Adding a design perspective to study learning environments in higher professional education

How to design learning environments leading to learning-, thinking, collaboration- and regulation skills which can be applied to transferable, knowledge oriented learning outcomes is still controversial. We studied the designs of learning environments in innovative higher professional education more closely. To characterize learning environments we identify designable elements and position them on a scale ranging from specified, to emergent elements. Next, the main problems with the designs are identified. We introduce adaptive elements as a potential solution. We observed participants adapting such elements to suit their own needs or the needs of others. The designable and adaptive elements fulfill a dual function: they should offer contextual clues that would be available in professional practice and scaffold learners in need of support.

[1]  Alan Bryman,et al.  Research, policy and practice , 2004 .

[2]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning , 1991 .

[3]  J. V. D. Linden,et al.  New Learning: Three Ways to Learn in a New Balance , 2000 .

[4]  S. Puntambekar,et al.  Tools for Scaffolding Students in a Complex Learning Environment: What Have We Gained and What Have We Missed? , 2005 .

[5]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[6]  P. Simons,et al.  Transfer of learning: paradoxes for learners , 1999 .

[7]  M. Windschitl.  Framing Constructivism in Practice as the Negotiation of Dilemmas: An Analysis of the Conceptual, Pedagogical, Cultural, and Political Challenges Facing Teachers , 2002 .

[8]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .

[9]  R. Jaeger,et al.  Complementary Methods for Research in Education , 1988 .

[10]  Christine Velde,et al.  International Perspectives on Competence in the Workplace , 2001 .

[11]  A. Sfard.  On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One , 1998 .

[12]  Peter Sloep,et al.  How Expert Designers Design , 2008 .

[13]  J. Hamel,et al.  Case Study Methods , 1993 .

[14]  P. Tynjälä,et al.  Pedagogical perspectives on the relationships between higher education and working life , 2003 .

[15]  K. Campbell,et al.  A conceptual model for interprofessional education: The international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) , 2006, Journal of interprofessional care.

[16]  Reginald S. Lee,et al.  Case Study Methods , 2006 .

[17]  J. Vermunt,et al.  Congruence and friction between learning and teaching , 1999 .

[18]  Nienke Nieveen,et al.  Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training , 2012 .

[19]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[20]  Stephen Richard Billett,et al.  Vocational Educators: Understanding Practice at Work , 2001 .

[21]  Jan van den Akker,et al.  Principles and Methods of Development Research , 1999 .

[22]  E. Guba.  Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries , 1981 .

[23]  S. Billett.  Knowing in practice: re-conceptualising vocational expertise , 2001 .