Chapter 6 Practical Tools to Help Faculty Use Learner-Centered Approaches
Skip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information)
: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Please contact [email protected] to use this work in a way not covered by the license.
For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy.
Instructors often resist dramatic changes in their teaching, and learner-centered approaches are not intuitive for most instructors. They need tools to help them adopt these approaches. This chapter describes four tools—1) a list of components of Weimer’s five practices of learner-centered teaching, 2) reflection questions to prepare instructors to determine the learner-centered status of their courses, 3) self-assessment rubrics, and 4) a Planning for Transformation form—to help instructors change their teaching. Taken together, these tools form a comprehensive system with which to plan for change. This system encourages and assists instructors to make incremental changes toward using learner-centered approaches in their teaching.
Although instructors complain that their students cannot apply what they have previously learned and are unable to learn on their own, they may not associate how they teach with these consequences. Traditionally, instructors have focused on what they do nd not on what their students are learning. This emphasis on instructors often results in passive learning on the part of students. Educators call this traditional method instructor-centered teaching. In contrast, learner-centered teaching occurs when instructors focus on student learning. Learner-centered teaching, which is increasingly encouraged in higher education, emphasizes a variety of methods that shift the role of the instructor from giver of information to facilitator of student learning and creator of an environment in which learning can take place. When the focus is shifted to student learning, student retention improves and graduates are better prepared than those students who were more traditionally educated (Matlin, 2002; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002).
A survey of 494 North American faculty developers identified “promoting learner-centered teaching” as the most important issue they need to address in their work (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006). Currently, most of these faculty developers offer assistance to their instructors in using learner-centered teaching (Sorcinelli et al., 2006). Faculty developers are changing the focus from how teachers instruct in the classroom to what the students are learning. Such a change in approach requires changes in how we help instructors teach and assess students (Fink, 2003; Gardiner, 1994). Given these issues, faculty developers are seeking guidance on how to help instructors transform their teaching to be more learner-centered.
The purpose of this chapter is to offer faculty developers some explicit tools for encouraging instructors to embrace more learner-centered approaches. First, I review the research supporting learner-centered teaching, discuss why faculty members resist its implementation, and show how such resistance can be overcome. Next, I offer four tools to help instructors implement learner-centered teaching. The chapter shows how to
Give instructors concrete components of learner-centered teaching to bring the abstract concepts into focus.
Organize these components into continua from instructor-centered to learner-centered, using self-assessment rubrics; this helps instructors identify the status of their courses.
Use questions comparing ideal situations with their realities to help instructors visualize alternatives to what they currently do.
Use additional questions that can help instructors plan the incremental changes they wish to make.
Finally, I describe a comprehensive system for change that faculty developers can use to help instructors transform courses, incorporating these four tools.
Why Should Instructors Use Learner-Centered Approaches?
Strong research evidence exists to support the implementation of learner-centered approaches instead of instructor-centered approaches. However, most instructors, especially those outside of psychology and education, do not know this literature. Informing faculty of this evidence helps them understand why they should incorporate more learner-centered approaches. This knowledge also helps them defend their teaching methods to their students and more traditional faculty peers.
A task force of the American Psychological Association integrated the research into fourteen Learner-Centered Psychological Principles, which can be summarized through the following five domains (Alexander & Murphy, 2000; Lambert & McCombs, 2000).
The knowledge base. The conclusive result of decades of research on building a knowledge base is that what a person already knows largely determines what new information he attends to, how he organizes and represents new information, how he filters new experiences, and even what he determines to be important or relevant (Alexander & Murphy, 2000). Therefore, learner-centered instructors will consider what their students already know and help their students assimilate new information in relation to what they have previously learned. In some cases, the learner-centered instructors have to explicitly show how the students’ previous knowledge is incorrect or faulty.
Strategic processing and executive control. The ability to reflect on and regulate one’s thoughts and behaviors is an essential aspect of learning. Successful students are actively involved in their own learning, monitor their thinking, think about their learning, and assume responsibility for their own learning (Lambert & McCombs, 2000). This domain has several important learner-centered implications. First, learner-centered instructors use activities that ask students to reflect on and monitor their learning. Second, although students prefer it when their instructors assume responsibility for their learning by providing lecture notes or detailed study guides, this practice does not benefit the students in the long run. Learner-centered instructors help students learn how to take responsibility for their own learning.
