Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this case study was to explore the issues involved in implementing a technology-enhanced student-centered unit in order to provide recommendations to improve and enhance these types of learning activities. Specifically, the study examined problems students encountered in completing the unit activities, problems the teacher encountered in facilitating the delivery of the unit to her students, and strategies to improve and enhance these types of learning activities. One teacher and the 21 students in her intact United States history class participated in the study. The central unit problem required students to determine the strategies that should be pursued in 1968 to continue the struggle for a more just, equal United States society. Students worked in teams to gather data from an electronic database of primary- and secondary-source materials, and use the data to develop solutions to the unit problem. Results of this study suggest that a variety of factors impact the success or failure of student-centered activities, including student orientation to the unit problem, student collaboration, teacher management strategies, and student accountability mechanisms. These results also provide insight into how the design of these types of activities can be improved. Perhaps the most important considerations that need additional attention are the additional aids required by teachers as they struggle to implement these types of activities in their classrooms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alper, L., Fendel, D., Fraser, S., & Resek, D. (1996). Problem-based mathematics: Not just for the college-bound.Educational Leadership, 53(8), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., Bonk, C., Supplee, L., & Malikowski, S. (1998). A case-based electronic learning environment for preservice teacher education.Technology and Teacher Education Annual—1998. Reston, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Landa, A. (1997). Designing effective inter-disciplinary anchors.Educational Leadership, 54(6), 52–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. Duffy and D. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berson, M.J. (1996). Effectiveness of computer technology in the social studies: A review of the literature.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 486–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(4), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when using integrated learning systems in cooperative pairs.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T. (1998). Embedding cooperative learning into the design of Integrated Learning Systems: Rationale and guidelines.Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T., & Saye, J. (1999, February).Instructional tools for student problem-solving: The Decision Point project. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX.

  • Choi, J., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited.Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938).Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology?Educational Technology, May, 3–16.

  • Edmark. (1999).Millie's math house. [Computer Software]. Redmond, WA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehman, L.H., Glenn, A.D., Johnson, V., & White, C.S. (1998). Using computer databases in student problem solving. In J.A. Braun, P. Fernlund, & C.S. White (Eds.),Technology tools in the social studies curriculum (pp. 164–187). Wilsonville, OR: Frankilin, Beedle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction.College Teaching, 44(2), 43–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S.A., & Stepien, W.J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American studies.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(3), 257–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasgow, N. (1997).New curriculum for new times: A guide to student-centered, problem-based learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981).Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications.Educational Technology, October, 48–55.

  • Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implication.Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments.Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models, Volume II. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, C., & Duffy, T. (1997).Design model for learner-centered, computer-based simulations. ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED 423 838

  • Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1999, February).An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology conference, Houston, TX.

  • Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997).Open-ended learning environments: A theoretical framework and model for design. ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED 423 839

  • Jackson, S., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1995, April).Making system dynamics modeling accessible to pre-college science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Jacobson, M., & Spiro, R. (1994). A framework for the contextual analysis of technology-based learning environments.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 5(2), 3–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1991).Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning.Educational Technology, September, 28–33.

  • Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Soloway, E., Blumenfeld, P., & Marx, R. (1998). Scaffolded technology tools to promote teaching and learning in science. In C. Dede (Ed.),ASCD 1998 Yearbook: Learning with Technology. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S., & Hannafin, M. (1994).Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions, and implications. ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED 397 810

  • Linn, M. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M., Shear, L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J.D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships: Case studies of students' learning about ‘rats in space’ and ‘deformed frogs.’Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate?Educational Researcher, 17, 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, B., & Whisler, J.S. (1997).The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, B. (1994). Introduction: Using technology to advance educational goals. In B. Means (Ed.),Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S.B. (1988).Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, K. (1996).Realizing the potential of scaffolded instruction in situated learning environments: Lessons from a formative evaluation. ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED 413 310

  • Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching and comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities.Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roehler, L., & Cantlon, D. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.),Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework.Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saye, J.W. (1997). Technology and educational empowerment: Students' perspectives.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saye, J.W. (1998). Technology in the classroom: The role of dispositions in teacher gatekeeping.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13(3), 210–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saye, J.W., & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multimedia-supported learning environment.Theory and Research in Social Education, 27(4), 468–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scaradamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). An architecture for collaborative knowledge building. In E. DeCorte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.),Computer-based learning environments and problem solving. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D.L., Brophy, S., Lin, X., & Bransford, J.D. (1999). Software for managing complex learning: Examples from an educational psychology course.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B., & Brush, T.A. (1998). Teaching instructional technology: A problem-based learning approach.Canadian Journal of Educational Communications, 27(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sept, J. (1997).Investigating olduvai: Archaeology of human origins. [Computer Program]. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R.E. (1995).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J.F., Greene, T.R., Post, T.A., & Penner, B.C. (1983). Problem solving skill in the social sciences. In G.H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wineburg, S.S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1984).Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Psychology in Education, Arizona State University, Tempe

    Thomas Brush

  2. Division of Curriculum and Teaching, Auburn University, USA

    John Saye

Authors
  1. Thomas Brush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Saye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brush, T., Saye, J. Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. ETR&D 48, 79–100 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319859

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319859

Keywords

Search

Navigation