Jurnal

New Learning and the Classification of Learning Environments in Secondary Education Author(s): Adrianus de Kock, Peter Sleegers and
Marinus J. M. Voeten Source: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 74, No. 2 (Summer, 2004), pp. 141-170 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516054 . Accessed: 07/05/2013 23:08
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of Educational Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 103.5.181.57 on Tue, 7 May 2013 23:08:22 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Reviewof EducationalResearch Summer 2004, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 141-170
New Learningand the Classificationof Learning Environmentsin SecondaryEducation

Adrianus de Kock Radboud University Nijmegen KPC Group, 's-Hertogenbosch Peter Sleegers and Marinus J. M. Voeten Radboud University Nijmegen Thisarticlepresentsa new classification schemefor learningenvironments basedon a reviewof recentliterature on new learnin secondaryeducation, ing and a reviewof existingclassificationschemes.Thisnew classification scheme emphasizesnewforms of learningand is organizedaroundthree mainaspectsof learningenvironments thatmaybe assumedto influence such learning:(a) learninggoals, (b) thedivisionof teacherandlearnerroles,and (c) the roles of the learnersin relationto each other.It is thenarguedthat teachers schemeto designandevaluatetheirown mightuse thisclassification In addition,the schemeprovidesa clearframework learningenvironments. for a nextgenerationof process-productresearch. KEYWORDS: classification,constructivism,educationalobjectives, learningenvironments,secondaryeducation,teacherand learnerroles. Dutch secondaryeducationfaces large-scale changes aimed at the creation of learningenvironmentsintendedto stimulatenew forms of learning,based on the ideathatlearningis a social-interactive, and contextual,constructive, self-regulated, reflectiveprocess (Simons, 2000). The stimulationof these new forms of learning can be seen as a demandof modernsociety, and they are propagatedfor a variety The capacityfor of reasons(Bolhuis, 2003). First,thereis an economic argument: self-directed learning is needed because knowledge creation has become very in Dutch society, in which knowledge productivityis at the core of ecoimportant is thatDutch society is partof a global vilnomic development.A second argument in which is "confrontation with other truths"(p. 328); there a lage continually individuals are called upon to deal with such confrontations.A third argument stressesthatthe stimulationof self-directedlearningsupportsthe developmentof a democraticsociety, in which all citizens have equal possibilities to function well. And fourth,thereis an important which stressesthat internaleducationalargument, studentsin Dutch secondaryeducationhave to be better preparedto function in highereducation,whichrequiresthe developmentof competenciesfor self-directed formthe mainmotorfor the large-scaleeducational learning.These fourarguments changes thatare faced by Dutch secondaryeducation. 141
et al. de Kock These changes are also inspiredby new psychologicaland educationalinsights that stress a shift from learningenvironmentsbased on a knowledge-transmission model toward learning environmentsbased on a knowledge-construction model shift in learninggoals is also occurring.In (Lowyck& Ellen, 1993). A concomitant to learningproducts addition (i.e., knowledgeandskills),the functionsof learningor to learn"arecomingto be valuedas learninggoals. This meansthatteach"learning ers in secondaryschools mustbe not simplyknowledgeprovidersbut also guides to the learningprocess.Students,moreover,must become more active and more independentlearners.Finally,the new forms of learningcall for an increasein cooperative learningandthusrequirestudentsto learnnew roles in relationto each other. Learninggoals, the division of teacherand learnerroles, and the roles of learners in relationto each otherarethreeaspectsof the learningenvironment thatclearly may influence the performanceof studentsand stimulatenew forms of learning. The purposeof this study was to use the Dutch case to take a first step toward a new classificationscheme in which learningenvironmentsmay be classified into a limited numberof types. Ourreview integratesthe literatureon "new learning" with the literatureaboutclassificationschemes directedat one or more of the three basic featuresjust mentioned.Both traditionaland modem learningenvironments are includedin this review. A classification scheme for learning environmentsis a descriptive scheme of types that covers existing and theoretically possible learning environments in schools (De Corte, Geerligs, Lagerweij,Peters, & Vandenberghe,1981; Elshout& Broekkamp,1999). Overthe pastfive decades,several Mohr,Van Hout-Wolters, classificationsystems have been constructedto characterizethe learningenvironments of students.Most of them are based on just one aspect of the learning situation, namely the learning goals (e.g., see Bloom, 1956; Joyce & Weil, 1996). these classificationsystems do not cover all of the learninggoals Understandably, andadditionalaspectsmustbe included targetedin modem learningenvironments, in an adequatedescription.For example, we must describe the changing roles of teachersand learnersif we are to characterizemodernlearningenvironmentsadequatelyanddeterminewhethernew formsof learningarebeing fostered.Similarly, we must explicitly connect learninggoals with other aspects of the learningenvironment,includingthe roles of both teachersand learners(very few classification schemes make thatconnection). In our terminology,a given type of learningenvironmenthas various aspects, which in turncontainvarioussubsetsor categories. Figure 1 shows schematicrepA resentations of two hypothetical types of learningenvironments(Representation andRepresentation B), each type havingthreeaspectsandeach aspecthaving three categories.To give concreteexamples, two aspects of a learningenvironmentare learninggoals and learningmaterials(Joyce & Weil, 1996). Within the aspect of goals (goals for learninggoals, a distinction maybe madebetweenlearning-products the acquisitionof content knowledge) and learning-processgoals (goals for the of metacognitive acquisition learningfunctions).In this example,contentknowledge and learning functions areconsideredto be categoriesof the aspectlearninggoals. Teachersmay arrangea learningenvironmentin which they focus on the acquisition of contentknowledge;they may, however, also choose to strivein particular A and to teachadequatemetacognitivelearningfunctions.Forboth Representation B in Figure 1, the same three aspects of learningenvironmentsare Representation cateshown-Aspects 1, 2, and 3. Foreach aspect,a teachermay select a particular 142
Representation B
FIGURE 1. Schematic representations of hypothetical types of learning environments.
on. The two representations in Figure 1 differfrom each other gory to concentrate A, the only with respect to the category selection in Aspect 2. In Representation B the teacher teacherchooses to workon CategoryB of Aspect 2; in Representation chooses to work on CategoryA of Aspect 2. Learningenvironmentsare grouped into one type if they sharecategoriesunderthe aspects specified as definingthat A andB belong to the sametype of type. Forexample,in Figure 1, Representations 143
de Kock et al. learningenvironmentif that type is defined by choices with respect to Aspects 1 and3. If, however, a type is definedby choices with respectto Aspects 1 and2, then the two representations belong to differenttypes of learningenvironments. Thus a learningenvironment can be describedby identifyingwhich categoryis met for each aspect.Classificationschemes of learningenvironments may be based on one aspect or a combinationof two or more aspects. The most relevantaspects of learningenvironmentsfound in the literature include (a) the physical context in which learningand instruction occur;(b) the division of roles between teacherand learner;(c) the roles of learnersin relationto each other;(d) learninggoals; (e) the teacher'smethod of instruction; (f) the tasks to be performedby the students;and (g) the materialsused andthe roles they play (Anderson,1989;Joyce & Weil, 1996; Reigeluth, 1983; Lowyck, 1995). In this article, we discuss the literatureon new learningto establishwhich of the aspects listed here are the salientones for stimulatingnew formsof learning.We thenreview the classificationschemeson the basis of thoseaspectsandconstruct a new classificationschemeof learningenvironments. is restricted In ourterminologythe conceptof learningenvironment to school setof the learner thatinfluencethe tings.It refersto all aspectsin the school environment of learning achievement goalswithina specificcontentor subjectarea(e.g., Boekaerts & Simons, 1995). We use the termcontentto referto bothinformation (e.g., a text, a video, or a lecture)andactivities(e.g., writingan essay). In educational practice,the contentor subjectareais often used to distinguishdifferentlearningenvironments. For example, students in a history learning environmentmay read about World in the library WarII in a textbookandsearchfor additional information to learnmore aboutthe causes of the war.At the end of a periodof study,they may have to make a on the topic and thus apply theiroral languageskills. When a student presentation dealswith certaincontentin relationto anotherset of learninggoals, his or her learnreadenvironment. This meansthatthe student learning ing is saidto occurin another his it in a text on World War II as of lessons is about another ing part English learning learningenvironment.Althoughthe contentis comparable(i.e., readingon World WarII),the learninggoals areverydifferent(i.e., learningthe causesof such a waras opposedto learningEnglishreadingskills). It is also possiblefor two situationswith the samelearninggoals to constitute Forexamvery different learningenvironments. in a German-language book presentation class is very difple, workingon a German of the causesof the WorldWarII basedon the ferentfromworkingon a presentation samebook for a historyclass. Althoughthe learninggoals arefairlysimilar(i.e., adethus Thesetwo situations skills),thecontentis verydifferent. quateuse of presentation constitutedifferentlearningenvironments. Given our interestin the developmentof a general frameworkfor the description and analysis of all kinds of secondarywithrespectto learning education environments goals,thedivisionof teacher learning in relationto eachother,the focus herewill andlearner roles,andtherolesof students nevertheless not be contentspecific. As will be seen, the classificationscheme for learningenvironmentsdeveloped here providesa frameworkfor futureprocess-productresearch.A next generation of process-productresearchshould examine the effects of multiple aspects of the learning environment on learning outcomes (Shuell, 1996). The classification scheme presentedhere should provide informationon the most salient aspects of learningenvironments.Whereasprocess-productresearchhas been primarilyconcernedwith the effects of teacherbehavioron the cognitive learningoutcomes of students,a next generationof researchshould considervariousmetacognitiveand 144
New Learningand the Classificationof LearningEnvironments
motivationaloutcomes as well (e.g., Jonassen& Grabowski,1993). The new classification scheme should furtherhelp teachersto analyze their own practices and the currentpracticesin theirschools. More specifically, teachersmay be helped to in their become more awareof the types of learningenvironmentsthatpredominate schools and to see whetherthose environmentsare in line with the characteristics of effective modem learningenvironments.Ourclassificationscheme may also be used as a tool for the design of new secondary-education learningenvironments. In the next section, we will review the literatureon new learning.We will then consider already-existingclassificationsystems in light of that literatureand discuss the three salient aspects used to classify learningenvironments. New Learning The termnew learninggenerallyis "usedto referto the new learningoutcomes, new kinds of learningprocesses, and new instructionalmethods both wanted by society and currentlystressedin psychological and educationaltheory"(Simons, Van derLinden,& Duffy, 2000, p. vii). Althoughthe societal desirefor such learning is important,the focus of the presentarticle is new learningfrom the psychological and educationalpoints of view. From thatperspective,the concept of new learningis based on three criticalprincipleswith regardto learning(see Jonassen De Jong,Andriessen,& Goodyear,2000; Perkins,1992; & Land,2000; Kanselaar, is a constructiveactivity;(b) learningis a situated Simonset al., 2000): (a) Learning activity;and (c) learningis a social activity. We will discuss these principlesin detail, but firstan aside on their"new"character.To what extent are they new, particularlyin comparisonwith the core elements of progressivepedagogies?Learningas a constructive,situated,and social activity was reflectedin the ideas of John Dewey at the beginning of the 20th century,for example. He stressedthateducationshould provide studentswith opportunitiesto work in realistic, situatedactivities in which they could experimentand solve problems.In his view, the school should be a communityin which students work together.Dewey's colleague George HerbertMead also stressedthe importance of problem solving in situatedactivities and pleaded for an apprenticeship model of instructionand learning(see Mead, 1908). Barnes (2002) links Mead's ideas to the currentconcept of learning to learn. In this article we will arguethat the main ideas of contemporaryconstructivismin the context of education have in the social-learningand situated-learning perspectivesalreadybeen elaborated which were presentin the workof Dewey andMead.The similaritiesmay be attributed to the fact thatat the turnof the 20th centuryand again at the turnof the 21st century,majorsocial and culturalchanges have takenplace in Westernsociety. At the turn of the 20th century, majorchanges were connected with the process of at the turnof the 21st century,changes are conindustrialization andurbanization; and globalization nected with the process of globalization.Both industrialization have raised questions about how to arrangeeducation, teaching, and learning to makeyoung anddevelopingmembersof society capableof dealingwith the changing environmentin which they live and work. Nevertheless,Windschitl(2002) arguesthat,althoughthe mainelementsof constructivismare the same as those found in progressivepedagogies, contemporary of schools today form a context for teachandthe generalcharacter constructivism for fromthe contextat the beginning that is and different, quite example, unique ing of the 20th century. Windschitl's first argumentis that the researchbase of con145
de Kock et al. structivismhas grown significantlyin the last threedecades,offering more insights into the processes of teaching and learning.His second argumentrefers to condiin particular the prestions in schools and society thathave changeddramatically, ence of information andcommunication technology(ICT),which affordsnumerous possibilities for informationprocessing, stimulatinglearningprocesses, and comconditionsfor new learning.Finally, in his munication,all of which are important social andeconomic background Windschitlpointsto the particular thirdargument, of present-dayeducation,outlinedat the startof our article.Thus we are not presenting a fundamentallynew idea about learningin comparisonwith progressive pedagogies. Rather,we connect new learning with recent literatureon constructivism, situatedlearning,and social learning.We also stressthe importanceof new education. learningin the context of contemporary Activity LearningIs a Constructive Whether"constructivism" is a theoryor a philosophyis not at all clear (Lebow, "hasmultiplerootsin the psychology andphilosophyof this 1993). Constructivism (Driscoll,2000, p. 375), andthese roots arewithinthe contextof education century" and social-learning perspectiveselabomainlyrepresented by the situated-learning ratedin the next subsections(see Land & Hannafin,2000). Constructivismviews of information; it is seen learningas morethanmerelythe receptionor transmission of knowledge(see De Jong, 1995). as the active andpersonalconstruction primarily The principlethatlearningis a constructiveactivityis based on the idea thateveryday learningoccursduringproblemsolving andworking.Everydaylearninghas litschool of knowledge, which is centralto traditional tle to do with the transmission of knowledgeand learning,andmoreto do with an active andpersonalconstruction of competencies. Most constructivists therefore skills andthe development arguethat reathe most important goals of learningin the school contextareproblem-solving, skills-the active andreflectiveuse of knowledge,and soning, andcritical-thinking skills (e.g., De Jong, 1995; Driscoll, 2000). Fromsuch a perspective, self-regulation moreover,the learningprocessitself is the most important learninggoal and educationalobjective(Land& Hannafin, 2000; Simons et al., 2000). The importantconditionsfor learningbased on constructivistassumptionsare, accordingto Driscoll (2000, pp. 382-383), occurrencein complex, realistic, and relevantenvironments; provisionsfor social negotiation;supportfor multipleperencouragementof studentownerspectives and multiplemodes of representation; ship in the learningprocess; and nurturingof self-awareness with respect to the process.The principlethatlearningis a constructiveactivknowledgeconstruction ity has implications, first and foremost, for the goals of learning, which, in constructivist theory,all have in commonthatthey pertainto so-calledlearningto learn, or the process of learningconstitutedas a goal in itself. In this connection,Simons (2000) arguesthatthe learningprocess revolves aroundthe execution of threegeneral learningfunctions:cognitive,affective, and metacognitive.Within each of the generalfunctions,a distinctionmaybe made amongthe more specificfunctionsthat constituteit: thepreparatory,executive,and closing functions.For a more detailed view of Simons's scheme, considerthe following examples (pp. 158-159): functions.Cognitivepreparatory learningfunctions Typesof cognitivelearning are, for example, "findingthe missing priorknowledge"or "findingconnections betweenpriorknowledge and new informationand skills."An example 146
of a cognitive executivelearningfunctionis "practicing andapplying."Examples of cognitive closing learningfunctionsare "summingup new knowledge and skills"or "thinking aboutfutureuse andtransfercategories." * Typesofaffective learningfunctions.Affective preparatory learningfunctions are,for instance,"findingchallenges"or "couplingintentionsandplans."An example of an affective executive learningfunctionis "upholdingmotivation and self-confidence." Examples of affective closing learning functions are or "attribution of outcomes." "rewarding" * Typesofmetacognitivelearning functions.Examplesof metacognitive preparatowardlearninggoals" and "planning torylearningfunctionsare "orientation of time, sequence,andplaces for learning." An example of an executive metafunction is cognitive learning "diagnosingcauses of failures and problems," and,finally, an exampleof a metacognitiveclosing learningfunctionis "evaluating learningprocess and outcomes." The various learning functions concern the integrateduse of a specific set of knowledge and learningskills. Whereasthe specific knowledge andlearningskills concern the productof learning,the execution of the learning functions refers to the process of learning.Learningenvironmentsthat stimulatenew forms of learning thus foster the execution of the variouslearningfunctions, as learningto learn is the centralgoal in such learningenvironments. LearningIs a SituatedActivity The second principle stresses that knowing cannot be separatedfrom doing, because otherwise knowledge would become decontextualized(Driscoll, 2000). Human thought is adapted to the environment (Clancey, 1997). "Whatpeople perceive, think, and do develops in a fundamentally social context" (Driscoll, pp. 155-156). The goals of learning,when construedas a situatedactivity, generconally pertainto the process of "meaningmaking"or understanding particular cepts and skills throughtheir use. Situated learning is best depicted in so-called "practicefields" or areas of study in which learners are requiredto practice the types of activities thatthey will need to engage in outside school, as well as those that are typically requiredin school (Barab & Duffy, 2000). The instructional design principlesused in such practicefields include coaching and the modeling of thinkingskills, and domain-related practices(pp. 31-33). Such domain-related practices are also central to the situated learning theory of Lave and Wenger (1991), who assumethat"themasteryof knowledge and skill requiresnewcomers to move toward full participationin the socioculturalpractices of a community" (p. 29). Theprinciple thatlearning is a situated firstandforemost, activityhas implications, for the division of roles between teachersand learners.In a traditional setting, the teacherregulatesthe learningprocessandthe learnersimplycarriesout instructions. undersuch circumstances does not involve a practicefield andis therefore Learning decontextualized. arenot able to learnindependently Learners becauseof the lack of relevantcontextin whichthey can rely on theirown learningpractices.Learners are, of the teacher.Such traditherefore,to a greatextentdependenton the instructions tionalsettingsarein contrast withmodemlearningenvironments, wherethe learning processtendsto be morehighly situatedand wherelearnersrely on theirown learnuse of the relevantconing practicesto a greaterextentandon theirdomain-related 147
et al. de Kock for the learningprocessis shifted,step by step, from cepts and skills. Responsibility the teacherto the learner.Process-oriented instruction is based on such a model of teachingandlearning(Simonset al., 2000; Vermunt,1994, 1995).Thatis, the role of the teacher is to modelprocessesandskills;to monitorstudent learning, thinking,and of regulation activities;to providemetacognitive guidance;andto stimulatestudents to reflecton theirown learning(Simonset al., 2000). The role of the learner is one of Thismeansthattheexternal controloverthe learning self-regulation. processencountered in most traditionalsettings is replacedby internalcontrol over the learning process, exercised by the learnersthemselves. For furtherdiscussion of processorientedinstruction, see Volet (1995) andBolhuis andVoeten (2001). The principlethat learningis a situatedactivity has also clear implications for the goals of learning,in that the emphasis of such learningis on the actual use of the knowledge in question.The desiredlearninggoals are also assumedto be more "durable, flexible, functional,meaningful,generalizableandapplication-oriented" (Simons et al., 2000, p. 1). In otherwords, greateremphasis on learningas a situated activity also promotesgreatertransferability of the outcomes of the learning. LearningIs a Social Activity The thirdprincipleis thatlearningis a social process. It implies thatknowledge is a social construct createdby a groupof learnersor a community(Van derLinden, Erkens,Schmidt,& Renshaw,2000). Together,the principlesthatlearningis a situated activity and that it is a social activity highlight the importanceof the social contextor "community." The view of learningas a situatedactivityemphasizesthe actual use of the relevant knowledge or skills within a specific context, and the view learning as a social activity emphasizes the participation of members in a community.Participationin a communityrequiresinteractionbetween members of the community,and, therefore,considerableattentionis paid to the learningof social skills such as helping someone or negotiating, and it is assumed that such skills are needed to constructknowledge. That is, learnersmust work together to achieve sharedlearninggoals. The idea that learningis a social process is based on the work of the developmentalpsychologistsPiaget(who represents the social-constructivist and approach) Vygotsky (who representsthe socioculturalapproach).In the social-constructivist it is arguedthatlearningis an individualprocessbut neverthelessis influapproach, enced by participation in social activities.In the socioculturalapproach, learningis viewed as sociallysituatedandtherefore is considereda social process(Roelofs, Van der Linden, & Erkens, 1999). Similarly,most social theories of learningconstrue learningas a largelysocial process;for example,Wenger's (1998) theoryinvolving communitiesof practiceconstrueslearningas a form of social participation. The principlethatlearningis a social activityhas implications,firstandforemost, for the roles of learnersin relationto each other.Thatis, in moder learningenvironments,learningis not approached merely as an individualactivitybut also as an activity that clearly calls for cooperationbetween learners.Johnson and Johnson (1999) describedthe roles thatlearnersmay play in relationto each other in three differentkinds of learningsettings:competitive, individual,and cooperative.In a competitivesituation,a person'slearningclearly is beneficialto himself and not to his peers;learnersactuallycompetewith each other.In an individuallearningsituation,people'slearning clearlyis beneficialto themselvesaloneandhas no connection 148
Environments andtheClassification NewLearning of Learning with the learningof others;learnershave single, individualroles. In a cooperative each person'slearningin one way or anotherbenefitsevery learningenvironment, memberof the group;the learnerscooperateas peers. In traditional learningenvironments,the learnershave mostly individualand sometimescompetitiveroles. In modem learningenvironments, cooperativeroles for the learnersareemphasized. In modem learningenvironments,learnersmay also have individualroles, but competitiveroles are avoided. Learningin a competitive mannersimply does not fit with the principlethatlearningis a social activity.This does not mean thatthere cannotbe any competitionin learningsituations.JohnsonandJohnson(1999) argue thatintergroup cooperation,for examcompetitionin combinationwith intragroup ple, can be very effective; but they stress, at the same time, that"theimportanceof spreadingan umbrellaof cooperationover the class before competitionis initiated cannotbe overemphasized" (p. 148). Therefore,for moder learningenvironments, because cooperationtypicallypromotesthe learner roles are important cooperative joint constructionand sharingof knowledge, whereascompetitionwithoutthe socould block their occurrence. called "umbrellaof cooperation" thatreflectsa social-learning An instructional perspectiveand,indeed, approach treatslearnersas cooperatingpeers is referredto as cooperative learning. Cooperative learningis based on the assumptionthatlearningis a social activity. It refers to a variety of instructionalstrategiesthat stimulate studentsto work together in well suitedfor the promotionof new forms smallgroupsandis therefore particularly of learning.While workingon a joint or grouptask, studentsmust dependon each other to achieve both common and personal goals (Abrami,Chambers,Poulsen, & Wade, 1995; Johnson& Johnson,1989). The basic principlesunderlyingthe instructionalstrategiesthatcooperativelearningcalls for are (a) structuring positive individual accountability;(c) stimulatingdirect interdependence;(b) structuring interaction; (d) strivingfor the developmentof social andcommunicativeskills; and (e) evaluationof the groupproductandlearningprocess(Johnson& Johnson,1999; Kagan & Kagan, 1992). The fourthprinciple highlights the importanceof social type of learninggoal is need because social learning learningskills. This particular skills-for example, listening and explaining things to others-form the basis for an adequatecollaborationamonglearners. Of course, it has to be stressed that for cooperative learning to be preferable to individual learning, certainpitfalls, pointed out by researchon teamworkand cooperative learning,must be avoided. The most importantpitfalls are the "free ridereffect," in which the more talentedor more highly motivatedgroupmember do most of the work of a joint task;the "suckereffect," in which a group member who get stuck doing all the work decides to decrease his activity to avoid being a "sucker";and the "status differential effect," in which higher-status members dominategroup activity and thereforehave more opportunitiesfor learning than lower statusmembersdo (Salomon & Globerson, 1989; Veenman, Van Benthum, Bootsma, Van Dieren, & Van der Kemp, 2002). Important Aspects of LearningEnvironments From the Perspective of New Learning From the perspective of new learning, three basic principles of learning may be distinguished and seen to point to three aspects of the learning environment as importantfrom the perspective of new learning. These are the principles that 149
et al. de Kock (a) learning is a constructive activity, which has foremost implications for the learninggoals that are set; (b) learning is a situated activity, which has foremost implications for the division of roles between teachers and learnersin the learning environment;and (c) learningis a social activity, which has foremost implications for the roles of the learnersin relation to each other. In the next section, we take as the basis for our review of classification schemes for learning environmentsthe following three aspects: the learning goals that are set, the division of roles between teachers and learners,and the roles of the learnersin relation to each other. Thereafter,a new classification system based on these three aspects will be presented. Review of Published Classification Schemes of Learning Environments The following review is based on all published works with a classification of learningenvironmentsin termsof at least one of the three aspects consideredrelevant for the promotionof new learning:(a) learning goals, (b) division of roles betweenteachersandlearners,and(c) the roles of learnersin relationto each other. The literature was initiallysearchedwith the following keywords:classification didactic model, learning environment,learning model, taxonomyof learning, of learning, and teaching model. These particularkeywords, with an accent on the models, taxonomies,andclassifications,were selected becausethe chances of findcontaininga classificationof one or more aspectsof the learningenviing literature ronmentwere great. The terms for specific aspects of the learning environment (e.g., learninggoals, teacherroles) were not selected as keywords for the search, as they were found to producetoo many irrelevanthits. In addition,a combination of the term for a particular aspect of the learningenvironmentwith, for example, the term "classification" (e.g., classification of learning goals) was not used because it producedhits that were too restricted.We used the following search engines and databases:PsycINFO (1967-July 2001), ERIC (1966-March 2001), and Web of Science (Science CitationIndex Expanded, 1988-July 2001; Social Sciences CitationIndex, 1988-July 2001). The list of possibly relevant publications produced by the aforementioned search strategywas next screenedon the basis of the informationin the abstracts or, when the abstractsdid not provide sufficient information, the publications themselves. Many publicationswere indeed excluded from furtherreview as they did not contain a classificationof the learningenvironmentusing one or more of the aspects identifiedas relevantfor the possible promotionof new learning.The referencelists accompanyingthe relevantpublicationswere also screenedfor any additionalpublicationswith possible relevance.Duringthe periodin which the literaturesearch was conducted,several of the findings were mentioned on international electronic mailing lists to make sure that no importantpublications were missed. Some additionalpublicationswere indeed suggested, and some of them provedrelevant.With respect to the learninggoals aspect of the search, the focus was placed on classificationsof cognitive and affective learninggoals. Classification schemes concerned with only the psychomotor domain of learning were excluded. The classificationscheme of Andersonand Krathwohl(2001), one of the most recent, was published when the present review was already at a very advanced stage. That scheme is a revision of Bloom's original taxonomy of educational 150
objectivesin the cognitive domain.Andersonand Krathwohlreview 19 otherrevisions of Bloom's taxonomy. Many of those 19 were included in our review and, for those publicationsnot includedin our review, Andersonand Krathwohl'sdiscussion was carefullyconsideredand-when necessary-the originalpublication consultedas well. It could be concludedthatthose classificationschemes thatwere not included in our review did not provide any additionalinformation;they were thereforenot examinedfurther. In the end, 15 publicationswere selected for the review process. In the case of classification schemes with more than one published edition, only the latest version was included in the review process. Next, the 15 chosen publications were coded by using the coding sheet thatis shown in Figure 2 (adaptedfrom Cooper, 1998). The coding focused on two main questions: 1. Which of the threeaspects of the learningenvironmentwere addressedby a particularclassification scheme (and which categories were furtherdistinguished for each of these aspects)? 2. To whatextentwerefeatures thatareknownto promotenew learninginvolved in the classificationscheme? The answersto these two basic questionswere then used to constructthe new classificationscheme for learningenvironments. In Table 1, an overview is presentedfor each publication,includingthe form in which it was published (e.g., as book, book chapter,or journal article);the other
General * Reference * Publication form Background * Areotherclassification to? schemes referred scheme created? ? Ifyes, whyis a new classification * Whatis the purposeof the classification scheme? scheme aimedat? * Whatpartof the educational system is the classification Contentof the classification scheme * On whichliterature andstudiesis the classification scheme based? * On whichaspects of the learning environment is the classification scheme based? * Which domain does the classification scheme concern? * A description of the classification scheme (including the categoriesforeach aspect): Further information * Additional information relevant
FIGURE 2. Coding sheet.
151
TABLE 1 Characteristicsof reviewedpublications on classificationschemes, by year of publication Publication form Book Book Article Bloom (1956) Krathwohlet al. (1956) Harrow(1972) Bloom (1956) Krathwohlet al. (1956) Simpson (1966) Bloom (1956) De Block (1975) Bloom (1956) Gagne (1965/1985) Bloom (1956) Gagne (1965/ 1985) Investigators,especially those involved in programmedinstruction, instructional-systems design, and task analysis (De Block, 1973) Discussions with students, teachersand academic staff Guilford'sintelligence model Classifications referredto
Author(s) Bloom (1956) Krathwohlet al. (1956) Menges & McGaghie (1974) De Block (1975)
Otherstudies referredto Discussions of a groupof examiners Discussions of a groupof examiners
Educationalco
(U.S.) educationin (U.S.) educationin
Educationin gene
Book
De Corteet al. (1981) Romiszowski (1981, 1984) Merrill(1983)
Book chapter Book
Book chapter
Education in gener the contextof sy andintentional l processes (Dutch) education general Educationin gene within the conte individualized instruction Educationin gene
Carter(1985)
Article
Bloom (1956) Krathwohlet al. (1956) Simpson (1966) Romiszowski (1981, 1984) Information-processing theories
(U.K.) highereduc
Gagn6 (1985)
Book
Barrows(1986)
Article
on Some literature problem-basedlearning
Educationin gene within the conte plannedand int learning Medical education the context of p based learning
Hertz-Lazarowitz Book (1992) chapter
Opinionsand experiences of teachers
Educationalin gen
"
-P.
TABLE 1 (Continued) Publication form Classifications referredto
Author(s)
Otherstudies referredto
Educationalco
Farnham-Diggory Article (1994)
ElshoutMohret al. (1999) Anderson& Krathwohl (2001) Marzano(2001)
Article
Bloom (1956) Merrill(1983) Gagne (1984) Bloom (1956) Romiszowski (1981, 1984) Merrill(1983) Gagne (1985) Bloom (1956) Gagne (1985)
Book
reviews Literature Educationin gene Psychologists (Thorndike, Piaget) Authorswith a situated cognition perspective (e.g., Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) with a cognitive Literature science perspective with an experiLiterature mentalpsychology perspective Several psychologists and (Dutch) secondar on education literature education (e.g., Ausubel, Van Parreren, Doyle, Reigeluth,Glaser) Discussions of a groupof (U.S.) educationin examiners
Book
Educationin gene
NewLearning Environments andtheClassification of Learning studiesto which it refers;the educationalconclassificationschemes andimportant text to whichthe classificationschemeapplies(e.g., elementaryschool, high school, educationin general);the aspects of the learningenvironmenton which the classificationscheme is based; and the domains of learningaddressedby the classification scheme (e.g., cognitive, affective, and/orpsychomotor).A brief inspection of the 15 classificationschemespresentedin the table shows considerablevariation with respect to the aspects of the learningenvironmentconsidered,but most classificationschemes were based on learninggoals. The earliest classification scheme referredto is Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (Bloom, 1956). Although Smith andTyler presenteda taxonomy of educationalobjectives in 1942 (see Taba, 1962), Bloom's taxonomy is commonly takento be the startingpoint for the literatureon educationalclassification systems. In the same year that Bloom's taxonomy came out, Krathwohl,Bloom, and Masia (1956) published a second taxonomy of educationalobjectives for the affective domain. These earliest classification schemes (and also those of Gagne andRomiszowski) have in common thatthey are concernedonly with the goals of learning. In the 1980s and 1990s, several other classification schemes emerged with attentionto more thanone aspect of the learningenvironment.In additionto the goals of learning,the division of roles between teachersand learners,learners' roles in relationto each other,the form of instructionwere also takeninto account. Recent classification schemes include Elshout-Mohret al. (1999), Anderson and Krathwohl(2001), and Marzano(2001). In the following, we will firstexamine the categorizationof the goals of learning within the cognitive and affective domains. Thereafter,we will examine the categorizationsof the roles of teachersandlearners,andthen those concerningthe roles thatlearnersmay play in relationto each other.Finally, we will undertakea comparisonbetween these categorizationsand the three aspects of learningenvironmentsmost relevantto new learning. Classificationof LearningGoals in the CognitiveDomain The learninggoals in the cognitive domain generally relate to knowledge and storedin memoryfor laterrecall. Several learningskills. Knowledgeis information authorsdistinguishkinds of knowledge, such as facts, structures, procedures,concepts, principles, methods, and relations. An importantdistinction to be made is betweendeclarative knowledge(knowing knowledge(knowingthat)andprocedural how) (see, e.g., Gagne, 1985). Learningskills are the mental or intellectual activities by means of which the andknowledge.Remembering is thus a learningskill. learner processesinformation In additionto remembering, informatherearethe learningskills of comprehending tion and applyingknowledge. Most authorsdistinguishsuch learningskills (often as comprehension,application,analysis, synthesis, and evalcalled "procedures") uation. Romiszowski (1981, 1984) distinguished reproductivefrom productive learningskills. Reproductivelearningskills involve the imitationor applicationof Productivelearningskills requirea percertainrules (e.g., writinggrammatically). sonal contributionand creativity,such as essay writingand problemsolving (e.g., Gagne, 1985). Andersonand Krathwohl(2001) includedproblemsolving in their to referto the formulation classificationschemebutplacedit underthe term"create" 155
de Kock et al. of hypotheses, the invention of a solution method, and the formulationof a plan for the solution of the problem. Transferskills refer to the transferof knowledge and learning skills. Transfer skills involve the applicationof knowledge and learningskills acquiredin the past in a new context and arepresentonly in the classificationscheme of Elshout-Mohr et al. (1999). Social learningskills make up a more special type, found only in the classification scheme of Menges and McGaghie (1974), who argued that social learningskills contain not only cognitive, affective, and psychomotoraspects but also an interpersonal that aspect:"[I]nterpersonal learninghas some characteristics learningin noninterpersonal settings cannothave" (p. 56). Elshout-Mohret al. (1999) mentionedmetacognitionas an importantlearning goal in theirclassificationscheme. The recentclassificationput forthby Anderson andKrathwohl knowl(2001) is the only one thatexplicitlyconsiders"metacognitive edge,"which they refer to as "awarenessand knowledge of one's own cognition" (p. 29). As examples, the authorsmention "knowledgeof outlining as a means of of a unit of subjectmatterin a textbook"(p. 29) or "knowlcapturingthe structure that edge critiquingessays [well] is a personal strength,whereas writing essays is [poorly] a personalweakness"(p. 29). In addition,Marzano(2001) distinguishes metacognitivelearningskills. Marzanodescribesfour categoriesof metacognitive processes: (a) goal setting, (b) process monitoring, (c) monitoring clarity, and (d) monitoringaccuracy. Classificationof LearningGoals in the AffectiveDomain The learninggoals in the affective domaingenerallyreferto attitudesand affective learning skills. An attitudeis a consistent, stable, and personally motivated reaction to certain phenomena, stimuli, objects, situations, or states of affairs et al., 1956). Gagne(1985) describedan attitudeas follows: "A learner (Krathwohl acquires mental states that influence the choices of personal actions.... Such 'tendencies,' which are seen as choices to the learnerratherthan as specific performances,are called attitudes"(p. 48). Learningskills in the affective domain are mental or intellectualactivities that the learnercan applyto both his own attitudesandthe attitudesof others.The most importantlearning skills in the affective domain concern the applicationof attitudes (De Block, 1975) and the developmentof value systems (Krathwohlet al., 1956; Romiszowski, 1981, 1984). Developing a value system involves learning the learnerto bringtogethera complex of values, possibly objectives that"require disparatevalues, and to bringthese into an orderedrelationshipwith one another" (Krathwohlet al., 1956, p. 183). Both Krathwohlet al. (1956) and Romiszowski (1981, 1984) addressedthe developmentof values and attitudes,in general,in their classification schemes; De Block (1975) placed greateremphasis on values and attitudesin relationto the learningprocess. Marzano(2001) recentlydescribedself-systemthinkingin termsof a specific set of learninggoals and arguedthatthe "self-systemconsists of an interrelated system of attitudes,beliefs, andemotions"(Marzano,2001, p. 50). Fourcategoriesof selfsystem thinkingare described:(a) examiningimportance,(b) examining efficacy, (c) examining emotional response, and (d) examining motivation. And although Marzanodid not explicitly referto the affective domainof learning,the lattertwo categoriesof self-system thinkingare clear examples of affective learningskills. 156
The Division of Teacherand LearnerRoles The variouspossibleroles of the teacherandlearnerarebasic to the classification scheme of Farnham-Diggory(1994), who also distinguished three instructional paradigmsbased on alternativerole distributionsfor the achievementof learning goals: (a) a behavioralparadigmreflectinga social system in which the expert is high in status and the novice is low in status but expected to acquiremore of the expert'sexpertise;(b) a developmental paradigm reflectinga social system in which the novice learnsby developing his or her own personaltheories with the support of the expert,who may question,contradict, andchallengethose theories;and (c) an a social in which the learnermust clearly apprenticeship system reflecting paradigm in the expert's worldto learn(throughacculturation). participate Hertz-Lazarowitz (1992) similarlyplaced learningenvironmentsalong a continuum,rangingfrom a centralizedrole for the teacherwith an emphasison control of the learner'sresponsesto a decentralized role for the teacherwith an emphasison facilitationof the learner'slearning.The rangeof alternative teacherroles has obvious implicationsfor the possible learnerroles, which are elaboratedin the classification scheme of problem-based learningmethodsset forthby Barrows(1986). At one end of the continuum,learnersareguidedto understand the information thatthe teacherprovidesand are construedas knowledge consumers;at the otherend, they areregarded as self-directedlearnerswho evaluatetheirown knowledge,skills, and and are thus construedas knowledgeproducers. learning The Roles of Learnersin Relation to Each Other As was pointed out earlier,the differingroles thatlearnersmay play in relation to each otheralso constitutean important aspect of the learningenvironment.That is, the learning situation can be arrangedto enhance either individual learning or cooperativelearning,alternativesthathave obvious consequences for the roles thatof learnersplay in relationto each other.The classificationschemes of HertzLazarowith (1992) and Menges and McGaghie (1974) emphasize cooperative learning. Hertz-Lazarowitzargued that, although learning goals may clearly be achieved throughindividuallearningbased on individualtasks, they may also be achievedthroughsocial interactionandnegotiationwith peers to complete various tasksor subtasksin cooperation.Beyond Hertz-Lazarowitz (1992) andMenges and McGaghie(1974), no otherclassificationscheme has taken into considerationthe differentroles thatlearnersmay play in relationto each other. Conclusion With respect to the firstquestion posed in the literaturereview, namely which aspects of the learning environmentform the basis of the various classification schemes, it can be concludedthatmost of the classification schemes are based on learninggoals. Very few consider the division of teacher and learnerroles or the roles of learnersin relationto each other.And none of the schemes is based on all threeaspects of the learningenvironmentconsideredtogether. The fact that learning goals are central to most of the classification schemes reviewed is clearly in keeping with a transmissionmodel of learning. The basic assumptionunderlying such a model is that the necessary knowledge and skills from the teacherto the learners.As targetedproductsof learnmustbe transmitted ing, the necessary knowledge and skills also constitute the startingpoint for the 157
