Content uploaded by Barbara L. Mccombs
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Barbara L. Mccombs on Feb 27, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 1
Learner-Centered Instruction Online
Barbara McCombs, Senior Research Scientist, University of Denver
Introduction
Providing an environment in keeping with constructivist learning theory is a goal of
learner-centered online instruction (Fishman, Konstantopoulos, Kubitskey, Vath, Park, Johnson,
& Edelson, 2013; Taylor, in press this volume). . Research by my colleagues and me over the
past 15 years has lead to a research-validated definition of “learner-centered” in a variety of
online and traditional classroom and school environments (cf. McCombs, 2012, 2013, 2013 in
press; McCombs & Miller, 2007, 2008; McCombs & Whisler, 1997). Our research has helped
clarify the concepts, theories, and multi-level system instructional practices (e.g., classroom,
school, community) associated with learner-centered practice at all levels of schooling,
Kindergarten through college. We have learned that what defines learner-centered classrooms
and schools is the quality of instructional practices and how technologies are used to support
individual student learning. Overall, our research has confirmed that the learner-centered
principles and their practices form a universal, systemic framework for accomplishing quality
instruction in any context. When the media used match student needs to be actively involved in
making choices about how they best construct knowledge, this generally includes using social
media to meet needs for personal interactions, relationships, and a sense of belonging. Thus the
learner-centered framework is ecological in that it examines the personal and contextual factors
affecting learning and motivation.
In recent years, our research has been extended to a number of countries outside the US.
In general, we have learned that classroom practices consistent with the learner-centered
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 2
principles and the practice domains identified in our research lead to higher student outcomes
than those not falling within our learner-centered rubric. The learner-centered principles and
their developmentally appropriate practices thus apply to a number of cultures and both on- and
off-line learning environments. Relevant to the issue of helping faculty develop effective
socially mediated online instruction, several studies (Duffy & Kirkley, 2004; McCombs, 2008,
2011; Hannum & McCombs, 2008; McCombs & Vakili, 2005; McNabb & McCombs, 2001;
Reiguluth & Karnopp, 2013; Thigpen, 2013) over the past more than 10 years have shown the
generality of these learner-centered principles and practices to online and blended learning
instruction at the community college and other public and private higher education contexts.
The purpose of this chapter is to make the case for using learner-centered principles and
practices in online course development. It begins by exploring the evidence-based practices that
faculty have successfully used to develop online courses in a research-validated learner-centered
manner. This includes applying relevant constructivist theory principles to the use of social
media as part of a learner-centered online course (cf. McCombs, 2013 in press; McCombs,
2013). The Learner-Centered Principles (LCPs) summarized by the American Psychological
Association (APA) in two task force reports (APA, 1993, 1997) are then briefly described.
Understanding how people learn at all ages highlights the relational nature of learning as well as
individual differences in how learners prefer to interact with others in the learning process. From
this foundation, ongoing work in validating effective instructional practices associated with the
LCPs is presented (cf. McCombs & Miller, 2007, 2008) and recent research on how these
practices relate to online instructional practices is highlighted (Hannum & McCombs, 2007;
McCombs, 2011, 2013 in press; Otto, 2014; Snehansu; 2013;Tomei, 2008; Vakili & McCombs,
2006). These findings point to new directions for using research-validated principles and
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 3
effective practices to increase student engagement and a variety of learning outcomes by
facilitating connectedness in synchronous and asynchronous ways. Finally, examples from a (a)
technology enhanced faculty development program at a large community college system and (b)
recently developed graduate level accredited online course are presented to demonstrate how
faculty can incorporate learner-centered principles and practices into their own online courses.
Digital technologies are fast changing the landscape of education and recent years have
seen a particularly rapid expansion of online learning courses and higher education degree
programs (Bawab, 2014; Kassar, 2014; Nico, 2014). Among those who have foreseen and are
assisting others in understanding these changes are Bonk and colleagues (2013, in preparation;
Bonk, Lee, Sheu, & Kou, 2013; Shen, Reynolds, Bonk, & Brush, 2013) who argue that this
expansion is often without needed theoretical and empirical underpinnings. Others are arguing
that without attention to the way people learn, what motivates individual learners to engage in
higher education goals, and how individuals differ in ways they prefer to learn, traditional
universities may be left behind in the digital revolution (e.g., Alliance for Excellent Education,
2013; Crotty, 2013; Ebersole, 2012; Gush, 2013; Reigeluth & Karnopp, 2013). Experts such as
Lapowsky (2013) agree and predict that technology will force higher education to meet student
needs for practical, high quality, and low cost higher education options. Along with these
changes, teacher preparation programs will be “modernized” in ways that Stansbury (2013)
found will help faculty in teacher-preparation programs become comfortable in modeling
effective, student-centered teaching that incorporates technology in appropriate ways (i.e.
provide more personalized, open source social media options that connect teachers with each
other and with quality content).
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 4
When systems are disrupted, change happens as noted by Stacey (2013) who questions
how long universities will exist in their traditional form. Others are seeing the opportunity to
totally revamp the current educational paradigm and introduce new models of quality
personalized online faculty development and student collaboration in the delivery of online
blended learning and assessment models (e.g., Bonk et al., 2013; Garrison & Vaughn, 2008;
Jukes, McCain, & Crockett, 2011). Visionaries are pushing the envelope while frustrations
remain over the reality that faculty teaching practices in higher education remain unchanged
(e.g., Duffy, 2011; Finn & Ledbetter, 2013; Finn & Schrott, 2012; Ledbetter & Finn, 2013;
Reinsvold & Cochran, 2011, 2013; Spady & Schwahn, 2010; Wheatley, 2013). The current
debate has moved from content coverage to student learning and engagement as measureable
quality outcomes, and student perceptions of the degree to which their courses and degree
programs are meeting their 21st century learning needs (Centra & Gaubatz, 2005; Klein-Collins,
2013; Rotherham & Willingham, 2009). Faculty need to assess the power of their practices for
each student’s personalized use of learning and collaboration technologies for optimal
engagement or the paradigm will stay fixated on content delivery. Research for decades shows it
is less about the medium used than the way it is used from individual student views (Delaney,
2013; McClusky & Winter, 2012).
What is clear from research on highly effective higher education instructional practices is
that basic needs for relationships, relevance, rigor, and self-regulation are central to sustained
motivation for learning (e.g., Devaney, 2013; Duffy, 2013; ETS, 2013; Khan, 2013; Prensky,
2008, 2013; Willingham, 2013). Furthermore, the infusion of digital technologies and a host of
technology hardware and open resource initiatives has yet to show significant improvements in
learning and engagement outcomes (such as attendance, retention in schools or programs,
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 5
grades) as shown by several recent large scale studies (e.g., ETS, 2013; Fishman et al., 2013
Assessments that capture a 360 degree view (a view that taps the perceived value and usefulness
from all learner perspectives) of the power of any learning technology to elicit each learner’s
natural curiosity and learning are increasingly being advocated as ways to change faculty
practices by both US and international researchers (cf. Deakin-Crick, 2011,2012; Duffy &
Kirkley, 2004; Hargreaves, 2011; McCombs, 2011, 2012, 2013a and b; Scharmer, 2012).
The Learner-Centered Online Instructional Design and Implementation Framework
The research approach to defining the Learner-Centered Psychological Principles (LCPs)
began with a special task force organized by the Education Directorate of the American
Psychological Association as described by McCombs et. al. (1992). In 1990 the American
Psychological Association (APA) appointed a Task Force for Psychology in Education. One of
the primary goals of this task force was to conduct a thorough analysis and review of persistent
findings in over a century of research on individual differences in learning and what has been
learned about how to best meet diverse learner needs over the lifespan (McCombs, 1994). This
review of research on learning, motivation, development, and individual differences led to the
development and dissemination of the LCPs. Originally, the task force identified 12 principles
(APA, 1993) and later added two principles in response to rising interests in understanding
cultural diversity and the assessment of student learning outcomes (APA , 1997). The new
document can be downloaded at http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html.
Ongoing research allowed us to further define lifelong learning and learning to learn
skills in collaborations with a range of researchers in the US and internationally (cf., McCombs,
2013 in press; McCombs & Miller, 2007, 2008). Not surprisingly, the principles are consistent
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 6
with principles advocated by Rogers and his person-centered model (McCombs, 1999; Rogers,
Rogers, & Cornelius-White, 2012) and with principles identified from brain-based research by
Caine and Caine (1994, 2011). For example, letting learners work together collaboratively on
complex problems with real world applications have increasingly been shown to apply to
learners if all ages cultures and contexts. Using social media in ways supported by constructivist
theory in personalized student learning opportunities is a theme highlighted in our application of
the LCPs as discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter. A short description of the 14 LCPs
can be found in McCombs (2013 in press) and McCombs and Miller (2007, 2008).
The LCPs have recently been moved into the digital age by psychologists working with
the APA Education Directorate to develop evidence-based online modules for teachers’ ongoing
professional development and certification (McCombs, 2010). There is recognition that the LCPs
provide a holistic person-centered framework and theoretically grounded foundation for experts
in various psychological fields to offer developmentally appropriate practice recommendations
and these are part of what is offered in various teacher modules on the www.apa/org/ed website.
The APA Education Directorate efforts to develop online modules for teachers on topics they
expressed needing help were identified in a national survey, such as motivating students, forming
positive relationships, and providing appropriate performance feedback (McCombs, 2008, 2010).
The theoretical credibility of the LCPs comes from a consensus among researchers who
identified principles that have stood the test of time in countless studies using a variety of
research methodologies. Practices based on these principles are also consistent with recent
discoveries from psychology and related fields (see APA Education Directorates online teacher
modules at the www.apa/org/ed website) that positive learner development occurs when students
perceive that their learning experiences meet their individual needs (Cornelius-White,
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 7
Motschnig-Pitrik, & Lux, 2013; Rogers, Lyons, & Tausch, 2013). Research that includes student
perceptions as a measure of instructional effectiveness in both traditional and technology rich
classrooms and schools also confirms our research findings that any learning context that meets
individual student’s basic needs across all domains of human functioning will produce optimal
learning and motivational outcomes (e.g., Duffy, 2011; ETS, 2012; McCombs, 2010; An &
Reigeluth, 2011; Spady, 2012).
The research on effective educational principles and practices based on the LCPs
characterizes learning as a whole-person phenomenon (McCombs, 2003, 2012). This involves
cognitive and metacognitive as well as motivational and affective, social and developmental, and
other individual difference factors important to optimal learning, motivation, and development.
In our work with higher education systems, we have learned our research findings that apply to
all disciplines and degree programs, including educator preparation in both face to face (f2f) and
virtual only contexts (Hannum & McCombs, 2008; McCombs, 2009, 2013 in press; McCombs &
Price, 2010; McCombs & Vakili, 2005). That is, teachers are perceived as learner-centered when
their teaching practices or online instruction is individualized with research-validated principles
and practices that today’s diverse mix of college students need to pursue future career and life
goals. Demographic shifts and changing economics now show more culturally disadvantaged
and minority students pursuing online and traditional college degrees (Czekalinski, 2013).
In our 15 years of collaborative research, we have developed and validated a 360 degree
self-assessment model which captures the perceptions of all individuals associated with a
learning event during all combinations of f2f and online instructional activities (cf. McCombs,
2013 in press). The Assessment of Learner-Centered Practices (ALCP) self-assessment and
evaluation surveys measure how frequently a range of practices are perceived to be available for
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 8
individual students in a given course or class. The items comprising both student and instructor
scales are those that are most predictive of a range of student engagement and learning
performance variables in a variety of higher education contexts. The overall ALCP research
program collected K-20 data from 200 schools, 3,000 teachers, 25,000 students, 200
administrators, 2,500 parents, and 150 community members in the US and beyond. (McCombs &
Miller, 2007, 2008). The ALCP college level student and instructor data were collected in both
virtual and traditional college settings (McCombs 2012), with validation samples of over 400
faculty and 2,000 students that have been cross-validated in international studies (McCombs,
2012, 2013, 2013 in press).
