learning strategies such as: • going to the library to locate books, professional journals, government publications, magazines and newspapers, using the ERIC, PsychLit, and Dissertation Abstracts databases on CD ROM, and the VTLS catalog system. • going to bookstores or looking through catalogs to find relevant books and user manuals. • using various search engines, or surfing the Internet to find relevant World-Wide-Web sites available through Netscape and/or other useful resources (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/or reading journal and newsletters published by the organization. • talking to, or otherwise corresponding with fellow students, software and hardware vendors, practicing educators, and other recognized experts • reading the articles, textbook and user manuals assigned for class and/or made available through the Instructional Technology Center or the Open Lab at UHCL


22

• interacting with self-instructional text or WWW sites provided for class. For homework, students are asked to list what they think is the best strategy for achieving each of their selected learning objectives. They e-mail their list to the instructor who again provides feedback as needed. Over the course of the semester, students begin to realize that particular strategies are more effective and efficient to achieve certain types of objectives than others. For example, they may determine that using a computer tutorial may an effective strategy for them to learn how to use software applications such as word processors, databases and spreadsheets. Others may find that the use of a textbook, such as MS Office for Dummies is more to learn basic skills than other strategies. Whatever the case, students begin developing an important skill associated with independent learners. That is, being able to discern what strategies or learning resources are most effective and efficient for themselves as well as for achieving particular classes of goals and objectives. Like Event 2, students are reminded that their learning strategies may change over time as they begin to construct skills and knowledge. Event 4 - Construct Knowledge Event 4 has students working individually and in groups to construct their skills and knowledge. After working with students to determine what they are supposed to learn and how they are supposed to learn, students apply their selected strategies and go forth and learn! In actuality, students are learning important problem-solving skills throughout the entire process. This is when they construct subject-matter specific skills and knowledge. Students spend considerable time conducting research, working on computers, and discussing topics with one another. The instructor monitors group and individual progress, answering questions and facilitating learning when necessary.


23

Event 5 - Negotiate Performance Criteria The purpose of Event 5 is to help learners define performance criteria for their selected goals and objectives. This event occurs after students are given time (e.g., 2-4 weeks) to gain some experience with and construct some knowledge of the learning domain. The first key question to be answered during this event is, “How will you demonstrate that you have achieved your learning goals and objectives?” Students again follow a similar negotiation process as depicted in Events 2 and 3. During the class discussion, students and the instructor identify different methods, or work samples that may be used to demonstrate achievement of learning goals and objectives. For example, a student may demonstrate performance by creating work samples such as, but not limited to: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Written reports Computer generated documents Rough drafts Notes Revisions Descriptions Projects Peer reviews Self-evaluations Anecdotal records Reflective journal/writing Audiotapes/Videotapes Artwork Diagrams/Graphics/Charts

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Lesson plans Exams of students’ knowledge Student handouts Homework assignments Student work samples Self-evaluations Supervisor evaluations Student evaluations Peer evaluations Professional training Conferences/Workshops Reflections on teaching Instructional materials Graphic presentations

For Event 5, students are asked to answer a second question, “For each work sample, what are the characteristics of excellent, satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance?” It is believed that one of the key differences between an expert and a novice is that an expert can look at his or her own work and judge its quality. Unfortunately, educators often do not develop this


24

skill in students. Performance criteria are often not made explicit and students are left wondering what the instructor wants. Event 5 not only helps learners define their performance requirements for class, it also helps them develop their own ability to self-assess their own work, a key characteristic of self-directed, life-long learners. At first, students may have some difficulty developing assessment rubrics for their work samples. For this course, examples are provided by the instructor to facilitate the process (Table 3). Students e-mail their answers to the two questions posed during this event to the instructor who then provides appropriate feedback. Students revise their work if necessary and document their results. The results are used then used for self-assessments, peer assessments and expert assessments. __________________________________ Table 3. About Here __________________________________

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 assess their work utilizing the performance criteria and assessment rubrics generated during Event 5. Materials may also be turned into the instructor or other experienced computer using educators for expert assessments. Students conduct the assessments to determine if they are achieving their objectives and producing quality products. Although, this is the first time in the description of the model that students are asked to “assess” something, it is important to note that students should always be


25

encouraged to reflect on their activities throughout the entire process and to adjust their goals, strategies and performance criteria accordingly. Students demonstrate completion of this event by submitting documents that illustrate that they, as well as one other person, compared their work samples to their performance criteria including constructive comments and criticisms. The key is to for students to obtain feedback so that they can continuously improve their work samples. Event 7 - Monitor Performance and Provide Feedback A SCenTRLE component of the model is that it is iterative. Up to this point, the eight events appear to be fairly linear. Event 7, however, occurs throughout the learning process. The instructor monitors students’ work, examining submitted documents, replying to e-mail, walking around the classroom, and continuously asking what and how they are doing, providing feedback as necessary. This is one of the most important events to ensure that students are managing their time effectively and are on track to meet their goals and objectives. It is recommended that instructors carry a class roster as they monitor students’ performance and check off names each time they interact with someone to ensure that everyone is being monitored and to help track everyone’s progress. Students also provide feedback to each other. Informally, this occurs throughout the semester as students work individually and in groups to develop their skills and knowledge. Formally, they are to assess at least two or three pieces of work from classmates throughout the semester, and provide feedback based on their assessment. Students then revise their goals, objectives, strategies, performance criteria and work samples, and adjust their behaviors accordingly.


