Toward an Understanding of Authentic Learning: Student Perceptions of an Authentic Classroom

Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2000

Toward an Understanding of Authentic Learning: StudentPerceptions of an Authentic Classroom

Molly Nicaise,1 Terresa Gibney,2,4 and Michael Crane3

Advocates of educational reform often describe classroom instruction as inauthentic. Thatis, most classroom learning activities are structured around artificial contexts for learning,and students only engage in tasks and remember information at superficial levels. Someteachers are attempting to break traditional classroom practices by creating authentic contextsfor learning. To date, most of the research on authentic classrooms has described the processesteachers have used to develop the classroom environment (learning activities, resources,etc.); however, few have examined authentic classrooms from the students’ perspective:‘‘What do students think about authentic classrooms?’’ The purpose of this qualitative studywas to examine a unique learning environment at a large, Midwest high school to understandhow students perceived that environment. Most of the students reported a positive experienceand described the classroom as fun and exciting with real-world relevance. However, therewere several students who did not share these views, and many students were not successful.

KEY WORDS: Authentic learning; education reform; high school science; instructional practices; stu-dent experiences.

INTRODUCTION

Education is what’s left over when you subtractwhat you’ve forgotten from what you’ve learned.

—Anonymous

Because many schools are structured in waysthat hinder learning, most of what is learned inschools is soon forgotten. Because subjects are di-vided into specialty areas, such as reading, writing,mathematics, or science (which are further subdi-vided into teachable, daily or weekly units), studentsare discouraged from integrating or understandingconcepts (Lave, 1988). Also, pedagogy is primarilyadult-centered where teachers and administrators de-fine learning objectives and methods (Resnick, 1987).Thus, in traditional classrooms, students are not ac-

1Santa Barbara City College Santa Barbara, California.2Western Washington University Bellingham, Washington.3University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri.4To whom correspondence should be addressed: 516 High Street,MS 9087 Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washing-ton 98225. e-mail: [email protected]

79

1059-0145/00/0300-0079$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

tive agents in the learning process, and they do notlearn to design their own experiments or explore andtest hypotheses born of their own interest, goals, orcuriosity (Kozma et al., 1993). Instead, students be-come over-reliant on form and imposed structureand do not learn to self-regulate. Furthermore, mostclassroom activities often do not provide studentswith essential contextual features that enable stu-dents to understand and apply information (Chi etal., 1981; Schmidt, 1993). According to Bruner (1962),schooling devotes too much attention to learningwhat is already known, where not enough time isdevoted to finding out the unknown. In their book,Engines for Education, Schank and Cleary (1995)summarize problems associated with the way learningexperiences are structured:

The current educational system is constructedaround the goals of educators first and students sec-ond. Educators want students to know the Pythagor-ean theorem. So they create a math class and exposestudents to it. Educators want students to be familiarwith Shakespeare. So they create an English classand expose students to him. This method of teaching

80 Nicaise, Gibney, and Crane

is the basis of the entire subject-matter organizationof schools. Students go to one room for an hour tohear about math. Then they go to another room tohear about English. However, they rarely go to aroom organized around some task they care aboutand then get help with math or English as they needsuch help to progress with the task. Instead of start-ing with the things students care about, today’s sub-ject-centered system is oriented around the thingseducators care about, the things the system wantsstudents to learn. Given that starting point, it is diffi-cult to get students to care in a productive way aboutthe content the system intends to convey. Sure, wecan hold the threat of grades and tests over students’heads. These threats will cause many students towant to ‘‘master’’ the material for the test. But suchmastery will not last long. . . . Because studentshave not thought about it in terms of how it helpsthem solve some problem they face in the real world,it will be difficult for them to access it when they doface such a problem. (p. 12)

By identifying problems associated with the waylearning experiences are structured, researchers andeducators may begin to identify potential solutions.One important trend in education is pursuing theconcept of teaching for understanding by facilitatingauthentic learning (Perkins and Blythe, 1994). Au-thentic learning implies several elements, includingthe idea that learning evolves around authentictasks—real-world problems and simulations that areclosely related to the field under study. Several re-searchers are beginning to show that processes oflearning and genuine understanding occurs when stu-dents are given problems and situations that simulateand represent genuine complexity (Brown et al., 1989;Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt,1993; Collins et al., 1988; Lave, 1988; Resnick, 1987).Authentic tasks are believed to help students to be-come aware of the relevancy and meaningfulness ofwhat they are learning because the tasks mirror real-life experiences. This, purportedly, helps students toimplement knowledge in genuine ways, ways thatpracticing professionals implement knowledge andskill (Newmann, 1991; Perkins, 1986).

Along with authentic tasks, in authentic class-rooms students help decide what should be learned,the curriculum moves from one that is extrinsicallyimposed to one that is intrinsically driven, and theprimary vehicle for learning is through inquiry anddiscovery. Thus, an authentic task may be the founda-tion of the curriculum; however, the task should beflexible enough to allow students to pursue personallyrelevant goals. By posing problems of emerging rele-vance to learners and recognizing a need for studentindependence, learning becomes a process that is reg-

ulated internally by students and not externally byfalse reinforcers, such as grades or points (Bruner,1962; Newmann, 1995; Schank and Cleary, 1995).Furthermore, when learning is presented as a processof discovery around an authentic task, students arethought to develop problem-solving skills and confi-dence in their own learning abilities (Bruner, 1966;Helgeson, 1992; Schank, 1992).

Along with discovery learning around authentictasks, debate and discourse are important in learningbecause social interactions guide and promote stu-dent thinking (Brown, 1992; Johnson and Johnson,1989; Vygotsky, 1978; Wiburg and Carter, 1994). Dis-course is thought to help students to constructhypotheses and test them against what they believeto be true, and debate helps students to view knowl-edge and information from multiple perspectives.Conceptual growth comes when students and teach-ers share different viewpoints, new perspectives, andexperiences (Chi et al., 1989). When peers or adultsdiscuss with students their discoveries, hypotheses, orbeliefs, students are challenged, provided alternativeviews, or are given new information. This helps stu-dents to reconceptualize their understanding, reflecton their thinking, or encourages students to seek outadditional explanations (Chi and Van Lehn, 1991).

Finally, in authentic classrooms, the roles ofteachers change. Teachers discontinue being infor-mation providers, tightly sequencers of information,and test-creators; instead, they adopt the roles ofguides, scaffolders, and problem or task presenters.This is not to say teachers become withholders ofinformation. Instead, teachers continue to providestudents with information—the difference is that stu-dents determine the time and sequence in which in-formation is given; teachers provide individuals,small, or large-groups of students with information,skills, or strategies when students demand and are inneed of knowing. Also, the role of the teacher in-cludes creating environments where students are en-couraged to think and explore. Accordingly, teachersprovide students with information-rich environments(CD ROM databases, reference materials, video andmusic libraries, and computers with Internet access)and create authentic tasks that provide students withreasons and rationales for learning.

Authentic Learning in Practice

Given the appeal of authentic learning, somehave adopted and have described implementing con-

Student Perceptions 81

cepts important for authentic learning with school-age students. Stepien and Gallagher (1993) describeda classroom where seventh- and eighth-grade stu-dents learned the process of scientific thinking byworking collaboratively with the Illinois NuclearRegulatory Commission. Together, the commissionand students worked towards identifying appropriateways to dispose of thorium waste. Doane (1993) de-scribed a classroom in Chicago where middle schoolstudents learned and practiced research skills by de-signing and conducting their own research based onworld problems and potential solutions. Studentsworked collaboratively with mentors and communityorganizations and developed plans to help solve localissues like feeding the homeless. In another class-room, science students in Massachusetts were askedto apply and evaluate different scientific perspectivesregarding global warming (Perkins and Blythe, 1994;Unger, 1994). For part of the activity, students inves-tigated and evaluated the president’s environmentalprotection plan. Then, students debated this issue:global warming would have debilitative influence ona country’s economy, social status, or environment.Once students supported their position with research,they presented their positions to a teacher who role-played the president. Several hundred high schoolstudents participated in a unique project-based sci-ence, history, and socio-political experience calledThe Illinois River Project (Williams et al., 1993). Stu-dents in Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, andIndiana worked collected and shared data about thewater quality of the Mississippi and lower Illinoisrivers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the IllinoisEnvironmental Protection Agency, and the U.S.Geological Survey then used student reports andfindings. Also, students at one high school were com-missioned to investigate and make remedial recom-mendations regarding a fish kill in an area pond,and several other groups of student scientists weresuccessful in lobbying for the clean up of creeks,local streams, and rivers. Even more of the studentscientists presented at conferences, at local schoolboards, at community service functions, and at majorassociation meetings. Fourth, fifth, and sixth gradestudents and their teachers in Kentucky spent sixweeks creating a proposal for a new bridge that wasto span for the Ohio River—a community issue beingdiscussed in the media (Salisbury, 1995). The studentarchitects, mentored by a local architect, conductedcommunity surveys, performed background researchon the history of bridges, used geometry simulationsoftware to review the structure of the existing bridge,

and collected data regarding the numbers and typesof vehicles that would be using the bridge. Originallya study of geometric shapes, the lesson ended upincorporating statistics, charting, social studies, phys-ics, language arts, and technology. At the culminatingevent, a group of students submitted a report to thecity council.

In these examples of authentic learning in prac-tice, a complex activity provided students with vari-ous levels of control, hands-on experience, and vari-ous degrees of real-world applications of the contentunder study. However, most of the literature on au-thentic learning to date is purely descriptive; most ofthe research on authentic classrooms has describedprocesses teachers have used to develop the class-room environment, learning activities, resources, orthe assessment procedures. Newmann (1996) evendescribe a series of standards that can be used toevaluate the ‘‘authenticness’’ of classroom assess-ment, tasks, instruction, and student performance.At best, these articles offer minimal insight regardingthe benefits of or limitations to classrooms whereconcepts important for authentic learning are beingimplemented. Typically, written descriptions are pos-itive and include enthusiastic endorsements from stu-dents, parents, and teachers. Although these reportsand descriptions are important, research that at-tempts to understand the influence authentic learningenvironments have on school-age students needs tobe accomplished. Given all that educators and re-searchers have said, what do students think aboutauthentic classrooms? What do they think about thelearning activities? What do they think about theteacher’s role in the classroom? What do they thinkit takes to be successful in an authentic learning envi-ronment? Why do they think some students succeedwhere others fail?

Purpose of the Study

Naturally, students are not familiar with the liter-ature on authentic learning, and they are the recipi-ents of alternative pedagogy. In response to this, thepurpose of this qualitative study was to examine aunique, three-course environment at a large, Midwesthigh school to understand how students perceivedthat environment. The voice of the student is impor-tant in educational research and reform. Of course,students have insight regarding alternative forms ofpedagogy because they are closest to the field. Thekey is in realizing that listening to students, empow-


ering students to speak out, is worthwhile and neces-sary, and several researchers have enlisted the viewsof students (see Cooper and McIntyre, 1996; Harriset al., 1996; Nicholls and Thorkildsen, 1989; Soohoo,1991; Whitty et al., 1996; or Youniss and Yates, 1997).Without the student perspective, structuring alterna-tive learning environments to meet the needs of stu-dents will undoubtedly fall short. Their perspectivescould and should help to transform teaching. Stu-dents, better than anyone else, should be able toprovide open and honest opinions, judgments, andsuggestions about the strengths, as well as, the limita-tions of alternative classrooms.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The Setting and Facilitators

The study environment was comprised of threeseparate, but interrelated elective courses: Principlesof Engineering, Aerospace, and Advanced Aero-space. Each course met daily for 50 minutes. All threecourses had a common purpose—to teach high schoolstudents aerospace science and engineering by situat-ing learning around an authentic task, a weeklongmock space shuttle mission. From August throughMarch, students acquired aerospace and engineeringskills by working towards the mock mission. For ex-ample, in the principles of engineering course stu-dents learned electrical mechanics by physicallybuilding an orbiter to the shuttle. Students in twoaerospace courses used the orbiter to learn how tonetwork computers for data management. In thespring, the curriculum culminated around aweeklong, mock space shuttle mission.

During the week-long simulation, students im-plemented skills and knowledge acquired throughoutthe year by role-playing positions common to spaceshuttle missions: space station commander, commu-nications expert, medical or science officer, shuttlepilot, or one of the roles in mission control. Typically,there were among 5–12 student astronauts on thespace station at any single moment and 12–15 stu-dents in mission control. During the mission, studentsrole-played an assigned position for several hours oreven days. Many of the students participated in thesimulation for at least two days, and students rotatedor exchanged roles with other students. Some stu-dents, however, had no participation in the simula-tion. Participation in the simulation was contingenton the amount of homework completed. The

weeklong simulation was broadcast to the communitythrough a local cable access channel. Problem solvingplayed an important role in the mission where stu-dents were presented with activities called SOBEs(Simulated On-Board Emergencies). Some problemswere life-threatening: ‘‘Space Station Freedom, thisis mission control. You are on a direct collision coursewith an ESA satellite. There are 12 minutes to impact.Over.’’ Along with on-the-spot problem solving, stu-dents conducted individual experiments and pro-vided ‘‘educational lessons,’’ via cable television, tolocal Elementary school children. The actual class-room was situated in a warehouse behind the school,and during the mission, several students lived, dayand night, in a 52-foot craft (space station) that wasdivided into a bridge, bio-cube, and habitat (seeFig. 1).

Two high school teachers managed and facili-tated the learning environment. The primary instruc-tor was a Caucasian male and had a master’s degree intechnology education, and the other was a Caucasianfemale and had a master’s degree in language arts. Thelanguage arts teacher played a lesser role; her task wasto develop and integrate writing and public speakingactivities into the curriculum. The instructionalmethod used in the classroom followed an apprentice-ship model: initially, the primary instructor taught stu-dents through direct instruction and modeling; as stu-dent background knowledge increased, studentsimplemented fledgling knowledge and skill in the con-text of genuine activity. When students engaged inprojects, the instructor’s role became that of a mentor;guiding students as they conceptualized problems andattempted to accomplish tasks in situ.

Along with two classroom teachers, three men-tors from the community donated significant amountsof personal time to the three-course environment.Each of these individuals worked with small groups ofstudents on special projects; not all of the students inthe study worked with mentors. Working with a men-tor was based on student interest and the topic of stu-dent projects. One mentor, a biological research spe-cialist, helped a small group of interested students onthe procedures of designing, conducting, and analyz-ing research experiments; she helped students designindividual experiments in the Fall of theacademic yearand assisted them when students carried out their re-search during the mock space shuttle simulation. An-other mentor assisted a small group of students whowere interested in learning about networking comput-ers and digital communications systems. He helpedstudents dismantle mainframe computers and reas-


Fig. 1. Top-off view of classroom.

semble usable parts into a communications system forthe space station and mission control. Another mentorhelped students to design an on-craft heating and cool-ing system/control panel.

Research Design

A qualitative research design involving multipledata collection and case study procedures was usedin this study. Classroom observations, informal inter-views, and document/artifact analysis were used toshape our understanding of the classroom environ-ment. In effect, we used the data to answer the globalquestion ‘‘What is this environment all about? Fromthis initial understanding, more specific questionswere generated and were addressed via formal inter-views with a select sampling of student participants.A grounded theory framework was used to synthesizeindividual, student experiences of the classroom intoholistic interpretations of it (Merriam, 1988; Noblitand Hare, 1988; Rossman, 1993). One goal of thestudy was to move from an assumed and theoreticalview of what authentic learning means and looks liketo a more empirically driven, first-hand account ofstudents’ perceptions of authentic learning.

At the beginning of the study, the first and sec-ond authors spent several weeks visiting, observing,and partaking in special events in the study environ-

ment. During this period, the authors familiarizedthemselves with the classroom protocol, interactedwith students from a non-research stance, and con-ducted general observations. This lped to establishthe researchers as natural participants in the class-room. Data were collected over an entire curricularyear, and the investigation began with two basic ques-tions: ‘‘What is this classroom environment all about?and What do students think about this classroom?’’The innovative program or authentic instructionalmodel used across three separate classrooms repre-sented the case or single unit of analysis. We realizethat dealing with three separate classrooms may sig-nal the existence of more than one case; however,the bounded system was represented by a single in-structional model, common educational objectives(to hold a mock space shuttle simulation) commonlearning materials, and the same instructors teachingin the same classroom.

Study Participants

All 59 study participants were enrolled at a large,Midwest high school with a total student populationof about 1,800. The high school students were en-rolled in one of the three elective courses that com-prised the study environment; 90% were male, 22%were sophomores, 35% juniors, and 43% seniors.


Only 12% of the students were ethnic minorities, wellbelow the school average. Each study participant wasbetween 16–18 years old, and the students compriseda mix of college-bound and vocational-bound stu-dents. Along with observing and holding informalconversations with all 59 students, a group of studentswere selected for in-depth interviews at the end ofthe academic year. Nonprobability sampling methodswere used to select students for the in-depth inter-views. Nonprobability sampling is used to solve quali-tative problems; it involves selecting a sample thatwill assist investigators in learning or uncovering asmuch as possible (Merriam, 1988). To illustrate, 20students who would likely offer diverse views of thecourse were selected, including males vs. females,students who were continuing schooling with collegevs. those who were seeking employment immediatelyafter high school, and students who appeared to besuccessful vs. less successful. Of the twenty interview-ees, 17 were male, 17 were Caucasian, eight indicatedthat they were very successful, six indicated they weremoderately successful, and six indicated they weremoderately or very unsuccessful.

Data Collection and Analysis

Classroom observations, document collection,and informal or formal interviews were conductedover the course of the nine-month investigation bytwo female researchers, also authors of this paper.All three classrooms were observed during eachon-site visit. A total of 26 visits took place; 19 ofthese visits were conducted with two researcherspresent. Observational vantagepoints included themost active areas of the classroom and the leastactive areas of the classroom. Informal interviewsconsisted of general questions regarding studentactivities, actions, or conversations. Document col-lection included student work and classroom re-source materials. During the last two months ofthe investigation, formal interviews were conductedwith 20 students.

During the first seven months of the study, 59students were observed and informally interviewed.Observational data, informal interview notes, andclassroom documents were analyzed repeatedly dur-ing this time. Initially, the observations and informalconversations with students lead to the developmentof these questions: What is this three-course environ-ment all about? What transpires in a typical classperiod? How does it all work? A constant compara-tive method of analysis was used when collecting

and analyzing data. Constant comparative methodinvolves the development of categories, relationshipsamong categories, and working hypotheses; the datagradually and cyclically reveal emerging theories(Merriam, 1988). Fresh (currently held) data wereused to drive future observations and informal con-versations; this process remained cyclic throughoutthe first seven months. During this same period, a setof initial categories began to form, and the categoriesgrew as time progressed and analysis continued. Us-ing these categories, a set of formal questions weredevised and used to develop an interview guide. For-mal questions were pre-tested and revised (Sil-verman, 1993). Following the pre-tests and revisions,one outside researcher was trained in the administra-tion of the formal interview.

The formal interview questions, stemming fromthe yearlong observations and informal conversa-tions, were designed to help us understand: What, ifany, key activities influenced students? Do studentsthink this class is similar to or different from otherclasses or experiences they’ve had? Does this coursehave anything to do with mathematics or science?What sticks out in the students’ minds about themock mission? Who directs the course—teachers orstudents? How successful were students in this envi-ronment? Where any students more or less successfulin this environment and why? During the remainingtwo months, observation and informal interviewingof all 59 participants continued. Towards the end ofthe academic year, a nonprobability sample of 20students from the 59 original participants was se-lected. The first and second author, along with atrained outside researcher, administered the formalinterview to the 20 students.

In summary, the combined, final data set con-sisted of classroom observations, informal interviews,an examination of classroom materials, and responsesto the formal interviews. All data assisted in the devel-opment of a matrix used to classify and arrange thestudents’ perceptions, thoughts, and ideas. See TableI for a general idea of our matrix. Although some ofthe categories and questions in the matrix overlappednaturally, actual excerpts of student comments (fromformal and informal interviews) are provided belowto explain and rationalize the findings. Similarly, datafrom direct observations are included in the Discus-sion section to help elucidate our findings. Finally, be-cause we found the classroom experience to be radi-callydifferent forstudents, thefollowing section, titledFindings: Student Perceptions, deliberately presentsa diverse range of student thoughts and perceptionsabout the classroom (counter cases).


Table I. General Illustration of the Data Matrix

Student #01 02 03 04 05 06 etc.

What is this class/environment all about?● hands-on learning experiences • •

● real-world tasks •

● a mock space simulation •

● self-directed learning • • •

The differences between this course and other courses● teamwork •

● student-driven curriculum •

● freedom to pursue ideas •

● it was fun •

The similarities between this course and other courses● apathetic classmates •

● lecture •

● quizzes •

● boring at times • • •

Comments about the instructor● friendly •

● made learning fun • •

● the moderator •

● too busy● too lenient •

● forgetful • •

Reasons for success● self-motivated •

● interacted with people from the ‘‘outside’’ •

● enjoyed the project •

● enjoyed teamwork •

● found course challenging •

Reasons for failure● lacked background knowledge •

● lazy •

● lack of curiosity •

● disliked teamwork •

● needed more time to complete projects • • •

Suggestions for needed improvements:● more teamwork • •

● fewer people •

● more structure • •

FINDINGS: STUDENT PERCEPTIONS

We begin our presentation of the findings withdata that addresses this question: ‘‘What is this envi-ronment all about?’’ Throughout the following pre-sentation, we include portions of actual excerpts ob-tained from formal interviews, informal interviews,and observational notes compiled over the investiga-tion. Immediately following the presentation of ourfindings, we analyze and interpret the findings in theDiscussion section.

What Is this Environment all About?

