Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student-Centered, e-Learning Design in a University Classroom

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
E-Learning Systems, Environments and Approaches

Abstract

Regional state university expectations for increased instructional rigor in addition to improved student satisfaction and retention resulted in faculty concern regarding lack of student motivation and class preparation. In an effort to leverage learning, a group of faculty members redesigned courses placing initial content acquisition responsibility on students. As a result, students entered classes prepared to engage collaboratively in student-centered learning activities and demonstrate workplace skills in real world scenarios. Pre-class instruction using multimodal digital tools maximized and individualized learner content acquisition. As a result, learner engagement increased before, during and after class. The process of redesigning one sophomore-level education course is described in this chapter. The redesigned course included collaborative and student-centered undergraduate coursework driven by technology applications to meet twenty-first century adult learner preferences.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barak, M., & Asad, K., (2012). Teaching image-processing concepts in junior high school: Boy’s and girl’s achievement and attitudes toward technology. Research in Science & Technology Education, 30(1), 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 321–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrett, D. (2012). How “flipping” the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. Chronicle of higher education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, M., & Schwartz, H. L. (2012). We’re all adults here: Clarifying and maintaining boundaries with adult learners. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2012(131), 43–55. doi:10.1002/tl.20026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: Evidence from Australia. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 33–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmean, C., & Haefner, J. (2002). Mind over matter: Transforming course management systems into effective learning environments. Educause Review, 37(6), 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castillo, A., Clunie, C., De Clunie, G., & Rodriquez, K. (2013). A system for mobile learning: A need in a moving world. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 819–824. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.154 (2nd World Conference on Educational Technology Research).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanaugh, C., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2011). An evaluation of the conditions, processes, and consequences of laptop computing in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 359–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.-H. (2007). Cultural diversity in instructional design for technology-based education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1113–1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartlan, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collopy, R., & Green, T. (1995, September). Using motivational theory with at-risk children. Educational Leadership, 53(1), 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. (Report). Journal of Teacher Education, (1–2), 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dee, J. R., Henkin, A. B., & Hearne, J. L. (2011). Enabling initiative and enterprise: Faculty-Led Course Redesign in a STEM Discipline. Educational Research Quarterly, 35(1), 34–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2001). Psychological parameters of students’ social and work avoidance goals: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreri, S. P., & O’Connor, S. K. (2013). Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group learning course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(1), (Article 13) 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Findlay-Thompson, S., & Mombourquette, P. (2014). Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an undergraduate business course. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flumerfelt, S., & Green, G. (2013). Using lean in the flipped classroom for at risk students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 356–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidman, T. (2009). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, L. (2007). Millennial students’ and faculty’s perceptions of a new generation of learning classrooms. (Doctoral dissertation). http://www.uttexas.edu.

  • Gast, A. (2013). Current trends in adult degree programs: How public universities respond to the needs of adult learners. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 2013(140), 17–25. doi:10.1002/ace.20070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurría, A. (2010, December 10). Presentation of the PISA 2010 Results, Washington, DC. http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3343,en_21571361_44315115_46635719_1_1_1_1,00.html.

  • Hancock, V., & Betts, F. (2002, April 1). Back to the future: Preparing learners for academic success in 2004. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(7), 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes Jacob, H. (2010). Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world. Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hede, A. (2002). An integrated model of multimedia effects on learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(2), 179–191. http://www.aace.org/dl/files/JEMH/JEMH112177.pdf.

  • Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2009). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institutional Research Tarleton State University. (2012). Texan Facts [Data files]. https://mart02.tarleton.edu:8443/ibi_apps/Controller.

  • Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.). Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. (1997). Integrating technology in the classroom: The time has come. Computers in Schools, 13(1–2), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. L., Smith, R. R., Levine, A. A., & Haywood, K. K., & New Media Consortium and Consortium for School Network (2010). Horizon Report: 2010 K-12 Edition. New Media Consortium, 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1994). Designing learning and technology for educational reform. Oak Brook: North Central Regional Education Laboratory. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/engaged.htm.

  • Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jukes, I. (2006). Understanding digital children: Teaching and learning in the new digital landscape. The InfoSavvy Group. Prepared for the Singapore MOE Mass Lecture (September, 2006). http://www.ibo.org/ibap/conference/documents/IanJukes-UnderstandingDigitalKids.pdf.