et al. de Kock The basic questionfrom such a perspective, design of most learningenvironments. be organizedto achieve such knowlthen,is, How shouldthe learningenvironment edge and skills? model of learning,in contrast,assumes thatknowlA knowledge-construction but are constructedin a learningenvironbe transmitted and skills need not edge ment that clearly stimulates learning to learn. This model makes the process of learning(e.g., the executionof variouslearningfunctions),ratherthanthe product, from a constructivistperspective,the the centralgoal to be achieved.Furthermore, basis for the design of learningenvironmentsis not learninggoals but, rather,the roles that teachersand learnersplay in the learningsituation. The shift towardnew learningmeans a shift from learningenvironmentsbased basedon a knowledgemodelto learningenvironments on a knowledge-transmission constructionmodel (Lowyck & Ellen, 1993). To classify learning environments with respect to a knowledge-construction model, however, it is necessary to consider not only the learninggoals but also other importantinformation,including the division of teacherandlearnerroles andthe roles of the learnersin relationwith each other. But our review shows that few classification schemes have made the transition from a knowledge-transmissionmodel to a knowledge-construction model. Learninggoals thatplay an importantrole in the enhancementof forms of new learning appearacross the range of classification schemes. Metacognitive learninggoals arementionedby AndersonandKrathwohl(2001), Marzano(2001), and Elshout-Mohret al. (1999). Transferskills are pointed out only by Elshoutskills areconsideredonly in the classification Mohret al. (1999), andcollaboration scheme of Menges and McGaghie (1974). Learninggoals with respectto the process of learning,thatis, the execution of learningfunctions, arerare.Only the catcontainedin the classificationscheme of Marzano egory of "self-systemthinking," (2001), resembles the affective learningfunctions, whereas the four categories of metacognitive processes parallel the metacognitive learning functions. We conclude thatmost of the learninggoals in existing classificationschemes referto the productof learning. Only the execution of learning functions as a learning goal refers to the process of learning. With respect to the division of teacher and learner roles, Farnham-Diggory (1994) providesa useful classificationinto behavioral,developmental,andapprenlearningenvironmentsthe division of teacher ticeship models. In more traditional and learnerroles reflects a behavioralmodel; in more modern learning environmodels. Accordingto Johnson ments it reflects developmentaland apprenticeship and Johnson (1999), the roles of the learnersin relationto each other can be distinguishedas competitive,individual,and/orcooperative.Only in the classification scheme of Hertz-Lazarowitz (1992) was the distinctionbetween the individualand cooperativeroles found.The implicationsof these findingswill be consideredfurther in the next section, where a new classification scheme for learningenvironments will be presented. A New Classification Scheme for Learning Environments The new classificationscheme is based on the threeaspectsof the learningenvironmentlisted in Figure3: learninggoals, division of teacherandlearnerroles, and roles of learnersin relationto each other.For the aspectof learninggoals, a distinction is made between learninggoals pertainingmainly to the productsof learning 158
1. Learninggoals Learning products of learning content Knowledge of learning process Knowledge Attitude towardlearning content Attitude towardlearning process skills Cognitivelearning Affectivelearning skills Sociallearning skills Transfer skills Learning process functions Cognitive Preparatory learning Executivelearning functions Cognitive functions Cognitive Closinglearning Affective Affective Affective Metacognitive Metacognitive Metacognitive
2. Divisionof teacher and learner roles Behavioral model model Developmental model Apprenticeship
3. Roles of learnersin relationto each other Competitive Individual Cooperative
FIGURE 3. Three basic aspects of the learning environment and related categories considered for classification.
159
de Kock et al. and learning goals pertaining mainly to the process of learning-a distinction commonly encounteredin our review of the existing classification schemes. The "divisionof teacherandlearnerroles"is based on the threeinstructional paradigms and concomitantmodels of learning distinguishedby Farnham-Diggory(1994): the behavioral,developmental,and apprenticeship models. The "learner roles with to each other" as or coare described individual, typically respect competitive, operative,as proposedby Johnsonand Johnson(1999). Learningproductsareclassifiedinto knowledge, attitudes,and specific learning skills. Knowledge of learningcontentis knowing the relevantfacts andprinciples; knowledge of the learning process is knowing what learning styles exist, which learningstyle is suited for oneself, and which styles are best in specific situations. In the opening section of this article,we mentionedmotivationaloutcomes as importantoutputfactors of new learningenvironments.With respect to these motivational outcomes we include two types of attitudes in the learning products: Attitudestowardlearningcontentinclude, for example, the degree of pleasureone derives from a specific subject;attitudestowardthe learningprocess include one's a specific matter.The attentiongiven to attiwillingness to attemptto understand tudesas learninggoals reflectsa shift in present-dayeducationfrom a performance orientation,stimulatingthe learnerto achieve high test scores for example, toward a learningorientation, focused on developing learningstrategiesfor masteringspecific contentand the enjoymentof the task (see, e.g., Boekaerts& Simons, 1995). This shift also is highlighted in the distinction between cognitive and affective learningskills. An exampleof a cognitivelearningskill is knowinghow to applyalready-learned knowledge or skills. An example of an affective learningskill is knowing how to motivate oneself to comprehendsomethingthat is not yet understood.Finally, an example of social learningskills is listening to or explaining somethingto another student.Of course, social learningskills lean heavily on knowledge of the learning process. Explainingsome matterto anotherstudentmeans, in fact, helping that personto learn. As was said earlier,however, social learningskills also have interpersonal aspects (see Menges & McGaghie, 1974), for example, the processes playingbetweenthe senderandthe recipientof a message or an explanation.Social learningskills arethereforementionedseparately.Transferskills imply the ability to apply knowledge, learning skills, and attitudesin situationsthat are often unfamiliaror at least differentin some way from the originallearningsituation.The or differentcontextsmakes transferof skills differentfrom emphasison unfamiliar of skills, which also may refer to familiarlearningsituations. simple "applying" Whereasknowledge, attitudesand learning skills are relatedto the productof learning,learningfunctionsarerelatedto the learningprocess itself. The execution of learningfunctionsas a learninggoal is also representedby the notion of "learning to learn."It is true,however, that learningfunctions can also be consideredas the productof learning,because learningfunctionswill continuallybe refinedand optimizedduringlearningprocesses. The execution of learningfunctionsinvolves use of specificknowledge,learningskills, or attitudes.A distinctionmay integrated be madebetweenpreparatory, executive,andclosing learningfunctionsandbetween the cognitive, affective, andmetacognitiveaspects of these differentlearningfunctions (Simons,2000). Examplesof preparatory misslearningfunctionsare"finding ing priorknowledge"(cognitive),"findingchallenges"(affective), and"orientation 160
functionsare towardlearning Examplesof executivelearning goals"(metacognitive). and self-confidence" and motivation (cognitive),"maintaining "practicing applying" (affective), and "diagnosing causes of failures and problems" (metacognitive). Examplesof closing learningfunctionsare "thinkingaboutfutureuse and transfer learnof outcomes"(affective),and"evaluating categories" (cognitive),"attribution and outcomes" ing process (metacognitive). tinguished.The firstdivision reflectsa behavioralmodel. The teacherinstructsthe learnerto become betterin a specific subject.This means thatthe teacherinstructs the learnerregardingwhat should be learnedand how, and the learnerapplies the instructions with the aim of acquiringmore of the teacher'sexpertise.In this model of role division, reinforcementof student activities plays an importantrole. The reinforcementcomponent is typical for performance-oriented learning environments in which a behavioralmodel of role division is reflected.We noted earlier that in present-day education, there is a shift from a performance orientation towarda learningorientation.Learningenvironmentsin which a learningorientation is centraltendmoreto reflectthe second division of roles, which is in line with a developmentalmodel. In that model the learnerlearns from the teacher who is or even challengingthe learner'spersonaltheories.The questioning,contradicting, learnerregulates his or her own learning with the teacher or expert serving as a model of learning.The coach. The thirddivision of roles reflectsan apprenticeship learnerand teacherparticipatein a sharedworld with respect to a particularsubject. The teacherhas considerableexpertise in thatworld and tries to model his or her expertise. The learner,in turn,masters a numberof domain-relatedpractices in thatworld and imitatingthe activities of the teacher. by participating as mentionedearlier,threecategoriesof roles of learnersin relation was Finally, to each other are distinguished.A competitive role means that learners'learning benefits only themselves and not others. An individualrole means that learners' learningbenefitsthemselvesandis simplynot relevantfor others.And a cooperative role means that learners'learningis directedtowarda sharedlearninggoal or set of goals thatmay benefiteach and every memberof the group. The three aspects of the learningenvironmentconsideredin the presentclassification scheme are of equal importance.In Table 2, an overview of the 18 possible combinationsof learninggoals (productvs. process), division of teacher and learner roles (in keeping with a behavioral, developmental, or apprenticeship model of learning),and roles of the learnerstowardeach other (competitive, individual, or cooperative)is presented.Each of the 18 combinationsmay be seen as a differenttype of learningenvironment.This classificationscheme may therefore be useful for evaluatinga wide varietyof learningsituations. The new classificationscheme can describe both relatively traditionallearning environmentsand more progressivelearning environmentsthat clearly stimulate moder learnnew formsof learning.Relativeto traditional learningenvironments, ing environments appearto strivemore towardlearninggoals thatinvolve learning to learn.In addition,moder learningenvironmentsappearto be based on a develmodel ratherthana behavioralmodel. And the learners opmentalor apprenticeship in such moder learning environmentsare also stimulatedto learn in a more colearningenvironments.Types 15 operativemannerthanthe learnersin traditional for stimulating new formsof learning and 18 in Table2 meet all of the requirements 161
With regard to the division of teacher and learner roles, three divisions are dis-
TABLE 2 Thenew classificationschemefor learning environments Goals T-L roles L-L roles Prod Prod Prod Prod Prod Prod Behav Behav Behav Devel Devel Devel Comp Indiv Coop Comp Indiv Coop
18 types of learningenvironm
1 Learningis aimed mainly at learningproducts.Teachercontrols learnersfollowing instructionsof teacher.Learnerslearnpredom 2 Learningis aimed mainly at learningproducts.Teachercontrols learnersfollowing instructionsof teacher.Learnerslearnpredom 3 Learningis aimed mainly at learningproducts.Teachercontrols the learnersfollowing instructionsof teacher.Learnerslearnpre 4 Learningis aimed mainly at learningproducts.Teacherserves a lea own learningprocessas muchas possible.Learners regulating 5 Learningis aimed mainly at learningproducts.Teacherserves a lea own learningprocessas much as possible.Learners regulating 6 Learningis aimed mainly at learningproducts.Teacherserves a own learningprocessas much as possible.Learners lea regulating
Prod Prod
Appren Appren
Indiv Coop
8 Learningis aimed mainly at learningproducts.Teachermodels e teacher' s world and tryingto imitateactivities. Learnerslearnpr 9 Learningis aimed mainly at learningproducts.Teachermodels e teacher'sworld and tryingto imitateactivities. Learnerslearnpr
Proc Behav Proc Proc Behav Behav
CompX10 Indiv Coop
Learning learin ea l emainlytis aimed learnersfoll.owinginstructionsof teacher. Larnersleantli.n ne 11 Learningis aimed mainly at learningto learn.Teachercontrols l learnersfollowing instructionsof teacher.Learnerslearnpredom 12 Learningis aimed mainly at learningto learn.Teachercontrols l learnersfollowing instructionsof teacher.Learnerslearnpredom 14 15 15
Proc Proc Proc
Devel Devel Devel
Indiv Coop Coop
Learningis aimed mainly at learningto earn. Teacherserves as aimed at learning to learn. Teacher serveslea as regulating own learning process as much as possible. possible. Learners Learningis mainly regulating learning process Learners Learningis aimed mainly at learningto learn. Teacherserves as lea regulatingown learningprocessas much as possible. Learners
Proc Proc
Appren Appren
Indiv Coop
17 Learningis aimed mainly at learningto learn.Teachermodels ex teacher' s world and tryingto imitate activities. Learnerslearnpr 18 Learningis aimed mainly at learningto learn.Teachermodels ex teacher's world and tryingto imitate activities. Learnerslearnpr
Note. T - teacher,L = learner, Prod= learning products,Behav = behavioralmodel, Comp= competitivele model, Appren= apprenticeship model, Pro cooperativelearning(see Figure3), Devel = developmental thatprobablyarenot feasible. types of learningenvironments
3^
L?
de Kocket al.
(at least in terms of our review of the relevant literatureand the classification scheme developed on the basis of it). Types 1 and 2 representclear-cuttraditional learningenvironments.Between these extremetypes of learningenvironmentsare many "mixed"types. For example,Type 14 involves learnerswho do not learncooperativelybut who clearly self-regulatetheir learning. Four "mixed"types of learningenvironmentsseem ratherinfeasible: Types 7, 10, 13, and 16 (shadedin the table). It is difficult to imagine a learning environment thatreflectsType 7, in which learnerswould strive towardlearningproducts (and not the learningprocess) in a competitive mannerby participatingand imimodel of tatingthe activities of the teacher(i.e., on the basis of an apprenticeship learning).In reality, this combinationof competition with participationtypically leads to a dysfunctional situation.Types 10, 13, and 16 show a similar problem with a competitiverole for the learners.As alreadymentioned,most moder learning environmentsclearly avoid situationsrequiringlearnersto compete because the sharingof knowledge is obviously avoided under competitive circumstances and the constructionof knowledge is hindered as well. Striving toward the constructionof knowledge implies attentionto the process of learning;the combination of competitionwith the principleof learningto learnis thereforeproblematic. Furthermore, learningin competitivecircumstancesrequiresassessmentand comparisonof learners;it is hardto imagine how a teachercan assess and comparethe execution of learningfunctionsby learners. In light of the above considerations,14 of the 18 theoreticallypossible types of learningenvironmentscan be consideredempiricallyfeasible. An important question, then,is which of the 14 types are actuallyencounteredin school practice.The for examiningthe occurclassificationschemepresented hereprovidesa framework rence of various types of learning environments,and therefore furtherresearch along these lines is called for, to validatethe 14 types of empiricallyfeasible learning environmentsdistinguishedhere. Discussion in secondary In this article,a new classificationscheme of learningenvironments educationwas presented. The scheme is based on threeaspectsof the learningenvironment: (a) learninggoals, (b) the division of teacherand learnerroles, and (c) the roles of learnersin relationto each other.These aspectsof the learningenvironment have been found to play a criticalrole in the stimulationof new forms of learning. One purposeof the classificationscheme is to make it possible to analyzeboth traditionaland modernsecondaryeducationenvironments. Therefore,new categories of learninggoals were also included,such as metacognitivelearningfunctionsand social learningskills. Furthermore, the divisions of teacherandlearnerroles reflectmodel were includedas important for the and/orapprenticeship ing a developmental promotionof new forms of learningand modernlearningenvironments.Finally, with regardto the roles thatthe learnersmay play in relationto each other,cooperof modernlearningenvironments.Coative roles were included as characteristic operative roles are in clear contrastto both competitive and individual learning of more traditional roles, which are characteristic learningenvironments. The particular combinationof aspects of the learningenvironmentincluded in the scheme presentedhere was not encounteredin any of the other classification schemes thatwe reviewed.The reasonis thatvery few classificationschemes have 164
madethe shift to the adoptionof a knowledge-construction perspectiveon the learnwhich makesnot only learninggoals but also otheraspects of the ing environment, It is interestingto note thatteacherswho crequiteimportant. learningenvironment ate a constructivist learningenvironment (e.g., with respectto the divisionof teacher andlearnerroles or by using modem rich technologies)often strive simultaneously to achieve more traditionalgoals, such as the mastery of basic learning skills or answers to specific questions identified well ahead of time (Land & Hannafin, 2000). This suggests thatteachersin modem learningenvironmentsmay still tend to thinkalong the lines of a transmissionmodel of learningand still give learning goals a centralplace in the process of learning.More researchis needed to verify this possibility. The seeming tenacity of the transmissionmodel brings up anotherimportant issue, namelythe implicationsof new learningfor assessment.If teachersstill think in termsof a transmission model, the reasonmay be thatcurrentassessmentmethods arestill in line with the transmission model. Shepard(2001), for example,holds thatmuch of present-day and instruction curriculum education,with constructivist andtraditional has for a instruction from the sphere "sphere testing, entirelyseparate for assessment" If is not in line the assessment with advocated new learn1067). (p. ing goals but continuesto reflectsome implicit traditional learninggoals, then the implicitgoals will stronglysteerthe process of learning.Thus, not only is learning but academicengagementis also undermined. assessedinaccurately, New learning environmentsneed to replace traditionalassessment methods, such as paper-andpencil tests, with methodsthatcan assess new learninggoals such as the execution of learningfunctions.Examplesof new assessmentmethodsare (a) diagnosticand for assessing social, cognitive, and metacognitivelearningskills; test instruments assessmentsin which learnershave to demonstrate whatthey have (b) performance learnedby executinga concretetask;(c) case studiesin which dataarecollected, for example,by observationand interviews;and (d) portfoliosthroughwhich students can showconcreteproducts thatreflecttheirdevelopment(VanHout-Wolters, 2000). The new classification scheme presented here produces 18 types of learning environments,with 14 of them considered feasible. From the perspective of the teacher, an interestingquestion is which aspect of the learning environment-if any-serves as the main organizingprinciple. Do teachersarrangetheir learning environmentsfrom the perspective of learning goals or the desired division of teacherand learnerroles? It is likely thatteachersare inclined to think in terms of teacherand learnerroles as basically fixed by the contentof the curriculumand/or which set the learninggoals. But even when the diviby examinationrequirements, sion of teacherand learnerroles appearsto serve as the main organizingprinciple it remainsto be seenjust how constructivist for the learningenvironment, the learning goals are. As Landand Hannafin(2000) have argued,for instance,the learning goals employed by teachersare not always as constructivistas might be expected from the ways thatthe teacherschoose to divide teacherand learnerroles. The new classification scheme for learning environments may be used as a researchframeworkfor further process-productresearch.In the next generationof the of effects various research, aspects of the learning environment,considered the on outcomes of students should be considered.For this purjointly, learning pose, the presentclassificationscheme providesinformationon threeaspectsof the learning environment that have been found to be critical for process-product 165
de Kocket al.
research.And with respectto the goals of learning,this scheme distinguishesnew kinds of learningoutcomes, such as metacognitiveand motivationaloutcomes. To determinewhich of the 14 feasible types of learningenvironmentsdescribed in the classificationschemeactuallyoccurin secondaryschool practice,andto maximize the utility of the new classificationscheme in the context of process-product research,it may be necessary for teachers to experiment with the classification scheme in their own classrooms. In such a manner,the theoreticalconstructson which the classification scheme is based can become furthergroundedin actual school practice (see De Corte, 2000). Furthermore,the outcomes of processinto productstudiesbasedon the new classificationscheme can be bettertranslated actualschool practiceand therebymade more accessible. In additionto this inductive use of the outcomes of process-productresearch,the outcomes may also be used in a deductiveway because they may supportthe instructionaldevelopment efforts of teachersand schools (Cobb & Bowers, 1999). The new classificationscheme may also serve as a frame of reference for secondaryschool teachersto analyze their own practicesand the currentpracticesof their schools. By analyzingtheir own individualpractices in using the classification scheme, teachers can determinewhich types of learning environmentspredominatein their classes. In addition,the scheme may help teachersto determine whether a learning environmenthas the characteristicsknown to promote new forms of learning.The classificationscheme may also be used to design learning environments.Throughdiscussion of the varioustypes of potentiallearningenviwithin the actual types of learningenvironments ronments,teachersmay determine their school or classroom and the desired types of learningenvironments.Thereafter,steps may be takento shift a numberof the aspects or all aspects of the learning environmentin the directionof the desired type of learningenvironment. issue in the broader is also an important The designof new learningenvironments context of educational innovation. At the moment, Dutch secondary education faces major large-scale changes aimed at the creation of learning environments known to stimulatenew forms of learning.Teachers nevertheless appearto have considerabledifficultywith this shift towardnew learningenvironmentsand thus have a clear need for support.As Slavin (1998) points out, one of the most promising models for innovationsin education(as indicatedby positive studentachievement) is the comprehensivereformmodel. In this model, both teachersand schools providethe concretesupportneeded to facilitatethe change process in the form of student materials, teacher manuals, and professional development training. An importantpitfall of such an approach,however, is that it leans on a transmission modelof professional learningordevelopment,askingteachersto simplycopy some of the neededchange.In contrast,teachers'reflectionon theirknowledge, blueprint beliefs, and skills has to be stimulated, because such reflection is an important for realizingchangein teacherpractices(e.g., Shepard,2001). Teacher prerequisite reflectionis also requiredfor realizingchanges with respectto the threeaspects of learningenvironmentsthatare centralin the new classificationscheme. The new classificationscheme presentedhere is meantto mayis is provideboth concrete and specific supportfor the development of teachers and schools along the lines of the educationalinnovationsbeing implemented(see Cobb & Bowers, 1999). Use of the classificationscheme may not only help teachersto contemplate their beliefs about educationalgoals, good teaching, and productivelearningbut also provide a more integrativeapproachfor designing learningenvironments. 166
