Skip to main content

Open-Ended Learning Environments: Foundations, Assumptions, and Implications for Automated Design

  • Conference paper
Automating Instructional Design: Computer-Based Development and Delivery Tools

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((NATO ASI F,volume 140))

Abstract

Interest has emerged in the design of open-ended learning systems, characterized collectively as “learning environments.” Open-ended learning environments are comprehensive, integrated systems that promote cognitive engagement through learner-centered activities, concrete manipulation, and guided exploration. In this chapter, a conceptual framework for designing open-ended learning environments is presented. A brief summary of related research and theory is presented, similarities and differences between learning environments and conventional training and instruction are provided, the underlying foundations and assumptions of open-ended learning systems are summarized, and the implications for automated design are described.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bransford, J., Franks, J., Vye, N., & Sherwood, R. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can’t be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S. (1985). Process versus product: A perspective on tools for communal and informal electronic learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40, 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S., & Murphy, D. (1986). Designing systems that train learning ability: From theory to practice. Review of Educational Research, 56, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer’s view of constructivism. Educational Technology, 31(5), 41–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (ed4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gall, J., & Hannafin, M. J. (1993). A framework for the study of hypertext. Submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40, 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., Peck, K., & Hooper, S. (in press). Advanced design concepts for emerging technologies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., & Murphy, D. (1990). Alternative new directions for instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(8), 42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. (1990). The second generation instructional design research program. Educational Technology, 30(3), 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, I., & Hannafin, M. J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research & Development, 41, 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R., & Jengh, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility, random access instruction, and hypertext: Theory and technology for non-linear and multi-dimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. (1929). The aims of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hannafin, M.J. (1995). Open-Ended Learning Environments: Foundations, Assumptions, and Implications for Automated Design. In: Tennyson, R.D., Barron, A.E. (eds) Automating Instructional Design: Computer-Based Development and Delivery Tools. NATO ASI Series, vol 140. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57821-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57821-2_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-63366-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-57821-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics