Jim Alexiades, Head of Senior School /Deputy Head, St. Michael’s Grammar School [HREF1], 20 Redan Street, St. Kilda, Victoria, 3182. jalexiades@stmichaels.vic.edu.au
Dr Graham Morey-Nase, General Manager, QUESTech [HREF2], 27 Chapel Street, St. Kilda, 3182. grahammn@questech.com.au
Proponents of Situated Learning, such as Brown, Collins & Duguid, argue that meaningful learning only takes place if it is embedded in the social and physical context within which it will be used. Associated with this concept are the associated elements of Enculturation, Authentic Activities, Cognitive Apprenticeship and Collaborative Learning.
These elements are too often missing from current learning environments, where learners are required to acquire facts and rules that have no direct relevance or meaning to them.
Others argue that computer-based environments overcome this deficiency by representing a ‘community of practice’ through simulations of real-world contexts and by employing a case-based and/or problem-solving approach to create ‘authentic activities’. The integrity and authenticity of such an approach, however, has been contested, with the conclusion that "we gain knowledge of the world by being in the world" (Engestrom, 1994)
This paper argues that limitations of computer-based content delivery and communication are reduced if learners are physically situated in the ‘unfamiliar’ world with reliance on the Web to communicate with, and receive learning materials from, the ‘familiar’ institutional environment. A combination of laptop computers, communication via the Web and physical location in an ‘unfamiliar’ environment enables enhanced learning in situ without disrupting other institution-based learning programs.
St. Michael’s Grammar School (Melbourne), in conjunction with James Cook University, has piloted an exemplar of this model of learning by situating a group of 22 students on remote Orpheus Island in the Great Barrier Reef to undertake and complete in 4 weeks a full VCE unit on Ecosystems. Central to the project was access to JCU Marine Biology staff, the use of a laptop computer by each student, and satellite technology to maintain study in their other subjects and communicate with teachers and students back at school.
Schools have been accused of being slow to adopt computer technology, especially when it is compared with the rate of change that has occurred in the commercial world. Louis Gerstner, CEO of IBM and his colleagues best summarise this view in Reinventing Education (1994):
Many educational theorists have agreed. For instance, Papert (1993) is very critical of the lack of imagination that schools have shown in implementing computers in the school, citing the limited use of computers in schools where school authorities were content to leave computers in the classrooms of teachers who were the most enthusiastic.
This, of course, is changing and St. Michael’s Grammar School is one of a number of schools which have been proactive and creative in integrating technology into its curricular programmes. In 1997 a fibre optic cable was installed throughout the campus to allow for all classrooms to be networked. It is also currently developing the infrastructure that will permit all staff and students remote access to the School’s Intranet via the Internet. In addition, like a number of other schools, St. Michael’s introduced a Laptop Computer programme in 1997 and this now operates from Year 9 to Year 12.
Emerging technologies have not only changed the appearance of our classrooms, they have also issued a challenge for teachers to reassess and modify their educational objectives and learning strategies. There is no doubt that such tools as multi-media, the Internet, and hypertext are changing the nature of teaching. The challenge for schools is to assess and embrace these changes. Theorists like Dale Spender (1998:6) point out that students are given more independence by the new learning technologies and therefore schools need to address the way in which they are going about there core business of teaching and learning
This challenge to re-assess the processes of teaching and learning led to the school’s 1997 Future Planning Report, which focussed on Flexible Learning and the Virtual School. The Report stated: "Teachers must use the growing technologies to improve the outcomes for students rather than shying away from them and hoping they will not affect them". In brief, Flexible Learning was defined as including the diversity of ways in which material and services may be delivered to, and accessed by, students, whereby the student learner is given more freedom in the when, where, how and what elements of learning experience than the traditional teaching practices.
The then Headmaster gave flesh to the Virtual School concept by conceiving a proposal where a group of students would be placed in a remote location studying a specific course but keeping in touch with their school via the use of technology. Somewhat randomly, he chose the Great Barrier Reef as the context for his proposal with a Unit of VCE Biology on Ecosystems as the specific focus. Thus began the preparatory work which resulted in a group of 23 Year 10 students spending 3 weeks on remote Orpheus Island, James Cook University’s Marine Biology Research Station on the Great Barrier Reef and a further week at JCU in Townsville during August-September this year.
