CSLE+COVA Research

Peer Reviewed eBooks

Harapnuik, D. K., & Thibodeaux, T. N. (2023). COVA: Inspire Learning Through Choice, Ownership, Voice, and Authentic Experiences 2nd Ed. Learner’s Mindset Publishing.
COVA eBook is available in Kindle format from Amazon,

Harapnuik, D. K., & Thibodeaux, T. N. (2023). Learner’s Mindset: A Catalyst for Innovation. Learner’s Mindset Publishing. KIndle format from Amazon

Published peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters that point to research that supports the COVA+CSLE approach:

Thibodeaux, T. N., & Harapnuik, D. K. (2021). Exploring students’ use of feedback to take ownership and deepen learning. International Journal of e-Learning. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/j/IJEL/

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., Cummings, C. D., & Dolce, J. (2021). Graduate students’ perceptions of factors that contribute to ePortfolio Persistence beyond the program of study. International Journal of ePortfolio.

Harapnuik, D. K., & Thibodeaux, T. N. (2020). Exploring students’ use of feedback to take ownership and deepen learning. International Journal of e-Learning. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/j/IJEL/

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., & Cummings, C. D. (2019). ePortfolio Persistence. Manuscript in progress.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., & Cummings, C. D. (2019). Feedback to Feedforward. Manuscript in progress.

Thibodeaux, T. N., & Harapnuik, D. K. (2019). Exploring students’ use of feedback to take ownership and deepen learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K, & Cummings, C. D. (2019). Student perceptions of the influence of the COVA learning approach on authentic projects and the learning environment. International Journal of e-Learning, 18(1), 79-101. Retrieved from http://www.learntechlib.org/c/IJEL/

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., & Cummings, C. D. (2019). Student perceptions of the influence of choice, ownership, and voice in learning and the learning environment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 33(1), 50-62. Retrieved from
http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/current.cfm

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K, & Cummings, C. D. (2018). Graduate student perceptions of the impact of the COVA learning approach on authentic projects and ePortfolios. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., & Cummings, C. D. (2018). Perceptions of the influence of learner choice, ownership in learning, and voice in learning and the learning environment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K, & Cummings, C. D. (2017). Graduate student perceptions of the impact of the COVA learning approach on authentic projects and ePortfolios. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., & Cummings, C. D. (2017, May). Learners as critical thinkers for the workplace of the future: Introducing the COVA learning approach. Texas Computer Education Association TCEA Techedge, 2(2), 13. Retrieved from http://www.tcea.org/about/publications/

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., Cummings, C. D., & Wooten, R. (2017). Learning all the time and everywhere: Moving beyond the hype of the mobile learning quick fix. In Keengwe, J. S. (Eds.). Handbook of research on mobile technology, constructivism, and meaningful learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Harapnuik, D. K., Thibodeaux, T. N., & Cummings, C. D. (2017, March). Student perceptions of the impact of the COVA approach on the ePortfolios and authentic projects in the digital learning and leading program. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE), Austin, TX.

Harapnuik, D. K., Thibodeaux, T. N., & Cummings, C. D. (2017). Using the COVA learning approach to create active and significant learning environments. In Keengwe, J. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on digital content, mobile learning, and technology integration models in teacher education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K, & Cummings, C. D. (2017). Factors that contribute to ePortfolio persistence. International Journal of ePortfolio, 7(1), p. 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.theijep.com/pdf/IJEP257.pdf

Harapnuik, D., Thibodeaux, T. & Poda, I. (2017) New Technologies. In Martin, G.E., Danzig, A.B., Wright, W.F., Flanary, R.A., & Orr, M.T. School leader internship: Developing, monitoring, and evaluating your leadership experience (4th Ed.). New York: Routledge, pp. 91-94.

The research that informs the CSLE+COVA

The CSLE+COVA approach is based on a considerable amount of research that has been conducted over the past two decades about what works and does not work when it comes to creating significant learning environments where learners are given choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities.  While based on all the research listed in the references, in particular, it emphasizes…

Constructivism – With roots stemming from progressive education, the combination of Labaree (2005) and Hattie’s (2008) definition of constructivism builds upon student-centered learning, guided discovery learning, and visible learning where students construct new knowledge and show others how they learn (Piaget, 1964; Ginsberg & Oppers, 1969, Papert, 1993, 1997). Jonassen and Reeves (1996) assert that learning with technology or using technology tools to support the learning process, should be the focus in the learning environment rather than learning from technology. This line of thinking allows authentic projects to become the “object of activity” as opposed to technology functioning as the primary focus of instruction.