The ALCP domains of practice and other variables most predictive of learning and
motivational outcomes for college age students per our validation studies are causally linked as
shown in Figure 1. Table 1 defines the five domains of learner-centered practice validated for
learners of college age. The research validated means, standard deviations, and rubric calculated
to define “learner-centeredness” are described Table 2.
INSERT Figure 1 and Tables 1 and 2 here
Figure 1 shows the most predictive teacher and instructor variables and their causal
relationships with student motivational and achievement related learning outcomes. The five
college level domains of practice relevant to on- and off-line instructional contexts highlight the
importance of meeting student needs for competence, connections, and control of their own
learning. Table 1 highlights the findings that being “learner-centered” in the eyes of each student
and the class as a whole is a balance of teacher qualities and the teacher’s skill in providing
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 9
personalized instructional practices that meet basic needs for caring, belonging, challenge,
personal responsibility, challenge, and voice.
In our college validation studies, the variance accounted for ranges from 40-60%
depending on course content and the availability of relevant learning supports and resources
(McCombs, 2012; McCombs & Miller, 2007, 2008; McCombs & Price, 2008). Overall, our
findings reveal that it is students’ views that account for most of the variance in motivation and
learning outcomes. Teacher views of their practices and themselves (their beliefs, sense of
efficacy, reflective awareness, autonomy support) mediate these relationships in positive ways
for learner-centered teachers and in negative ways for non learner-centered teachers. teachers (as
determined from their mean scores compared with the rubric).
New Directions and Paradigms for Learner-Centered Online Courses
The questions guiding our collaborative research studies have included (a) what learning
technologies best support the development of lifelong learning dispositions and learning to learn
skills from early childhood through adulthood? (b) what is the role of student perceptions of
teaching and learning practices with various online strategies compared to faculty perspectives?
(c) what would a learner-centered online instructional system look like from all stakeholders'
perspectives (e.g., student, faculty, administration)? and (e) what assessment practices can
simplify accountability concerns in higher education while supporting emerging synchronous
and asynchronous learning technologies for fostering student connections, learning outcomes,
and engagement in learning?
Answers to these questions are of interest to other researchers such as Saxena (2013) who
has outlined ways in which instruction can be student-centric from a review of the recent
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 10
research in this area. The resulting guidelines for secondary school students are consistent with
those advocated in our high school and college ALCP research and include:
(1) Ask students to organize their own learning tasks and collaborate with other students
to develop their learning of essential skills;
(2) Explicitly teach students how to think, solve problems, and employ all the learning
skills needed to master a subject;
(3) Ask students reflect on what they have learned and the methodology they adopted to
gather information, challenge their assumptions about learning, and accept responsibility for
decisions made about how to learn;
(4) Allow students to control their own learning process and look for ways to share power
with students;
(5) Facilitate ways in each lesson that students can interact socially with cooperative
learning and collaboration with peers to gain skills that will benefit them throughout life; and
(6) Use authentic learning and assessment activities that are meaningful and grounded in
the real-world to help both students and the teacher monitor the teaching and learning process to
make necessary adjustments for increasing motivation to learn.
Saxena (2013) stresses that teachers must practice how best to use these strategies with their
students and achieve the balance that empowers students to take control of their own learning
while allowing teachers to truly facilitate the learning process. The right balance is an individual
choice for instructors and students and something that is best when negotiated.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 11
To understand this balance, Williamson and Blackburn (2010) reviewed the extensive
research on providing rigor and concluded that there are four myths that need to be dispelled for
students to perceive the learning environment as personalized and empowering. Students need to
perceive that their instructors are authentically implementing learner-centered approaches and in
the case of rigor, achieving the balance of support and rigor. This translates into making sure:
(a) rigorous and challenging homework assignments vary in design and duration to accommodate
individual student needs and ways of learning; (b) rigor is expecting each student to delve deeply
into their learning, be curious and imaginative, engage in critical thinking and problem solving,
and demonstrate adaptability; (c) knowing that rigor is necessary for every student and lessening
rigor lessens school quality and student skills for lifelong success; and (d) rigor includes
supporting students with scaffolding that includes teamwork, a culture of success, high
expectations, positive relationships, and ongoing self-assessment practices.
Extending this concept of rigor balanced with support, Finn and Ledbetter (2013)
researched undergraduate students’ perceptions of technology policies and teacher credibility.
Results are consistent with our findings and revealed that teachers who are seen as competent,
caring, and of high character are perceived as most credible by providing clear technology
policies. Teacher credibility mediated student perceptions of technology policies regardless of
whether wireless communication technology was permitted or restricted in the classroom. Finn
and Ledbetter conclude that even discouraging technology use policies are preferred over the
absence of clear policies and expectations for classroom technology use. Prior research by Finn
and Schrodt (2012) also revealed that undergraduate students’ perceptions of instructor clarity,
nonverbal immediacy, and practices that promote understanding helped students satisfy their
relational and academic needs, empowering them to improve their learning outcomes. Ledbetter
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 12
and Finn (2013) also studied associations between undergraduate learner empowerment and
course-relevant technology access. Further support was found for instructor clarity in supportive
and caring ways in explaining policies for using wireless communication technology. Not all
students are comfortable with these new technologies and the most effective instructors are those
who minimize negative impacts of the technology for those who may be highly apprehensive.
The importance of self-directed learning in online course designs was recently
investigated by Bonk et al. (2013). With the burgeoning availability of open educational
resources and other online content for self-directed learning pursuits, the question researched
was college students’ informal learning experiences, including the barriers, obstacles,
motivations, and successes of online learners. Survey data were collected from 159 participants
enrolled in a massive open online course (MOOC) hosted by Blackboard using CourseSites. In a
mixed methods design, emerging themes were analyzed from open-ended survey items and
descriptive statistics from the closed-ended items. The findings showed that online learners are
internally motivated and appreciate the freedom to learn that open educational resources provide
to learners who choose topics they want to learn for their jobs or personal lives.
