Aprendizajecentradoalumno Hirumi

Student-Centered Learning 1
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
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.
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.

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
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.

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,

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.
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.

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
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.
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
__________________________________
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.
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.

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.
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,
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

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
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
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.
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.
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
• 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.

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 • Lesson plans

• Computer generated documents • Exams of students’ knowledge
• Rough drafts • Student handouts
• Notes • Homework assignments
• Revisions • Student work samples
• Descriptions • Self-evaluations
• Projects • Supervisor evaluations
• Peer reviews • Student evaluations
• Self-evaluations • Peer evaluations
• Anecdotal records • Professional training
• Reflective journal/writing • Conferences/Workshops
• Audiotapes/Videotapes • Reflections on teaching
• Artwork • Instructional materials
• Diagrams/Graphics/Charts • Graphic presentations
For Event 5, students are asked to answer a second question, “For 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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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,
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
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 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
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

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
__________________________________
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
(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
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)
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
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
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?”
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.

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.

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.
Information
Knowledge Information
Knowledge
Teachers
Individual &
Collaborating
Students
Class of Family & Family &

Students Community Teachers Community
Student-Centered
Learning
Teacher-Centered
Instruction
Figure 1. A comparison of teacher centered and student centered learning environments

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

Variables Teacher Centered Student Centered
Learning Outcomes • Discipline-specific verbal information. • Interdisciplinary information and
• Lower order thinking skills (e.g., recall, knowledge
identify, define). • Higher order thinking skills (e.g.,
• Memorization of abstract and isolated problem solving)
facts, figures and formulas. • Information processing skills (access,
organize, interpret, communicate
information)
Goals & Objectives • Teacher prescribes learning goals and • Students work with teachers to select
objectives based on prior experiences, learning goals and objectives based on
past practices, and state and/or locally authentic problems and students’ prior
mandated standards. knowledge, interests and experience
Instructional Strategy • Instructional strategy prescribed by • Teacher works with students to
teacher; determine learning strategy
• Group-paced, designed for “average” • Self-paced, designed to meet needs of
student individual student
• Information organized and presented • Student given direct access to multiple
primarily by teacher (e.g., lectures) sources of information (e.g., books, on-
with some supplemental reading line databases, community members)
assignments
Assessment • Assessments used to sort students • Assessment integral part of learning
• Paper & pencil exams used to assess • Performance based, used to assess
students acquisition of information students ability to apply knowledge
• Teacher sets performance criteria for • Students work with teachers to define
students performance criteria
• Students left to find out what teacher • Student develop self-assessment and
wants peer assessment skills
Teachers’ Role • Teacher organizes and presents • Teacher provide multiple means for
information to group of students accessing information
• Teacher acts as gatekeeper of • Teacher acts as facilitator, helps
knowledge, controlling students access students access and process
to information information
• Teacher directs learning • Teacher facilitates learning
Students’ Role • Students expect teachers to teach them • Students take responsibility for
what’s required to pass the test learning
• Passive recipients of information • Active knowledge seekers
• Reconstructs knowledge and • Constructs knowledge and meaning
information
Environment • Students sit in rows, information • Students work at stations, with access
presented via lectures, books and films. to electronic resources.
Event 1 Event 8
Set C ommunicate
C hallenge Results
Event 2 Event 3 Event 4 Event 5 Event 6
Negotiate Negotiate Negotiate C onduct Self,

C onstruct
Learning Goals Learning Performance Peer & Exp ert
Knowledge
& Ob jectives Strategies C ritieria Assessments
Event 7
Monitor Performance & Provide Feedb ack
Figure 2. Eight Events for Student-Centered Learning

Table 2.
Sample Self-Assessment Rubric for Computer Integration Component of the Introductory Class
on the Educational Application of Computer Technology
Novice Apprentice Proficient Distinguished

• Little to no awareness of • Describes some ideas for • Describes multiple • Critically analyzes and
strategies for integrating integrating computer strategies for integrating discusses numerous
the use of computer applications. several computer strategies for integrating
technology with • Identifies and describes applications with a number of different
instruction. some conceptual basis instruction applications with
• Requires significant help for integrating computer • Discusses in detail the instruction.
to construct a basic technology. conceptual basis for • Analyzes and evaluates
lesson plan that • Requires some help to integrating technology. theoretical and
integrates the use of construct a basic lesson • Describes multiple conceptual basis for
computer technology. plan that integrates the strategies for integrating integrating computer
use of a few technology within technology.
applications. various room and • Analyzes and evaluates
equipment multiple strategies for
configuration. integrating technology
• Constructs instructional within various room and
units, with lesson plans, equipment
teacher and student configurations.
materials, that integrate • Designs learning
the use of a combination environments that
of computer applications integrate the use of a
combination of
applications.
Table 3.
Sample Assessment Rubric for Oral Presentations
Novice Apprentice Proficient Distinguished