Student/learner-centered – It all has to start with the learner. Mayer (2009) characterized learner-centered approaches where instructional technology was used as an enhancement to human cognition. Essentially, student-centered learning is when students “own” their own learning (Dewey, 1916; Lee & Hannafin, 2016).

Teaching roles – An instructor has many different roles which at minimum include presenter, facilitator, coach, and mentor (Harapnuik, 2015a; Priest, 2016). We need to shift to more coaching and mentoring because formative evaluation and feedback given within a trusted relationship yields the highest levels of student achievement (Hattie 2008, 2011).

Ubiquitous Access & Social Networking – We live in an age where we can access all the world’s information and almost anyone from the palms of our hands.  Because we are socially networked and connected learners look to their peers and crowd-sourcing for information and solutions to problems (Edelman, 2017).

Instructional Design — If we start with the end in mind or a purposeful backward design, we can look at how a course or program will change learners’ lives, how it can make them a better member of society, and how they can contribute to solving particular problems (Fink, 2003; Harapnuik, 2004, 2015a).

Assessment & Evaluation — We should be incorporating formative tools like feed forward (Goldsmith, 2009) or educative assessments that help the learner to align outcomes with activities and assessment (Fink, 2003).

Support & Infrastructure — When people talk about learning technology, they think of tablets and laptops being used in the classroom or learning management systems. But this is the wrong focus; we should not focus on the technology itself but viewed simply as a tool that provides information and supports teaching and learning (November, 2013; Amory, 2014).

Choice – Learners are given the freedom to choose how they wish to organize, structure, and present their learning experiences (Dewey, 1916, Ginsberg & Opper, 1969). Choice also extends to the authentic project or learning experience promotes personalized learning (Bolliger & Sheperd, 2010) which includes adapting or developing learning goals and choosing learning tools that support the learning process (Buchem, Tur, & Hölterhof, 2014).

Guided discovery – It is crucial to acknowledge that the learner’s choice is guided by the context of the learning opportunity and by the instructor who aides the learner in making effective choices. The research over the past 40 years confirms guided discovery provides the appropriate freedom to engage in authentic learning opportunities while at the same time providing the necessary guidance, modeling, and direction to lessen the cognitive overload (Bruner, 1961, 1960; Ginsberg & Opper, 1969: Mayer, 2004).

Ownership –  Constructivists, like Jonassen (1999), argue that ownership of the problem is key to learning because it increases learner engagement and motivation to seek out solutions. Ownership of learning is also directly tied to agency when learners make choices and “impose those choices on the world” (Buchem et al., 2014, p. 20; Buchem, Attwell, & Torres, 2011). Clark (2001) points to a learner’s own personal agency and ownership of belief systems as one major factor contributing to the willingness and persistence in sharing their learning.

Voice – Learners are given the opportunity to use their own voice to structure their work and ideas and share those insights and knowledge with their colleagues within their organizations. The opportunity to share this new knowledge publicly with people other than the instructors helps the learner to deepen their understanding, demonstrate flexibility of knowledge, find their unique voice, establish a sense of purpose, and develop a greater sense of personal significance (Bass, 2014).

Authentic learning – The selection and engagement in real-world problems that are relevant to the learner further their ability to make meaningful connections (Donovan et al., 2000) and provide them with career preparedness not available in more traditional didactic forms of education (Windham, 2007).  Research confirms that authenticity is only developed through engagement with these sorts of real-world tasks or as Kolb (1974 & 2014) would suggest through experiential learning and that this type of authentic learning can deepen knowledge creation and ultimately help the learner transfer this knowledge beyond the classroom (Driscoll, 2005; Nikitina, 2011). It is also important to recognize that authenticity is not an independent or isolated feature of the learning environment but it is the result of the continual interaction between the learner, the real-world activity, and the learning environment (Barab, Squire, & Dueber, 2000). This is also why we stress that in the COVA model choice, ownership, and voice are realized through authentic learning, and without this dynamic and interactive authenticity, there would be no genuine choice, ownership, and voice (Harapnuik, Thibodeaux, & Cummings, 2017).

