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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. New York: Westview Press.
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.
Babbie, E. (2014). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
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.
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.
Burnard, P. (1999). Carl Rogers and postmodernism: Challenges in nursing and health sciences. Nursing and Health Sciences, 1, 241–247.
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.
Csikszentmihaiyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: A longitudinal study of their development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hedberg, J. G. (2006). Methods and technologies for learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 307.
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.
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.
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.
Levin, H. M., Glass, G. V., & Meister, G. R. (1987). Cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction. Evaluation Review, 11, 50–72.
Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231.
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.
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.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105, 1623–1640.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80's. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.
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.
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.
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.
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Taylor & Francis.
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.
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.
Topping, K. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645.
Topping, K. J., Buchs, C., Duran, D., & Van Keer, H. (2017). Effective peer learning: From principles to practical implementation. London and New York: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10245-w