Content uploaded by Susan M. Land
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susan M. Land on Jun 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online
Chapter Title Open Learning Environments
Copyright Year 2011
Copyright Holder Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
Corresponding Author Family Name
Land
Particle
Given Name
Susan M.
Suffix
Organization/University Education Instructional Systems Program,
The Pennsylvania State University
Street 315 Keller Building
City University Park
State PA
Postcode 16870
Country USA
Email sland@psu.edu
Email sml11@psu.edu
Author Family Name
Oliver
Particle
Given Name
Kevin
Suffix
Division/Department Department of Curriculum & Instruction
Organization/University North Carolina State University
Street 602k Poe Hall
Postbox Box 7801
City Raleigh
State NC
Postcode 27695-7801
Country USA
Phone 919-395-5693
Fax 919-515-6229
Email kevin_oliver@ncsu.edu
Comp. by: MANIKANDAN R Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 1102 Title Name: ESL
Page Number: 0 Date:26/5/11 Time:10:02:41
1 O
2 Open Learning Environments
3 SUSAN M. LAND
1
,KEVIN OLIVER
2
4
1
Education Instructional Systems Program, The
5 Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
6
2
Department of Curriculum & Instruction, North
7 Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
8 Synonyms
9 Learning environments; Open-ended learning environ-
10 ments; Student-centered learning
11 Definition
12 Open Learning Environments (OLEs) are rooted in
13 learner-centered design principles and highlight activities
14 and contexts that “support the individual’s efforts to
15 understand what he or she determines to be important”
16 (Hannafin et al. 1994, p. 48). The term is used in the
17 sciences of learning as a general design framework to
18 describe environments that support personal sense mak-
19 ing v ia problem contexts enriched with technology tools,
20 resources, and scaffolding (Hannafin et al. 1999). Open
21 Learning Environments emphasize student- or self-
22 directed learning but provide guidance and support strat-
23 egies to assist students to productively engage complex,
24 open-ended problems.
25 Theoretical Background
26 The origin of OLEs appeared during the early 1990s in
27 response to emerging instructional-design considerations
28 that reflected constructivist views of learning (Hannafin
29 et al. 1994). These views reflected a fundamental shift in
30 paradigms of learning and design, and few guidelines were
31 available for designers to create learner-centered environ-
32 ments. Likewise, technology advancements at that time
33 had begun to enable integration of digital resources, tools,
34 and internet connectivity to expand the development
35 toolkit of instructional designers. These shifts in the learn-
36 ing-design-technology landscape required corresponding
37 shifts in theoretical frameworks for designing new learn-
38 ing environments that capitalized on affordances of
39emerging technologies (Hannafin et al. 1994). Early theo-
40retical notions highlighted the importance of alignment
41among psychological, pedagogical, technological, prag-
42matic, and cultural foundations of the learning environ-
43ment (Hannafin et al. 1999).
44Open learning environments are based on several key
45assumptions about the nature of learning, the structure of
46the environments, and role of the learner (Hannafin et al.
471999). One key assumption is that learners’ own experi-
48ences, personal theories, or existing beliefs mediate their
49learning. OLEs assume that individual’s efforts to direct
50their own learning must start with a recognition of what is
51already known. Initial understanding is the basis for build-
52ing more refined understanding that can be examined,
53tested, and revised through engagement w ith the OLE
54(Hannafin et al. 2009; Land and Hannafin 1997).
55Theoretical assumptions about the pedagog y behind
56OLEs reflect authentic, problem- or project-based con-
57texts that organize individual efforts to learn (Hannafin
58et al. 1999). Contexts for learning are typically open-
59ended, suggesting that there is not one correct answer or
60way to solve the problem. Activities and contexts that
61readily connect to learners’ experiences are assumed to
62increase relevance and engagement. Tools and resources
63are provided to support learners to represent and explore
64various aspects of the problem as well as their ideas.
65OLEs are based on an assumption that individual
66monitoring and metacognition are important elements
67of open-ended learning, and as such, require opportunity
68to be utilized. OLEs are complex and open ended, requir-
69ing learners to initiate reflection, monitoring, and self-
70assessment of what is known and what needs to be
71known (Hannafin et al. 1999). OLEs facilitate use of
72metacognitive strategies but also assume that learners
73will need support at critical points in the learning process
74to identify needs and deploy effective monitoring strate-
75gies (Oliver and Hannafin 2001).
76OLEs represent a broad design framework for envi-
77ronments that encourage open-ended learning. OLEs are
78comprised of the following four components: Enabling
79contexts, tools, resources, and scaffolds (Hannafin et al.
801994, 1999). Enabling contexts represent the activity struc-
81tures or problems that guide and orient students to
Norbert Seel (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6,
#
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Comp. by: MANIKANDAN R Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 1102 Title Name: ESL
Page Number: 0 Date:26/5/11 Time:10:02:41
82 learning. They span a continuum of structure – from
83 contexts that specify problems and outcomes to individ-
84 ually generated problems or issues that are uniquely
85 defined. Tools typically offer technology-based support
86 for representing, organizing, manipulating, or
87 constructing understanding. Hannafin et al. (1999) char-
88 acterize three t ypes of tools typically employed in OLEs:
89 ● Processing tools (i.e., tools that aid in cognitive
90 processing, information seeking, collecting, organiz-
91 ing, integrating, and generating)
92 ● Manipulation tools (i.e., tools that function based on
93 user input, changing and testing parameters, and visu-
94 alizing effects)
95 ● Communication tools (i.e., tools that promote social
96 interaction and dialog)
97 Resources represent source information, and may
98 range from static information resources (e.g., text, video)
99 to dynamically evolving resources that are socially
100 constructed (e.g., WIKIs). Scaffolds are support mecha-
101 nisms designed to support individual’s efforts to under-
102 stand. Scaffolds are typically designed to provide the
103 following functions:
104 ● Conceptual guidance on concepts related to the
105 problem
106 ● Metacognitive guidance on how to reflect, plan, and
107 monitor
108 ● Procedural guidance on how to use the environment’s
109 features
110 ● Strategic guidance on how to approach the task or
111 refine strategies
112 The relationship among the various components is
113 interconnected and should reflect alignment among core
114 theoretical foundations. Current theoretical work
115 (Hannafin et al. 2009) emphasizes the importance of
116 identifying the cognitive and metacognitive demands for
117 open-ended learning, and delineating criteria for design
118 that inform the productive use of tools, resources, and
119 scaffolds for learning.
120 Important Scientific Research and Open
121 Questions
122 OLEs can prepare students for complex problem solving
123 in subjects that require such processes (e.g., science, math,
124 social studies), and they have been the subject of research
125 with a range of learners from adolescents to adults. In one
126 case study with four seventh grade science students, Land
127 and Hannafin (1997) employed think-aloud protocols and
128 interviews to trace student thinking as they manipulated
129 an OLE called ErgoMotion. The goal was for students to
130learn physics concepts by altering input parameters in
131a roller coaster simulation, then test and refine personal
132theories to explain outcomes. The authors identified eight
133common patterns of student thinking, noting students
134develop personal theories to explain outcomes. Students
135tended to assimilate conflicting data into their naive the-
136ories, however, rather than elaborating and retesting mod-
137ified theories. The authors suggest extended exposure to
138conflicting data, as well as divergent contexts and perspec-
139tives, may be required before students comprehend and
140stretch the limits of their resilient initial conceptions.
141In another case study with 12 eighth grade science
142students, Oliver and Hannafin (2001) studied an OLE
143called the Knowledge Integration Environment (KIE). The
144goal was for students to find and resolve subproblems
145associated with building collapse in earthquakes, by
146reviewing, organizing, and annotating a collection of
147Web pages and print resources, responding to question
148scaffolds, and proposing design solutions. Through this
149induced context, students were to break the comprehen-
150sive engineering problem into manageable subproblems,
151but they struggled to do so with limited prior knowledge.
152To improve problem fractionation, the authors
153recommended simulating relevant factors and encourag-
154ing students to reason analogically from everyday objects.
155Students also failed to adequately frame problems and
156justify their naive solutions with collected evidence, so
157the authors recommended bracketing searches with
158fewer resources, requiring students to state hypotheses
159up-front to guide their research (i.e., this evidence sup-
160ports my hypothesis) and requiring students to commu-
161nicate solution ideas with others to help identify faulty
162reasoning.
163Goldman et al. (1996) describe two experiments with
16444 fifth and 49 ninth graders, designed to test content
165learning and attitudes resulting from use of an anchored
166instruction video that externally imposed the context for
167several embedded science problems associated with
168a chemical spill. The video included pauses allowing stu-
169dents to break into groups and work with authentic mate-
170rials and lab exercises to generate problem solutions,
171before viewing the video again with expert recommenda-
172tions. Effects on attitudes were negligible, but students in
173both fifth- and ninth- grade treatment groups were signif-
174icantly better able to describe scientists and steps involved
175in dealing with spills compared to students in
176a comparison groups that only viewed a news segment
177about spills.