The rationale of the project was based on two principles: first, it provided an opportunity for students to undertake a focused experiential learning programme with specific objectives in a remote location; and second, it was predicated on the requirement that there would be continuity with the students’ other school-based studies through learning and communication technologies linked to the school by means of the www.
The essential features of the project were:
In 1998 the School developed an ongoing relationship with James Cook University in Townsville with the aim of the School using the James Cook University Research Station on Orpheus Island for its students to pilot the Barrier Reef Project. As well as this it was envisaged that staff from James Cook University would help with the delivery of the main Biology component of the course. The following year, three staff members from the School visited both Orpheus Island and the University and met with key staff to put together a programme for the Year 10 students.
James Cook University was able to provide a lecturer in Marine Biology to come and visit the island on two separate occasions and support the students’ programme. The Marine Biologist provided the ‘expert’ support to the students learning which was critical to the teaching and learning that was to take place. The researcher was able not only to help students identify various species of fish, but also to put the learning into a contextual framework. He was also able from his own study and expertise to support the student learning throughout their time by communicating with them via e-mail, and in person (by participating in dives with the students and by conducting a lecture programme). His expertise was invaluable when discussing issues to do with global warming, coral bleaching and the sustainability of the complex Barrier Reef ecosystems.
James Cook University staff also provided extensive help when the students returned to the mainland by conducting workshops and a lecture series which focussed on Aboriginal History, Immigration, Marine Archaeology and the politics of Far North Queensland.
Due to the nature of this exercise a good deal of pre-planning and preparation had to take place, which included all of the students and staff. This was unlike any excursion or school trip that had taken place previously. Students would be living in a confined environment for twenty-eight days, in the first seventeen of which they would be very isolated on Orpheus Island. It was thought appropriate therefore to put the students through a rigorous training programme to prepare them for the trip. This programme included a series of snorkelling proficiency exercises and a number of actual dives with the Victorian Diving School in Port Phillip Bay. It also included all students and staff obtaining a Level II First Aid Certificate which was done over two weekend periods; and thirdly, all students completed the Bronze Medallion training programme and were issued with the Bronze before they left for Queensland. As well as this, students were responsible for the preparation of all food and with the help of the School’s Home Economic Department who planned with the students a series of menus. Students were then able to prepare not only nutritious but also a variety of food. There were in fact, seven different meals planned and prepared for, and each group had to cook this same meal three times over the period of time that they were away. the mainland. This too proved a significant and important factor in the success of the trip, and allowed the students to get to know one another quite well before they embarked on the project. This brought a sense of camaraderie and teamwork and was critical in the social interactions that existed on the island.
The academic aims of the project were as follows:
Students arrived in Townsville and on the first day and were introduced to the Reef and its organisms and ecology via an overnight stay at the Great Barrier Reef Aquarium, i.e. the Reef HQ in Townsville. There, they had a session with the Reef staff and teachers who took them through the general environment that they would experience during their stay on Orpheus Island. Day 2 to Day 19 the students were based on Orpheus Island, the James Cook University Research Station. Orpheus is part of the great continental palm island group and provides access to an unusually wide variety of Great Barrier Reef habitats. It is surrounded by well-developed fringe reefs and a range of mid-shelf reefs are nearby. Sand mud bottoms separate the reefs. Pioneer Bay is a 400m wide sand and rubble inter-tidal reef flat directly in front of the station, and support a diverse fauna. Students were also able to compare the ecology and ecosystems of the marine life forms with that of the Paluma rainforest when they reached the mainland. Diverse ecosystems in north Queensland, from coral reefs to mangroves and rainforests, provided students with an opportunity to study some of the world’s most interesting fauna and flora and were ideal for the study of Unit 1 Biology. Study of the region would be an intellectual as well as a physical exercise. Students were challenged to gather data from a range of environments and they needed to develop the necessary physical and mental skills to do so. They undertook field work, collecting data both on land and in the water via snorkelling activities and then compiled their practical reports in the laboratory testing the theory with the practical.