References

Amory, A. (2014). Tool-mediated authentic learning in an educational technology course: A designed-based innovation. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 497-513. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.682584

Barab, S. A., Squire, K. D., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.

Bass, R. (2014). Social pedagogies in ePortfolio practices: Principles for design and impact. Retrieved from http://c2l.mcnrc.org/pedagogy/ped-analysis/

Bolliger, D. U., & Sheperd, C. E. (2010). Student perceptions of ePortfolio integration in Online courses. Distance Education, 31(3), 295-314.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing: essays for the left hand. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the information given. New York, New York: Norton.

Buchem, I., Attwell, G., & Torres, R. (2011). Understanding personal learning environments: Literature review and synthesis through the activity theory lens. Proceedings of the PLE Conference, 1-33. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/658/

Buchem, I., Tur, G., & Hölterhof, T. (2014). Learner control in personal learning environments: cross-cultural study. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 15(2), 14-53. Retrieved from http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/volume-15-number-2-june-2014.html

Clark, R. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York, New York: D. C. Heath.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Driscoll, M. P. (2005) Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Edelman, R. (2017). 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer. Retrieved from http://www.edelman.com/trust2017/

Fink, D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1969). Piaget’s theology of intellectual development: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goldsmith, M. (2009). Take it to the next level: What got you here, won’t get you there. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Harapnuik, D. (2004). Development and evaluation of inquisitivism as a foundational approach for web-based instruction (Doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Harapnuik, D. (2015, May 8b). Creating significant learning environments (CSLE). [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/eZ-c7rz7eT4

Harapnuik, D. K., Thibodeaux, T. N., & Cummings, C. D. (2017). Using the COVA learning approach to create active and significant learning environments. In Keengwe, J. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on digital content, mobile learning, and technology integration models in teacher education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hattie, J. (2011, November 28). Visible learning Pt1. Disasters and below average methods [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/sng4p3Vsu7Y

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth, Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 215-240). New York, NY: Routledge.

Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on education communications and technology (pp. 6930719). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Labaree, D. F. (2005). Progressivism, schools, and schools of education: An American romance. Paedagogica Historica, 41(1&2), 275-288. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ748632

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth, Instructional-design theories, and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kolb, David A. 2014. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Kolb, David Allen, and Ronald Eugene Fry. 1974. Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning. MIT Alfred P. Sloan School of Management.

Lee, E. & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research Development, 64, 707-734. doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.lamar.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14

Nikitina, L. (2011). Creating an authentic learning environment in the foreign language classroom. International Journal of Instruction, (4)1, 33-36. Retrieved from http://www.e-iji.net/dosyalar/iji_2011_1_3.pdf

November, A. (2013, February 13). Why schools must move beyond one-to-one computing [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://novemberlearning.com/educational-resources-for-educators/teaching-and-learning-articles/why-schools-must-move-beyond-one-to-one-computing/

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1997). Why school reform is impossible (with commentary on O’Shea’s and Koschmann’s reviews of “The children’s machine”). The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 417–427.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R.E. Ripple & V.N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget Rediscovered: A Report on the Conference of Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Development (pp. 7–20). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Priest, S. (2016). Learning & teaching [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://simonpriest.altervista.org/LT.html#ES

Simonson, S., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Windham, C. (2007). Why today’s students value authentic learning. Educause Learning ELI Paper 9. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3017.pdf

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.

Links to all the components of the CSLE+COVA framework:

Change in Focus
Why CSLE+COVA
CSLE
COVA
CSLE+COVA vs Traditional
Digital Learning & Leading
Research

Revised August, 2024

Please note: The DLL course goals and program map must be read from the bottom starting from EDLD 5305 then moving onto 5302, 5303 and so on. The large red text points to the main plan, strategy, or publication that you will have created upon completion of the course.

Related DLL links:
What to expect from the DLL
What you get from the DLL
How to succeed in the DLL

Link to the Orginal DLL Program Map 2015-2019

Revised: October 5, 2020

Digital Learning and Leading (DLL)

The Master of Digital Learning and Leading (DLL) at Lamar University was a collaborative learner-centered program that embraces technological innovation through collaboration and active and authentic learning that will prepare learners to create meaningful change. The program ran from the fall of 2015 to the Spring 2022. The DLL was updated completely and now runs as the Applied Digital Learning program at Lamar University.

