See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282858047

Analysis of the Use of Digital Technologies in Schools

That Implement Different Learning Theories

Article  in  Journal of Educational Computing Research · August 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0735633115597869

CITATIONS READS

12 1,435

2 authors:

Jon Altuna Arkaitz Lareki

Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitat…
37 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   72 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Las teorías de enseñanza-aprendizaje y los recursos de Internet View project

Perfil profesional, centros de prácticas y ámbitos profesionales de la Pedagogía: definición, análisis y propuesta para la
titulación View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jon Altuna on 16 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Journal of Educational Computing

Analysis of the Use Research

2015, Vol. 53(2) 205–227
! The Author(s) 2015
of Digital Technologies Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
in Schools That DOI: 10.1177/0735633115597869
jec.sagepub.com
Implement Different
Learning Theories

Jon Altuna1 and Arkaitz Lareki2

Abstract
The main aim of this article is to find points of intersection at which learning theories
and technologies converge. For this purpose, after a brief review of the historical
evolution of learning theories and teaching methods, we define some indicators that
allow us to identify the main learning theory applied in each school, as well as the
technological resources used. After analyzing 21 schools, the results show that (a)
different learning theories coexist in the schools that took part in this research
project and (b) some Internet-based resources are more commonly used in
Constructivism contexts, while instructional software tends to be more common
when behavior theory is applied. Finally, this study points out the need to train
teachers in both technological and theoretical aspects.

Keywords
pedagogical issues, elementary education, digital resources, teaching/learning
strategies

1
Department of History and Theory of Education, Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Science,
University of the Basque Country, San Sebastián, Spain
2
Department of Didactics and School Organization, Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Science,
University of the Basque Country, San Sebastián, Spain
Corresponding Author:
Jon Altuna, Department of History and Theory of Education, Faculty of Philosophy and Educational
Science, University of the Basque Country, Avenida Tolosa 70, San Sebastián 20018, Spain.
Email: jon.altuna@ehu.eus
206 Journal of Educational Computing Research 53(2)

Introduction
Over the past few decades, the use of digital technology, and especially the
Internet, has spread and developed to become an integral part of our society,
changing economic models, ways of accessing information, relationship models,
and, of course, education systems. According to Castells (1996), we have now
entered a new era: the information age.
Schools are adapting to this new society in a range of different ways,
implementing diverse theories depending on economic, cultural, political, and
social features. The review of the literature will chart the historical evolution of
learning theories (Driscoll, 2000) and highlight how the implementation of these
theories changes teaching methodologies. It will also show the trends regarding
the incorporation of technological resources in schools that apply different
theories.

Learning Theories
Throughout the course of history, the development of different theories has
had a profound influence on the education system. Behaviorism emerged in the
early 20th century. According to Watson (1913) and Skinner (1953), this
theory concerns the observable behavior of people and animals, rather than
unobservable events that take place in their minds. It also relates our evolution
and growth to our response to our environment. It focuses on one particular
view of learning: a change in behavior achieved through a large amount of
repetition of desired actions, the rewarding of good habits, and the discour-
agement of bad habits.
In the second half of the 20th century, Behaviorism was largely eclipsed by
the consequences of the cognitive revolution. In contrast to Behaviorism,
Cognitivism focuses on inner mental processes such as thinking, memory,
and problem solving. According to this theory, knowledge can be understood
as symbolic mental constructions, hence the name Constructivism
(Piaget, 1964).
Constructivism emerged as a theory to explain how knowledge is constructed
using previous information that has been developed in each individual as a result
of other experiences or learning. In an approach to education, this theory places
heavy emphasis on the way knowledge is created to adapt to the world. Piaget
(1964) focuses on how knowledge is constructed from interaction with the envir-
onment, while Vygotsky (1978) highlights the idea of how the social milieu
allows an inner reconstruction of each individual.
The most recent theory is Connectivism, which was proposed
by Siemens (2005) and Downes (2010). Connectivism attempts to under-
stand learning as a process of connecting specialized nodes or
Altuna and Lareki 207

information sources; this learning may reside in nonhuman appliances. Siemens

(2005) states that

Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core

elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as
actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organisation or a
database), is focused on connecting specialised information sets, and the connec-
tions that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of
knowing. (p. 4)