The connectivity issue in terms of how students would be connected back to the School so that they could maintain their academic studies in their other Year 10 subjects was a very major concern. In discussions with James Cook University, it was thought that by the time the St. Michael’s project was undertaken the University would have built a microwave link from the mainland to the research station that would be capable of carrying high-speed data. The current link at Orpheus is a VHF telephone link, which is not capable of transmitting high-speed data. With this in mind, the School believed the best option was to create a local area network on the island and linking it to the microwave link provided by James Cook University, accessing the world-wide web through the local ISP and coming back into the St. Michael’s web page. From there, the St. Michael’s on-line learning centre would be the vehicle that would be allow students to access their academic work as posted by their teachers back at school. A considerable amount of testing went on in the early stages of the project in 1999 and in 2000 where students on Geography and Biology field trips were able to maintain some connectivity with the School using the www. From the beginning of 2000, it became apparent that the University was unable to fulfil its promise of a microwave link, and therefore a new technical solution needed to be found. This was a major hurdle as without a sustainable link from the island, the students would be unable to maintain contact with school, and therefore would not be able to fulfil their work requirements in other subjects. A variety of solutions were proposed but all were far too costly. Eventually, a small local retailer was found who was able to show the capabilities of a satellite phone, or MiniSat, for connectivity. This phone can deliver a 64K ISDN link back to the school and if a local area network was set up on the island, students could access their e-mail, and staff could communicate with students either via e-mail or by attaching documents and sending them to the students who would then work off-line before once again connecting to the network each evening. Whilst this was not what the original plan for the project had in mind, (it was hoped to have full synchronise communication) dial-up with their teachers was the best possible solution given the limitations and the remoteness of the island. There were, however, some significant cost issues involved in this proposal; one of which was the connection cost of $11.00 per minute. It was here that the School had to work tirelessly to achieve the support from its business partners, NEC and impaq. With the help of both these organisations, a technical solution was put in place, and a good deal of testing took place before the project departed. The technical solution involved the MiniSat telephone as stated previously connected to a router and a series of switches which gave students simultaneous connectivity to the telephone. Students worked off-line for most of the time completing both their Biology tasks and other work as required by teachers back at St. Michael’s. Documents were then saved as zip files and sent back to school using e-mail. Each evening, a connection was made with the School’s network via the satellite phone and students’ work was immediately downloaded to the teachers’ inboxes back at St. Michael’s. In the meantime, any communication from the School would come back to students.
Students developed an amazing ability to self-pace their learning tasks and to work in a way which is atypical of their school experience. Their days usually went from 7.00am to 11.00pm and they were separated into two groups so that they could take part in all the activities. When one group was on the water doing research, the other group was usually inside the laboratory continuing to either work on Unit 1 Biology or their other schoolwork. Students essentially chose when and how they worked and required very little prodding to do so.
The experience of the project showed up a number of other general benefits, including developing a sense of responsibility for self and others, developing leadership skills, as well as the ability to follow others and work in a team environment.
In the last week of the programme, the students were back in Townsville where the Department of Indigenous Studies and the Social Science Department of James Cook University had developed a series of lectures and workshops which integrated a broad humanities programme including marine archaeology, race relationships, aboriginal history and the impact of far-north Queensland on Australian history and its political development. This built upon the student’s experiences on Orpheus Island where they had visited Phantom Island and met up with some aboriginal students from Greater Palm Island and aboriginal elders. The Indigenous Studies Department also introduced students to a variety of issues that affect local communities of far-north Queensland.
Whilst the communication model for 2000 was adequate it is hoped that in the future a synchronous form of communication can be achieved. When the microwave link is built by James Cook University the students will be able to access the school in real time and discussion groups can be formed with classes back at school. It will also be possible to have video conferencing take place so that students on the island can share and discuss their experiences with classes at St.Michael’s.
Teachers will also need to think more carefully about the way in which they deliver curriculum to the students on the island. The questions that they are asking after this years experience is should the students maintain the same coursework as those in Melbourne or should their study of History, English, Maths etc reflect the environment in which they find themselves? An example might be a unit of work in History which explores the History of Aboriginal people on Fantom and Palm islands and the current issues that are relevant to the region rather than trying to maintain the course work that is being carried out in classes back in Melbourne, thus contextualising the learning even further.
It is also important to engage in some formal evaluation of the learning outcomes of the project and therefore it is hoped that in 2001 a research fellow from one of the universities could follow the group through their experience.
Other issues that emerge are in the area of equity. The trip is a significant expense on the parents of those students who chose to go and because of the expense it precludes others who would gain from the experience. We are exploring ways in which the school can via sponsorship and connections with business reduce the costs for participants.
