Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:30:18.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Learner-Centered Design

Reflections on the Past and Directions for the Future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Chris Quintana ,
Namsoo Shin ,
Cathleen Norris  and
Elliot Soloway
Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
Chris Quintana
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Namsoo Shin
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Cathleen Norris
Affiliation:
University of North Texas
Elliot Soloway
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access

Summary

As new information technologies have emerged, whether radio, television, or computers, advocates of those technologies hoped that each would have a radically transformative effect on education. However, in many ways, the scope of the resulting educational transformation was less than many had hoped for. In the last two decades, a wide range of new information technologies, such as personal computers, handheld computers, wireless networking, and the Internet, have emerged that again have a potential to transform education. Cuban (1986) noted some reasons why previous technologies have been less than successful for supporting learning. First, there is a failure to understand how technologies must be shaped to support the needs of learners. Second, there is a failure to understand how technologies can be effectively integrated into educational contexts in ways that truly support learning activities and goals. Therefore, if computers are to positively impact learning, educational software must be designed around learners' goals, needs, activities, and educational contexts. This approach to designing software is called learner-centered design (LCD) (Soloway, Guzdial, & Hay, 1994).

Here we will provide an overview of learner-centered design and summarize how it is different from typical software design approaches. We will discuss both the critical role of scaffolding in learner-centered design and how software can serve a scaffolding function for learners. We will describe different design frameworks that can impact LCD by guiding designers and researchers in developing intellectual support in software.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 119 - 134
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, P., Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (1995). The knowledge integration environment: Theory and design. In Schnase, J. L. & Cunnius, E. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference '95. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (2002). Contextual design: A customer-centered approach to systems design. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cognition and Technology Group. (1990). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291–315.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRef
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, G., & Welsh, J. (1995). Process support: Inflexible imposition or chaotic composition. Interacting with Computers, 7(2), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordin, D. N., Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (1994). The Climate Visualizer: Sense-making through scientific visualization. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3, 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S. L., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided learning-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments, Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '98 Conference Proceedings (pp. 187–194). Los Angeles: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesgold, A. (1986). Guide to cognitive task analysis. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Learning Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2004). Specific design principles: Elaborating the scaffolded knowledge integration framework. In Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A. & Bell, P. (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 315–339). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B.-S. (2004). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. In Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 47–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58(2), 29–32.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In Norman, D. A. & Draper, S. W. (Eds.), User centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (Eds.). (1986). User-centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quintana, C. (2001). Symphony: A case study for exploring and describing design methods and guidelines for learner-centered design. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Quintana, C., Eng, J., Carra, A., Wu, H., & Soloway, E. (1999). Symphony: A case study in extending learner-centered design through process-space analysis, Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '99 Conference Proceedings (pp. 473–480). Pittsburgh, PA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Quintana, C., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2002). A case study to distill structural scaffolding guidelines for scaffolded software environments, Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI 2002 Conference Proceedings. Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan, R.. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quintana, C., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (2003). Issues and approaches for developing learner-centered technology. In Zelkowitz, M. (Ed.), Advances in computers (Vol. 57, pp. 272–321). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In Carver, S. M. & Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, J., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., & Clay Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. K., & Reiser, B. J. (1998). National Geographic unplugged: Classroom-centered design of interactive nature films, Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '98 Conference Proceedings. Los Angeles: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1, 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. G. (1996). Introduction: What is a constructivist learning environment? In Wilson, B. G. (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1975). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×