Motivation and affect. The benefits of learner-centered education include increased motivation for learning and greater satisfaction with school; both outcomes lead to greater achievement Johnson, 1991; Maxwell, 1998; Slavin, 1990). Research shows that personal involvement, intrinsic motivation, personal commitment, confidence in one’s abilities to succeed, and a perception of control over learning lead to more learning and higher achievement in school (Alexander & Murphy, 2000). Learner-centered approaches increase student engagement through active participation. Learner-centered instructors motivate their students to be intrinsically motivated to learn instead of being driven by grades; they help their students perceive that they have control over their own learning.
Development and individual differences. Individuals progress through various common stages of development, influenced by both inherited and environmental factors. Depending on the context or task, changes in how people think, believe, or behave are dependent on a combination of one’s inherited abilities, stages of development, individual differences, capabilities, experiences, and environmental conditions (Alexander & Murphy, 2000). Learner-centered instructors use different teaching and learning activities and approaches to accommodate individual differences and capabilities.
Situation or context. Theories of learning that highlight the roles of active engagement and social interaction in the students’ own construction of knowledge (Bruner, 1966; Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Piaget, 1963; Vygotsky, 1978) strongly support this learner-centered paradigm. Learning is a social process. Many environmental factors, including how the instructor teaches and how actively engaged the student is in the learning process, positively or negatively influence how much and what students learn (Lambert & McCombs, 2000). In comparison studies between students in lecture and active learning courses, there are significantly more learning gains in the active learning courses (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Active learning is a critical component of all learner-centered approaches. Learner-centered instructors routinely use activities where the students interact with each other, such as in small groups, while actively engaging with the content to be learned.
The swift growth in the number of institutions of higher learning using the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is evidence of the widespread acceptance of learner-centered teaching (Ewell, 2001). Results from 972 colleges and universities surveying more than 844,000 students led the NSSE researchers to develop five benchmarks of effective educational practices, including level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, meaningful student-faculty interactions, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environment (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2005). All these benchmarks are consistent with the fourteen learner-centered principles developed by the task force of the American Psychological Association (Alexander & Murphy, 2000; Lambert & McCombs, 2000) and the learner-centered practices I described earlier with each domain.
Learner-centered teaching is also consistent with the current accreditation process for institutions of higher education and for professional programs. The assessments of student learning outcomes are fundamental to this process, in that the regional and professional program accrediting bodies use learning outcomes to judge the quality of these programs. Accrediting agencies concentrate on student learning that transcends disciplines such as the development of problem solving and information literacy skills (Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2003). Learner-centered approaches also focus on the students’ developing these skills and learning how to learn for the present and the future. Learner-centered instructors explicitly help students develop these skills and assess students on their mastery of them.
Why Do Instructors Resist Changing to Learner-Centered Teaching?
Teaching that uses learner-centered practices requires the development of new skills and attitudes (Sorcinelli et al., 2006). My experience as a faculty developer shows that many instructors are confused about how to transform their instructor-centered teaching to be more learner-centered. For example, some faculty members believe that they only can implement such practices in small classes. Others feel that using learner-centered approaches Would negatively influence the content and rigor of their courses because the students would spend time on active learning activities while reducing or dumbing down the content (Blumberg & Everett, 2005). For some instructors, their teaching is so unlike what we describe as learner-centered that they do not know how to make incremental steps.
When I first started to educate instructors about learner-centered teaching, I drew either-Or comparisons between instructor-centered and learner-centered approaches. Instructors were unable to accept such a stark contrast between the learner-centered and instructor-centered approaches. Just listing learner-centered approaches may not suggest ways to change our teaching. For example, a key concept in learner-centered teaching is that students assume responsibility for their own learning (Weimer, 2002). Most instructors already believe that students should assume responsibility for their own learning but may not know how to help students do so. Instructors need concrete and incremental ways, not just theoretical constructs, to implement learner-centered approaches.
The choice of terminology can help or hinder instructor acceptance of learner-centered teaching. People choose different phrases for this approach. “Learner-centered teaching” places the emphasis on the person who is doing the learning (Weimer, 2002). “Learning-centered teaching” focuses on the process of learning. Both phrases appeal to faculty because they identify the critical role of teaching in the learning process. The phrase “student-centered learning” is also used in the literature, but some instructors do not like it because it suggests a consumer focus, seems to encourage students to be more empowered, and appears to remove the teacher from the critical role.
How Can Faculty Developers Help Instructors Implement Learner-Centered Teaching?
Educating instructors about what learner-centered teaching is can be helpful (Blumberg, 2004). Giving instructors the educational and psychological research foundation on which learner-centered approaches rest helps them understand why they should adopt it. Instructors also like teaching models and examples. Once instructors learn that courses can be learner-centered without sacrificing content and rigor, they are more likely to begin to accept these approaches. They also like hearing that there are many different ways to implement learner-centered teaching. Weimer’s (2002) model of learner-centered teaching appeals to many instructors.
Weimer (2002) identifies five ways instructors need to change to achieve learner-centered teaching. These five areas are the 1) functions of content, 2) role of the instructor, 3) responsibility for learning, 4) processes and purposes of assessment, and 5) balance of power. This approach to learner-centered teaching focuses on how the students are learning and the conditions that facilitate or hinder learning.
Brief definitions such as the following overview of these learner-centered approaches in each of Weimer’s five areas might motivate instructors to learn more about these practices.
The functions of content in learner-centered teaching include building a strong knowledge foundation and developing an understanding of why and how the content should be learned and used in the future.
The role of the instructor should focus on student learning and should be facilitative rather than didactic.
The responsibility for learning shifts from the instructor to the students. The instructor creates learning environments that motivate students to accept responsibility for learning.
The processes and purposes of assessment shift from only assigning grades to include constructive feedback and assistance with improvement. Learner-centered teaching uses assessment as a part of the learning process.
The balance of power shifts so that the instructor shares some decisions about the course with the students, such that the instructor and the students collaborate on course policies and procedures.
Are There Tools to Help Instructors Transition to Learner-Centered Teaching?
Four helpful tools are described next.
1. A List of Specific Instructor Behaviors
Although Weimer’s (2002) model appeals to faculty, it does not provide concrete ways for instructors to implement the changes that they need to make (Wright, 2006). Because the practices are broad, abstract categories, they do not define specific learner-centered instructor behaviors at a sufficient level of detail for many instructors. Therefore, I decided to further define specific components of each practice.
Discussions with faculty developers, instructional designers, instructors, and administrators over four years led to the development of specific components of these practices. A total of over 250 faculty developers and instructors, who were in many different disciplines and who taught at all levels in higher education, offered feedback and validation. This cycle of seeking feedback and making corrections on the components validated the components and gave me confidence that the specific items transcend disciplines and different types of courses. Appendix A lists the components of each practice area.
2. Rubrics to Assess the Transition
Although Weimer’s (2002) five components acquainted instructors with the specific aspects of each practice, they still did not give enough direction to help instructors transform their teaching. Therefore, I introduced these components, identifying incremental steps between instructor-centered and learner-centered teaching. Incremental steps allow instructors to make changes gradually over time, as they make a transition from instructor-centered to learner-centered teaching. The incremental approach I use describes two levels of transitioning between instructor-centered and learner-centered teaching for each component of each of the five practices. This approach makes the transformation process more manageable.
For example, here are the incremental steps between the learner centered and instructor-centered approaches on a component in the Function of Content practice area, which describes the level to which students are engaged in the content. The instructor’s expectations and student assessment strategies determine the level to which students engage in the content. In an instructor-centered approach, the instructor requires the students to memorize content, such as formulas or dates in history, without it necessarily having any meaning, and recall them on a test. In the lower level of transitioning, the instructor provides the content so that the students can actively learn it, perhaps by providing them with questions to which the answers come directly from the textbook or the lectures. In the higher level of transitioning, the instructor provides activities that help students transform some content to make their own meaning. For example, the instructor might ask the students to develop a chart or graph to summarize some material in the text. Finally, with a learner-centered approach, the instructor expects the students to develop associations between what they read or heard in class and their own lives or real-world phenomena, thus forming their own meaning of the content. When students engage in content at this level, they are more likely to remember it and be able to use it later.
Next, I organized the incremental steps into rubrics. Rubrics provide concrete, incremental steps between levels. I found using rubrics to be a very effective way for instructors to see how to make incremental changes. Instructors often are familiar with rubrics as an objective and effective way to grade student assignments. Therefore, I did not have to introduce a new concept to them. Instead of assessing student performance, rubrics can be used to evaluate the status of a course on the continuum from instructor-centered to learner-centered for the five learner-centered practices, and instructors can see incremental steps in the transformation process. Because each rubric lists several different components or methods, this tool shows various ways instructors can change their teaching. Among the components, different courses may be at varying points in their transition to learner-centered teaching. Moreover, I emphasize that instructors should not expect their courses ever to be at the highest standard in all categories with every component.