In creating significant learning environments (CSLE) by giving learners choice ownership and voice through authentic learning opportunities (COVA) we help our learners grow into digital leaders who can embrace the opportunities of the future. We refer to this as the CSLE+COVA framework or the COVA approach.

While technology is continually used to enhance the learning environment in the DLL, it isn’t just relegated to being another tool our learners put in their instructional toolboxes. Innovative technologies are used as catalysts to enhance learning and when effectively employed, the technology disappears into the learning environment. This online program is designed to develop both your digital knowledge and your leadership abilities and give you tools, skills, and knowledge to empower those in your educational community to step outside their comfort zone and into the digital future.

The DLL program is grounded in the learning approaches of Dewey, Bruner, Piaget, Papert, Jonassen and other constructivist theorists who advocate that learning is an active, dynamic, and social process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current and past knowledge and experiences. The making of meaningful connections is key to the learning and knowing.

The educator and philosopher Mortimer Adler suggests that:

teaching is a very special art, sharing with only two other arts — agriculture and medicine — an exceptionally important characteristic. A doctor may do many things for his patient, but in the final analysis, it is the patient himself who must get well — grow in health. The farmer does many things for his plants or animals, but in the final analysis, it is they that must grow in size and excellence. Similarly, although the teacher may help his student in many ways, it is the student himself who must do the learning. Knowledge must grow in his mind if learning is to take place (p. 11).

In the DLL we create and model significant learning environments where the learner is given choice ownership and, voice through authentic learning opportunities (COVA).

DLL students learn how to purposefully assemble all the key components of effective learning and create their own significant learning environments that will then, in turn, help their learners to learn how to learn.

Research and experience confirm that we learn most deeply through effective collaboration and feedback from our peers. DLL collaborative activities are structured so that students can bring their ideas to their group, examine and test those ideas, and then apply those refined and strengthened ideas to their own projects.

Collaboration is not used as a consensus driving process, rather it is part of the significant learning environment where learners are immersed and engage in productive thinking and problem solving and emerge with enhanced knowledge and skills that they can apply in their own classrooms and professional development.

In DLL the learner will not be asked to sit and get professional development but will be required to go and show what they have learned through the creation of their own authentic projects and learning ePortfolio. The DLL ePortfolio reinforces learner choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning which the DLL students are then able to share with their learners and their learning communities.

Related DLL links:
CSLE+COVA
DLL Program Map & Course Goals
What You Get From the DLL
How to Succeed in the DLL

References

Adler, M. J., & Van Doren, C. (1972). How to read a book: The classic guide to intelligent reading. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1997). Why school reform is impossible (with commentary on O’Shea’s and Koschmann’s reviews of “The children’s machine”). The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 417–427.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R.E. Ripple & V.N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget Rediscovered: A Report on the Conference of Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Development (pp. 7–20). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

COVA — is a learner centered active learning approach that gives the learner choice (C), ownership (O), and voice (V) through authentic (A) learning opportunities.

While the acronym COVA is somewhat authentic, the elements of the COVA approach to learning which include choice, ownership, and voice through authentic activities or assignments are based on well-established and widely accepted active learning principles. Similarly, the elements of Creating Significant Learning Environments (CSLE) are not new and neither is the idea of looking at learning from a holistic or broader learning environment perspective. So, when the COVA approach is combined with CSLE, you get a significant learning environment which takes into account all the key elements essential to effective active learning. Additionally, the learner has the opportunity to choose and take ownership of their own authentic learning experiences. All the variables are in place to help your learner make the meaningful connections which are so fundamental to learning. When you factor in a genuine digital learning portfolio, which we prefer to call an ePortfolio, you also give your learner the opportunity to find their voice, reflect on their experiences, express their insights, connect, and collaborate with a broader learning community. Research has shown that the assembly of existing or well-established ideas into new combinations is the foundation of most innovative work and knowledge advancement (Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, 2007; Duhigg, 2016).