26

Event 8 - Communicate Results Finally, students are expected to formally communicate the results of their learning. During the entire process, students are communicating the results of their efforts in an informal manner, discussing what they have learned with other students as well as with the instructor. The informal communications are used for self, peer and expert assessments to generate feedback. During this event, however, communications are formal and are used for both summative and formative evaluation purposes and to reach closure on 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 include the Course Assessment Rubric (Figure 3) and the rubrics generated by students for each of their work samples. Students produce and select work samples that best illustrate achievement of their goals and objectives. The narratives describe what they (the students) did to learn (e.g., identify goals and objectives, apply and revise learning strategies) and how the work samples demonstrate that they have learned. Students must also reflect on their learning, documenting trials and tribulations and formulating personal opinions 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 be written more as summary statements, discussing a week or more of work. At the end of the course, students present their portfolios, showing others what they have done and discussing what they learned. This may or may not be a graded assignment based on


27

the goals and objectives for the course. The instructor then grades each portfolio based either on the amount of growth exhibited during the semester (e.g., novice to apprentice computer using educator), or on mastery (e.g. proficient computer using educator). For this course, if students decide to be graded on growth, they may receive up to 20 points for each complete level they advance for each of the five course standards. If students choose to be evaluated for mastery, they receive a “C” for obtaining an apprentice level, a “B” for proficient and an “A” for distinguished performance. The decision on whether to be graded on growth or mastery is left to individual students. SCenTRLE Issues A number of challenges remain in the implementation of the SCenTRLE model. This section discusses five SCenTRLE issues, including: the use of technology, student attitudes, levels of application, holistic vs. analytic portfolio assessment, and the application of the eight events within the context of traditional systematic design models. Field-test data, including observations and anecdotal reports from small group interviews 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 technology. Taylor’s (1980) three classes of educational computer use provides a framework for organizing this discussion. Computer as a Tutor. When a computer is used as a tutor, it provides instruction, content information and/or remediation for learning. For the undergraduate introductory class on the


28

educational applications of computer technology, students most frequently used Microsoft’s on-line tutorials to learn how to use the word processor, database management, spreadsheet, graphic presentation applications included in Microsoft Office™. Other tutorials used by students included, but were not limited to on-line 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 instruction. For this class, the computer is the tutee when students learn about basic operations, the use and integration of productivity tools (e.g., word processor, database, spreadsheet, graphics), the use and integration of telecommunications (e.g., e-mail, listservs, IRC, www), the development of multimedia, the use of educational software, and trends and issues related to the educational applications of computer technology (e.g., copyright, one computer classroom). Computer as a Tool. When a computer is used as a tool, it helps users perform a task. In this course, students use the computer as a tool to conduct research (e.g., using web-browers, search engines and on-line databases, such as ERIC, to search for, access and retrieve information), to facilitate communications among students and the instructor (e.g., using e-mail to facilitate negotiations and a listserv to advance class discussions), and to produce 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 educators should integrate technology in their curriculum as professionals use technology within their discipline. Over the past two decades, educators have applied different computer related curricula. In the beginning, students were taught how to program and learned concepts such as data input, looping and logical operations (programming curriculum). Then, in the computer literacy curriculum,


29

students learned such things as computer vocabulary, computer ethics, how a computer works, the advantages and disadvantages of computers along with an introduction to computer programming. The computer as a tool curriculum ensued where students learned to use various applications such as word processing, database management, spreadsheets and graphics, followed by what has been labeled as the problem-solving computer curriculum (Norton, 1993). The curriculum posited here is termed the “authentic” computer curriculum. Educators applying an “authentic” curriculum should study, integrate and model the use of technology as professionals apply technology within their chosen discipline. For instance, in a biology course, rather than teaching students biology facts and figures, educators are now trying to teach students how to be a biologist. To extend this example further, biology teachers should research how biologists typically use computer technology and integrate and model the use of technology accordingly. For this course, educators apply and model the use of technology as proficient and expert computer using educators apply technology. In other words, to conduct research, keep abreast of current trends and issues, develop educational materials, facilitate communications, manage resources and to facilitate student learning and performance. Electronic mail (e-mail) deserves further attention due to its substantial reliance in facilitating student-centered learning. E-mail is the primary vehicle used to negotiate learning goals and objectives, learning strategies and performance criteria. After general class discussions about each of these events, students utilize e-mail to negotiate individualized goals and objectives, strategies and criteria with the instructor. Initially, educators may think this unmanageable with classes of over 30 students. However, two factors help alleviate this concern. First, the change in emphasis from “teaching” to “facilitating” reduces the amount of time educators spend of preparing lessons. Instead of generating lecture notes, overheads, handouts


