You are here:

Validating a Technology Enhanced Student-Centered Learning Model PROCEEDINGS

, , , , Ewha Womans University, Korea (South)

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Lisbon, Portugal ISBN 978-1-880094-89-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


The current study sought to validate the Technology Enhanced Student-Centered Learning (TESCL) Model. This model was conceptually constructed based on previous research to ensure the quality of learning in a holistic manner. In order to validate the model, two empirical studies to test the relationship between selected variables in the model were conducted. The first study investigated the relationships between learning motivation, teaching presence, and achievement in a web-based project learning environment. The findings showed significant correlations between these variables and the significant predictive power of learning motivation and teaching presence with regards to achievement. The second study investigated the relationship between perceived task value and learning outcomes, such as achievement and satisfaction, in a web-based learning environment. Perceived task value was found to be a strong predictor for achievement and satisfaction. Based on this initial validation of the TESCL model, validation of all of the variables inherent to this model is recommended.


Kang, M., Hahn, J., Yoo, E. & Kim, B. (2011). Validating a Technology Enhanced Student-Centered Learning Model. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2011--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 3025-3034). Lisbon, Portugal: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 15, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., & Burrell, N. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning: A comparison using meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 54(3), 402-420.
  2. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
  3. Barr, R.B. & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning-A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 13-25.
  4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
  5. Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M., & Perry, J.D. (1991). Theory into practices: How do we link?. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 100-112). Hillsdale,
  6. Buck Institute for Education (2001). Project based learning. Retrieved February 23, 2008 from Brown, G., Bull, J., & M. Pendlebury (1997). What is assessment? In assessing student learning in higher education. London: Routledge.
  7. Carlile, O., & Jordan, A. (2005). It works in practice but will it work in theory? The theoretical underpinnings of pedagogy. In S. Moore, G.O’ Neill, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching (pp. 11-26). Dublin: AISHE.
  8. Grabowski, B., Suciati, S. & Pusch, W. (1990). Social and intellectual value of computer-mediated communications in a graduate community. Educational and Training Technology International, 27(3), 276-283.
  9. Gulikers, J.T.M., Bastiaens, T.J., & Kirschner, P.A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52(3), 67-87.
  10. Gulikers, J.T.M., Bastiaens, T.J., & Martens, R.J. (2005). The surplus value of an authentic learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 509–521.
  11. Hahn, S. (2004). The relationships between the academic motivation variables, cognitive strategies and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18(1), 329-350.
  12. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T.C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71.
  13. Herrington, J. (2005). Authentic tasks in e-learning designs, studies in learning. Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 2(2), 1-8.
  14. Honebein, P.C., Duffy, T.M., & Fishman, B.J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. Duffy, J. Lowyk, & D. Jonassen. (Eds), Designing Environments for Constructive Learning (pp. 87-108). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  15. Huberman, M. (1989). The professional lifecycle of teacher. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 31-57.
  16. Hung, D., & Chen, D.V. (2006). Context-process authenticity in learning: implications for identity enculturation and boundary crossing. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(2), 147-167.
  17. Hwang, J., & Choi, M. (2006). Learning achievement and educational satisfaction according to learners` background variables and learning strategies in online teacher training. Journal of Educational Information and Media, 12(2), 255-274.
  18. Jo, I., & Lim, K. (2002). Study on the factors that influence students performance in GBS-based e-Learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology, 18(4), 79-110.
  19. Ju, Y., Kim, S., & Kim, S. (2008). The effects of self-efficacy, self-regulated learning and online task value on satisfaction and achievement incorporate cyber education. Journal of Vocational Education& Training, 11(3), 151-170.
  20. Kang, M., & Kim, N. (1999). The Effects of authenticity on learner's motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 25-42.
  21. Kang, M., & Kim, S. (2002). Investigating the effects of self regulated learning strategy assisting online project based learning. Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 3-22.
  22. Kang, K., & Kweon, S. (2004). The effects of external representation strategies on problem performances in CSCL environments. Journal of Educational Technology, 20(4), 53-76.
  23. KERIS. (2002). A study of teacher ICT literacy standards and curriculum detailing(research report CR 2002-4). Seoul: KERIS.
  24. KERIS. (2009). A study of consumer satisfaction survey and analysis in distance education training institute(research report RR 2009-8). Seoul: KERIS.
  25. Kim, M. (2007). A study on the factors affecting the learning satisfaction of teachers entering cyber graduate school. Journal of Korea Teacher Education, 24(3), 297-318.
  26. Kim, S. (2007). Evaluation strategy suited to constructivist classroom. Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 31-53.
  27. Kweon, H. (2002). Technological approach to performance assessment: Development of a web-based electronic portfolio. Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 51-78.
  28. Light, G., & Cox, R. (2001). Assessing: Student assessment. In Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The Reflective Practitioner (pp. 200-236). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
  29. Park, S., & Kim, M. (2004). The effects of online project learning on Information utilizing ability. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 8(4), 563-571.
  30. Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  31. Pintrich P., Smith D., Garcia T., & McKeachie W. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire(Technical Report 91-B-004). The Regents of The University of Michigan.
  32. Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
  33. Roelofs, E. & Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and authentic pedagogy: State of the art and recent developments in the dutch curriculum in secondary education. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
  34. Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 69-86.
  35. Shin, N.M., & Chan, J. (2004). Direct and indirect effects of online learning on distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 275-288.
  36. Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international review of the literature. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.
  37. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (1985). Teacher expectations and student motivation. In J.B. Dusek(Ed.), Teacher Expectancies (pp. 185-226). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  38. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: a theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.
  39. Woo, Y., Herrington, J., Agostinho, S., & Reeves, T.C. (2007). Implementing authentic tasks in web-based learning environments. Educause Quarterly, 30(3), 36-43.
  40. Yang, M. (2000). The study on the development and validation of self-regulated learning model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Seoul National University.
  41. Yu, P. (2003). Leaner-related factors which have effects on learner participation, learning achievement, and learner satisfaction of online graduate course. Journal of Educational Information and Media, 9(4), 229-267.
  42. Zimmerman, B.J., & Schunk, D.H. (2007). Motivation: An essential dimension of self-regulated learning. In D.H. Schunk and B.J. Zimmerman (Eds). Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: (Re) Theory, Research, and Applications (pp. 1-30). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. A Structural Model of Learning Process Perceptions and Outcomes in Distance Learning with the Support of an Offline Learning Community

    Myunghee Kang, Jungsun Hahn, BaoYng Teresa Liew & Eunjo Yoo, Ewha Womans University, Korea (South)

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2012 (Jun 26, 2012) pp. 183–192

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact