Problem definition

2.2.1 Dichotomies in current educational research and educational practice On a conceptual level a distinction can be made between the acquisition and the participation metaphor (Sfard, 1998). In the acquisition metaphor, knowledge is considered as a commodity that can be acquired, applied, transferred and shared with others. The participation metaphor characterises learning as becoming a member of a professional community. Another dichotomy has on the one hand encapsulated, school learning and on the other hand, open learning approaches, such as, situated learning and legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006) identify the traditional cognitivist paradigm in which curricula are subject matter oriented, versus competence based learning based on situated cognition in (electronic) learning environments that more or less mimic real world contexts. They also describe a dichotomy concerning the amount of instructional guidance offered to students. On one end of this distinction there is direct instructional guidance, which claims that learning is most successful when it is as explicit, direct and highly scaffolded as possible. On the other side is the minimal guidance in approaches which foster learning by challenging students to solve “authentic” problems or acquire complex knowledge in information-rich settings based. In these approaches, learners are encouraged to take charge of one's own learning, while they are suitably supported and scaffolded (Kirschner et al., 2006; Kuhn, 2007). This last dichotomy will be the focus of the studies reported here.

Chapter 2 | 27

Complementary to the above dichotomies, we introduced a dichotomy with respect to the specificity of a design of a learning environment, namely, a dichotomy with on one end 'specified' and on the other end 'open'. Specified elements are directive and recipe-style: the ingredients and the steps that need to be taken to deliver the intended result are made explicit. Open elements are more emergent in nature. The quality of the intended result will be usually be known, while the learners will need to jointly decide on the ingredients and the steps to take. This dichotomy is related to the guidance dichotomy, but fits better in a design perspective. Designs of learning environments can be specified by educators or they can be less specified in advance and left open. The open elements of a design will gradually be fleshed out in the course of joint interaction during learning activities.

2.2.2 Operational framework

A learning environment consists of the physical setting in which learners carry out their work, including all the tools, documents and other artifacts to be found in that setting. Besides this physical setting, it also includes the social/cultural setting for such work (Goodyear, 2001). Therefore, we identified as designable elements of learning environments, the physical spaces in which learning activities take place and the tools, documents and other artifacts that play a role in the activities. We also identified the learning activities that are planned and organised. The learning activities that are planned and organised are named 'events'.

To overcome the duality inherently related to dichotomies, Simons (1999) suggests to look for dimensions and degrees instead of dichotomies. Following this suggestion, the distinction between specified and open can be positioned on either side of a dimension. The resulting operational framework consists of designable elements as described in the curriculum documents and/or material (Van den Akker, 1999), which we defined as spaces, artifacts and events. These three kinds of elements can be positioned on a dimension, ranging from specified elements to open elements.

2.2.3 Research questions

The above operational framework was used to characterise the designs of three project-based learning environments in current higher education. The following research questions were formulated:

§ How can we characterise the designs of learning environments in current higher education, consisting of spaces, artifacts and events, on a scale with on the one end 'specified' and on the other end 'open'.

§ What problems can be identified when a learning environment is carried out?

Chapter 2 | 28

2.3.1 Case studies

To answer the research questions we carried out three in-depth case studies. The strength of the case study method is its ability to examine, in-depth, a “case” within its “real-life” context (Yin, 2005). This method was selected to study the designs of project-based learning environments within their real-life contexts.

The case studies were carried out in three different educational contexts. In each context, one learning environment has been studied. The three learning

environments were situated in one educational institute. The educational institute is a Dutch University of Applied Sciences and consists of six independent faculties. To select suitable cases, in each context, preliminary meetings were held with

coordinators of the learning environments. During these meetings the learning environments were discussed. Two selection criteria were checked: whether the learning environment was project-based and the prospective active involvement.

The decisive criterion was whether the learning environment was project-based, involving learners working collaboratively on actual (or simulated) real-life problems (Tynjälä et al., 2003). This criterion was met by the selected cases. In the first case, learners worked on patient cases based on cases from real patients. In the second case learners worked on the design and development of websites for real, external clients. In the third case, learners worked on project from real, external clients in the domain of urban area development. For the second criterion, it was confirmed that the participants, especially the involved educators, should potentially be willing to be actively involved in educational research from a design perspective for a prolonged period of time. The following three case studies were selected [see table 2]

1. Faculty of Health care: Physiotherapy, Nursing and Speech therapy, in collaboration with an accelerated, four-year medical program of an Academic teaching hospital (Case-1).

2. Faculty of Communication and Journalism: Digital communication (Case-2).

3. Faculty of Natural Sciences and Technology, Institute for the Built Environment.

This context was open to students from other faculties and educational institutes (Case-3).

Chapter 2 | 29