These learners, in well deigned informal online learning courses, are frequently supported
by friends and colleagues, leading experts, or people that they have never met. Bonk et al.
(2013) found that the primary incentives to enroll in these massive online courses are
professional growth, self-improvement, learning about a specific topic, satisfying one’s curiosity,
and general information needs. Respondents reported that benefits of MOOCs included being
able to enhance their professional skills, learn skills to fix things, become more confident in
themselves as learners, and find ways to help others in need of similar knowledge. They have
become a model for massive online course design and for providing a variety of ways for
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 13
students, their peers, and their instructors to use merging and current technologies for connecting
with synchronous and asynchronous approaches.
Synchronous and Asynchronous Approaches for Increasing Student Connectedness
Current research increasingly supports claims that online learning practices must mirror
effective teaching in any context, with and without digital technology. For example, Fishman et
al. (2013) examined differences in teacher and student learning from professional development
(PD) in two modalities: online and face-to-face. A total of 49 secondary school teachers from
across the US were randomly assigned to the online and f2f conditions to explore differences in
teacher knowledge and beliefs, teacher classroom practice, and student learning outcomes related
to PD modality. A common set of curriculum materials was used as the content for PD and
subsequent teaching. No significant differences between conditions were found but teachers and
students exhibited significant gains in both conditions. The researchers conclude that with well
designed online PD, cost savings may be realized but more importantly, findings may help dispel
the tendency for educational decision makers to view online PD as a particular instructional
approach (such as instructor/instructional designer compilations of selected content readings vs.
learner chosen topics based on self-assessed needs) than as a delivery vehicle (such as one set of
ways for learners to discuss or reflect on a reading vs. student selected ways of learning that
match their preferred ways of learning). Thus, this research supports research findings with the
LCM and its principles and assessment, reflection, and personalized practices.
Student Connectedness
To exemplify how the LCPs and overall LCM can be applied to providing optimal
student connectedness with synchronous and asynchronous approaches in online course design,
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 14
two examples from our recent projects are presented. Both of these examples follow our
framework of providing faculty collaboration in creating practices that meet student needs as
identified by the ALCP student and faculty surveys. The first example shows how learner-
centered practices can be implemented in a large community college system and the second
example shows how these same guidelines can be applied in a virtual university graduate school
context. The guidelines that can be applied to other design efforts are offered as a framework for
others attempting to improve the quality of online instruction in their institutions.
Example from Large Community College System
Faculties in a large southwest state level community college system have been
participating since 2005 in a college-wide initiative to become more learner-centered (McCombs
& Price, 2010). This initiative has focused on having faculty across departments and schools
participate in a process of self-assessment and reflection using the Assessment of Learner-
Centered Practices (ALCP) surveys developed by McCombs and Pierce, 1999 and further
validated by Pierce, Holt, Kolar, and McCombs, 2004. Faculty who participate in the ALCP
survey process have the opportunity to compare their own and their students’ scores on ALCP
college scales to a rubric from validation samples. The rubric allows faculty to see how “learner-
centered” they are, particularly on five scales assessing the degree to which students perceive
their instructors to be engaging in learner-centered practices most important at the community
college and other college levels. It also allows faculty who are using a variety of digital
technologies to enhance their traditional classroom instruction and allow students to complete
course assignments in online modes supported by campus technology services. Feedback on
student perceptions of how well these practices meet their learning needs has been highly
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 15
effective in retaining students who otherwise would not have persisted given their life
responsibilities and schedules.
Results over the first 4 years of program implementation (McCombs, 2010) revealed
faculty participating in the faculty development initiative who were “learner-centered” (met the
research-validated learner-centered rubric) compared to faculty who did not participate had
higher student productive grade rates and completion rates. The positive trends have continued
and strengthened for faculty members who have stayed involved in the LC Model training in
effective practices, the use of the Compendium of Effective College Practices, and the
participation in the student and instructor college ALCP assessment tools. Further, faculty who
have been involved have expressed high interest and positive personal development from their
involvement to-date as well as a desire to work more collaboratively with other faculty in further
defining additional discipline-specific effective learner-centered practices and establishing
learner-centered learning communities to share expertise in domains of ALCP where particular
strengths have been identified. Faculty are also learning to use venues for meeting on a regular
basis to discuss effective practices, using the ALCP feedback results as a focus of conversations.
To strengthen and sustain these results, incentives are needed beyond faculty pay for attending
faculty development classes that extend to opportunities to visit other learner-centered college
campuses, attend relevant teaching and learning conferences, or enhance their vita by providing
certificates for those participating in the LC Model trainings and assessment process. Finally, the
role of research-validated learning and change principles in achieving the goal of becoming a
learner-centered institution that is “all about learning,” as their mission states, can be
accomplished in cost-effective ways by increased institutional attention to cost-effective
strategies for building learning communities within and across departments and divisions.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 16
Example from Large Virtual University Graduate Course
A well known online university serving national and international students pursuing
advanced degrees in education, business, and professional medical fields contracted with me
(McCombs, 2010, unpublished) to design a doctorate level course that introduces students to the
research and statistical knowledge they will need to complete their dissertations. The previous
course had shown declining graduation rates and project completions and the hypotheses were
that (a) current students were fearful of the research requirements and their ability to understand
complex statistics and (b) there were ineffective strategies for connecting students to research
partners in their cohort peer group due to few opportunities to get to know each other and find
compatible time zones to work collaboratively on their research project assignments.