It may seem that the project grew out of the whim of one Headmaster who had a ‘bright idea’ which he linked to the concept of The Virtual School and which he pursued with no real analysis of its legitimacy in terms of the principles of teaching and learning. This, however, was not the case. During the preliminary stages of developing the project, the Headmaster commissioned a Melbourne-based education and technology-consulting group, QUESTech, to conduct what might be termed ‘a teaching & learning impact study’. It is the outcome of this study, and QUESTech’s subsequent role in assisting the school to bring the project to fruition, that is the focus of this section of the paper.
The learning effectiveness of physically situating learners in unfamiliar environments with online communication to their familiar environment is supported by recent research into the effectiveness of Constructivist learning environments founded on the principle of Situated Cognition (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989) or Situated Learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991), with its associated elements of Authentic Activities, Enculturation, Cognitive Apprenticeship and Collaborative Learning.
Building on the theory that learners construct knowledge and meaning by interpreting experiences in terms of their prior knowledge, experience and existing beliefs, constructivists contend that knowledge and understanding is internally generated by the individual rather than received from any external source. As a result, they claim that, in the absence of a real-world, relevant context for learning information, the information is less meaningful.
It was in response to this view that Situated Cognition, or Situated Learning, was first expounded in 1989 by Brown, Collins and Duguid. They argued that meaningful learning will only take place if it is embedded in the social and physical context within which it will be used. This context is too often missing from current learning environments, in which learners are required to acquire facts and rules that have no direct relevance or meaning to them, because they are not related to anything the learner is interested in or needs to know. For them "activity and situations are integral to cognition and learning", and they propose the need to "embed learning in activity and make deliberate use of the social and physical context" appropriate to the activity. Hence, they argue that learning ‘how to use a tool’ is not possible "without understanding the community or culture in which it is used." "To learn to use tools as practitioners use them, a student, like an apprentice, must enter that community and its culture." Thus, they conclude that learning is a process of enculturation. This process of enculturation is crucial to learning, for it is the process that allows us to distinguish between activities that are ‘authentic’ and those that are not. This applies equally to physical tools and ‘conceptual tools’, the use of that is "a function of the culture and the activities in which the concept has been developed."
So, they conclude: "Activity, concept, and culture are interdependent. No one can be totally understood without the other two. Learning must involve all three." Reinforcing their insistence on cultural understanding as a determinant of authentic activity, they suggest that "Too often the practices of contemporary schooling deny students the chance to engage the relevant domain culture … ". Hence, "Many of the activities students undertake are simply not the activities of practitioners and would not make sense or be endorsed by the cultures to which they are attributed."
Enculturation in order to achieve authenticity is thus the core of Brown et al’s view. The means by which students can achieve this, as proposed by Brown et al, is simply stated: "they can enculturate through apprenticeship". For them, the concept of ‘apprenticeship’ "helps to emphasize the centrality of activity in learning and knowledge and highlights the inherently context-dependent, situated, and enculturating nature of learning." In applying the traditional model of craft apprenticeship to concept learning, they propose a model, which they term ‘Cognitive Apprenticeship’. In the same way as craft apprenticeships enable apprentices "to acquire and develop the tools and skills of their craft through authentic work at and membership in their trade", so Cognitive Apprenticeship "supports learning in a domain by enabling students to acquire, develop, and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activity."
Central to this notion of apprenticeship are the roles in a ‘community of practice’ of ‘master and apprentice’, the notion of social interaction and collaboration, and the importance of activity or ‘doing’. The ‘master’ sequentially engages in modelling, coaching, scaffolding and fading – moving the apprentice from observation to exploration to independence through the provision of expertise, hints and reminders, feedback, support before finally ‘fading’ as control of the learning process is handed over to the apprentice. The apprentice begins by observing from the boundary where people who are not taking part directly in a particular activity learn a great deal from their legitimate position on the periphery. As learning and involvement in the culture increase, the apprentice moves from the role of observer to fully functioning agent.
Also crucial in this process of learning through enculturation is collaboration and social interaction. As Brown et al point out: "Within a culture, ideas are exchanged and modified and belief systems developed and appropriated through conversation and narratives … So learning environments must allow narratives to circulate and ‘war stories’ to be added to the collective wisdom of the community" and they conclude that "Learning, both outside and inside school, advances through collaborative social interaction and the social construction of knowledge".
But, before endorsing the proposal to physically move students off campus into unfamiliar environments, QUESTech had to consider the questions: to what extent can the characteristics of situated learning environments be created in computer-based environments in the classroom? And can computer-based classroom environments effectively represent a culture and a ‘community of practice’, enable authentic activity and provide for cognitive apprenticeship and collaborative learning?