A majority of students used one of four keyphrases to describe daily learning exercises and activi-ties in the study environment: (1) hands-on learning;(2) real-world tasks; (3) the classroom activitiesevolved around a mock space shuttle mission; and(4) the activities were student-selected. Each of theirphrases is elaborated in the following.

Almost all of the students (n 5 17) participatingin the formal interview and the majority of those


informally interviewed believed classroom projectsembraced hands-on learning (classroom projects in-cluded both all-class and individual projects like con-structing kites, designing balloon rockets with multi-ple stages, or building a robotics arm).

The whole class is hands-on so you get to see whateverything’s like. I myself like the upgrades [continu-ing to work on a project from a previous semesterby making it better] just because you’re involvedin everything that’s going on, and you know thatwhatever you do is going to play a big part in themission. . . . I had to build the seat for the orbiterbecause last year they just put everything togetherreal fast and it didn’t work out too great. This year,everyone had to find something that had to bechanged and go about the process of upgrading it.So we had to write a brief and draw out the plansfor a new seat and make sure it would fit. Then wehad to build it, and then we made it with a swiveland it reclines and plus we did bench seats in theback—it was really neat.

The ‘Star-Trek’ door is working now. [Participantname] explained all the details of working throughwhat the students from last year had done. Hesounded excited by all the progress he and his fellowclassmates had made. After describing all thechanges they made and how they finally were ableto get the door up and running we must have walkedthrough it fifteen times before he was satisfied thatI truly appreciated how hard they had worked.

Along with the key-phrase of hands-on leaning,more than half of the students used the term realworld to describe the study environment. Accordingto these students, the learning activities/projects mir-rored real-life activities. They felt that their projectsresembled projects of Aerospace engineers, and stu-dents felt classroom activities required them to inter-act and collaborate with others (peers, teachers, andoutside mentors) in a way that was comparable toreal-world collaboration.

[In this course] well basically it’s just problem solvingyou know, with real problems, not like problems youlearn in math, like Jimmy has two apples. Problemslike, how are we going to make doors like Star Trekdoors?. . . And one thing that I did, for the originalmission, was make a robot arm [to retrieve a sat-ellite].

It’s like real life—it shows us what the real worldis going to be like, and it gets us ready for industry.. . . You come in, and you figure out what the prob-lem is, and you figure out what you need to do tofix that problem. Then, you research about how youcan fix that problem to make it better. You takewhat you’ve researched and use the information tofix that problem.

The thing that sticks out in my mind about the mis-

sion was the involvement of not friends but associ-ates that I never knew really. It’s very stressful insuch a confined area. You really have to learn howto associate with people and if there’s someone youcan’t stand, you just have to say ‘Okay I need totake control of myself.’ And say ‘I need to stay awayfrom this person or I need to learn how to deal withit,’ and that’s what it is in real life. If you’re at a job,if you have a boss you don’t like, I have to learn todeal with this until I move on.

Several of the students said they were so inspiredby the real-worldness of the projects that they volun-teered or provided evidence suggesting that the activ-ities helped them to confirm their desire to pursuean Aerospace career:

Well, it’s given me a good experience. It’s taughtme basically what engineering is like, and that I wantto be an Aeronautical Engineer. Working on thesimulation has totally given me an idea of what itwill take to be a scientist and design different pro-jects . . . An Aeronautical Engineer basically, de-signs aircrafts, like military jets, commercial jets, andhelicopters. . . . In the future, they’ll [AeronauticalEngineers] be working on designing spacecraft thatwill be taking people to and from the space sta-tion Freedom.

[Student name] spent about 15 minutes telling meall about the Science Space Camp she attended thispast summer. She decided to attend the space campafter taking one of the aerospace courses last year.She said she was confident that, if it had not beenfor this class, she probably would have ‘‘wound upbeing a teacher or something like that.’’ She’s gladshe signed up for a second round of course experi-ences this year. She’s going to camp again this comingsummer and is excited about being the Commanderduring a portion of the mock shuttle simulation.

However, a couple of students actually changedtheir minds about pursuing Aerospace careers, andclose to half of the remaining students indicated thatmost classroom projects and activities were notclosely associated with real-world, Aerospace ac-tivity.

What I’m doing is the intercom right now, and so[another classmate] and I are learning how to puttogether the intercom system with our existingspeakers. And we’re trying to find out where all thewires are. . . So basically, we’re learning what ittakes to put this stuff together, which is not reallyrealistic to the real space program because they facetotally different problems.

One female in the environment resented the in-authentic nature of classroom projects because shespent too much of her time typing.


Basically, [teacher’s name] tells us, ‘‘Well, this iswhat you’re going to do,’’ and then he says ‘‘Go doit.’’ I have a lot of problems with that because Ididn’t come into the class with a lot of technologybackground. . . . A lot of people ended up doingthings they already knew how to do. . . . I was sup-posed to be in the control room and work on theserver, but I’m not very involved in computers—Idon’t know a lot about computers, it’s something I’dlike to learn a lot about, but it’s not something Ialready knew a lot about. [The problem was thatthere was] . . . no definite background informationgiven on any of this stuff, and so people end updoing what they already know how to do. So . . . Idid a lot of word-processing and typing, but that’snot why I took the class.

For almost all of the students (n 5 56), theydescribed the authentic learning experience as evolv-ing around the mock space shuttle simulation; thesimulation itself was seen as a key event or activityin the classroom.

Well, basically the mission is the crowning jewel ofthis class. Whether you know it or not, you build upto it all year. We spent about four or five months inadvance preparing for the mission, and it was justlike a seven-day thing. It took four months of practiceto do seven days. There’s a lot behind the scene thatthe camera doesn’t see that goes in before hand: wemade upgrades like the Star Trek doors that openwhen you walk up to them, the docking bay doors,and the orbiter. We did all kinds of stuff.

Although almost all of the students described themock space simulation as a seminal activity, duringformal and information conversations, most studentsappeared to be more excited when describing individ-ual or small-group projects that occurred prior to orafter the mock mission. Even though most of theirindividual or small-group projects were actually re-lated to the mission, students did not discuss thataspect of the project. The mission, from their view,was very distant from their involvement with individ-ual projects.

[In] fourth hour, we were working on this thing calleda hudsucker, and basically it’s a lave, and it collectsdust. It was really interesting because I really got tosee the engineering aspect; I really get to see howyou have to go through a brief [written specificationdocument] and a situation analysis . . . [The activity]gave me a really good idea about engineering.

Well, I thought working on the [robotics] arm wasreally fascinating for me. I don’t know, it was justbuilding something from scratch. I mean, we wentand bought the pieces of aluminum, we ordered themotors, we wired it all together, drilled the holes,and screwed it together and everything. It was justkind of neat.

Along with using the key phrases of hands-onlearning, real-world tasks, and a mock space shuttlesimulation to describe the study environment, a hand-ful of study participants described the majority oflearning activities to be independent, self-selected,and student-directed:

There’s a lot of freedom throughout the year tohave a lot of student input into what we do day today—what project we do and how we go about doingthem. [The teacher’s name] is just sort of there tomake sure we learn how to do it right and to makesure we’re not goofing off, we’re working, and if wehave a problem you know he’s there. I don’t thinkthere’s anything that he doesn’t know (laughs) asfar as engineering goes.

[In] the regular classes, you come in and sit downat your seat, and your teacher gives you work orwhat she expects from you. And in this class, it’smore like you’re independent; he just gives you whathe expects, and we do it our own way.