I constructed these rubrics based on Weimer’s (2002) five practice areas, using the following rules:
Develop a separate rubric for each of her five practices. With separate rubrics for each practice, instructors can focus on one practice without having to consider changing their teaching in another practice area.
Each horizontal row of items is a separate or independent component of each practice area. The components of each of the five practices help to identify specific examples of how teachers can transition to more learner-centered practices.
Each step of the rubrics explains what instructors can do to make their courses more learner-centered; the instructor’s perspective should be the focus throughout.
Appendix A displays part of the rubric for one component from each of the five practice areas. The complete set of rubrics can be found at Blumberg (2008) or on the Web at www.usp.edu/learningmodules/lct.htm.
3. Reflection Questions to Answer Before Completing the Rubrics
As some instructors have trouble determining the learner-centered to instructor-centered status of their courses, I developed reflection questions to answer before using the rubrics. These questions ask instructors to think about ideal ways that each practice can be implemented, then to compare the ideal implementation with what they do now as a way to begin to think about the current status of their course and future changes to it.
4. A Planning for Transformation Form
This form helps instructors plan the components of all aspects of an anticipated change. Instructors record the current status of their course on the component they wish to transform; they plan what changes they want to make, as well as the projected learner-centered status once they make these changes. They address the tactical planning considerations given in Appendix B. Once instructors complete this Planning for Transformation form, they are ready to begin making changes to their courses.
Why Do These Tools Appeal to Instructors?
Gradual changes in teaching are more palatable to instructors than radical restructuring. By seeing their teaching along a continuum, instructors do not have to totally reject their current teaching methods. The levels of transitioning help them identify the status of a course and guide instructors to make the transition gradually. Incremental steps can be easy and practical to achieve, yet they can be transformative in their effect on a course.
Once instructors identify the current status of their courses, they may aim for the next level of transitioning within a specific component as a way to transform their teaching. Transforming one’s total teaching may take several years, whereas moving from one level to the next on a specific component within a practice area in a single course may be a realistic short-term goal. Although each rubric describes four incremental levels from an instructor-centered to a learner-centered course, instructors do not need to make the transition using every level. They can skip one or more transitioning levels on a component and change the course to be learner-centered in one step.
How Can Faculty Developers Use These Tools?
These tools, taken together, form a comprehensive system for transforming courses. Faculty developers can use this system in ongoing interactions with faculty, such as in faculty learning communities, or they can begin the process in workshops and then give the instructors the rest of the tools to use on their own. I find that the following steps promote transformation to learner-centered teaching:
Educate instructors about learner-centered teaching. Help them understand why learner-centered teaching leads to superior student learning and retention, compared with approaches that are more traditional.
Help instructors decide that they want to make a change in their teaching approach by showcasing and discussing practical examples and supporting them to be courageous. This step can be emotionally difficult for instructors because it requires desire to change and trust that the changes will improve their teaching.
Educate instructors about the tools and how they can use them.
Ask instructors to choose a course they wish to modify. I recommend that instructors choose one that meets most of these criteria:
They have taught the course at least three times and expect to continue teaching it on a regular basis.
They are comfortable with the course content and enjoy teaching it.
The course is not in their own research area because they may be too close to the material to allow the course to become learner-centered.
They feel that they can improve the course so that students learn more or achieve better outcomes.
Ask instructors to complete the reflection questions comparing the ideal situation with their practices to prepare to assess the learner-centered status of their course.
Ask instructors to assess the learner-centered status of their course using the rubrics, reminding them that not all courses should be entirely learner-centered.
Ask instructors to select a few components they wish to transform. Instructors should choose components based on the type of course, the level of the students, personal insights, feedback from students, faculty peers, political considerations, or climate for change. The components can come from one practice area or from different practice areas.
Assist instructors to complete the Planning for Transformation (see Appendix B) form only for those components that they are considering changing. The instructors should complete a separate form for each component they might change. This form appears simple but actually requires much thought, and instructors might need to review it a few times.