COVA Components

Choice – Learners are given the freedom to choose (C) how they wish to organize, structure and present their learning experiences and evidence of learning. Choice also extends to the authentic project or learning experience. Choice promotes personalized learning (Bolliger & Sheperd, 2010) which includes adapting or developing learning goals and choosing learning tools that support the learning process (Buchem, Tur, & Hölterhof, 2014). It is crucial to acknowledge that the learner’s choice is guided by the context of the learning opportunity and by the instructor who aids the learner in making effective choices.

It is extremely important that this learning process is understood as guided discovery and not confused with pure discovery learning (Bruner, 1961, 1960). The research over the past 40 years confirms guided discovery provides the appropriate freedom to engage in authentic learning opportunities while at the same time providing the necessary guidance, modeling, and direction to lessen the cognitive overload (Mayer, 2004). In addition to instructor guidance, the creation of a significant learning environment will also provide guidance and structure to help direct the learner. The academic literature is rich with examples of choice which can often be referred to as learner agency, autonomy, empowerment, self-efficacy. Choice has a very long history as we can see from Dewey’s (1916) perspective from Democracy and Education:

The essence of the demand for freedom is the need of conditions which will enable an individual to make his own special contribution to a group interest, and to partake of its activities in such ways that social guidance shall be a matter of his own mental attitude and not a mere authoritative dictation of his acts. (p.352)

Ownership – Learners are given control and ownership (O) over the entire learning process including the selection of projects, the ePortfolio process, and all their learning tools. Once again we must reiterate that this ownership process is within the context of instructor guidance. The same benefits of guided discovery discussed above apply to this context as well. Constructivists, like Jonassen (1999), argue that ownership of the problem is key to learning because it increases learner engagement and motivation to seek out solutions. Ownership of learning is also directly tied to agency when learners make choices and “impose those choices on the world” (Buchem et al., 2014, p. 20; Buchem, Attwell, & Torres, 2011). Clark (2001) points to a learner’s own personal agency and ownership of belief systems as one major factor contributing to the willingness and persistence in sharing their learning. These belief systems must be understood prior to sharing their belief systems. Clark (2001) also claimed that media is not solely responsible for learner motivation.

Voice – Learners are given the opportunity to use their own voice (V) to structure their work and ideas and share those insights and knowledge with their colleagues within their organizations. The opportunity to share this new knowledge publicly with people other than the instructors helps the learner to deepen their understanding, demonstrate flexibility of knowledge, find their unique voice, establish a sense of purpose, and develop a greater sense of personal significance (Bass, 2014).

Authentic learning – Learners are given the opportunity to select and engage in authentic (A) learning opportunities that enable them to make a genuine difference in their own learning environments. The selection and engagement in real-world problems that are relevant to the learner furthers their ability to make meaningful connections (Donovan et al., 2000) and provide them with career preparedness not available in more traditional didactic forms of education (Windham, 2007). Research confirms that authenticity is only developed through engagement with these sorts of real-world tasks and that this type of authentic learning can deepen knowledge creation and ultimately help the learner transfer this knowledge beyond the classroom (Driscoll, 2005; Nikitina, 2011). It is also important to recognize that authenticity is not an independent or isolated feature of the learning environment but it is the result of the continual interaction between the learner, the real-world activity, and the learning environment (Barab, Squire, & Dueber, 2000). This is also why we stress that in the COVA model choice, ownership, and voice are realized through authentic learning and without this dynamic and interactive authenticity, there would be no genuine choice, ownership, and voice.

References

Barab, S. A., Squire, K. D., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37-62.

Bass, R. (2014). Social pedagogies in ePortfolio practices: Principles for design and impact. Retrieved from http://c2l.mcnrc.org/pedagogy/ped-analysis/

Bolliger, D. U., & Sheperd, C. E. (2010). Student perceptions of ePortfolio integration in Online courses. Distance Education, 31(3), 295-314.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

Buchem, I., Attwell, G., & Torres, R. (2011). Understanding personal learning environments: Literature review and synthesis through the activity theory lens. Proceedings of the PLE Conference, 1-33. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/658/

Buchem, I., Tur, G., & Hölterhof, T. (2014). Learner control in personal learning environments: cross-cultural study. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 15(2), 14-53. Retrieved from http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/volume-15-number-2-june-2014.html

Clark, R. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Donovan, S. M., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2000). How People Learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.