You get to choose. If you’re a teenager, you wantto choose what you’re going to do, you don’t wantadults holding you back. You want people to giveyou responsibility, and you want to prove to themthat you are responsible in what you say you’re goingto do. And that’s what this class does for you. [Teach-er’s name] doesn’t always tell you what you’re goingto do, and we fail sometimes because we are stillkids. But failing and learning makes us do a littlebetter each time, and better the next time.

In spite of these descriptions, an even largernumber of participants believed that the teacher di-rected and selected the projects in the study environ-ment. Some of these students felt that the teacherhad a hidden agenda, and students were to figure outwhat it was by devising projects to meet the teacher’spredetermined plan.

[Teacher’s name] put up a really long list of thingswe needed to work on in class. If we didn’t get todoing them, then he’d get mad. Mostly, we com-pleted them—like we put up fiber optics for thestars, and we hung the bay doors. Not everythingwas done just right, but it ended up looking OKAY[student’s emphasis].

We could develop our own projects, but you knewthat there was a right way and wrong way to dothings. [Teacher’s name] was careful to make sureyou were doing things the way that he wantedthem done.

You come in [to class], and he gives us what we needto do, and we go out and do it.

When I asked [Student name] what he was going towork on he laughed and said, ‘‘whatever [Teacher’sname] tells me to work on. It really doesn’t matterto me and I’m sure he knows what needs to be done.’’


Close to one half of all student participants, how-ever, described the environment by describing proj-ects as both teacher and student-directed:

[Teacher’s name] will bring up a topic, and he’llbasically say ‘‘what do you want to learn?’’ We didaerodynamics, and we could go through the bookor we could do white wings, or we could watch someinteresting videos, and do some more book stuff orwe could do kites. He wanted input from us becausehe didn’t want us to do something that we didn’twant to do.

Does this Experience Have Anything to Do withMath or Science?

Almost all of the students described the studyenvironment as having a strong relationship withother disciplines, including math, science, and lan-guage arts. They believed, overwhelmingly, thatlearning activities required them to integrate multiplecontents and skills, including language arts skills;however, only a small proportion of them were ableto articulate or describe precisely how other disci-plines were related to the study environment:

It [the course] involves math because, for example. . . I’m learning a new program that’s called A-TecControl and that requires you to do integers, and ituses calculus to do electronics. That’s a lot of math.It’s applied math too; it’s harder than just commer-cial problems because you actually have to set upthe mathematical model to solve it. It requires youto know everything you’ve learned in mathclass . . . It [the course] requires science because Ilike to think physics is applied mathematics, chemis-try is applied physics, and biology is applied chemis-try . . . [except he was unable to provide an examplehere]. Language Arts is probably the most important[skill] we need to use because we need to communi-cate what we are doing with other people . . . soit’s used a lot in this class.

[In that project] we had to use equations to figureout the lift and drag on the kites we built. You usethe skills you use in science to run experiments.Language Arts, you’re constantly writing and docu-menting everything that you do in here.

Successful vs. Less Successful Students

Overall, less than half of the students (n 5 18)in the study environment considered themselves un-successful. When asked why they were felt they wereunsuccessful, their reasons varied greatly. Many of

their explanations centered around personal attri-butes and characteristics, such as, lacking motivationand energy, lacking an interest in the field under study(Aerospace), or a preference for individual work overthat of group work.

I think that the biggest or one of the biggest factorsfor success in the course has to do with wanting towork in a group or team environment. I didn’t feellike always cooperating with others. I prefer to workmore on my own, and this wasn’t acceptable in here.I didn’t always have the free time to spend in theshop like the others. I had other plans and activitiesafter school, and I didn’t always want to devote 100%of my free time building stuff for the simulation.Like, the sim only lasted one week, and I didn’t seethe need to spend months in here working to make itsuccessful. Some people take this place too seriously.

I think I could have done better if I would havetried—if I would have put more effort into it. [Moresuccessful kids] were more interested. When I gotinto it [the mock mission], I was curious, but then Islacked off. I think I’m just a lazy person, and thisclass didn’t motivate me as much as I thought.

It was obvious that [student’s name] was put out bywhat [three students] were doing. When I ignoredthe behavior and sat down, [student’s name] feltobligated to explain that the other three studentsweren’t taking the class seriously and that they al-ways acted like that and that it ruins it for the stu-dents who were trying to learn something and dowell.

Ten of the 59 students attributed their unsuccess-fulness to the way the teacher conducted the courseand included words such as, too busy, forgetful,and inattentive:

Because there were so many students in the course,it was hard for [teacher’s name] to remember whatyou were doing. Sometimes [teacher’s name] wouldforget we had already talked about something andthat he had okayed my project, and then two dayslater he would change his mind. Sometimes this hap-pened to (other students) too.

In addition to identifying teacher or personalcharacteristics, many students attributed their unsuc-cessfulness to instructional or classroom variables,such as, lacking background information, unclearlearning goals, unclear assessment methods, limitedaccess to the teacher, or not having enough time tocomplete projects.

This class is only for a select group of people—especially people who come into the class with aSTRONG background in computers. That’s the keyto this class. Also, it’s pretty loose in here, and youhave to be good at knowing what you want to doand watching your own schedule and such. If you


think you’re moving a long at a pretty good pace,other students or even the teacher may criticize you.You never really know, like where you are in theclass . . . except when you finally get to meet withthe teacher.

I did not expect how hard it is to get [teacher’s name]because he is so busy because there’s twenty kidsdoing different projects, he’s a real busy person.

In contrast to the 18 students who consideredthemselves unsuccessful, the remaining students (n 541) considered themselves successful or moderatelysuccessful in the authentic learning environment.When asked why they were successful or moderatelysuccessful, their reasons included phrases like self-motivated, worked with professionals in the commu-nity, worked hard, enjoyed teamwork, and the proj-ects were challenging. According to the followingstudent, her success evolved over the course of theyear. She played a seminal role in the mock mission,and this appeared to contribute to her feelings ofsuccess.

I thought I was very successful in the mission itself,but in the time leading up to the mission—where itwas a lot of hammering nails which is something Ididn’t have very much experience at all in—I didn’tfeel that I did very good. A lot of the [other students]had to show me ‘‘You do this this way.’’ And it tookme a while to get used to that part of the classbecause it is a technology class. And I’m really gladthat I took this class because I think somewherealong the line, I’m going to need to know how todo that kind of stuff and it’s good and it’s wellrounded. It’s little things that you never know whenyou’re going to need them, and I’m just really gladI know them now. [at first] I was like, ‘‘Oh my whatam I doing here? This is not for me at all.’’

Is the Class Similar to or Differentfrom Other Classes?

Over the course of the study, an overwhelmingnumber of student reports (n 5 53), coupled withnotes regarding student activities, classroom prac-tices, and classroom resources, suggested there wasa substantial and mostly positive difference betweenthe authentic learning experience and other class-room experiences. When comparing the study envi-ronment with other courses, students used keyphrases, such as, lots of freedom, student controlled,there is greater responsibility in here, and this class-room was fun.

In regular classes, you come in and sit down at yourseat and your teacher gives you work or what she

expects from you. And in this class, it’s more likeyou’re independent. He just gives you what he ex-pects, and we do it our own way.