Ask instructors to review their proposed changes to plan the next steps. Instructors might consider such questions as these: Can they be achieved together as a group? How practical are they to do at once? Should one be implemented before the others? Instructors might want to start with a few easy-to-implement changes as they plan for changes that are more comprehensive.
Assist instructors to secure the resources they will need. Ask them to begin planning how much time they need to make these changes.
Support instructors as they begin to make changes. This can be a scary process.
Encourage instructors to collect assessment data on their transformed courses.
Encourage instructors to conduct scholarship of teaching and learning on these courses. Encourage them to present their scholarship at relevant conferences, as well as in published form.
Conclusion
Weimer (2002) describes an approach to learner-centered teaching that includes five different practice areas. Although this model appeals to faculty, instructors may have difficulty knowing how to transform their own teaching to be more learner-centered because it does not offer pragmatic suggestions. If broad practice areas are divided into specific, concrete components, instructors can get an idea of different ways that such an approach can be implemented. An incremental approach, such as one given in rubrics, helps instructors begin to see where they can make changes. Faculty developers can use these components, rubrics, and associated tools to help instructors begin the transformation process. Using a comprehensive system for incremental change, instructors can transform their teaching to be more learner-centered.
Appendix A
The Components of Learner-Centered Teaching by Practice Area
Two tables are given for each of the five practice areas. The first table for each practice area lists the components and the learner-centered approach for each component. The second table for each practice area shows the rubric with two transitional levels between the learner-centered and the instructor-centered approaches for one component. The selected component is starred on the table listing the components.
| Specific components of this practice | Employs a learner-centered approach for this component |
|---|---|
| In addition to building a knowledge base, instructor uses all four bulleted subcriteria of the varied uses of content listed in the left column. |
| Instructor encourages students to transform and reflect on most of the content to make their own meaning out of it. |
| Instructor provides and uses organizing schemes to help students learn content. |
| Instructor frames and organizes content so students can learn additional content that is not taught. |
| Component 2. Level to which students are engaged in content | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Employs learner-centered approaches | Transitioning to learner-centered approaches | Employs instructor-centered approaches | |
| Higher level of transitioning | Lower level of transitioning | ||
| Instructor encourages students to transform and reflect on most of the content to make their own meaning out of it. | Instructor assists students to transform and reflect on some of content to make their own meaning out of some of it. | Instructor provides content so students can actively learn material as it is given to them without transforming or reflecting on it. | Instructor allows students to memorize content. |
| Specific components of this practice | Employs learner-centered approach for this component |
|---|---|
| Instructor creates a learning environment by using both bulleted subcriteria listed in the left column. |
| Instructor explicitly, coherently, and consistently aligns objectives, teaching/learning methods, and assessment. |
| Instructor uses various teaching/ learning methods that are appropriate for student learning goals |
| Instructor routinely uses activities in which students actively interact with material, instructor, and each other. |
| Instructor articulates SMART objectives in the course syllabus and refers regularly to them throughout the course. |
| Instructor inspires and encourages students to become intrinsically motivated to learn. |
| Component 3. Use of teaching/learning methods appropriate for student learning goals | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Employs learner-centered approaches | Transitioning to learner-centered approaches | Employs instructor centered approaches | |
| Higher level of transitioning | Lower level of transitioning | ||
| Instructor uses various teaching/ learning methods that are appropriate for student learning goals. | Instructor uses some teaching/ learning methods that are appropriate for student learning goals. | Instructor uses teaching/learning methods
| Instructor
|
| Component of this practice | Employs a learner-centered approach for this component |
|---|---|
| Instructor provides increasing opportunities for students to assume responsibility for their own learning, leading to achievement of stated learning objectives. |
| Instructor facilitates students’ development of various and appropriate skills for further learning. |
| Instructor helps students become
|
| Instructor motivates students to routinely and appropriately assess their own learning. |
| Instructor encourages students to become proficient at self-assessment. |
| Instructor helps students become proficient in all five information literacy skills. |
| Component 4. Students’ self-assessment of their learning Transitioning | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Employs learner-centered approaches | Transitioning to learner-centered approaches | Employs instructor-centered approaches | |
| Higher level of transitioning | Lower level of transitioning | ||
| Instructor motivates students to routinely and appropriately assess their own learning. | Instructor sometimes provides direction to help students assess their own learning. | Instructor does not direct students to assess their own learning. | Instructor
|
| Component of this practice | Employs a learner-centered approach for this component |
|---|---|
| Instructor mostly integrates assessment within the learning process. |