30

and lesson plans, the instructor may spend the same time answering e-mail. In addition, field-test data suggest that learners’ messages fall into several categories. For example, students’ initial goals and objectives generally fell into three basic categories (Table 4). __________________________________ Table 4. About Here __________________________________

In general, novices had difficulty articulating their learning requirements and were encouraged to start by identifying relatively simple and concrete objectives. Learners with some prior computer experience (apprentice) wanted to learn how to use familiar hardware and software and had to be challenged to address new topics. Relatively advanced computer users were more apt to target topics that were considered new to them, but needed some assistance in refining their objectives. Due to their similar nature, the instructor could use the same basic feedback to respond to each category of responses. Although some customization was necessary, the instructor did not 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 educators with one of the greatest challenges, particularly during initial efforts to restructure their class. Several strategies were implemented during initial field-testing to help alleviate students’ anxiety toward, and establish the relevance of student-centered learning. First, the importance of metacognitive skills, particularly in light of accelerating rates of change, was stressed during SCenTRLE Events 1, 2,


31

3 and 5. Second, it was noted during these events that student-centered learning freed the instructor from group paced instruction, allowing him to provide increased individualized attention. Third, students were encouraged to turn in work samples as soon as possible so that they could receive feedback and revise their work prior to submitting their portfolio. Finally, a detailed description of the SCenTRLE model and portfolio 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 at the time of initial implementation. During the first month, a significant number of students felt that it is the instructor’s job to define learning objectives, gather, organize and present content 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 extra work?” were recorded during initial field-testing. Two students dropped the class after the second week, noting that the instructional method was neither what they expected nor desired. Such statements present somber testimonies for 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 anxiety felt by novice and intermediate computer users were the primary reasons for the negative attitudes experienced during the initial weeks of class. Two of the seven who participated in the interview were relatively advanced computer users. Both liked the SCenTRLE method and were appreciative of the opportunity to define and pursue their own learning objectives. The remaining participants, who were either


32

novice or intermediate computer users, felt that if they were either more experienced computer users or more experienced with the SCenTRLE model, they would not have had as much difficulties during the first several weeks of class. The fact that many were anxious about using computers to begin with, and were then confronted with a “new” instructional strategy appeared to cause the initial dissatisfaction with the model. After the seventh week, the majority of students no longer verbalized discontent with the course. It appeared that after experiencing some success with computers and with the SCenTRLE model, students, in general, felt more confident in their ability to meet course requirements and were satisfied that the amount of time and effort put into coursework was worthwhile. Students participating in the mid-term interview suggested that submitting a portfolio item and receiving feedback on its appropriateness was the single most important factor in helping improve student attitudes toward class. Twelve of the fifteen students, who participated in the second voluntary small group interview, thought that the SCenTRLE model was an effective method for addressing individual needs and interests, and for providing undergraduate introductory computer instruction. Ten indicated that they would be interested in taking more classes that applied the SCenTRLE model and twelve believed that SCenTRLE could be applied successfully across disciplines. Two students did not feel that SCenTRLE was appropriate for this, or any other class, noting that some students need and want direct instruction and should be presented with explicit performance criteria, rather than having to generate and negotiate their own. Three anecdotal reports obtained during the second group interview further illustrates students’ attitudes, particularly in relation to the development of metacognitive skills and life-long learners. Student 1, who started class as a novice computer user said, “I was really


33

confused in the beginning. I found it really difficult to define my own learning objectives, learning strategies and performance 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 [direct] 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. However, after awhile, I found that I could really learn a lot on my own and the instructor was always there if I couldn’t figure out something. I really feel a lot more confident using computers now and feel that I can now continue to learn about them without taking a class. I am really glad I decided to stay in class and I think I’m going to try to set up 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 topics that 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 to do what they did, I would have been totally bored! I wish more of my classes used this [SCenTRLE] format. Maybe then, I wouldn’t feel like I’m wasting my money.” Interview participants suggested that sample portfolio items and examples of students’ input for Events 2, 3 and 4 would have enhanced their performance and ameliorated students’ attitudes. They also recommended that additional efforts be made earlier in the semester to provide students with concrete 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 were useful, but insufficient for them to assess their progress relative to course expectations. Level of Application