It’s a lot different because in this class you’re notreally a student because you veer away from being astudent. For awhile, you’re in the real world actuallyworking. You have to get out of the role of playinga student like in other classes. Like on tests, in otherclasses you memorize stuff and spit it out on thetest, and that’s all you remember. And in this class,it’s a lot of hands on. I mean, you’re really reallyworking on it and so you remember it a lot morebecause you’re actually using it instead of just com-ing in and being there and then just worrying abouttests and stuff.

It’s totally different just because most classes arelecture based. I mean, you don’t go into a lab andyou don’t just go out and start doing stuff. And wedon’t ve tests, and our grades are just based on oureffort and even our interests.

Some students, however, said the course wassimilar to other courses. They used phrases, such as,apathetic classmates, teacher was the information-giver, lectures, textbooks, quizzes, and boring attimes to describe the similarities the study environ-ment shared with other courses. Along with recogniz-ing similarities, a small portion of the entire partici-pant population said the authentic classroom wasinferior to more traditional courses.

He’s gone a little bit too far with the idea that thestudent should be the worker and we should makeit business-like. I don’t think high school should beabout jobs–that’s not what it’s about. It’s aboutlearning things, it’s not about preparing us preciselyto make the transition [to work] very very smoothly.I mean, yes that’s involved, but that’s not themain focus.

It’s a lot different than any other class that I’ve had.The lack of structure, and the whole idea that we’renot really going to force you to do anything it’s allup to you . . . and there doesn’t seem to be any setcurriculum, like daily homework and set of assign-ments that have to be pushed through by the endof the year. I think we need goals that are spelledout. You know, if he had said, ‘‘This is what we’reshooting for,’’ I think that would have made it clearerand would have made people interested and moti-vated. I just think it’s important to give people areason for what they’re about to do.

[Student’s name] talked to me about an Electronicscourse he took. He said the Electronics course wasbetter because even though they were able to doprojects and work with their hands a lot like thiscourse, the teacher had an idea of where they weregoing and what they should be doing and he didn’tlet other students ruin it for them. He expressed adesire to choose for himself, but he wanted to know


that the teacher would be there to support him inthe choices he made. He said that the authentic classwas a good class but that he didn’t think it was betterthan other hands-on courses he’d taken; he seemedto think it was worse based solely on the structureimposed by the teacher.

DISCUSSION: MAJOR FINDINGS ANDFUTURE IMPLICATIONS

Ten years ago Lauren Resnick’s (1987; 1989)research delineated several important differences be-tween real-life (meaningful) learning and schoollearning. Her research claimed that in their eagernessto fill students with knowledge, schools typically tryto short-circuit the natural learning process. Whenpeople learn naturally, they start by developing aninterest, and then they try things out and get hands-on experience. They establish their own learning ex-pectations, experience failures, and they ask ques-tions. Most schools are not built around these ideals(Schank and Cleary, 1995). Instead, classroom in-struction cuts to the chase and rushes to present an-swers to questions students have not yet asked. Ineffect, students are asked to make generalizationsabout experiences they have not yet had.

In the 10 years since her research, however, nu-merous teachers have begun to dedicate their talentstowards bridging the gap between in-school andmeaningful learning. The purpose of this study wasto investigate a three-course, and to attempt to de-scribe the learning environment from the students’point of view. The three-course environment was un-like typical classrooms; student learning was an-chored around a mock space shuttle mission, studentsselected their own projects, and learning appearedto be based on student inquiry and exploration. Thefollowing discusses major findings (and flaws) of thestudy and directs future researchers to importantissues.

At the time of the study, Caucasian males domi-nated the three courses. Although the researchersdeliberately approached all females and minoritiesin the study environment, and although the research-ers felt that students were candid and honest in theirappraisals of the classroom, generalizing the findingsfrom this study would be inappropriate. In spite ofthis limitation, we learned many things from the stu-dents. From our study, we learned what students per-ceived about their experience in a unique environ-ment. We gained insight into their view of the day-

to-day operations, their view of a seminal activity,their view of independent projects, and their view ofthe teacher and of their own successes and failures.Also, students told us how the experience comparedto or stood up against similar and dissimilar class-room, learning experiences. According to students inthis study, some of the shortcomings of schools, ashighlighted by Resnick’s research, have been cor-rected in this unusual learning environment, and yet,many remained.

In the study environment, student learning wasanchored around a mock space shuttle mission, andmost students described the classroom in this way.In spite of this complex and weeklong activity, moststudents viewed the actual simulation more as a theat-rical event as opposed to an opportunity for learning.When students did speak of the simulation in termsof a learning experience, they indicated it became anexperience where they learned how to interact withothers in a close-knit space or how they developedfriendships over the week. Overall, however, the sem-inal activity appeared to play a minor role from theperspectives of students.

Student ambivalence towards the mock missionmay be due, in part, to the fact that not all studentsparticipated in the activity. Prior to the mock mission,students indicated whether or not they would orwould not participate, and the two teachers made thefinal decision on who would participate. Most of thosewho did not participate elected not to participatebecause they could not afford to spend extendedamounts of time during that week in that one class-room (again, the mock mission ran for one schoolweek, 24 hours per day). However, there were severalstudents who wanted to participate, but they were notallowed because they had not completed classroomprojects. Moreover, we suspect that student ambiva-lence towards the mock mission may be due, in part,to a lack of student ownership over this activity; sev-eral students suggested it was the teacher’s idea thatthe culminating activity evolve around a mock spaceshuttle mission.

[The teacher’s name] is really involved . . . he’s re-ally interested in NASA and things like that. Hegets a lot of information from NASA . . . Whatreally amazes me, is like the carpet—the carpet andthe paint inside the ship is exactly what NASA uses,you know. He’ll try to get information like that justto get it so close to the real thing.

Perhaps in the desire to create authentic envi-ronments, some move too far afield from experiencesthat appeal to students. Cronin (1993) believes that


one of the biggest problems confronting the develop-ment of authentic learning models is the misguidedbelief that the experiences we provide students mustbe big or glamorous. Instead, Cronin (1993) believesthat providing low key experiences that directly con-nect to the lives of students would better suit students.In this line, future researchers may consider this ques-tion: How are student-selected culminating activitiesdifferent from teacher-created ones? Perhaps stu-dents in this study would have elected an entirelydifferent culminating activity and, therefore, wouldhave been more excited or motivated by the cap-stone activity.

In contrast to the mock mission, students re-ported a great deal of excitement and motivationwith individual or small group projects. Numerousstudents expressed significant interest and enthusi-asm towards individual projects, and students spokeoften of the fun and free-spirited nature of the class-room when discussing individual projects. One proj-ect that truly piqued student interest involved design-ing and then constructing a piece of machinery (dustcollector) for a local business. Also, specific projectsfor the mock space shuttle mission challenged andcaptivated many students—especially the building ofa robotic arm, networking the space shuttle, andbuilding internal doors for the space station. Not onlydid students enjoy working on individual or smallgroup projects, nobody seemed disturbed at the ideathat students were learning different skills and devel-oping different knowledge bases. Traditionally, cur-ricula are controlled by the list makers who want totell teachers what everyone should know (Schankand Cleary, 1995). Yet in the study environment,teachers and students were comfortable knowinggreat variety existed across learning experiences.Throughout the year, students worked on differentprojects, used different means to arrive at solutions,and used different resources. According to most ofthe students in the study, students were encouragedto pursue individual interests and set personal goals.In this way, learning activities were organized aroundtasks students cared about, and this is unusual. More-over, students presented a significant amount of pridein their projects and workmanship, and they oftendevoted hours after school working on projects, andthis too is unusual.