| Consistently throughout the learning process instructor integrates
|
| Instructor encourages students to use peer and self-assessments routinely. |
| Instructor offers students many opportunities to learn from their mistakes and then demonstrate mastery. |
| Instructor encourages students to justify their answers when they do not agree with those of instructor. |
| Instructor and students
|
| Instructor uses authentic assessment throughout the course. |
| Component 2. Formative assessment (giving feedback to foster improvement) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Employs learner-centered approaches | Transitioning to learner-centered approaches | Employs instructor-centered approaches | |
| Higher level of transitioning | Lower level of transitioning | ||
Consistently throughout the learning process instructor integrates
| Instructor gives students some constructive feedback following assessments. | Instructor
| Instructor
|
| Component of this practice | Employs a learner-centered approach for this component |
|---|---|
| Instructor
|
| Instructor encourages students to express alternative perspectives when appropriate. |
| Instructor uses mastery or contract grading to determine what grade students will earn. |
| If appropriate, instructor routinely uses
|
| Instructor is flexible on most course policies, assessment methods, learning methods, and deadlines. Instructor always adheres to what students agreed upon. |
| Instructor helps students
|
| Component 3. Determination of how students earn grades | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Employs learner-centered approaches | Transitioning to learner-centered approaches | Employs instructor-centered approaches | |
| Higher Level of transitioning | Lower Level of transitioning | ||
| Instructor uses mastery or contract grading to determine what grade students will earn. | Instructor allows students to resubmit assignments for regrading. | Instructor allows students to drop one assessment but provides no alternative opportunities for them to demonstrate mastery. | All performance and assignments count toward students’ grades. |
Appendix B
The Planning for Transformation Form
What do you need to do or decide prior to making changes?
Identify obstacles or challenges that need to be overcome.
Identify strategies for overcoming obstacles.
Identify necessary resources.
How can you get students to accept this change?
Consider future outcomes of the change, such as its impact on other aspects of the course.
Consider possible future changes.
References
- Alexander, P., & Murphy, P. (2000). The research base for APA’s learner-centered psychological principles. In N. Lambert & B. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 25–60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Association of College and Research Libraries. (2004). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Retrieved October 5, 2004, from www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.htm
- Blumberg, P. (2004). Beginning journey toward a culture of learning centered teaching. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 68–80.
- Blumberg, P. (2008). Developing learner-centered teaching: A practical guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Blumberg, P., & Everett, J. (2005). Achieving a campus consensus on learning-centered teaching: Process and outcomes. In S. Chadwick-Blossey & D. R. Robertson (Eds.), To improve the academy: Vol. 23. Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 191–210). Bolton, MA: Anker.
- Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Ewell, P. (2001). Editorial: Listening up. Change, 33(3), 4.
- Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Gardiner, L. F. (1994). Redesigning higher education: Producing dramatic gains in student learning. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
- Johnson, W. D. (1991). Student-student interaction: The neglected variable in education. Educational Research, 10(l), 5–10.
- Kafai, Y., & Resnick, L. M. (1996). Constructionism in practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Lambert, N., & McCombs, B. (2000). Introduction: Learner-centered schools and classrooms as a direction for school reform. In N. Lambert & B. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 1–15). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Matlin, M. W. (2002). Cognitive psychology and college-level pedagogy: Two siblings that rarely communicate. In D. F. Halpern & M. D. Hakel (Eds.), Applying the science of learning to university teaching and beyond (pp. 87–103). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Maxwell, W. E. (1998, Fall). Supplemental instruction, learning communities and students studying together. Community College Review. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from www.findarticles.com
- Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2003). Student learning assessment. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from www.msche.org/publications/SLABook07070925104757.pdf
- National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Exploring different dimensions of student engagement. Retrieved November 17, 2005, from http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/NSSE2005_annual_report.pdf
- Piaget, J. (1963). Origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton.
- Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning theory, research and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
- Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Leaming from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.
- Springer, L., Stanne, M., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (health sciences): A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.
- Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). The theory of successful intelligence as a basis for instruction and assessment in higher education. In D. F. Halpern & M. D. Hakel (Eds.), Aplying the science of learning to university teaching and beyond (pp. 45–54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Wright, R. (2006). Walking the walk: Review of learner-centered teaching, by Maryellen Weimer. Life Sciences Education, 5(311), 312.
