Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

eLearning technology and the advancement of practical constructivist pedagogies: Illustrations from classroom observations

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the advancement of technology, eLearning is increasingly adopted as an instructional method in a wide range of educational settings and has opened up new possibilities in teaching and learning practices. However, there is insufficient empirical evidence to illustrate how eLearning benefits teaching and learning practice in its real-world applications. Therefore, an important question is raised – How can eLearning technology facilitate pedagogical advancement practically in the classroom? In this study, we focus on constructivist pedagogies, emphasizing the dramatic educational reform from teacher-centered pedagogy to a student-centered, constructivist approach. Based on observations of 79 eLearning classes in eight primary schools, four secondary schools, and two special education schools in Hong Kong, this study illustrates how eLearning technology can advance at least five constructivist pedagogies: 1) active learning, 2) student-centered learning, 3) peer learning, 4) personalized learning, and 5) differentiated learning. We illustrate that the interactive, self-paced, repetitious, and customizable features of eLearning systems facilitate the implementation of these five constructivist pedagogies. Successful examples from classroom observations are drawn to illustrate how teachers make practical use of eLearning technology. This article serves to stimulate further discussion on how eLearning can be applied across various settings to advance the effectiveness of constructivist pedagogies and to encourage practitioners to consider how to make use of eLearning technology in the classroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. New York: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. E. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie, E. (2014). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC higher education report no. I. Washington DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

  • Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 413–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (2001). Introduction: Making the move to peer learning. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & J. Sampson (Eds.), Peer learning in higher education (pp. 1–17). Sterling, VA: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnard, P. (1999). Carl Rogers and postmodernism: Challenges in nursing and health sciences. Nursing and Health Sciences, 1, 241–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihaiyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: A longitudinal study of their development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMink-Carthew, J., & Olofson, M. W. (2020). Hands-joined learning as a framework for personalizing project-based learning in a middle grades classroom: An exploratory study. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 43, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eom, S. (2014). Empirical research on effects of interaction on elearning satisfaction and outcome: A review and future research direction. In Proceeding of 2014 international conference on education technologies and computers (ICETC) (pp. 98–102). New York City, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8410–8415.

  • Gibson, L., & Obiakor, F. (2018). Computer-based technology for special and multicultural education: Enhancing 21st Century learning. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing Inc.

  • Groff, J. (2013). Technology-rich innovative learning environments. OCED CERI Innovative Learning Environment project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332, 1213–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haelermans, C., Ghysels, J., & Prince, F. (2015). Increasing performance by differentiated teaching? Experimental evidence of the student benefits of digital differentiation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 1161–1174.

  • Handa, M. C. (2019). Leading differentiated learning for the gifted. Roeper Review, 41, 102–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, J. M., Trolian, T. L., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2016). Evaluating the influence of peer learning on psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 191–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, J. G. (2006). Methods and technologies for learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, K., Huscroft-D’Angelo, J., & Crawford, L. (2019). Effects of technology in mathematics on achievement, motivation, and attitude: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57, 283–319 https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117748416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2003). The new science of learning: Active learning, metacognition, and transfer of knowledge in e-learning applications. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, 325–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keane, G., & Heinz, M. (2019). Differentiated homework: Impact on student engagement. Journal of Practitioner Research, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.5038/2164-0866.4.2.1111.

  • Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 321–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, H. M., Glass, G. V., & Meister, G. R. (1987). Cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction. Evaluation Review, 11, 50–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J. (2004). A personalized e-learning material recommender system. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on information technology for application (ICITA), (pp. 374–379).

  • Lucas, H., & Kinsman, J. (2016). Distance- and blended-learning in global health research: Potentials and challenges. Global Health Action, 9, 33429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magebleh, I. S. I., & Abdullah, A. (2020). On the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in the enhancement of Jordanian students’ overall achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 13, 533–548.

  • Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, H. (2013). Maximizing student success with differentiated learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87, 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2013.832130.

  • O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centered learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? In G. O’Neill, S. Moore, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching (pp. 30–39). Dublin: All Ireland Society for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Segura, J. J., Ruiz, R. S., González-Calero, J. A., & Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. (2020). The effect of personalized feedback on listening and reading skills in the learning of EFL. Computer Assisted Language Learning., 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1705354.

  • Phillips, R., McNaught, C., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Evaluating e-learning: Guiding research and practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 185–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qadan, H. (2016). The effect of active learning-based instructional program on improving motivation and achievement towards science among middle stage students with learning disabilities in Riyadh. International Research in Education, 4, 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105, 1623–1640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80's. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, Y., Yang, H., MacLeod, J., Zhang, J., & Yang, H. H. (2020). College students’ cognitive learning outcomes in technology-enabled active learning environments: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58, 791–817. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119881477.

  • Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE Life Science Education, 12, 618–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 501–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, C. A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school: Making revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J., Buchs, C., Duran, D., & Van Keer, H. (2017). Effective peer learning: From principles to practical implementation. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twigg, C. (2002). Quality, cost and access: The case for redesign. In M. S. Pittinsky (Ed.), The wired tower: Perspectives on the impact of the internet on higher education (pp. 111–144). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenge facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72, 131–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R., & Shirazi, S. (2020). A systematic review of audience response systems for teaching and learning in higher education: The student experience. Computers & Education, 153, 103896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103896

  • Wulf, C. (2019). “From teaching to learning”: Characteristics and challenges of a student-centered learning culture. In H. A. Mieg (Ed.), Inquiry-based learning – Undergraduate research: The german multidisciplinary experience. New York: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, F.-Y., Chang, C.-Y., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2008). Teacher views about constructivist instruction and personal epistemology: A national study in Taiwan. Educational Studies, 34, 527–542.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of data and material

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code availability

There are no software or code involved in this study.

Funding

This study receives support from the Education Bureau of The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Learning Enhancement And Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, Hong Kong

    Paul L.C. LAM, Hilary K.Y. NG, Alan H.H. TSE & Bernardo Y. W. WONG

  2. University of Cologne, Germany, Cologne, Germany

    Ming Lu

Authors
  1. Paul L.C. LAM
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hilary K.Y. NG
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan H.H. TSE
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ming Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bernardo Y. W. WONG
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilary K.Y. NG.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest or competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

LAM, P.L., NG, H.K., TSE, A.H. et al. eLearning technology and the advancement of practical constructivist pedagogies: Illustrations from classroom observations. Educ Inf Technol 26, 89–101 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10245-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10245-w

Keywords