34

During initial field-testing, the eight events of student-centered learning were applied at the course level; that is, students went through each of the eight events once during the 15 week semester. However, two comments from students made during both small group interviews suggest that it may be more effective to apply the eight events at a unit level, particularly in situations when the majority of students have either little prior content knowledge and/or experience with self-directed learning. First, the interviews revealed that the detailed course syllabus increased, rather than decreased students’ anxiety. Apparently, the 36 page syllabus provided during the first day of class contained too much information. Even though students were given a week to read the syllabus and over an hour of the second class period was spent reviewing the syllabus and answering questions, students felt overwhelmed with the number of “new” concepts that were presented relative to the use of technology and the implementation of the SCenTRLE model. It was recommended that the syllabus, as well as the 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 performance criteria, as well as the quality of work samples, the majority of students wanted finite scores on which to base their progress. They recommended that the course be broken down into three-five units and that grades be assigned at the end of each unit so that students could better determine their performance relative to course standards. Holistic vs. Analytic Portfolio Assessment and Students’ Performance


35

When grades are required, educators must decide whether to base achievement scores on either a holistic or analytic assessment of student portfolios. Holistic or global analysis provides a single score based on an overall impression of students work samples. Analytic or point scoring provides separate scores based on different dimensions or components of students’ work. For the field test, grades were based on a holistic analysis of students’ portfolios. Students work samples were compared to the Course Assessment Rubric to determine if they achieved apprentice, proficient or distinguished levels of performance along five standards. Since all 28 students completing the course decided to base their grades on growth, their performance level at the end of the course, as demonstrated by their portfolios were compared to their entry level skills and knowledge, as measured by students’ self-assessment to determine their final grade (see “Event 8” for further details on how final grades were determined). Based on students’ portfolios, it appears that the SCenTRLE model was, in general, an effective method for developing students’ computer skills. Table 5 depicts the amount of growth exhibited by class members. In short, twelve out of twenty-eight students completing the course received an “A” (43%), advancing one full level along all five course standards. Thirteen students received a “B” (47%), advancing one level in three or four standards and demonstrating some progress in the other one or two. Two students obtained a “C” (7%), exhibiting some progress in three areas, and one student received an “F” (3%), demonstrating little to no progress in any of the course standards. __________________________________ Table 5. About Here __________________________________


36

All fifteen students, who participated in the second small group interview, indicated that they felt that the use of the holistic assessment method to determine their grades was fair and equitable, especially considering that they were given the opportunity to submit and revise their work samples throughout the semester. However, a majority of those interviewed said that they would have preferred more concrete feedback on their progress during the course of the semester. Although they received comments from peers and the instructor on the quality of their work samples in relation to the Course Assessment Rubric and the performance criteria generated by each student for their work samples, they wanted a specific grade or score on which to base their progress. This suggests that students may prefer an analytic, rather than holistic approach to portfolio assessments. Integration with Systematic Design Models Some argue that traditional instructional design models (e.g., Dick & Carey, 1996) are grounded in behavioralistic theories that do not account for the dynamic nature of human learning (Halff, 1988), and thus, are unsuitable for facilitating student-centered learning. It is argued here that methods posited by Dick & Carey, as well as others should, in fact, be used to systematically design student-centered learning environments. The key is redefining the purpose of various steps posited by each model. For example, in the Dick & Carey (D&C) model (1996), educators and instructional designers are directed to conduct learner, task, content, subject-matter and context analysis to define and prescribe learning objectives. In the SCenTRLE model, educators and instructional designers are urged to conduct analyses, not to prescribe objectives, but to identify objectives to be used later by the instructor as a foundation for negotiating learning goals and objectives


37

(SCenTRLE Event 2). Similarly, the D&C model directs designers to develop and prescribe instructional strategies for facilitating learner achievement of defined objectives. For SCenTRLE, educators and instructional designers identify strategies, but again, not to prescribe, but rather to identify them for later use by the instructor as a foundation for negotiation (SCenTRLE Event 3). The D&C model also presents steps for establishing and prescribing performance criteria. SCenTRLE also recommends that educators and instructional designers use similar techniques to define performance criteria that are to be used as a basis for negotiation, rather than prescription. In essence, the Dick & Carey model is applied twice during the development and implementation of SCenTRLE. It is applied initially by educators or instructional designers to identify relevant learning goals, objectives, instructional strategies and assessment criteria as a foundation to guide later negotiation. Then, students apply similar processes, not to design instruction, but rather to define their own learning goals and objectives, strategies and performance criteria. The literature and research on “students as designers” (e.g., Erickson, 1997; Wilhelm, 1995) and micro-teaching strategies (e.g., Jerich, 1989; Hatfield, 1989) support such an approach, which is believed to be SCenTRLE to the development of life-long learners. Conclusions SCenTRLE was first developed to address the range of entry-level skills and knowledge confronted in an introductory undergraduate course on the educational applications of computer technology. It was also designed to facilitate knowledge construction and the development of metacognitive skills associated with life-long learning. It provides educators with a concrete