In spite of the general enthusiasm expressed to-wards individual or small group projects, studentsreported diverse opinions as to whether classroomprojects were authentic—represented normal anddaily practices of the Aerospace field. Many students

believed that what they were learning in the environ-ment mirrored real-life Aerospace activities and waslikely to apply to their adult lives. Some of the learn-ing activities in the environment were so realistic,that several confirmed or created ambitions to pursueAerospace careers. Affirmations such as these rarelyoccur in traditional classrooms (Resnick, 1987). Incontrast, several students believed that classroomprojects and activities were not closely associatedwith the field under study; these students felt theywere doing busy work (e.g., wiring speakers) or activi-ties that real aerospace scientists or engineers wouldnot pursue (e.g., hanging fiber optic cable to helpgive the illusion of stars). Moreover, students heldvaried perceptions regarding the degree to which stu-dents were allowed to select and direct the projects.Slightly over half of the students believed they aloneor in collaboration with the teacher selected and di-rected projects; the other half indicated that theteacher directed and selected all projects. Some ofthese students felt that the teacher had a hiddenagenda, and students were to figure out what it wasby devising projects to meet the teacher’s predeter-mined plan. It appeared that students, who held thisopinion, either had difficulty devising a project topicor had a project idea rejected by the teacher in favorof a teacher-selected topic. In some instances, projectideas proposed by students were not directly relatedto the mock mission, and therefore, were rejected.Similarly, some of the project ideas were so distantfrom the teachers’ (or mentors’) expertise, that theywere rejected as well.

The idea that classroom learning needs to beentirely situated around student interest or projectideas may be an idealistic notion, at least for now.In realistic classrooms, teachers can only monitorso many projects. Part of the problem in the studyenvironment was that access to the central teacherwas severely limited because the sheer number andvariety of student projects over extended him. Natu-rally, the three external mentors were able to allevi-ate some of this pressure, but not enough. Until stu-dent-to-teacher ratios improve and access to richresources become better, devising classroom learningaround the interests of all students may be unrealistic.

According to study participants, another ele-ment that distinguished this classroom from most oth-ers was the presence of external mentors. Throughoutthe study, student comments indicated an over-whelming degree of respect for these individuals. Thestudents were well aware that the mentors donatedsignificant amounts of personal time and energy to


the three-course environment. Additionally, ac-cording to students, the role of the mentor differedfrom the role of the teacher. Students expressed abelief that the mentors were fundamentally aware ofwhat it takes and means to be a scientist, engineer,computer programmer, or business professional.Most students considered teacher-approved orteacher-assigned projects to be ‘‘school work,’’whereas, projects suggested or encouraged by a men-tor were considered to be real-world and meaningfulwork, and this finding has been discussed by others(Glasgow, 1997; or Resnick, 1987). Obviously, therewas little tension regarding performance expectationsbetween mentors and students. Teachers, after all,are ultimately responsible for assigning studentsgrades, where mentors are not interested in gradingstudents. In this line, traditional school practices (inthis case, assigning grades) may have interfered withthe teacher’s goal to achieve and establish authenticlearning. In other words, it may be difficult for teach-ers to achieve a truly authentic learning environmentwhen letter grades are used to evaluate students,and future research may help to clarify the influencegrades have on establishing authentic learning envi-ronments. Likewise, it was fortunate that the centralteacher in this study was able to recruit external men-tors. It is probably unrealistic to expect that all teach-ers would have similar success in finding committedand dedicated individuals. Therefore, future re-searchers need to thoughtfully examine and identifysupport systems that will help teachers to create,manage, and sustain authentic learning in their class-rooms (Nicaise and Barnes, 1996).

In spite of the gains and accomplishments madein this environment, students in the study indicatedmany problems. In authentic classrooms, students aregiven more ownership over what is to be learned,and students are required to integrate multiple con-tents and multiple skills holistically. Students whoentered the environment with content knowledge inengineering and aeronautics were very successful.When students lacked sufficient background knowl-edge or skill, they felt less successful, and many ofthem struggled in the environment. According tothese students, they needed access to resources(teachers, text, videos, Internet sites) so that theycould build their background knowledge. Some re-sources were available, but they were limited andstudents did not know how or when to use them.

Similarly, in authentic classrooms, students areexpected to make the leap from passive to activelearning. One role of students in authentic classrooms

is to follow their own interests, select project ideas,and monitor their own learning. For some students,these activities come easily, but for some in the studyenvironment, selecting a project idea and self-moni-toring their work (including recognizing when theyneeded assistance) was arduous—especially for stu-dents who were habituated to passively listening tolecture and taking multiple-choice tests. The tasksand activities in the study environment required morethinking (and effort) on their part. Consequently, inauthentic learning environments, many students mayrequire additional support in developing self-regula-tion, especially with respect to generating their owngoals and developing skills to obtain them. Students,who were uncomfortable or unfamiliar with estab-lishing individual learning goals, could have been bet-ter supported through well-planned discussions andactivities where students carefully articulated theirgoals and project ideas with teachers, mentors, andpeers.

While the lesser successful students in the studyaccepted personal responsibility for part of their fail-ing (e.g., citing factors such as a lack of interest ormotivation), they, together with successful students,suggested ways to improve the classroom: increasingteamwork (where students could mentor each other),increasing access to more shop tools (e.g., hammersand tape), decreasing class size, and increasing accessto the teacher. They also desired clearer learningobjectives and pre-established assessment methods.In other words, students were suggesting elementsthat should be standard teaching practices in anyclassroom. The lesser successful students went on tosuggest that future students be paired with peers whoexcelled at self-directed learning. In this environ-ment, students paired with others based on priorfriendships or on common project ideas. Some stu-dents worked alone because they didn’t know anyonein the class or because it was difficult for them toarticulate or select a project topic. Thus, research onhow students manage their own learning needs to beaddressed, especially in authentic learning situations.Once students become habituated to active learning,this issue may fade; Bruner (1962) suggested thatpractice in inquiry is what is needed. Learners mustbe given an opportunity to improve their art andtechnique of inquiry. Without prolonged, repeatedpractice, learners will never be able to generalizetheir exercises in problem solving and efforts of dis-covery into a style that will serve any future task orexperience encountered.

Not only do students need access to rich re-


sources and assistance with self-directed learning,when students find themselves in alternative courses,some may need assistance in adjusting to the new roleof the teacher. Students who had the most difficulty inthis environment desired the teacher to establishclear and precise learning objectives, they wanteddefinitive due dates for assignments, and they wantedtraditional classroom tests. In their view, teachershave the role of leading students through sequencedobjectives and then administering hands-on andexperiential learning activities. For the most part,students who struggled in this environment viewedthe role of the teacher as a knowledge disseminator.These students appeared to worry about how wellthey were doing, about passing the next quiz, andabout needing to please the teacher. Future researchneeds to continue to delineate variables that contrib-ute to student success or faile in these types of class-rooms. Students who were more successful in thisenvironment made the adjustment to a new teacherrole much more easily, these students seemed to excelat independent learning, and they appreciated theefforts of their teacher.

Right now I think I know more about micropals than[teacher’s name]. I think that’s a perfect example—you explore on your own, and you end up knowingmore than the teacher even though the teacher isthe one who started you off on this field.