Note This article is part of an ongoing doctoral project entitled "New Learning Environments and Their Outcomes in Secondary Education." This project is being conductedunderthe auspices and with the financial supportof KPC Group ('s-Hertogenbosch)in collaborationwith the RadboudUniversity Nijmegen. We would like to thankRobert-Jan Simons (Universityof Utrecht,The Netherlands) for his involvement in the initial months of the project. We also wish to thankthe anonymousreviewersfor theirconstructivecomments,which helped us to improveearlierversionsof the manuscript. Needless to say, we alone areresponsible for the final version. Correspondence concerningthis article should be addressedto the first author (see biographicalsketches at end of article). References resourcesin Abrami,P. C., Chambers, B., Poulsen,C., & Wade,A. (1995). Current MD:UniversityPressof America. cooperativelearning.Lanham, to promote L. M. (1989).Implementing instructional Anderson, programs meaningful, In J. Brophy(Ed.),Advancesin researchon teaching(Vol. self-regulated learning. CT:JAIPress. 1, pp. 265-306). Greenwich, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.).(2001).A taxonomyfor Anderson, learning, teaching, andassessing:A revision New York: of educational of Bloom'staxonomy objectives. Longman. of practice. Barab,S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). Frompracticefieldsto communities In D. H. Jonassen& S. M. Land(Eds.), Theoretical foundationsof learningenvironments NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp. 25-55). Mahwah, relevanceof GeorgeHerbert Mead'ssocial psyBarnes,S. (2002). The contemporary Studiesin Education, 33, 55-63. chologyandpedagogy.Philosophical H. S. (1986).A taxonomy of problem-based methods. MedicalEduBarrows, learning cation,20(6), 481486. Bloom,B. S. (Ed.).(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:Theclassificationof educational goals. New York:Davis McKay. Boekaerts,M., & Simons, P. R. J. (1995). Lerenen instructie:Psychologie van de andinstruction: and leerlingen het leerproces[Learning Psychologyof the learner the learning Van Gorcum. process].Assen,The Netherlands: forself-directed Bolhuis,S. (2003).Towards process-oriented teaching lifelonglearning: A multidimensional andInstruction, 13, 327-347. Learning perspective. Bolhuis, S., & Voeten, M. J. M. (2001). Towardself-directedlearningin secondary schools:Whatdo teachersdo? Teaching and TeacherEducation,17, 837-855. R. (1985).A taxonomy of objectives forprofessional education. inHigher Studies Carter, Education, 10(2), 135-149. and computer Clancey,W. J. (1997). Situated cognition:Onhumanknowledge representations.New York:Cambridge UniversityPress. in theory Cobb,P., & Bowers,J. (1999). Cognitiveandsituatedlearning perspectives andpractice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4-15. research:A guidefor literaturereviews(3rd. ed.). Cooper,H. (1998). Synthesizing London: SAGE. of instruction] De Block,A. (1973).Algemene didactiek [Modelsandmethods (7thed.). Antwerpen, Belgium:Standaard Wetenschappelijke Uitgeverij. De Block, A. (1975). Taxonomievan leerdoelen [Taxonomyof learning goals]. Antwerpen, Belgium:Standaard Wetenschappelijke Uitgeverij. 167
de Kocket al.
& Bacon. H. (1999). MappingsituaB., & Broekkamp, Elshout-Mohr, M., Van Hout-Wolters, tions in classroomand research:Eight types of instructional-learning episodes. of knowledgeandinstruction. Reviewof EduFarham-Diggory,S. (1994).Paradigms of human outcomesandtheireffects:Usefulcategories Gagne,R. M. (1984).Learning Gagne,R. M. (1985). Theconditionsof learning(4th ed.). New York:Holt, Rinehart in 1965). & Winston.(1st editionpublished
performance. American Psychologist, 39(4), 377-385. cational Research, 64(3), 463-477. Learning and Instruction, 9, 57-75.
Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(4), 317-323. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn
De Corte,E. (2000).Marrying of schoolpractice: theorybuildingandtheimprovement A permanent 10, challengefor instructional psychology.Learningand Instruction, 249-266. De Corte,E., Geerligs,C. T., Lagerweij,N. A. J., Peters,J. J., & Vandenberghe, R. forthe studyof instructional meth(1981).Beknopte [Concisehandbook didaxologie The Netherlands: WoltersNoordhoff. ods] (5thed.). Groningen, De Jong,F. P. C. M. (1995).Process-oriented instruction: Someconsiderations. European
Harrow, A. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York: David McKay.
R. (1992).Understanding interactive atsix mirrors behaviors: Hertz-Lazarowitz, Looking of the classroom.In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz in cooper& N. Miller(Eds.),Interaction
ative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 71-101). Cambridge, Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (Eds.). (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning Kagan, M., & Kagan, S. (1992). Advanced cooperative learning: Playing with ele-
UK: Cambridge Press. University
research.Edina,MN:Interaction Book Company.
NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum. environments. Mahwah, Joyce,B. R., & Weil,M. (1996).Modelsof teaching(5thed.). Boston:Allyn & Bacon. ments.Los Angeles:SinclairPrinting. P. (2000). New technologies. J., & Goodyear, Kanselaar, G., De Jong,T., Andriessen, In R. J. Simons,J. Van der Linden,& T. Duffy (Eds.),New learning(pp. 55-81). The Netherlands: KluwerAcademicPublishers. Dordrecht, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1956). Taxonomy Krathwohl, of educational New York:DavidMcKay. M. J. (2000). Student-centered In Land,S. M., & Hannafin, learningenvironments.
D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environLave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research & Development, 41, 4-16 objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain.
ments(pp. 1-23). Mahwah, Erlbaum. NJ:Lawrence
UK: Cambridge Cambridge, UniversityPress. valuesforinstructional Lebow,D. (1993).Constructivist systemsdesign:Fiveprinciples andmedia]. werkvormen en media[Didactical methods Lowyck,J. (1995).Didactische The Netherlands: sionals (pp. 215-248). Groningen, Wolters-Noordhoff. 168
In J. Lowyck & N. Verloop (Eds.), Onderwijskunde: Een kennisbasis voorprofes-
in thetheoretical of instructional foundation Lowyck,J., & Ellen,J. (1993).Transitions design. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen(Eds.), Designing environmentsfor constructive learning (pp. 213-230). New York: Springer-Verlag. Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand tary School Teacher, 9, 369-383.
Oaks,CA: CorwinPress. the working-man, andthe school. ElemenMead,G. H. (1908). Industrial education, W. C. (1974). Learning in groupsettings:Towarda clasMenges,R. J., & McGaghie, InC. M. Reigeluth M. D. (1983).Component Merrill, (Ed.),Instructionaltheory. display Erlbaum. Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence New York:FreePress.
design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 279-333). Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. sification of outcomes. Educational Technology, 14(11), 56-60.
Roelofs, E., Van derLinden,J., & Erkens,G. (1999). Lerenin dialoog:Een discussie over samenwerkendleren in onderwijs en opleiding [Learning in dialogue: A discussionaboutcooperativelearningin educationand training].In J. Van der The Netherlands: Woltersleren in onderwijsen opleiding(pp. 7-34). Groningen, Noordhoff.
Romiszowski, A. J. (1981). Designing instructional systems: Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. New York: Nichols Publishing. Romiszowski, A. J. (1984). Producing instructional systems: Lesson planningfor individualized and group learning activities. New York: Nichols Publishing. to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89-99. Linden & E. Roelofs (Eds.), Leren in dialoog: Een discussie over samenwerkend
T. (1989).Whenteamsdo not functionthe way theyought Salomon,G., & Globerson, L. A. (2001). The role of classroomassessmentin teachingandlearning.In Shepard, Educational ResearchAssociation. ington,DC: American in a classroomcontext.In D. C. Berliner& andlearning Shuell,T. J. (1996).Teaching Prentice Hall International. In a constructivistic Simons,P. R. J. (2000). Towards learning. theoryof self-directed Waxmann. tionalconsiderations (pp. 155-169). Munster, Germany: Simons,R. J., VanderLinden, J., & Duffy,T. (Eds.).(2000).New learning.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerAcademicPublishers. domain. E. J. (1966).Theclassification of educational psychomotor objectives, Simpson, for andreadiness Slavin,R. E. (1998).Sand,bricks,andseeds:Schoolchangestrategies M. Fullan,& D. Hopkins(Eds.), InterA. Lieberman, reform.In A. Hargreaves, Kluwer Academic Publishers. New andrecording student Smith,E. R., & Tyler,R. W. (1942). Appraising progress. York:Harper andRow.
The Netherlands: national handbookofeducational change (pp.1299-1313). Dordrecht, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics, 10(4), 110-144. G. A. Straka (Ed.), Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and concepR. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 726-764). London: V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1066-1101). Wash-
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculumdevelopment: Theory andpractice. New York: Harcourt,
Brace& World. P. (2000).Collaborative learnVanderLinden, G., Schmidt, H., & Renshaw, J.,Erkens, & T. Duffy(Eds.),Newlearning (pp. 37-54). ing.InR. J. Simons,J.VanderLinden, TheNetherlands: KluwerAcademicPublishers. Dordrecht, 169
de Kocket al. Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2000). Assessing active self-directed learning. In R. J. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 21-36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Veenman, S., Van Benthum, N., Bootsma, D., Van Dieren, J., & Van der Kemp, N. (2002). Cooperative learning and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 87-103. Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1994). Design principles of process-oriented instruction. In F. P. C. M. de Jong & B. Van Hout-Wolters (Eds.), Process-oriented instruction and learningfrom text (pp. 15-26). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: VU University Press. Vermunt, J. D. (1995). Process-oriented instruction in learning and thinking strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 325-349. Volet, S. (1995). Process-oriented instruction: A discussion. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(4), 449-459. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175. Authors ADRIANUS (JOS) DEKOCK is a doctoral student at Radboud University Nijmegen, of Educational Sciences,P.O. Box 9104,6500 HE Nijmegen,The Netherlands; Department e-mailj.dekock@kpcgroep.nl. He is also a researcherat KPC Group, 's-Hertogenbosch. His areasof specializationare learningand instruction,new learning,researchon learning environments,and educationin developing countries. PETER SLEEGERS was a Professor of Educational Sciences at Radboud University Nijmegen while working on this study. He is now a Professor at the University of The Netherof Education, Wibautstraat 4, 1091 GM Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Department lands;e-mail p.j.c.sleegers@uva.nl.His researchinterestsinclude educational innovation, teacher learning, leadership, school organization, and education policy. MARINUS J. M. VOETEN is an Associate Professor at RadboudUniversity Nijmegen, Departmentof EducationalSciences, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The NetherHe is also a visiting researcherat the Department lands; e-mail m.voeten@ped.kun.nl. of Psychology, University of Turku, Finland. His areas of specialization include researchmethods, statistics, and researchon reading.
170

