Abstract
Authentic learning in online education is feasible with intentional instructional strategies and appropriate educational technologies, yet as a learning approach, barriers to implementation still exist. We argue that authentic learning in online education can be successfully supported when the characteristics of authentic learning are (a) intentionally applied and (b) supported through research-based tools that facilitate the learning process seamlessly for students. To address this challenge, we developed a research-based online application that supports authentic learning. In this article, the theoretical foundations and empirical support for the tool are described, along with critical design decisions that support suggested characteristics of authentic activities. The authors overview formative research conducted during a four-year development process. Several case studies conducted at research-intensive universities are provided to describe how student motivation, metacognition, and strategic behaviors were facilitated through the tool and to encourage readers to apply similar research-based strategies in their own authentic learning contexts
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker, M. (1994). A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 5(2), 199–254.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unraveling basic components and dimensions. (Advances in learning and instruction series, pp. 55–68). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241.
Berger, R., Rugen, L., & Woodfin, L. (2014). Leaders of their own learning: Transforming schools through student-engaged assessment. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Conley, D. T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Creating systems of assessment for deeper learning. Stanford: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Ed.
Crisp, E., & Bonk, C. J. (2018). Defining the learner feedback experience. TechTrends, 62(6), 585–593.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta- analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.
Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: the importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1103–1113.
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 2–18.
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring the peer assessment process: a multilevel approach for the impact on product improvement and peer feedback quality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 435–449.
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007.
Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). New York: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Hattie, J. & Yates, G. (2014). Using feedback to promote learning. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.). Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 45-58). Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/Resources/Documents/ebooks/asle2014.pdf
Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2008). What is an authentic learning environment? In L. Tomei (Ed.), Online and distance learning: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 68–77). Hershey: IGI Global.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.
Herrington, J., & Parker, J. (2013). Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 607–615.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02960280.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York: Routledge Retrieved from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/1903/.
Herrington, J., Parker, J., & Boase-Jelinek, D. (2014). Connected authentic learning: reflection and intentional learning. Australian Journal of Education, 58(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944113517830.
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.74800.
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., et al. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142.
Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: in search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 35(3), 207–256.
Kirschner, P., Beers, P., Boshuizen, H., & Gijselaers, W. (2008). Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 403–420.
Lave, J. (1977). Cognitive consequences of traditional apprenticeship training in Africa. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 7, 177–180.
Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67–94). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Roman, T. & Callison, M. (2014). The art of online critique. Learning and Leading with Technology, 41(6), 10–15.
Light, P., & Blaye, A. (1990). Computer-based learning: The social dimensions. In H. C. Foot, M. J. Morgan, & R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 205–218). Chichester: Wiley.
Lokey-Vega, A., Williamson, J., & Bondeson, K. (2018). A lesson structure and an instructional design model for project-based online learning. Journal of Online Learning Research, 4(3), 327–345.
Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x.
Olina, Z., & Sullivan, H. (2002). Effects of classroom evaluation strategies on student achieve- ment and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 61–75.
Ozogul, G., Olina, Z., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Teacher, self & peer evaluation of lesson plans written by preservice teachers. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(2), 181–201.
Paré, D. E., & Joordens, S. (2008). Peering into large lectures: examining peer and expert mark agreement using peerScholar, an online peer assessment tool. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 526–540.
Parker, J., Maor, D., & Herrington, J. (2013). Authentic online learning: aligning learner needs, pedagogy and technology. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 227–241.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In T. Herrington (Ed.) Research and Development in higher education: Quality conversations Vol. 25 (pp. 562–567). Hammondville, NSW, Australia: HERDSA. Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/system/files/Reeves_0.pdf
Robinson, R., Molenda, M., & Rezabek, L. (2008). Facilitating learning. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 15–48). New York: Routledge.
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67–94). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sadauskas, J., Tinapple, D., Olson, L. & Atkinson, R. (2013). CritViz: A network peer critique structure for large classrooms. In J. Herrington, A. Couros, & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2013 (pp. 1437–45). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Schunn, C., Godley, A., & DeMartino, S. (2016). The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(1), 13–23.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.
Sloan, C. C. (2017). Types of feedback in peer review and the effect on student motivation writing quality (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (10281143).
Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1999). Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer- and co-assessment. Learning Environment Research, 1, 293–319.
Sluijsmans, D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 443–454.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.
Tsai, C.-C., Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, S. M. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system. Computers and Education, 38, 241–252.
van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2006). Educational design research. London, England: Routledge.
van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279.
Wind, D. K., Jørgensen, R. M., & Hansen, S. L. (2018). Peer feedback with Peergrade. In E. Ivala (Ed.), 13th international conference on e-learning (p. 184). Sonning Common, England: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49–64). New York: Routledge.
Funding
Funding for the software development of the tool was provided by the following entities: a university start-up competition, a regional business pre-accelerator competition, a grant from a University Research and Technology Corporation, a grant match from a private corporation to the University Research and Technology Corporation, and a small regional business award from the state.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
The intent of the project described in this manuscript was to evaluate a specific technology software tool and to only provide information for and about that specific program in question. Pilot evaluations concentrated on improvements to the software tool. The subsequent aim of the article is to suggest potentially effective educational strategies and tools based on existing research, as opposed to developing or contributing to generalizable knowledge; the purpose is to share the process inherent in building a software tool, rather than the outcomes or implications of the project.
Informed Consent
For the procedures performed that involved human participants, informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
Author A and Author B are co-founders of the tool program and have joint ownership of its intellectual property. Author A and B receive no monetary profit from the tool; all funding received is directed to the tool’s development. Authors C and D are project team members in the tool’s development. Author C assists in the user experience and programming of the tool and Author D leads the visual identity and user interface design.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roman, T.A., Callison, M., Myers, R.D. et al. Facilitating Authentic Learning Experiences in Distance Education: Embedding Research-Based Practices into an Online Peer Feedback Tool. TechTrends 64, 591–605 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00496-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00496-2