  • Kahu, E. (n.d). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies In Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, A. (2010). Teacher education must respond to changes in America. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student motivation to learn. ERIC Digest, Number 92. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED 370200).

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddux, C. (1997). The world wide web and school culture: Are they incompatible? Computers in Schools, 13(1–2), 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Statistics (n.d.). Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2009highlights_3.asp.

  • November, A. (2010). Empowering students with technology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palak, D., & Walls, R. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pink, D. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York: Riverhead Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Parts 1–2. On the Horizon. NCB University Press, 9(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Puentedura, R. (2008). TPCK and SAMR—Models for enhancing technology integration. http://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/as-we-may-teach-educational/id380294705?mt=2.

  • Rosen, L. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. New York: McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large scale survey research tells us about teacher effectiveness on student achievement: Insights from the Prospectus study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, S. (2013). The enhanced flipped classroom: Increasing academic performance with student-recorded lectures and practice testing in a ‘flipped’ stem course. Journal Of Negro Education, 82(3), 339–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the school house: How to support and sustain educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlecty, P. C. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teachers, principals, and superintendents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L. S., Houang, R. T., & Mcknight, C. C. (2011). Content coverage differences across districts/states: A persisting challenges for U.S. education policy. American Journal of Education, 117(3), 399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. K. (2011). Standing strong in disturbing times: The academy’s challenge. Educational Studies, 47(3), 215–216. doi:10.1080/00131946.2011.573677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somekh, B. (2000). New technology and learning: Policy and practices in the UK, 1980–2010. Education and Information Technologies, 5(1), 19–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprenger, M. (2009). Focusing the digital brain. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation (Report). Learning Environments Research,15(2), 171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talley, C., & Scherer, S. (2013). The enhanced flipped classroom: Increasing academic performance with student-recorded lectures and practice testing in a “flipped” STEM course. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(3), 339–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D. (2009). Growing up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2005). Generation NeXt: Today’s postmodern student—Meeting, teaching, and serving. http://www.taylorprograms.org/images/Gen_NeXt_article_HLC_05.pdf.

  • Taylor, M. (2010). Teaching generation next: A pedagogy for today’s learners. http://www.taylorprograms.com/drtaylorarticles.html.

  • Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trzeniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking “generation me:” A study of cohort effects from 1976–2006. Perspectives on. Psychological Science, 5(2), 58–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, P., & Carriveau, R. (2010). Next generation course redesign. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voke, H. (2002, February). Motivating students to learn. ASCD Infobrief, 2(28). http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/inforbreif/200202_issue28.html.

  • Whitehurst, G. (2002). Research on teacher preparation and professional development. A paper presented at the White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers (March 5, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M., Goulding, F., Seddon, T., & National Centre for Vocational Education, R. (2013). Towards a culture of scholarly practice in mixed-sector institutions. Research Report. National Centre For Vocational Education Research (NCVER).

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J. (2008). Building a bridge from neuroscience to the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 424–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, B., & Rothman, R. (2010). The online learning imperative: A solution to three looming crises in education. Education Digest, 76(3), 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W. (2009). Innovations in teaching undergraduate biology and why we need them. http://visionandchange.org/files/2010/03/Innovations_In_Teaching_Biology_and_Why_We_Need_Them.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tarleton State University, 6777 Camp Bowie Blvd, Suite 500, 76116, Fort Worth, TX, USA

    Melissa Roberts Becker & Susan L. Erwin

  2. Tarleton State University, Box T-0815, 76402, Stephenville, TX, USA

    Pam Winn

Authors
  1. Melissa Roberts Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pam Winn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan L. Erwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa Roberts Becker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Aberta, Lisbon, Portugal

    Pedro Isaías

  2. College of Information, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  3. Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Dirk Ifenthaler

  4. Digital Systems Ctr. Res. & Technology Hellas (CERTH), University of Piraeus Dept. Technology in Education &, Piraeus, Greece

    Demetrios G. Sampson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Becker, M., Winn, P., Erwin, S.L. (2015). Student-Centered, e-Learning Design in a University Classroom. In: Isaías, P., Spector, J., Ifenthaler, D., Sampson, D. (eds) E-Learning Systems, Environments and Approaches. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05825-2_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation