The literature describes three different sets of characteristics with reference to learning environments. Firstly, it describes learning environments as ‘places’, ‘sites’ or
‘spaces’ (Wilson, 1996; Illeris, 2002) where the learning experience occurs; secondly, it describes learning environments as structures that bind together the elements
(teacher, students and resources) in the learning experience; and finally, learning environments are defined by taking into consideration the activities and purposes that those elements (students, teachers and resources) perform in these places (Weston and Cranton, 1986).
In the first view, for instance, Wilson (1996: 3) defines a learning environment in contrast to ‘instructional environments’ as “a place where people can draw upon
resources to make sense out of things and construct meaningful solutions to problems”. From this standpoint, learning environments are constituted and differentiated by the types of things that are present in the physical environment. According to Perkins (1991) learning environments are constituted of items such as “information banks, symbol pads, phenomenaria, construction kits and task managers” (Cited in Wilson, 1996: 6). Continuing this theme, Illeris (2002) talks about internal and external conditions of learning and defines the external condition of learning as types of ‘space’, or spheres in which learning occurs. Students come to these learning spaces with presumptions about what to expect and how to behave, which inform the basic attitude they will have to learning.
When described by the second set of features – as structures – learning environments are generally defined by the sort of elements that bind people and things together around an activity that provides the condition, the means, and the support necessary for the learning experience. In networked learning, for instance, the emphasis is on communication and information technologies “to promote connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors and between a learning community and its learning resources” (Goodyear et al., 2004:1). Another version
related to a structural view of learning environments defines them as “nested
structures which provide the physical setting for the work of a community of learners” (Goodyear, 1997: 6). Although resources are important considerations for learning environments according to this view, the main features are the links and interactions that are produced between the members.
When viewed by the third set of characteristics – as activities – learning environments are considered with respect to the ways in which the content is organised and
delivered. It is also defined as methods of instruction, which can be classified in a variety of ways. According to Weston and Cranton (1986), for instance, methods of instruction can be distinguished in four ways: (1) instructor-centred; (2) interactive; (3) individualised; and (4) experiential.
Examples of instructor-centred teaching methods include lectures, questioning, and
demonstrations. Interactive methods rely on the involvement of the students in the
communication process in the classroom. Some examples of this method include class discussion (as a whole or in groups), group projects, and peer-teaching. Individualised learning methods have received different kinds of attention, from psychological
studies of memory capacity to computer assisted learning. They are based on the assumption that learning is an individual task and that everyone has a different way of learning; thus, the individual should learn at his/her own pace. Programmed
instruction, modularised instruction and computerised instruction in the form of instructional packages are examples of individualised learning methods. Finally,
experiential learning methods involve a different kind of relationship between the
learner and the content, as we can see in the field of clinical methods, laboratory methods, role playing, in simulations/games, and in some forms of drill (Weston and Cranton, 1986).
Hannafin and Land (1997) offer another classification of learning environments. For the authors, learning environments are rooted in five foundations: psychological, pedagogical, technological, cultural, and pragmatic. While the psychological
foundation of learning environments reflects “views about how individuals acquire,
organise, and deploy knowledge and skill” (p. 172), the cultural foundation “reflect(s)
prevailing beliefs about education, the values of a culture, and the roles of individuals in society” (p.176). These views evolve and have to be understood historically.
The pedagogical foundation of learning environments focuses on the ‘activities,
methods, and structures’ used in the learning environment. It provides the ways in which the content is organised. It may be related to the technological foundation of
learning environments, which represents the technological constraints that are put on the learning activities. The technological constraints determine what is possible, in contrast to what is required or desired, because technologies are defined by the “operations they support and the symbol systems they employ” (p. 175). In this view, the pedagogical foundation is mediated by the technological foundation.
Finally, the pragmatic foundation of learning environments underlines the contextual
constraints that influence the design of learning systems. Hannafin and Land emphasise the uniqueness of each learning setting, illustrated, for instance, by the “run-time requirements, hardware/software availability and compatibility, and financial concerns” (p. 177).
In conclusion, Hannafin and Land contend that “any learning environment is ultimately shaped by its foundations and assumptions about learning, pedagogy and the learner” (p. 197). Changing any of the assumptions necessarily involves changes in the relationships between the foundations.
Another alternative schema for understanding learning environments was given by Wosnitza and Nenniger (2001), who claim that two different levels of description should be considered when conceptualising learning environments: the object of reality and theperspective of reality. The object of reality refers to learning
environments as objects of study, with their content polarised into material and social
concreteness. The material aspect relates to the concrete character of reality and the social aspect to the inferential perspective of the subjects.
The perspective of reality refers to the dichotomy of reality as objective and reality as subjective. The objective view considers important concrete aspects of reality, which
includes issues such as class size, supply of literature in a university library, presence of textbooks, computers, intensity of internet access, etc. The subjective view, on the other hand, considers the individual’s perception of reality, including things like student relationships to the teacher, student perceptions of the atmosphere of the classroom, etc.
More recently and pragmatically, however, Merrienboer and Paas (2003) and
Achtenhagen (2000) proposed that we should differentiate between types of learning environments in response to the enormous changes and challenges which are
occurring in the world of work, where working tasks are shifting from linear,
standardised and isolated to non linear, varied in content and with different degrees of interrelationships. Merrienboer and Paas called environments that are created to deal with this type of context ‘powerful learning environments’. Powerful learning environments allow the development of complex and higher-order skills, and deep conceptual understanding. They also allow students to develop the ability to regulate
their own learning. According to the authors, powerful learning environments enable the reconciliation of three worlds: the world of work, the world of knowledge and the world of learning.
The world of work deals with descriptions of real-life or professional tasks and
assumes that learners learn best within rich environments. The world of knowledge
presupposes the analysis of ‘learning goals’ and some sort of taxonomy and hierarchy of these goals. Normally, the achievement of these goals relies on a series of
procedures guided by concepts, rules and strategies which is the link to the world of learning. The world of learning focuses on “the description and analysis of leaning
processes” (p. 6). It involves the specification of the instructional conditions which are necessary to support the specific kind of learning process. In order to reconcile these three worlds, a powerful learning environment
must pay attention to the coordination of all skills that constitute a complex cognitive skill as well as the integration of those skills with subordinate knowledge and attitudes, and concurrently promote schema construction for non-recurrent aspects and schema automation for recurrent aspects of the complex skill (Merrienboer and Paas, 2003: 9).
According to Merrienboer and Paas, to achieve this differentiation, coordination and integration of skills, a powerful learning environment may be described as
compounded by four elements: a) learning tasks or “concrete, authentic and
meaningful real-life experiences that are provided to learners” (p. 9); b) supportive information, that is, mental models and cognitive strategies which may help students
to deal with the performance of non-recurrent aspects of learning tasks; c) procedural information or information that learners “need to know to perform the recurrent aspect of the learning tasks” (p. 10) and (d) part-task practice, that is, activities that provide training for particular skills.
Merrienboer and Paas’ framework may represent a shift in the instructional learning literature in favour of more realistic learning environments. However, it is still necessary to be cautious because it is not always clear in the real world what
constitutes a complex skill, let alone how to develop it. What seems reasonable is the suggestion that passive, teacher-centred and cognitive learning environments are not valuable for developing complex skills. Nevertheless, as Merrienboer and Paas acknowledge, “very little is known about the systematic design of [powerful learning environments]” (p. 17). This is particularly true in management education, where learning environments may oscillate from the traditional to the exotic.