A number of practitioners and researchers argue that it can and they point to the ability of interactive multimedia programs to provide ‘an authentic context that reflects the way the knowledge will be used in real-life’ and to provide authentic activities. (Herrington&Oliver 1995). Herrington & Oliver cite the work of the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt , 1990, 1993a, 1993b) and specifically refer to a program for mathematics students at Edith Cowan Uni as an example of a multimedia program that has ‘the critical characteristics of a situated learning environment’ (Herrington & Oliver, 1995 ; Herrington, Sparrow & Oliver, 1997; and Herrington and Oliver, 1997). Pennell et al (1997) describe a computer-based writing course for tertiary students, which they claim conforms well to the criteria for situated learning. As a generalisation, most computer-based programs that claim to deliver situated learning rely on 2 inter-connected features: (1) the simulation or replication of real-world contexts; and (2) the use of a case-based and/or problem-solving approach to create ‘authentic activities’
Other researchers, however, have not been as positive in their response to the questions.
McMahon (1997) doubts the capacity of technology to provide real-world or ‘authentic’ tasks. He suggests that, although the Web can "present a variety of information sources", this does not necessarily translate into ‘case based authentic learning’ and he concludes that the assertion that web-based instruction can provide authentic tasks for learners "is yet to be demonstrated with research and existing examples on the Web".
Furthermore, other researchers have suggested that, since situated learning requires that learners be exposed to 'masters' or experts in the practice of their trade, it cannot be, by its very definition, transferred to the classroom (Tripp, 1993; Wineburg, 1989). Refering specifically to computer-based materials, Hummel (1993) maintained that "instructional designers who apply situated learning theory by implementation in electronic media should realize that they take an important step away from this theory … courseware becomes the learning environment and not the authentic situation". (Quoted in Herrington & Oliver, 1995:2) Pennell (1996) is conscious of this danger when he warns that "teaching that interposes current communication technology between the learner and the teacher risks engaging the student with the wrong ‘community of practice’, with a culture of technology rather than the learning culture we seek to simulate". (Pennell,1997:1)
Jonassen et al (1993) suggest that the use of technology reduces the opportunity for active interaction with other learners, for, while the Web now permits instant discourse with people almost anywhere in the world through e-mail, Newsgroups, noticeboard, real time chat and Ichat, these connections have their limitations, particularly when the communication is ‘cold’ or the communicants are unfamiliar – either personally or culturally - with each other. The inability to physically verify vital elements of the communication and to attain the in-depth and spontaneous interaction of face-to-face communication that develops mutual understanding and common ground is generally absent even if cost and time considerations are favourable.
This brings us back to the view of Situated Learning proponents that ‘we gain knowledge of the world by being in the world’, which again leads to the conclusion that situated learning is best implemented by physically locating students in ‘unfamiliar’ cultures/communities of practice. The benefits of ‘physical presence’ were espoused some years ago by Robert McClintock (1971) when he advocated what he termed ‘Apprentice Schools’, which he argued "would place opportunities to study ‘academic’ subjects in situations where the practical, worldly uses of those subjects could be directly experienced by curious students." He went on: "… the apprentice school should be a roving school that offers its students the opportunity to experience the inner workings of all different kinds of adult activity as well as the opportunity to study the basic cultural skills and ideas that pertain to the world he is experiencing." In McClintock’s recent work (see, for example, ‘The Educators Manifesto: Renewing the Progressive Bond with Posterity through the Social Construction of Digital Learning Communities'’ Institute for Learning Technologies, Columbia University, 1999), however, this idea has found no place. Rather it has been replaced by the notion of technology bringing the world to the student. In our enthusiasm to embrace the potential of the new learning technologies, have we perhaps lost sight of alternative learning environments, which may be more effective for learning, especially if they are supported by technology?
For, while Web technology can bring the world to the classroom in a limited way, it also permits the classroom being taken to the world in a way that not only does not disrupt other ‘normal’ learning programmes, but can positively enhance them.
Building on this proposition, QUESTech developed a model of situated learning which incorporates the principles of enculturation, authentic activities, cognitive apprenticeship and collaborative learning in a wide range of possible contexts, of which the St. Michael’s Barrier Reef proposal was but one.
Not only does this model integrate 'out-of-school' experiences with ‘normal’ classroom-based learning, but it also addresses Clive Dimmock’s requirement that "the more that education policy becomes globalized, the more important it becomes to take cognisance of each society’s culture" (Dimmock, 2000:12-13). This is a model that fulfils both broad educational/academic and socio-cultural objectives. It is a model that utilises computer technology through laptop computers and the communicative capacity of the Web to enable students and ‘the classroom’ being taken out into the world for significant periods of time in a way that not only does not disrupt other ‘normal’ learning programmes, but can positively enhance them. It is a model that permits not just components of courses or units of work to be undertaken in a relevant ‘community of practice’, but allows entire and discrete units to be undertaken and completed. This can be done in such a way as to physically situate learners with laptop computers in unfamiliar ‘communities of practice’, environments and cultures in such a way as to permit learners to engage in authentic activities, to fulfil the characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship and to continue effective learning in other subject areas by means of web-based collaboration and interaction with their familiar environment 'back at school’. Content can be taken to the ‘unfamiliar’ environment on CD or in hard copy, but the crucial interaction and collaborative aspect of learning can be pursued through WWW applications which use networked communication – e-mail, Internet Relay Chat and so on. With the advent of mobile satellite dishes and satellite phones, this form of learning can literally be done anywhere in the world.
Further, we would argue that the use of the Web in this context is far more effective when it is accessed by students in an unfamiliar environment as opposed to a familiar environment. The reasons for this view can best be explained by distinguishing the 2 major functions of the Web: (1) its capacity to carry and deliver content and information; and (2) its communicative capabilities. The major function of the Web for students in the ‘familiar’ classroom is as an importer of content and information about the ‘unfamiliar’ world. On the other hand, the major use of the Web for students physically located in ‘unfamiliar’ settings is as a communication vehicle linking them to teachers and students back in the ‘familiar’ school environment, enabling them to maintain their learning in their subjects and disciplines that are both represented and not represented in their situated experience. It is this communicative function that McMahon (1997) believes needs to become a much more important focus of web-based programs – "It could be argued that the use of the Web is best suited to that of a communications medium for collaborative approaches to learning rather than as a ’24 hour a day glorified whiteboard’ (Archee&Duin, 1995)".
This QUESTech model of ‘Web-enabled Situated Learning in an Unfamiliar Environment’ was presented to St. Michael’s, whose subsequent Barrier Reef Project incorporated its essential features:
In assisting St. Michael’s implement its project, QUESTech came to the view that the application of its model is almost limitless, and that it need not be so spectacular or ambitious. We would like to think that other schools and educational institutions might seriously consider this approach to learning in the digital age.
Anderson, J.L., Reder, L.M. & Simon, H. (1996). Situated learning and education, Educational Researcher, 25 (4), 5-11
Archee, R., & Duin, A. H. (1995). The WWW and Distance Education - Convergence or Cacophony? Paper presented at the AUUG '95 & Asia-Pacific WWW '95 Conference and Exhibition, Sydney, Australia.
Bailey, T. & Merritt, D. (1997). School-to-Work for the College Bound. Institute on Education and The Economy. [HREF3]
Berryman, S.E. (1993-96). Designing effective learning environments: cognitive apprenticeship models. Institute on Education and The Economy. [HREF4]
Brown, J., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18: 1, 32-42. [HREF5]
Choi, J-I. & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43 (2), 53-69.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993a). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52-70
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993b). Designing learning environments that support thinking: The Jasper Series as a case study. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H.
Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 9-36). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993c). Toward integrated curricula: Possibilities from anchored instruction. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction (pp. 33-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collis, B., & Remmers, E. (1997). The World Wide Web in education: Issues related to cross-cultural communication and interaction. In B. Khan (Eds.), Web-based Instruction, (pp. 85-92). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
Collis, B., & Remmers, E. (1997). The world wide web in education: Issues related to cross-cultural communication and interaction. In B. Khan (Eds.), Web-based Instruction, (pp. 85-92). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
Cornford, I.R. (1999). Situated cognition: just another educational fad? A refereed paper presented at the AARE 1999 Conference. [HREF6]
Cunningham, S. (1997). New media and borderless education. DEETYA. [HREF7]
Dellit, J. (2000). Restructuring education for the knowledge society. [HREF8]
Dimmock, C. & Walker, A. (2000). Future School Administration: Western and Asian Perspectives, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press
Dimmock, C. (2000). Designing the Learning-Centred School: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, London: Falmer Press.