38

model for operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning, and for creating student-centered learning environments that may be applied across disciplines. Field-test data indicates that the model was effective in helping the majority of students learn how to use and integrate computer technology and to become independent computer using educators. Twelve (12) out of the twenty-eight (28) students who completed the course prepared portfolios that demonstrated significant growth along five dimensions of computer use in education, and thirteen students exhibited significant growth in three or four dimensions and some progress in the other standards. However, it appears that the SCenTRLE model, as operationalized for the field test, may be more appropriate for students with some prior knowledge related to the content matter. Two students, exhibited only “average” or “C” performance, one performed unsatisfactorily, and two students dropped the class after the second week. All of these students had either little to no prior experience with computer technology. One solution would be to administer some type of pre-test and to direct novice computer users into a different course that utilizes more direct forms of instruction. However, it is believed that with some modifications, the SCenTRLE model may be effective for facilitating learning among novice, as well 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 course syllabus 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 objectives, learning strategies and performance criteria, particularly for the first unit of instruction; (d) providing examples of student portfolios and work samples, along with graded feedback; (e)


39

providing some optional direct instruction for novice computer users for a least the first two units covered in class. Evidently, students have little experience taking responsibility for their own learning. Educators attempting to create SCenTRLE must develop strategies for addressing students’ attitudes toward self-directed learning. Significant effort must be made, particularly during the first several weeks of class to alleviate students’ fears. A number of strategies were implemented during the initial field-test (see “Student Attitudes”). However, students’ comments indicated that gaining experience with the model, along with submitting work samples and receiving feedback were the most significant factors for increasing students’ confidence and improving their attitudes toward class. Along with the issues mentioned earlier in the article, a number of additional 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 limited to a discussion and identification of learning resources (e.g., places or materials students can use to facilitate learning). The question is, should additional time be taken to discuss and possibly identify and address different learning styles (e.g., 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 skills may be worth it. 2. Under what conditions is the application of the SCenTRLE model appropriate? Field-test data suggests that the SCenTRLE model may not be effective for students with little prior knowledge of the subject matter and limited experience with student-directed learning environments. Learning a topic that students’ may already be anxious about (e.g., computer


40

technology), coupled with what is perceived by some as a totally new instructional method may cause too much cognitive dissonance and result in feelings of helplessness and lack of control. In addition, in cases where students may already have well developed metacognitive strategies, and where time and the acquisition of content specific skills and knowledge are of utmost importance, SCenTRLE may not be as appropriate as direct instruction. For example, SCenTRLE may be inappropriate for training a new surgical technique to a group of medical doctors. They would want to know when and how to perform the procedure as efficiently as possible. Granted, this may be an extreme case, but other similar situations, related particularly to graduate and professional development training, may fall into this category. This area definitely deserves and requires considerable research before any answers or conclusions can be forwarded. 3. What is optimal growth? Should optimal, as well as other levels of growth be established on an individual basis? Or, can levels of growth be pre-established by instructional designers and instructors for different groups of learners? In the SCenTRLE model, the instructor defined four levels of performance along five course standards with related proficiencies based on experience and input from colleagues. Students were then evaluated on individual growth along the five standards. Several students indicated that they felt that the final portfolio evaluations were fair and equitable. However, it is believed that additional efforts must be made to establish the reliability and validity of standards and assessment rubrics for this, as well as for other courses implementing the SCenTRLE model. 4. How do we ensure equitable access to learning resources? An increasing number of educators are putting learning resources and course related information on-line. However, this gives students with access from home a significant advantage over those that must travel to


41

school to gain access. Is this fair, or is this another example of technology increasing the gap between the have’s and have not’s? What can be done to ensure equitable access and to integrate technology in a way that facilitates learning among most, if not all individuals? Yes, telecommunications and the Internet is providing access to educational opportunities for many non-traditional students, but it is believed that the question of equity must soon be addressed in a serious, proactive manner or the Internet will do more to increase, rather than reduce the division between the economically advanced and disadvantages. It is appears that traditional, teacher-centered modes of instruction may no longer be sufficient for meeting the needs of an information-based, technology-driven society. New methods and models of instruction are necessary if we are to prepare students for the 21st century. SCenTRLE represents one model for operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning that may be applied across disciplines. It is recognized that data on the effectiveness and the generalizability of the model is still rather limited and that the field-test data were neither comprehensive, nor conclusive. They were reported to give readers a better picture of the model in action, rather than to present formal evaluation data. Initial testing in this, as well as other environments are promising (Hirumi, 1996a; 1996b). Educators, attempting to restructure their classes and create student-centered environments, whether they use the SCenTRLE model or not, are encouraged to stick with it. Significant change takes time and the first several attempts may even result in lower student achievement scores and negative student ratings. However, instead of thinking of, “what will happen to me if I do try to change?” it is believed that a more important question we, as educators, must address as we enter the 21st century is, “what will happen to our children if we do not change?”