178While each of these studies allowed students to prac-
179tice problem-solving processes in the context of open-
180ended problems, they illustrate how OLEs can differ in
2 O Open Learning Environments
Comp. by: MANIKANDAN R Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 1102 Title Name: ESL
Page Number: 0 Date:26/5/11 Time:10:02:42
181 terms of tools and resources (e.g., dynamic simulation
182 versus static Web pages and video), enabling contexts
183 and the degree of open-endedness (i.e., the anchored
184 study imposed research questions and made expert solu-
185 tion paths explicit), and scaffolds (i.e., the ErgoMotion and
186 anchored studies supported recursive testing of processes
187 through simulation and multiple embedded problems,
188 respectively, and the KIE and anchored studies encouraged
189 cooperative learning from peers). In the ErgoMotion and
190 KIE studies, middle-grade students’ solutions to open-
191 ended problems were resistant to change, and students
192 did not subject their models to revision as new evidence
193 was encountered. It follows that the more open the envi-
194 ronment, the more time it may take students to recursively
195 refine their own models in reference to divergent perspec-
196 tives and contexts, be those from simulation, peer com-
197 munication, and/or experts and instructors.
198 Educators can increasingly leverage the Web to con-
199 textualize open-ended problems for students with online
200 video, virtual worlds, and ready access to experts and data.
201 Also increasingly available are both static resources such as
202 open content and digitized primary sources and dynamic
203 resources such as interactive learning objects. With ready
204 access to context and resources online, the key question for
205 OLEs remains how to best leverage emerging tools and
206 encourage student use of scaffolds as they inquire into
207 complex problem contexts and divergent resources, par-
208 ticularly younger learners who may lack metacognitive
209 abilities to effectively use tools and scaffolds with inten-
210 tion as shown (Hannafin et al. 2009).
211 The OLE tool types introduced by Hannafin, Land,
212 and Oliver (1999) have not changed, but the nature of use
213 has changed. Web 2.0 tools now allow students to co-
214 collect information into common social bookmarks or
215 drop boxes, co-organize information on group-edited
216 maps or displays, or collaborate in generating positions
217 and solutions on blogs or wi kis. Such features address the
218 need in OLEs to communicate ideas and to consider
219 divergent perspectives from both resources and peers.
220 Web tools that interact with previously static resources
221 address the need in OLEs for students to propose and
222 justify novel solutions on the basis of evidence. Students
223can now propose hypotheses and use tools to collect,
224annotate, or visually organize evidence, and embed or
225mash-up evidence in new forms. Static resources become
226dynamic through reuse and re-presentation. Emerging
227technology may also influence scaffold delivery in OLEs.
228Since OLEs often present heuristics to aid students in
229problem solving, personalized metacognitive suggestions
230may be generated by future Web 3.0 systems that track
231learner trials and errors in problem solving and offer the
232most pertinent rules to help with recurring individual or
233common group problems.
234Cross-References
235▶ Constructivist Learning
236▶ Design of Learning Environments
237▶ Learning Technology
238▶ Resource-Based Learning
239▶ Scaffolding for Learning
240▶ Situated Learning
241▶ Student-Centered Learning
242▶ Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments
243References
244Goldman, S. R., Petrosino, A. J., Sherwood, R. D., Garrison, S., Hickey, D.,
245Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1996). Anchoring science
246instruction in multimedia learning environments. In S. Vosniadou,
247E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives
248on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environ-
249ments (pp. 257–284). New York: Springer.
250Hannafin, M. J., Hall, C., Land, S. M., & Hill, J. R. (1994). Learning in
251open environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications. Edu-
252cational Technology, 34(8), 48–55.
253Hannafin, M. J., Land, S., & Oliver, K. M. (1999). Open learning environ-
254ments: Foundations, methods , and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),
255Instructional-design theories and models: Volume II (pp. 115–140).
256Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
257Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Re-examining
258cognition during student-centered, web-based learning. Educational
259Technology Research and Development, 57, 767–785.
260Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Patterns of understanding with
261open-ended learning environments: A qualitative study. Educational
262Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 47–73.
263Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. (2001). Developing and refining mental
264models in open-ended learning environments: A case study. Educa-
265tional Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 5–32.
Open Learning Environments O 3