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New Implications for Instructional Technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation (pp. 1-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Eklund, J., Garrett, P., Ryan, S., & Harvey, J. (1996). Designing the World Wide Web as an Educational Delivery Medium at the University of Sydney. [HREF9]
Engestrom, Y. (1994). Training For Change: New Approach to Instruction and Learning in Working Life, Geneva: International Labour Office.
Gerstner, L. et al. (1994). Reinventing Education: America’s Public Schools,New York, Dutton.
Great Lakes Colleges Association. (1999). New Models in International Collaboration. [HREF10]
Henderson, L. (1996). Instructional design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 85-104.
Hendrix College. (1994). Internship Policies and Guidelines. [HREF11]
Herrington, A., Sparrow, L. & Oliver, R. (1997). Investigating mathematics education using multimedia. [HREF12]
Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (1995) Critical Characteristics of Situated Learning: Implications for the Instructional Design of Multimedia. in Pearce, J. Ellis A. (ed) ASCILITE95 Conference Proceedings (253-262). Melbourne: University of Melbourne. [HREF13]
Herrington, J. and Oliver, R. (1997). Multimedia, magic and the way students respond to a situated learning environment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 127-143. http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet13/su97p127.html
Higher Education: Quality & Employability. (1996). Network News: Work Based Learning. [HREF14]
Hummel, H.G.K. (1993). Distance education and situated learning: Paradox or partnership. Educational Technology, 33(12), 11-22.
Issues of Teaching and Learning. (1998) [HREF15]
Jensen, S., Christie, A. & Baron, J. (1997). "Online" teaching in an "offshore" program:
A Recent Pilot of a Business Management Subject in Singapore. [HREF16]
Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking Technology: Towards a Constructivist Design Model. Educational Technology, (April, 1994), 34-37.
Jonassen, D., Mayes, T. & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to technology in higher education. In T. Duffy, D. Jonassen, & J. Lowyck (Eds), Designing constructivist learning environments, Heidelberg, FRG: Springer-Verlag. [HREF17]
Lambert, P. E., & Walker, R. A. (1996). Designing Collaborative WWW Learning Environments - the HENRE Project . [HREF18]
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Loring, R. (1998) Situated learning: understanding contextual learning. Connections, Center for Occupational Research and Development. [HREF19]
McClintock, R. (1971). Toward a place for study in a world of instruction. Teachers College Record, 73:2.
McClintock, R. (1999). The Educator’s Manifesto: Renewing the Progressive Bond with Posterity through the Social Construction of Digital Learning Communities, Institute for Learning Technologies, Columbia University
McLellan, H. (1996). Being digital: implications for education. Educational Technology, Nov/Dec 1996.
McLoughlin, C. (1999). Culturally inclusive learning on the web. In K. Martin, N. Stanley and N. Davison (Eds), Teaching in the Disciplines/ Learning in Context, 272-277. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1999. Perth: UWA. http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/asu/pubs/tlf/tlf99/km/mcloughlin.html
McMahon, M. (1997). Social constructivism and the world wide web – A paradigm for learning. An offical full paper from the 1997 ASCILITE Conference, Curtin University, Perth. [HREF20]
Negroponte, N (1996). Pluralistic, not Imperialistic: the idea that the Net is another form of Americanisation and a threat to local culture is absurd. [HREF21]
Oliver, R. & Omari, A. (1997). Using the World Wide Web to support distance education and open learning. In J. Osborne, D. Roberts & J. Walker (Eds.), Open, Flexible and Distance Learning: Education and Training in the 21st Century. Thirteenth Biennial Forum of Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia. (pp 354-369). Launceston, Tasmania: Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia.
Oliver, R., Omari, A. and Ring, J. (1998). Connecting and engaging learners with the WWW. In Black, B. and Stanley, N. (Eds), Teaching and Learning in Changing Times, 237-241. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1998. Perth: UWA. [HREF22]
Papert, S. (1993). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. Basic Books, New York.