Jurnal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Learning and the Classification of Learning Environments in Secondary Education Author(s): Adrianus de Kock, Peter Sleegers and

Reviewof EducationalResearch Summer 2004, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 141-170

New Learningand the Classificationof Learning Environmentsin SecondaryEducation

FIGURE 1. Schematic representations of hypothetical types of learning environments.

New Learningand the Classificationof LearningEnvironments

New Learningand the Classificationof LearningEnvironments

New Learningand the Classificationof LearningEnvironments

FIGURE 2. Coding sheet.

Otherstudies referredto Discussions of a groupof examiners Discussions of a groupof examiners

(U.S.) educationin (U.S.) educationin

De Corteet al. (1981) Romiszowski (1981, 1984) Merrill(1983)

Book chapter Book

on Some literature problem-basedlearning

Hertz-Lazarowitz Book (1992) chapter

Opinionsand experiences of teachers

TABLE 1 (Continued) Publication form Classifications referredto

Farnham-Diggory Article (1994)

ElshoutMohret al. (1999) Anderson& Krathwohl (2001) Marzano(2001)

3. Roles of learnersin relationto each other Competitive Individual Cooperative

New Learningand the Classificationof LearningEnvironments

Proc Behav Proc Proc Behav Behav

CompX10 Indiv Coop

Proc Proc Proc

Devel Devel Devel

Indiv Coop Coop

New Learningand the Classificationof LearningEnvironments

UK: Cambridge Press. University

research.Edina,MN:Interaction Book Company.

ments(pp. 1-23). Mahwah, Erlbaum. NJ:Lawrence

New Learningand the Classificationof LearningEnvironments

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculumdevelopment: Theory andpractice. New York: Harcourt,

You might also like