Driscoll, M. P. (2005) Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Duhigg, C. (2016). Smarter faster better: The secrets of being productive. New York, NY: Random House.

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth, Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 215-240). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.lamar.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14

Nikitina, L. (2011). Creating an authentic learning environment in the foreign language classroom. International Journal of Instruction, (4)1, 33-36. Retrieved from http://www.e-iji.net/dosyalar/iji_2011_1_3.pdf

Windham, C. (2007). Why today’s students value authentic learning. Educause Learning ELI Paper 9. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3017.pdf
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.

Links to the all the components of the CSLE+COVA framework:

Change in Focus
Why CSLE+COVA
CSLE
COVA
CSLE+COVA vs Traditional
Digital Learning & Leading
Research

Last Revised July 14, 2018

If someone needs directions, don’t give them a globe. It’ll merely waste their time. But if someone needs to understand the way things are, don’t give them a map. They don’t need directions; they need to see the big picture (Seth Godin, 2017 para. 1).

In order to fully understand what the CSLE+COVA framework is and how it can enhance and transform learning, you need to see the broader perspective of creating a significant learning environment (CSLE) in which we give the learner choice ownership and voice through authentic learning opportunities (COVA).

The CSLE+COVA framework isn’t just a theoretical construct it provides the learning foundation for the Masters of Education in Digital Learning and Leading program and Masters of Education in Applied Digital Learning at Lamar University, is being used in the Lamar Honors College and several other programs at Lamar, is being used in the K-12 classrooms all across North America and is also being used to transform corporate learning environments.

We recommend that you use the following linked pages (traditional blue link text) in sequence but as you will see from the principles of COVA we leave that choice up to you:

CSLE+COVA – The synergy of creating significant learning environments by providing learners choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities.

To benefit from the CSLE+COVA framework you must begin with a Change in Focus
You will find that these two videos (Part A – 7 min & Part B – 4 min) will help you to recognize how a simple change in focus can help you and your organization stay focused on helping your learners to realize their full potential and grow into future leaders who will help improve our world.

Creating Significant Learning Environment

CSLE
This short video (6 min) explains how important it is to look at the bigger picture when you are creating significant learning environments.

COVA
The short page and video (2 min) provides the overview and context for COVA and will help to reinforce how important it is to have choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities.

CSLE+COVA Framework
The short page and video (2 min) provide the overview and context for CSLE+COVA.

Why CSLE+COVA
Since people don’t buy into what you do but buy why you do the CSLE+COVA Why, How and What page and the short 4 Keys to CSLE+COVA (5 min) provide the foundational starting point about how to use technology to enhance learning.

How The CSLE+COVA framework is used as the foundation for the Masters of Digital Learning and Leading (DLL) and Applied Digital Learning (ADL) at Lamar University:

DLL Program Map & ADL Program Map
The DLL Program Map and ADP Program Maps pages and related videos (8 min) will give you a detailed explanation, and a visual representation of how the DLL and ADL programs works and how each of the courses works together to help you build, implement and measure an innovation plan that will help you succeed as a digital leader.

What to expect from the DLL & What to expect from the ADL
Constructivist hold that people learn by making meaningful connections between what they already know and what is new. Therefore, it is our hope that the What to Expect video (6 min) which compares and contrasts the CSLE+COVA to the traditional information transfer model will help you to understand how to deal with the differences you will experience in the DLL program

What you get from the DLL & What you get from the ADL
Since the DLL and ADL programs use authentic learning opportunities that are core to the constructivist CSLE+COVA approach this page points to all the authentic, plans, strategies, and related resources that you will create in the program.

Research that supports the CSLE+COVA Framework
We encourage everyone to always look at the research and supporting ideas and theories behind what you read. The CSLE+COVA and the DLL and ADL programs are based on well-established constructivist theories and research so we encourage you to explore these foundational ideas further.

References
Godin, S. (2017, January 8). Maps and globes [Blog]. Retrieved from http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/01/maps-and-globes.html

To better understand how the CSLE+COVA approach compares to traditional approaches, how it is used in the Masters of Digital Learning and Leading at Lamar University and to view the research supporting the approach consider the following:

Change in Focus
Why CSLE+COVA
CSLE
COVA
CSLE+COVA vs Traditional
Digital Learning & Leading
Applied Digital Learning
Research