42

References American Psychological Association. (1993). Learner-Centered Psychological Principles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED371994). Baldwin, J.M. (1902). Development and evaluation. London: Macmillian Baldwin, J.M. (1906-1911). Thought and things or genetic logic: A study of the development and meaning of thought, Vols. 1-3. New York: MacMillan. Barrows, H.S. (1985). How to design a problem based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer Publishing Co. Barrows, H.S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481-486. Barrows, H.S. (1992). The tutorial process. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Barrows, H.S., & Myers, A.C. (1993). Problem based learning in secondary schools. Unpublished monograph. Springfield, IL: Problem Based Learning Institute, Lanphier High School, and Southern Illinois University Medical School. 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.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bridges, E., & Hallinger, P. (1992). Problem based learning for administrators. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon. Brown, A.L., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-43.


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 and Technology Group. (1992). The Jasper Experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40(1), 65-80. Cross, K. P. (1991, June 12). Every teacher a researcher, every classroom a laboratory. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B2. CTGV (Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt) (1990, April). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 2-10. CTGV (Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt) (1991a, May). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31, 34-40. CTGV (Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt) (1991b, September). Some thoughts about constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31, 16-18. CTGV (Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt) (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80. CTGV (Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt) (1993). Designing learning environments that support thinking: The Jasper series as a case study. In T. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructivist learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.


44

Cunningham, D.J. (1992). Beyond educational psychology: Steps toward an educational semiotic. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 165-194. Cunningham, D.J., Duffy, R.M., & Knuth, R. (1993). Textbook of the future. In C. McKnight (Ed.), Typertext: A psychological perspective. London: Ellis Horwood Publishing. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Paramount Publishing, Inc. Duffy, T.M. (1994). Corporate and community education: Achieving success in the information society. Unpublished paper. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Duffy, T.M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D.H. (1993). Designing environments for constructive learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Erickson, J. (1997). Building a community of designers: Restructuring learning 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, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W. W. (1988). Principals of instructional design (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Gibson, J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


45

Greeno, J.G. (1988). Situations, mental models, and generative learning. IRL Report 88-0005. Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Learning. Hatfield, R.C. (1989). Developing a procedural model for the practice of micro-teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 313340). Herrnstein, R.J. & Boring, E.G. (1968). A sourcebook in the history of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Heywood, J. (1989). Assessment in higher education (2nd ed.). The University of Dublin: John Wiley & Sons. Hirumi, A. (1995a). What performance technologist need to know about public schools to affect change in education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 89-114 Hirumi, A. (1995b, July). The design of student-centered, technology-based learning environments. Presentation given at the 9th annual Phi Delta Kappa Research into Practice conference, Houston, TX. Hirumi, A. (1996a, February). Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments: A cognitive-constructivist approach. Concurrent session held at the Association for Educational Communication and Technology Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana. Hirumi, A. (1996b, February). Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Presentation given at the Annual ENRON Teaching Excellence Symposium, Houston, TX. Hirumi, A., & Grau, I. (1996). A review of state standards, textbooks, and journal articles: Implications for pre-service teacher education and professional development. Journal for Computers and Teacher Education, 12(4), 6-17.


46

Hlynka, D. (1991, June). Postmodern excursions into educational technology. Educational Technology, 31, 27-30. Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: The H.G. Inc. Jerich, K. (1989). Using a clinical supervision model for micro-teaching experiences. Action in Teacher Education, 11(3), 24-32. Johnson, M.J. (1987). The body and mind: The bodily basis of meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jonassen, D.H. (1991a). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm shift? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 3-14. Jonassen, D.H. (1995, June). An instructional design model for designing constructivist learning environments. World Conference on Educational Media, Graz, Austria. Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37 Jonassen, D.H. (1991b). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a philosophical paradigm shift? Educational Technology: Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14. Keil, F.C. (1982). Semantic and conceptual development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Keil, F.C. (1984). Mechanisms in cognitive development and the structure of knowledge. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 81-100). New York: Freeman Press.


47

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 learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Land, S.M. & Hannifin, M.J. (in press). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science. Land, S.M. & Hannifin, M.J. (1996). Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, Assumptions and Implications. Published proceedings for the 1996 AECT Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN. Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 4-16. Loacker, G. & Mentkowski, M. (1993). Creating a culture where assessment improves learning. In T. Banta (Ed.), Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher education (pp. 5-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Loacker, G. (1991). Designing a national assessment system: Alverno's institutional perspective. Paper commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education Statistics, in response to the National Education Goals Panel: America 2000: An Education Strategy. Milwaukee, WI: Alverno Productions. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. 340 758). Loacker, G., Cromwell, L. & O'Brien, K. (1986). Assessment in higher education: To serve the learner. In C. Adelman (Ed.). Assessment in higher education: Issues and contexts (Report No. OR 86-301, pp. 47-62). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.