• Presenters are difficult to hear. • The presentation • The presentation • Information is complete and
The rates of speaking are too is generally is as good as one accurate. Clear evidence of
fast or too slow. similar to one receiving a research.
• The speakers do not show much receiving a distinguished • Presenters speak in a clear
interest and/or enthusiasm in novice rating, but rating, but there voice and show a flair for
the topic. May sound like the there are one or are one or two communicating with the
speakers are reading the two elements elements of the audience.
presentation. which are presentation • Rates of speech are
• Eye contact is made with only relatively well which are less appropriate.
some of the audience. done. polished. • Speakers make eye contact
• The speakers may have nervous with everyone and has no
habits which distract form nervous habits, is
presentation. The speakers are appropriately dressed and has
not presentable. excellent posture.
• Speakers do not involve • Presentation involves
audience. audience, allowing time for
• Presentation shows little audience to think and respond.
organization, unclear purpose, • Presentation is well organized
unclear relationship and/or with a beginning, middle and
transition between presenters, end. There is a strong
rambles or may seem like a list organizing theme, with clear
of facts. Lacks conclusion. main ideas and transitions.
• Details and examples are • Visual aids are well done and
lacking or not well chosen for are used to make presentation
the topic or audience. Lacks more interesting and
evidence of research. meaningful.
• Very little use and/or poor use • Handout(s) attractive, well
of visuals with no handouts. organized and includes
relevant information.
• Appropriate length.
Table 4.
Sample e-mail messages for negotiating learning goals and objectives
Novice Intermediate Advanced

Initial "I've never touched a "I took an introductory course "I used a computer quite often
Student computer before. I'd just like my freshmen year but didn't in my previous job. I'm can
to be able to turn one on and learn much. I've got a word process as well as create
Message use it without breaking it. My computer and modem at home dbases and spreadsheets. I
school just got ClarisWorks and word process a lot but also subscribe to America On-
and I suppose to learn how to that's about it. I'd like to learn Line. However, I don't know
use some type of gradebook how to: much about education.
program. However, I only • use my modem Basically, I want to learn how
have one computer in my • create graphics to use different applications
classroom. I took the self- • use Powerpoint to make such as Microsoft Office,
assessment questionnaire and presentations Multimedia, and the Internet
found that I basically don't • locate software for my to enhance student learning."
know anything. I'm not sure elementary students”
where to start."
Instructor’s In response, I encouraged the In response, I encouraged the In response, I encouraged the
Response student to: student to examine: student to:
• start with small goals, and • how telecommunications • take advantage of prior
expand later may be used to enhance experience
• begin with basic operations student learning and • analyze theoretical
• learn how to use personal productivity in foundations for applying
fundamental functions and greater detail computer technology
features of ClarisWorks • programs such as Kidspix • use self-assessment
• examine capabilities of one- & Hyperstudio that questionnaire to define
computer classroom elementary students can use more specific goals
• explore some telecommuni- to create graphics and (particularly multimedia
cation technologies and presentations and telecommunications)
learn how to search for and • the educational applications • learn alternative strategies
access information via the of dbases and spreadsheets for integrating different
Internet applications with
instruction
• explore capabilities of one-
computer classroom
Table 5.
Summary to Students’ Performance as Measured by Students’ Portfolios
Final Number of Entry Final Demonstrated

Grade Students Skills & Knowledge Performance
A 2 Novice Apprentice
6 Apprentice Proficient
4 Proficient Distinguished
B 3 Novice Apprentice/Novice
8 Apprentice Proficient/Apprentice
2 Proficient Distinguished/Proficient
C 2 Apprentice Apprentice/Proficient
F 1 Apprentice Apprentice

Aprendizajecentradoalumno Hirumi

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Aprendizajecentradoalumno Hirumi

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Student-Centered Learning 1

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

Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich, learning environments (SCenTRLE):

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

environments (SCenTRLE). It is designed to help educators operationalize constructivist

within the context of traditional instructional systems design (ISD) models.

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

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.

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

technology, student attitudes, levels of implementation, holistic vs. analytic performance

instructional systems design (ISD) models.

A number of factors contributed to the development of the SCenTRLE model. Based, in

following describes four SCenTRLE foundations.

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

number of significant challenges. In short, educators are finding it increasingly difficult to

information, as well as their ability to become independent, self-regulated, life-long learners.

an extensive discussion of constructivism, in addition to those cited in the following paragraphs,

is no single constructivist theory. Constructivist approaches to teaching and learning is grounded

in several research tradition (Perkins, 1991; Paris & Byrnes, 1989).

experience” (von Glasersfeld, 1991, p. 31).

A second, related path to constructivism comes from Gesalt theories of perception

separately and that cognition imposes organization on the world.

Theories of intellectual development provide a third research tradition contributing to the

environment which are characterized by increasingly sophisticated methods of representing and

A fourth line of research depicts learning as a socially mediated experience where

constructivism applied to education and SCenTRLE. No discussion of learning theories,

however, is complete without examining their epistemological assumptions.

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

to the organism and that meaning is dependent on individual understanding.

An alternative to objectivism and interpretivism is pragmatism (Driscoll, 1994). Like

Pedagogical foundations emphasize how information is conveyed to learners and focus

foundations for the SCenTRLE model.

Figure 1 illustrates both teacher-centered and student-centered models of instruction.

contribute to student learning, but rarely in any systematic fashion.

Figure 1. About Here

centered approaches to teaching and learning are compared in Table 1.

Table 1. About Here

learning, problem-solving and group work.

Concepts associated with performance assessment represent the final SCenTRLE

possession of knowledge, performance assessments judge students’ ability to apply knowledge.

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

constructivist approaches to teaching and learning.

Eight Events for Student-Centered Learning

SCenTRLE represents an instructional strategy for operationalizing constructivist

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

their ability to create innovative solutions to real-world problems.

In such situations, teacher-centered instruction fails to address individual learner needs.