[Teacher’s name] is a great teacher. He’s so outgoing,and he makes you feel like you can do it. It’s [not]like going back to kindergarten where your teacher[tells] you, ‘‘We’re going to paint this sky; we’regoing to paint it blue and we’re going to paint thesun yellow.’’ [Instead] [teacher’s name] gives youcrayons and says, ‘‘Okay color whatever you want.’’So we have people that are coloring it purple andthe sun green, but he’s like, ‘‘Wow that’s great, that’snew, that’s invigorating.’’

I think [teacher’s name] is a great teacher. He’s doinga good thing here; he’s a wonderful person, and heknows what he’s talking about. He has somethingto teach to everybody. So, it doesn’t matter whatage you are, he’ll listen to you and he used a lot ofthe information from everybody to put this thing[simulation] together. It doesn’t matter if you’remale or female. Whoever you are, everyone has in-sight.

IN CLOSING: WHERE DO WE GOFROM HERE?

In closing, it will be important for future re-searchers to thoroughly examine alternative learning

environments. In the realm of authentic learning, sev-eral important questions remain unanswered. Whatmakes a task an authentic task for some and not forothers? How are student-selected culminating activi-ties different from teacher-created ones? Why aresome students successful in authentic classroomswhere others are not? What types of performancesupport systems do teachers and students need tosucceed in authentic learning environments? Howdo successful students manage their own learningin authentic classrooms? How can teachers managemultiple student goals, interests, and projects simulta-neously? Do authentic learning classrooms help stu-dents to transfer learning to novel and real-worldsituations? Is authentic learning cost effective andbetter than traditional forms of instruction, such as,direct lecturing or expository teaching? Clearly, thesequestions could occupy years of research. As moreteachers implement alternative instructional strate-gies around authentic tasks, we may begin to decipherand explain if or how these classrooms providegreater insight into student knowledge organization,understanding, and transfer. The expectation is thatalternative pedagogy will progress beyond the deliv-erance of discrete pieces of knowledge and assiststudents in transferring classroom learning to out-of-school activities. With future study and implementa-tion, these hoped-for expectations may be realized.

REFERENCES

Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and method-ological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(2): 1–37.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognitionand the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1),32–42.

Bruner, J. (1962). On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand. HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction, Harvard Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., and Glaser, R.(1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use exam-ples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science 13:145–182.

Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., and Glaser, R. (1981). Categorizationand representation of physics problems by experts and nov-ices. Cognitive Science 5: 121–152.

Chi, M. T., and Van Lehn, K. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences 1: 69–105.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993). Anchoredinstruction and science education. In Duschl, R., and Hamil-ton, R. (Eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychologyand Educational Theory and Practice, SUNY Press, NewYork.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., and Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitiveapprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, andmathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, Learning


and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 453–494.

Cooper, P., and McIntyre, D. (1996). The importance of power-sharing in classroom learning. In Hughes, M. (Ed.), Teachingand Learning in Changing Times, Blackwell Publishers, Cam-bridge, Massachusetts, pp. 88–107.

Cronin, J. F. (1993). Four misconceptions about authentic learning.Educational Leadership 50(7): 78–80.

Doane, C. (1993). Global issues in 6th grade? Yes! EducationalLeadership 50(7): 19–21.

Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind: How Children Thinkand How Schools Should Teach, Basic Books, New York,New York.

Glasgow, N. A. (1997). New Curriculum for New Times: A Guideto Student-Centered Problem-Based Learning. Corwin Press,Thousand Oaks, California.

Harris, S., Rudduck, J., and Wallace, G. (1996). Political Contextsand school careers. In Hughes, M. (Ed.), Teaching and Learn-ing in Changing Times, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge,Massachusetts, pp. 32–50.

Helgeson, S. L. (1992). Problem Solving Research in Middle/JuniorHigh School Science Education, ERIC Clearinghouse forMathematics, Science, and Environmental Education, Colum-bus, Ohio.

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1989). Social skills for success-ful group work. Educational Leadership 47(4): 29–33.

Kozma, R., Belzer, S., and Jaffe, J. M. (1993, April). BioMap: Aninteractive hypermedia environment to promote conceptualunderstanding in biology. Paper presented at American Edu-cational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics, Articles,and Culture in Everyday Life, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Quali-tative Approach, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.

Newmann, F. M. (1996). Authentic Achievement, Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco, California.

Newmann, F. M. (1991). What is a Restructured School? A Frame-work to Clarify Means and Ends, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center on Organization and Restructuring ofSchools, Madison, Wisconsin.

Newmann, F. M., and Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards ofauthentic instruction. Educational Leadership 50(7): 8–12.

Nicaise, M., and Barnes, D. (1996). The union of technology,constructivism, & teacher education. Journal of Teacher Edu-cation 47(3): 203–210.

Nicholls, J. G., and Thorkildsen, T. A. (1989). Intellectual conven-tions versus matters of substance: Elementary school studentsas curriculum theorists. American Educational Research Jour-nal 26: 533–544.

Noblit, G. W., and Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthe-sizing Qualitative Studies, Sage, Newbury Park, California.

Perkins, D. (1986). Knowledge as Design. Lawrence Erlbaum,Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Perkins, D. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner.Educational Technology 31(9): 19–21.

Perkins, D., and Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front.Educational Leadership 60(2): 4–7.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. EducationalResearcher 16(9): 13–20.

Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Know-ing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of RobertGlaser, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey,pp. 1–24.

Rossman, G. B. (1993). Building Explanations Across Case Studies:A Framework for Synthesis, Curriculum Reform Project, Uni-versity of Colorado-Boulder (ERIC document reproductionservice No. ED373115), Boulder, Colorado.

Salisbury, D. (1995). Does Cincinnati need another bridge? Learn-ing and Leading With Technology 23(1): 17–19.

Schank, R. C. (1992). Goal-based scenarios. (Technical ReportNo. 36). The Institute for the Learning Sciences, NorthwesternUniversity, Evanston, Illinosis.

Schank, R. C., and Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for Education, TheInstitute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, Illinois.

Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundation of problem-based learning:Some explanatory notes. Medical Education 27(5): 422–432.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods forAnalyzing Talk, Text and Interaction, Sage Publications,London.

Soohoo, S. (1991). Transforming classrooms/school through stu-dent voice. In Dreyer, P. B. (Ed.), The Claremount ReadingConference 55th Yearbook, The Claremount Reading Confer-ence, Claremount, California, pp. 304–321.

Stepien, W., and Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: Asauthentic as it gets. Educational Leadership 50(7): 25–28.

Unger, C. (1994). What teaching for understanding looks like.Educational Leadership 60(2): 8–10.

Vygotsky, L. L. (1978). Mind in Society, Harvard, Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts.

Whitty, G., Aggleton, P., and Rowe, G. (1996). Competing concep-tions of quality in social education: Learning from the experi-ence of the cross-curricular themes. In Hughes, M. (Ed.),Teaching and Learning in Changing Times, Blackwell Publish-ers, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 51–69.

Wiburg, K., and Carter, B. (1994). Thinking with computers. TheComputing Teacher 22(1): 7–10.

Williams, R., Bidlack, C., and Winnett, D. (1993). At water’s edge:Students study their rivers. Educational Leadership 51(1):80–83.

Youniss, J., and Yates, M. (1997). Community Service and SocialResponsibility in Youth, University of Chicago Press, Chi-cago, Illinois.

Documents

Toward an Understanding of Authentic Learning: Student Perceptions of an Authentic Classroom