48

Marra, R.M., & Jonassen, D.H. (1993). Whither constructivism. In D.P. Ely & B.B. Minor (Eds.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Mager, R.F. (1997). Goal analysis (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: The Center for Effective Performance, Inc. McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4MAT system: Teaching to learning styles with right/left mode techniques. Barrington, IL: EXCEL, Inc. Mentkowski, M. & Loacker, G. (1985). Assessing and validating the outcomes 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, CA: Jossey-Bass. Milter, R.G., & Stinson, J.E. (1994). Educating leaders for the new competitive environment. In G. Gijselaers, S. Tempelaar, & S. Keizer S. (Eds.), Educational innovation in economics and business administration: The case of problem-based learning. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 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, Inc. Paris, S.G., & Byrnes, J.P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In Zimmerman & Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic theory, research, and practice: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 169-199). Berlin: Spinger-Verlag. Perkins, D.N. (1991, May). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, 31, 19-21.


49

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press. Piaget, J. (1969). The mechanisms of perception. London: Routledge and Keger Paul. Piaget, J. (1971). Genetic epistemology. New York: W.W. Norton. Halff, H.M. (1988) Curriculum and instruction in automated tutors. In M.C. Polson & J.J. Richardson (Eds), Foundations of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 79-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siegler, R.S. (1985). Children’s thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Spady, W.G. (1994). Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. Arlington Virginia: American Association of School Administrators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 380910). Sternberg, R.J. (1984). Mechanisms of cognitive development: A componential approach. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 163-186). New York: Freeman Press. Taylor, R.P. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. von Glasersfeld, E. (1981). The concepts of adaptation and viability in a radical constructivist theory of knowledge. In I.E. Sigel, Brondinsky and Golinkoff (eds.). New directions in piagetian theory and practice. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989a). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Syntheses, 80, 121-140.

Student-Centered Learning von Glasersfeld, E. (1989b). 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 learning on hypermedia. English Journal, 84(6), 34-40. Wilson, B. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Wittrock, M. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95. Wittrock, M. (1978). The cognitive movement in instruction. Educational Psychologist, 15, 15-29.

50


Information Knowledge

Information Knowledge

Teachers Individual & Collaborating Students

Class of Students

Family & Community

Family & Community

Teachers

Student-Centered Learning Teacher-Centered Instruction

Figure 1. A comparison of teacher centered and student centered learning environments

51


52

Table 1. A comparison of instructional variables associated with student-centered and teacher-centered approaches to teaching and learning Instructional Variables

Instructional Approach Teacher Centered Student Centered

Learning Outcomes

• Discipline-specific verbal information. • Lower order thinking skills (e.g., recall, identify, define). • Memorization of abstract and isolated facts, figures and formulas.

Goals & Objectives

• Teacher prescribes learning goals and objectives based on prior experiences, past practices, and state and/or locally mandated standards. • Instructional strategy prescribed by teacher; • Group-paced, designed for “average” student • Information organized and presented primarily by teacher (e.g., lectures) with some supplemental reading assignments • Assessments used to sort students • Paper & pencil exams used to assess students acquisition of information • Teacher sets performance criteria for students • Students left to find out what teacher wants • Teacher organizes and presents information to group of students • Teacher acts as gatekeeper of knowledge, controlling students access to information • Teacher directs learning • Students expect teachers to teach them what’s required to pass the test • Passive recipients of information • Reconstructs knowledge and information • Students sit in rows, information presented via lectures, books and films.

Instructional Strategy

Assessment

Teachers’ Role

Students’ Role

Environment

• Interdisciplinary information and knowledge • Higher order thinking skills (e.g., problem solving) • Information processing skills (access, organize, interpret, communicate information) • Students work with teachers to select learning goals and objectives based on authentic problems and students’ prior knowledge, interests and experience • Teacher works with students to determine learning strategy • Self-paced, designed to meet needs of individual student • Student given direct access to multiple sources of information (e.g., books, on-line databases, community members) • Assessment integral part of learning • Performance based, used to assess students ability to apply knowledge • Students work with teachers to define performance criteria • Student develop self-assessment and peer assessment skills • Teacher provide multiple means for accessing information • Teacher acts as facilitator, helps students access and process information • Teacher facilitates learning • Students take responsibility for learning • Active knowledge seekers • Constructs knowledge and meaning • Students work at stations, with access to electronic resources.