The solution was to (a) use the first course meeting with the instructor in a synchronous
chat to share personal stories about their backgrounds, research interests, and ways they enjoyed
working with other students; (b) connect the students with their chosen partners and provide
explicit instructions for how they were to work together on each of the 7 major research pieces
that they would actually use as their dissertation prospectus; (c) arrange email, Skype, and
telephone calls on a personalized basis with the instructor and facilitate any issues with
requirements to collaborate or the person chosen as a partner; (d) have students share their self-
assessment and reflection exercises with their partners and all students in the combined courses;
(e) celebrate all successes in public social places available within the course structure; (e)
encourage students to stay connected to each other throughout the remaining courses in their
degree program and up to the finalization of their research prospectus; and (f) embed vehicles for
faculty development within the links used by online faculty interested in tying some of this social
connection strategies in their own courses within the education and business doctoral programs.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 17
As the first course instructor during the fall of 2010 through early June of 2011, while
being observed by the regular team of instructors who would teach the course subsequent to the
field test, I saw first-hand the effectiveness of these strategies. Students got excited to share their
personal stories with me and each other, to pick research partners across business management
and educational administration fields who shared their topic interests, and to get immediate
feedback about their progress, grades, and appropriate selection of the right research design,
methodology, and statistics to use in answering their personal “burning question.” They
particular appreciated the personal touch they received an being treated as individuals with
varying backgrounds and fears about conducting a big research study that would launch their
future career goals. They received the personal encouragement, listening ear (they could call or
Skype me if they were troubled by anything in the course or feeling frustrated and debating
whether to stay in the course. By the end of the course, many of the students asked to keep me
for their research committees but this was not possible. Both the course evaluation the online
university provided and my own ALCP surveys indicated that students saw me as highly learner-
centered! The best news was there were 35 students total who finished, only one dropped but
due to personal issues that could not be avoided. The completion rate was 97% -- a huge
improvement over the prior course where the completion rate was less than 50%.
Summary of Best Learner-Centered Synchronous and Asynchronous Practices
Regardless of the degree to which an online course is totally virtual or has a mix of f2f
and technology supported or blended instruction, the learner-centered framework and its self-
assessment, reflection, consultation and training components offer guidance to others wanting to
maximize the effectiveness of their courses. Student connectedness is a major variable to be
addressed and our research experiences show that the best practices can be supported by
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 18
applications of these approaches with available synchronous and asynchronous approaches
implemented in learner-centered ways. The most important elements to include to be in keeping
with approaches for meeting specific student needs defined and identified by our research with
the ALCP surveys is shown in Table 3. The categories or domains listed were defined in our
research; the ways these can be met are as numerous as the creativity of faculty and staff
associated with the design and delivery of online instruction. Those listed capture the most
effective elements that must be present.
INSERT Table 3 here
For those wishing to see an excellent example of using learner-centered principles and
practices in defining an online course evaluation, the work of Blood-Siegfried, Short, Rapp, et al.
(2008) can be checked out at http://sites.duke.edu/onlineguide/files/2012/03/Online-Rubric-
Duke-University-School-of-Nursingpublished-version-June-2004Jane.pdf. As Table 3 illustrates,
technology is basically neutral in a learner-centered instructional context; it is the students,
course designers, and teachers who can provide the human touch needed beyond the technology
environment.
Conclusions
Empirical evidence summarized in the LCPs and subsequent research to define practices
at all levels of schooling consistent with the LCPs confirms that learning, curiosity, and
motivation to learn are all natural processes. Individual faculty and departments within higher
education willing to step outside the narrow testing and accountability agenda and implement
instructional practices consistent with research-validated principles of human learning,
motivation, development, and individual differences are achieving higher levels of student
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 19
learning across academic and social-emotional domains. The challenge is to incorporate these
best practice principles in online instruction that prepares all learners (students and their
instructors as learning partners) to be lifelong learners and innovators.
Moving to a learner-centered online instructional system in higher education requires a
supportive environment in faculty development programs – one that gives faculty and students
time to reflect, discuss, share experiences, and receive social and emotional support. Individual
faculty do make a difference. Collectively, faculty who are willing to self-assess their practices
and listen to feedback from each student about the personal effectiveness of these practices can
learn how to optimize the socially mediated context and experience. In so doing, they can keep
most if not all students engaged and connected with a focus on practices and media that meet
basic student needs as learners and people.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 20
References
Alliance for Education Excellence (2013, October). Expert perspectives: Future of teacher
preparation in the digital age. Washington, DC: Report of Project 24: Planning for
Progress. (Downloaded on November 12, 2013 from http://all4ed.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/10/ExpertPerspectivesTeacherPrep.pdf).
An, Y.-J., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms:
K–12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54-62.
APA Task Force on Psychology in Education (1993, January) Learner-centered psychological
principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association and Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.
APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs (1997, November). Learner-centered
psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Bawab, H. (2014, March 27). Social Media Network Guide (Dos / Don'ts) 2014. Downloaded
April 3, 2014 from https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140327075058-
14091619-social-media-network-guide-do-s-don-ts-2014?trk=eml-ced-b-art-Ch-
4&midToken=AQFS_GowUyrZoQ&ut=29Md1n-5AP1Sc1
Blood-Siegfried, J.E., Short, N.M., Rapp, C.G, Hill, E., Talbert, S., Skinner, J., Campbell, A., &
Goodwin, L. (2008). A rubric for improving the quality of online courses. International
Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 5(1), Article 34.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 21
http://www.bepress.com/ijnes/vol5/iss1/1 (Downloaded March 7, 2014 from:
http://sites.duke.edu/onlineguide/files/2012/03/Online-Rubric-Duke-University-School-
of-Nursingpublished-version-June-2004Jane.pdf)
Bonk, C. J. (2013, in preparation). The World Is More Open: An Extension of “The World is
Open: How Web Technology is Revolutionizing Education.” Available soon at:
http://worldisopen.com/
Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Sheu, F. R., & Kou, X. (2013, November 1). Research on self-directed
informal learners in open educational environments and massively open online courses.
Anaheim, CA: AECT International Convention.
Centra, J. A., & Gaubatz, N. B. (2005, July 9). Student perceptions of learning and instructional
effectiveness in college courses: A validity study of SIR II. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service. (Can be downloaded from
http://www.ets.org/Media/Products/perceptions.pdf.)
Cornelius-White, R. Motschnig-Pitrik, & M. Lux (2013,Eds.), Interdisciplinary Handbook of the
Person Centered Approach: Connections Beyond Psychotherapy. New York: Springer.
Czekalinski, S. (2013, November 13). Minorities are more likely to believe education will help
their careers. The Atlantic Education Archives (Downloaded on November 14, 2013
from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/11/minorities-are-more-likely-to-
believe-education-will-help-their-careers/281431/).
Crotty, J. M. (2013, March 13). Motivation matters: 40% of high school students chronically
disengaged from school. Forbes Tech (Downloaded on November 26, 2013 from
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 22
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2013/03/13/motivation-matters-40-of-
high-school-students-chronically-disengaged-from-school/?goback=
%2Egde_108447_member_5810777975347503106#%21
Deakin-Crick, R. (2012). Identity, learning power and authentic enquiry (Pp. 675-694). In
Christenson, S., Reschly, A. & Wylie, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement. New York: Springer Science.
Devaney, L. (2013, November 15). Hybrid learning’s promise for personalized education. E-
School News. (Downloaded on November 20, 2013 from
http://www.eschoolnews.com/2013/11/15/hybrid-learning-education-127/?).
Duffy, T. M., & Kirkley, J. R. (2004) Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education,
Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ebersole, J. (2012, August 24). The myths of online learning. Forbes Tech (Downloaded
November 26, 2013 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnebersole/2012/08/24/the-
myths-of-online-learning/).
Educational Testing Service (2013). SIR II™ Research: 30 years of research on the Student
Instructional Report. (Downloaded on November 25, 2013 from
http://www.ets.org/sir_ii/about/research.)
Finn, A. N., & Ledbetter, A, M. (2013). Teacher power mediates the effects of technology
policies on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 62(1), 26-47.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 23
Finn, A. N., & Schrodt, P. (2012). Students’ perceived understanding mediates the effects of
teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on learner empowerment. Communication
Education, 61(2), 111-130.
Fishman, B., Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B. W., Vath, R., Park, G., Johnson, H., & Edelson,
D. C. (2013). Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional development
in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 426 –
438.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughn, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework,
principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Gush, M. (2013, November 20). Technology: Change is how you use it. A Q&A with Sally
Johnstone. Campus Technology (digital magazine). (Downloaded on 11-21-13 from
http://campustechnology.com/articles/2013/11/20/technology-change-is-how-you-use-
it.aspx?=CTCLV
Hannum, W. H., & McCombs, B. L. (2008). Enhancing distance learning for today’s youth with
Learner-Centered Principles. Educational Technology, 48(3), 11-21.
Hargreaves, A. (2011). A Festschrift for Andy Hargreaves: 11 papers by leading and emerging
scholars celebrating and concentrating on the life work of Andy Hargreaves.
Journal of Educational Change, 12 (2), 131-139.
Kassar, M. (2013, July 17). Resources for Distance Learning and Online Classes for Special
Needs. EdTech Review: E-learning. Downloaded January 30, 2014 from
http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/31704/FE_DA_120815_online-learning.jpg
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 24
Klein-Collins, R. (2013, November). Sharpening our focus on learning: The rise of
competency-based approaches to degree completion. Occaional Paper #20. National
Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment: University of Illinois at Champaign-
Urbana.
Lapowsky, I. (2013, November 21). 6 ways tech will change education forever. Downloaded
November 28, 2013 from http://www.inc.com/issie-lapowsky/7-ways-tech-changes-
education.html.
Ledbetter, A. M., & Finn, A. N. (2013). Teacher technology policies and online communication
apprehension as predictors of learner empowerment. Communication Education, 62(3),
301-317.
McCombs, B. L. (1994, March). Development and validation of the Learner-centered
Psychological Principles, Draft Report. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional
Educational Laboratory.
McCombs, B. L. (2002, updated April 2007). ALCP college survey validation results.
Unpublished report. University of Denver: Denver Research Institute.
McCombs, B. L. (2007). Balancing accountability demands with research-validated, learner-
centered teaching and learning practices (pp. 41-60) in C. E. Sleeter (Ed.), Educating for
democracy and equity in an era of accountability, New York: Teachers College Press.
McCombs, B. L. (2008, April). From one-size-fits-all to personalized learner-centered learning:
The evidence, The F. M. Duffy Reports, 13(2), 1-12.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 25
McCombs, B. L. (2009). Commentary: What can we learn from a synthesis of research on
teaching, learning, and motivation? (pp. 655-670) in K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation at school, New York: Routledge.
McCombs, B. L. (2010, April). Learner-centered practices as a comprehensive theoretical model
for enhancing college student success: A longitudinal study from 2006 to 2009 at San
Antonio College. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Denver.
McCombs, B. L. (2011). Learner-Centered Practices: Providing the Context for Positive Learner
Development, Motivation, and Achievement (Chapter 7) in J. Meece & J. Eccles (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Schools, Schooling, and Human Development. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
McCombs, B. L. (2012). Educational psychology and educational transformation’ in W. M.
Reynolds and G. E. Miller (Eds.) (2012), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology,
Volume 7: Educational Psychology (2nd ed.) (Pp. 493-533). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
McCombs, B. L. (2013, in press a). The Learner-Centered Model: Implications for research
approaches. In J. H.D. Cornelius-White, R. Motschnig-Pitrik, & M. Lux (Eds.),
Interdisciplinary Handbook of the Person Centered Approach: Connections Beyond
Psychotherapy. New York: Springer.
McCombs, B. L. (2013, in press b). The Learner-Centered Model: From the vision to the future.
In J. H.D. Cornelius-White, R. Motschnig-Pitrik, & M. Lux (Eds.), Interdisciplinary
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 26
Handbook of the Person Centered Approach: Connections Beyond Psychotherapy. New
York: Springer.
McCombs, B. L., & Miller, L. (2007). Learner-centered classroom practices and assessments:
Maximizing student motivation, learning, and achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
McCombs, B. L., & Miller, L. (2008). The school leader’s guide to learner-centered education:
From complexity to simplicity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school:
Strategies for enhancing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
McCombs, B & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers
College Record, 107(8), 1582-1609.
McNabb, M. L., & McCombs, B, K, (2001). Designs for e-learning: A vision and emerging
framework. Paper prepared for the PT3 Vision Quest on Assessment in e-Learning
Cultures. Available at www.pt3.org.
Meece, J. L., Herman, P., & McCombs, B. L. (2003). Relations of learner-centered teaching
practices to adolescents’ achievement goals. International Journal of Educational
Research, 39(4-5, 457-475.
McCombs, B. L., & Price, C. A. (2008). Effective learner-centered classroom practices: A
compendium of effective practices. San Antonio College: Murguia Learning Institute.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 27
McClusky, F. B., & Winter, M. (2012). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions,
disruptive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Washington, DC:
Westphalia Press.
Nico, J. (2014, March 31). Louisville Prof Gets Students Social Media Certified. Downloaded
on Arpil 4, 2014 from https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140331210938-
115521047-louisville-prof-gets-students-social-media-certified?trk=eml-ced-b-art-Ch-
4&midToken=AQGcbtHMVb6m7g&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=127R49SuW776c1
Otto, A. (2014, March 31). Tech Skills Needed for Successful Online Testing. Techie Teacher.
Downloaded on April 2, 2014 from:
http://techieteacher5280.blogspot.com/2014/03/tech-skills-needed-for-successful.html
Reiguluth, C. M., & Karnopp, J. R. (2013). Reinventing schools: It’s time to break the mold.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Rogers, C. R, Lyon, Jr., H. C., & Tausch, R. (Eds., 2013, in press). On becoming an effective
teacher, London: Routledge.
Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. (2009). 21st century skills: The challenges ahead.
Educational Leadership, 67(1), 16-21.
Saxena, S. (2013, November 22). Best classroom practices for student-centric teaching.
EdTechReview. (Downloaded on November 22, 2013 from
http://edtechreview.in/news/news/trends-insights/insights/775-best-classroom-practices-
for-student-centric-teaching?goback=
%2Egde_5092459_member_5810429914867843076#%21
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 28
Scharmer. O. (2011, November). Leading from the emerging future: Minds for change – future
of global development. Paper prepared for Ceremony to mark the 50th anniversary of the
BMZ Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Berlin, Germany.
Shen, Y. W., Reynolds, T. H., Bonk, C. J., & Brush, T. A. (2013). A case study of applying
blended learning in an accelerated post-baccalaureate teacher education program. Journal
of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 6(1), 59-78.
Snehansu, K. (2013, September 20). Amazing apps for lifelong learners. EdTech Review:
News. Downloaded on February 27, 2014 from: http://edtechreview.in/news/592-apps-
for-lifelong-learners?
utm_content=buffer6c1d7&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=
Buffer#%21
Spady, W. G., & Schwan, C. J. (2010). Learning Communities 2.0: Educating in the Age of
Empowerment. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
Stansbury, M. (2013, November 4). 6 ways to modernize teacher-preparation programs.
eSchool News. (Downloaded on November 25, 2013 from
http://www.eschoolnews.com/2013/11/04/teacher-preparation-programs-199/3/).
Thigpen, T. S. (2013, September 11). Commentary: Taking a relationship-centered approach to
education. Education Week Online. Downloaded on March 23, 2014 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/09/11/03thigpen.h33.html?
tkn=NXCCukpV4VcaOwLOZJtT21uIXn77e6tPCRyf&cmp=clp-sb-ascd&print=1
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 29
Tomei, L. A. (2008). Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration.
INFORMATION SCIENCE REFERENCE - Volume II Internet Citizenship – Z:
Evidence-Based Online Course Development Practices. Hershey, New York: Robert
Morris University. Downloaded on April 3, 2014 from:
file:///C:/Users/Barbara/Desktop/Citizenship_Education_2008.pdf
Wheatley, M. (2013, May). Are we so distracted that we can no longer pay attention to where we
are and where we’re going? Shambhala Sun, Living in the Age of Distraction. (Downloaded
on November 30, 2013 from http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=4030&Itemid=0.
Williamson, R., & Blackburn, B. R. (2010). 4 myths about rigor in the classroom. Larchmont,
NY: Eye on Education.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 30
Table 1: Domains of college level effective learner-centered practices
LEARNER-
CENTERED
EFFECTIVE
PRACTICES
DOMAINS
DEFINITIONS OF LEARNER- CENTERED PRACTIVES
WITH EXTENSIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT
Domain 1: Creating
Positive
Relationships and
Learning Climate
Decades of research have confirmed the importance of student-teacher
relationships for positive student motivation, social outcomes, and
classroom learning. Low levels of conflict and high levels of closeness
and support define good relationships. Another strong link with current
national studies is in keeping with the implication of the LCPs that
education must address the whole learner. Learner-centered paradigms
combine academic and social-emotional curricula in ways that address
the whole learner. The role of climate in supporting student
development and adapting to class learning needs has confirmed that
caring teachers are compassionate, interested in, actively listen to, and
get to know the gifts and talents of individual students.
Domain 2: Adapting to
Class Learning Needs
Students want their academic ability to be affirmed, intellective
competence nurtured, and desire fellow classmates to succeed. High-
quality teaching and instruction in the classroom includes trusting
relationships and supports for pro-academic behavior for all students in
a class. Crucial aspects of climate in a learner-centered classroom
include: clarity around the purpose of each lesson, order within the
classroom, a clear set of standards, fairness, opportunities for active
participation, support to try new things and learn from mistakes,
emotional and physical safety, interesting and stimulating learning, and
a comfortable and attractive physical environment.
Domain 3: Facilitating
the Learning Process
Research evidence shows that self-motivated learning, occurs only
when learners possess (1) choice and control about how, what, and
when to learn, and (2) choice and control over what they want to
achieve. For teachers to facilitate an inquiry-based and choice-driven
learning process, they must hold students to rigorous expectations for
thinking and acting. The role of teaching changes to one of (a)
maintaining a class atmosphere of relaxed alertness that helps students
feel motivated, competent, and confident; (b) immersing students in
complex life experiences in which standards are embedded; and (c)
allowing students to actively process their experiences by using well-
formed questions that guide them to reach intended skills and
competences while using their authentic voices and choices.
Domain 4:
Encouraging
Personal Challenge
and Responsibility
Underlying learner-centered teaching is an understanding of the basic
human needs for control, competence, and belonging. Research
indicates that students of all ages do best when their teachers have high
expectations because they know these teachers care and want them to
have a good education. These teachers also give students responsibility
to make choices and participate in meaningful activities. Underlying
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 31
learner-centered teaching is an understanding of the basic human needs
for control, competence, and belonging. Theories of intrinsic
motivation confirm that nurturing competence, autonomy, and
relatedness reduces alienation and enhances motivation and
engagement in any age population.
Domain 5: Providing for
Individual and Social
Learning Needs
It has long been recognized that humans have a need and tendency to
form social connections. Cultures that promote belonging provide for
comfort, confidence, competence, and motivation to learn. Most
important at the college level are ways the teacher supports student
competence by providing students with personalized information and
feedback about their academic abilities. For some students learning
alone is preferred but for most, being able to learn with and from their
peers in collaborative ways are most motivating and interesting.
Students will seek out others and teachers who provide ways for them
to connect naturally and easily are viewed as the most effective.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 32
Table 2: Research validated means, standard deviations, reliability coefficient, and rubric
calculated to define “learner-centeredness”
Student Variables Mean SD Alpha Rubric
Establishes Positive Relationships 3.05 .65 .89 High ≥ 3.9
Adapts to Class Learning Needs 3.02 .63 .88 High ≥ 3.8
Facilitates Learning Process 2.99 .63 .88 High ≥ 3.8
Encourages Personal Challenge 3.08 .63 .71 High ≥ 3.8
Provides for Individual & Social 3.03 .65 .80 High ≥ 3.6
Self-Efficacy 3.11 .59 .81 High ≥ 3.6
Epistemic Curiosity 2.94 .57 .78 High ≥ 3.4
Active Learning Strategies 2.85 .65 .80 High ≥ 3.4
Effort Avoidance Strategies 2.19 .68 .69 Low ≤ 2.1
Task Mastery Goals 3.30 .34 .82 High ≥ 3.6
Performance Oriented Goals 2.28 .75 .80 Low ≤ 2.4
Work Avoidance Goals 2.10 .65 .76 Low ≤ 2.1
Teacher Variables Mean SD Alpha
Learner-Centered Beliefs 3.27 .45 .86 High ≥ 3.3
Non LC Beliefs – Learners 2.64 .65 .76 Low ≤ 2.2
Non LC Beliefs – Teach & Learn 2.34 .56 .71 Low ≤ 2.4
Establishes Positive Relationships 3.36 .39 .79 High ≥ 3.5
Adapts to Class Learning Needs 3.33 .44 .85 High ≥ 3.3
Facilitates Learning Process 3.20 .50 .88 High ≥ 3.5
Encourages Personal Challenge 3.44 .40 .70 High ≥ 3.6
Provides for Individual & Social 3.08 .59 .83 High ≥ 3.2
Teacher Self-Efficacy 2.89 .46 .75 High ≥ 3.0
Reflective Self-Awareness 3.02 .43 .84 High ≥ 3.1
Note: These results are from college ALCP data collected from 425 instructors and their 17,043 students. The
rubric indicates that to be learner-centered in the eyes of the students, an instructor must have high learner-centered
beliefs, low non-learner-centered beliefs, moderately high perceptions that they frequently engage in learner-
centered practices, and moderately high teacher efficacy and reflective self-awareness. In turn, students need to
have perceptions that their instructor has high frequencies of learner-centered practice in all five domains of
practice, and if so, they will have high positive motivation and low negative motivation scores per the variables
assessed in the areas of self-efficacy, learning strategies, epistemic curiosity, and learning goals.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 33
Table 3: Summary of Learner-Centered Synchronous and Asynchronous Practices
ALCP DOMAIN CRITICAL ELEMENTS
Establishes positive Connecting Students with Each Other
interpersonal relationships Making sure students have multiple venues for getting to
know each other before the course begins.
Addressing Students’ Technology Fears
Offering opportunities for students to let the online course
community know any fears they can express and help each
other with while the instructor stands by.
Facilitates the learning process Connecting Students with the Content
Providing interactive activities for students to experience a
preview of the content to build interest.
Providing Learning Tips and Strategies
Integrating interactive exercises for students to experience
how planning, time management, and study or learning
strategies can be used best in the course for success.
Adapts to class learning needs Rewarding Student Successes
Recognizing and communicating to the learning
community all student successes and inviting them to share
their expertise.
Addressing Students’ Content and
Personal Fears
Providing interactive activities for students to experience a
preview of the testing and assignment requirements to
identify and allay fears.
Encourages personal challenge Following Up with Struggling Students
and Responsibility Maintaining close contact with each student who has
sought special help, checking in to keep them engaged.
Proving Personalized Feedback
and Assistance
Taking the time to identify and provide personalized
feedback to each student about particular strengths and
areas where improvements are needed.
Learner-Centered Instruction Online 34
Provides for individual and Encouraging Peer Mentoring and
social learning needs Personal Responsibility
Encouraging students through a variety of venues to work
with, challenge, and mentor each other in areas where there
are mutual interests.
Building a Learning Community
Demonstrating s sensitivity to students preferred ways of
learning, including alone or with others, while helping them
find ways to benefit and enjoy the larger cohort of fellow
earners in roles that maintain their persistence and
engagement.