Pennell, R., Durham, M., Ozog, C. & Spark, A. (1997). Writing in context: situated learning on the Web. [HREF23]
Phillips, R. (1998). Models of learning appropriate to educational applications of information technology. In Black, B. and Stanley, N. (Eds), Teaching and Learning in Changing Times, 264-268. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Teaching and Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1998. Perth: UWA. [HREF24]
Radloff, P. (1998). Do we treat time and space seriously enough in teaching and learning? In Black, B. and Stanley, N. (Eds.), Teaching and learning in changing times. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1998. Perth: UWA. [HREF25]
Radloff, P. (1999). If we have to situate learning for students to remember anything, won't that change our universities beyond recognition? In K. Martin, N. Stanley and N. Davison (Eds), Teaching in the Disciplines/ Learning in Context, 332-336. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1999. Perth: UWA. http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/asu/pubs/tlf/tlf99/ns/radloff.html
Reeves, T. C. (1996). Evaluating What Really Matters in Computer-Based Education. [HREF26]
Reeves, T. C. (1997). Established and emerging evaluation paradigms for instructional design. In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms(pp. 163-178). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). The Effective Dimensions of Interactive Learning on the WWW. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web Based Instruction (pp. 59-66). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Educational Technology.
Savery, J.R., and T.M. Duffy. (1995). "Problem-Based Learning: An Instructional Model and Its Constructivist Framework." Educational Technology 35, 5: 31-35.
Spender,D (1998). ‘Global Directions and Developments in Learning Technologies’ IARTV Seminar Series, December 1998, No.80.
Tapscott,D (1998). ‘The Net Generation’ [HREF27]
Tan, J. and Goh, J. (1999). Assessing cross-cultural variations in student study approaches - an ethnographic approach. In K. Martin, N. Stanley and N. Davison (Eds), Teaching in the Disciplines/ Learning in Context, 409-416. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1999. Perth: UWA. [HREF28]
Tripp, S.D. (1993). Theories, traditions, and situated learning. Educational Technology, 33 (3), 71-77
Wilson, B. & Lowry, M. (2000). Constructivist learning on the Web. For inclusion in Liz Burge (Ed.), Learning Technologies: Reflective and Strategic Thinking. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001. [HREF29]
Wineburg, S.S. (1989). Remembrance of theories past. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 7-10.
Wolfson, L. & Willinsky, J. (1998). What service learning can learn from situated learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 22-31
HREF1
http://www.stmichaels.vic.edu.au
HREF2
HREF3
http://icdl.uncg.edu/ft/090199-01.html
HREF4
http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/ilt/papers/berry1.html
HREF5
http://www.astc.org/resource/educator/situat.htm
HREF6
http://www.swin.edu.au/aare/99pap/cor99287.htm
HREF7
http://www.deetya.gov.au/highered/eippubs.htm
HREF8
http://www.austcolled.com.au/members/articles/dillet
HREF9
http://ascilite95.unimelb.edu.au/SMTU/ASCILITE95/abstracts/Eklund2.html.
HREF10
http://glca.org/global.partners/new.models.shtml
HREF11
http://www.hendrix.edu/guide/internsh.htm
HREF12
http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/aace/download/site/HTML1997/11-NM.HTM.
HREF13
http://www.cowan.edu.au/lrn_sys/educres/article1.html.
HREF14
http://www.dfee.gov.uk/heqe/wbl3.htm
HREF15
http://www.csd.uwa.edu.au/newsletter/issue0898/learning.html
HREF16
http://www.curtin.edu.au/conference/ascilite97/papers/Jensen/Jensen.html
HREF17
http://cad017.gcal.ac.uk/clti/papers/TMPaper11.html
HREF18
http://walkerr.edfac.usyd.edu.au/henresite/apwww/apwww-paper-.html.
HREF19
http://ics.soe.umich.edu/~djscott/loring.html
HREF20
http://www.curtin.edu.au/conference/ascilite97/papers/Mcmahon/Mcmahon.html
HREF21
http://www.obs-europa.de/ops/english/books/nn/bd40396.htm.
HREF22
http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/asu/pubs/tlf/tlf98/oliver.html
HREF23
http://edtech.nepean.uws.edu.au/ascilite97/
HREF24
http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/asu/pubs/tlf/tlf98/phillips.html
HREF25
http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/asu/pubs/tlf/tlf98/radloff-p.html
HREF26
http://www.oltc.edu.au/cp/refs/reeves.html.
HREF27
http://mff.org/edtech/article.taf
HREF28
http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/asu/pubs/tlf/tlf99/tz/tan.html
HREF29
http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~brent_wilson/WebLearning.html
[ Proceedings ]