Event 1

Event 8

Set C hallenge

Event 2 Negotiate Learning Goals & Ob jectives

C ommunicate Results

Event 3 Negotiate Learning Strategies

Event 4 C onstruct Knowledge

Event 5 Negotiate Performance C ritieria

Event 7 Monitor Performance & Provide Feedb ack

Figure 2. Eight Events for Student-Centered Learning

Event 6 C onduct Self, Peer & Exp ert Assessments

53


54

Table 2. Sample Self-Assessment Rubric for Computer Integration Component of the Introductory Class on the Educational Application of Computer Technology N ovice • Little to no awareness of strategies for integrating the use of computer technology with instruction. • Requires significant help to construct a basic lesson plan that integrates the use of computer technology.

Apprentice • Describes some ideas for integrating computer applications. • Identifies and describes some conceptual basis for integrating computer technology. • Requires some help to construct a basic lesson plan that integrates the use of a few applications.

Proficient • Describes multiple strategies for integrating several computer applications with instruction • Discusses in detail the conceptual basis for integrating technology. • Describes multiple strategies for integrating technology within various room and equipment configuration. • Constructs instructional units, with lesson plans, teacher and student materials, that integrate the use of a combination of computer applications

D istinguished • Critically analyzes and discusses numerous strategies for integrating a number of different applications with instruction. • Analyzes and evaluates theoretical and conceptual basis for integrating computer technology. • Analyzes and evaluates multiple strategies for integrating technology within various room and equipment configurations. • Designs learning environments that integrate the use of a combination of applications.


55

Table 3. Sample Assessment Rubric for Oral Presentations N ovice • Presenters are difficult to hear. The rates of speaking are too fast or too slow. • The speakers do not show much interest and/or enthusiasm in the 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 which distract form presentation. The speakers are not presentable. • Speakers do not involve audience. • Presentation shows little organization, unclear purpose, unclear relationship and/or transition between presenters, rambles or may seem like a list of facts. Lacks conclusion. • Details and examples are lacking or not well chosen for the topic or audience. Lacks evidence of research. • Very little use and/or poor use of visuals with no handouts.

Apprentice • The presentation is generally similar to one receiving a novice rating, but there are one or two elements which are relatively well done.

Proficient • The presentation is as good as one receiving a distinguished rating, but there are one or two elements of the presentation which are less polished.

D istinguished • Information is complete and accurate. Clear evidence of research. • Presenters speak in a clear voice and show a flair for communicating with the audience. • Rates of speech are appropriate. • Speakers make eye contact with everyone and has no nervous habits, is appropriately dressed and has excellent posture. • Presentation involves audience, allowing time for audience to think and respond. • Presentation is well organized with a beginning, middle and end. There is a strong organizing theme, with clear main ideas and transitions. • Visual aids are well done and are used to make presentation more interesting and meaningful. • Handout(s) attractive, well organized and includes relevant information. • Appropriate length.


56

Table 4. Sample e-mail messages for negotiating learning goals and objectives

Initial Student Message

Instructor’s Response

Novice

Intermediate

Advanced

"I've never touched a computer before. I'd just like to be able to turn one on and use it without breaking it. My school just got ClarisWorks and I suppose to learn how to use some type of gradebook program. However, I only have one computer in my classroom. I took the self-assessment questionnaire and found that I basically don't know anything. I'm not sure where to start." In response, I encouraged the student to: • start with small goals, and expand later • begin with basic operations • learn how to use fundamental functions and features of ClarisWorks • examine capabilities of one-computer classroom • explore some telecommuni-cation technologies and learn how to search for and access information via the Internet

"I took an introductory course my freshmen year but didn't learn much. I've got a computer and modem at home and word process a lot but that's about it. I'd like to learn how to: • use my modem • create graphics • use Powerpoint to make presentations • locate software for my elementary students”

"I used a computer quite often in my previous job. I'm can word process as well as create dbases and spreadsheets. I also subscribe to America On-Line. However, I don't know much about education. Basically, I want to learn how to use different applications such as Microsoft Office, Multimedia, and the Internet to enhance student learning."

In response, I encouraged the student to examine: • how telecommunications may be used to enhance student learning and personal productivity in greater detail • programs such as Kidspix & Hyperstudio that elementary students can use to create graphics and presentations • the educational applications of dbases and spreadsheets

In response, I encouraged the student to: • take advantage of prior experience • analyze theoretical foundations for applying computer technology • use self-assessment questionnaire to define more specific goals (particularly multimedia and telecommunications) • learn alternative strategies for integrating different applications with instruction • explore capabilities of one-computer classroom

Student-Centered Learning Table 5. Summary to Students’ Performance as Measured by Students’ Portfolios Final Grade A

B

C F

Number of Students 2 6 4 3 8 2 2 1

Entry Skills & Knowledge Novice Apprentice Proficient Novice Apprentice Proficient Apprentice Apprentice

Final Demonstrated Performance Apprentice Proficient Distinguished Apprentice/Novice Proficient/Apprentice Distinguished/Proficient Apprentice/Proficient Apprentice

57