Learning Theories and Teaching Methods

There can be no doubt that different learning theories have had a major influence
on the education system and on teaching methods in particular. Behaviorism, for
instance, is a long-standing theory that has been widely applied and traditionally
well regarded by some authors such as Watson (1913) and Skinner (1953).
According to this approach, it is the teacher’s job to steer their students.
Teachers are the ones who transmit content, and students are the ones who
listen, complete tasks, study textbooks, and are then assessed through an individ-
ual, written test. The teacher controls the materials and closely oversees the learn-
ing process. This perspective defends the existence of just one reality, about which
“learners display an understanding through declarative, procedural and condi-
tional knowledge” (Phillips, Wells, Ice, Curtis, & Kennedy, 2008, p. 31).
However, these methods were later criticized due to their individualism and
students’ dependence on their teacher’s knowledge, and thus the way was paved
for other teaching and learning methods, such as those proposed by Montessori
(1912), Dewey (1916), Decroly (1929), Freinet (1964), Gagné (1985), Merrill
(1991), and Freire (1997).
All these alternative methods, which can be labeled constructivist, have one
thing in common: The role of the teacher aims to be different, with this figure
acting as a mediator of information, proposing suitable tasks that enable stu-
dents to participate actively in their own learning process. Thus, being part of a
group has new value, as well as creating a rich educational context.
However, some authors have conducted a critical review of the problems and
limitations of Constructivism (Davis & Sumara, 2002; Jenkins, 2000; Solomon,
1994; Woolnough, 1998), and others believe that Constructivism is unable to
respond to all the objectives established by schools and fails to solve problems
such as some students’ lack of interest or unwillingness to work. Enkvist (2001),
for instance, defends the idea that results in the Programme for International
Student Assessment (conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development) are not improved by methods based on Constructivism.
208 Journal of Educational Computing Research 53(2)

Indeed, according to this author, these methods actually tend to push schools
toward mediocrity.
In light of the earlier analysis, Siemens (2005) proposed a new theory, closely
associated with digital technologies: Connectivism. This theory proposes a new
way of learning through networks and nodes. Teaching methods linked to this
theory aim to capture students’ attention more, helping them learn more easily
and to acquire new contents better through the contribution of many people
rather than the participation of only a few, who monopolize knowledge. Easy
access to information, the design of collaborative tasks, and the correct man-
agement of learning communities are at the root of this new theory. Being con-
stantly connected to new technologies and networks may also enable ubiquitous
learning (Yodsaneha & Sopeerak, 2013). In other words, “if you like learning,
you will be able to get absorbed in almost any topic with the help of digital
resources” (Benedek & Molnár, 2014, p. 60).
Although learning theories are not static entities, the following is a brief example
based on the work of Ertmer and Newby (1993), Boghossian (2006), and Kathleen
Dunaway (2011), which illustrates how an educational practice may change
when carried out from the perspective of the aforementioned theories. Thus, imagine
a teacher who wants to teach their students human geography. Specifically, they
want their students to improve their knowledge of some of the social characteristics
and living conditions of the population of a particular city in Europe.
Designing an activity based on the Behaviorism approach would prompt the
teacher to compile information about this content. The teacher would present
the information in the form of a diagram to allow it to be transmitted to students
using different resources, such as PowerPoint. In a theoretical lesson, the teacher
would explain the contents they want to transmit, and the students would take
notes as a means of recording the significant information that they will later need
to memorize. Some practical repetitive exercises may also be carried out to
consolidate knowledge of the new content, and in a final exam, students
would show that they have assimilated the new information.
If this same activity were to be designed in accordance with Constructivism
theory, the sequencing would differ meaningfully. After defining the compe-
tences that they want their students to acquire, the teacher would design a
wide range of activities for said students to carry out. The teacher would first
pose some open questions that students should be able to respond to at the end
of the process; then, they would explain the different steps that the students need
to take to give an accurate answer. The teacher would divide their students up
into groups and guide them through the learning process, facilitating suitable
resources (websites, books, journals, etc.) for them to use. At the end of the unit,
each group would present their final answer to the rest of their classmates as a
means of checking what they have learnt. Some methodologies, such as coopera-
tive learning, project-based learning, or problem-based learning, could be
applied to guide the process.
Altuna and Lareki 209

Finally, if the activity were designed from a Connectivist perspective, the

process would be slightly different. Bearing in mind that “the nature of
Connectivist interventions would be such that they predominantly foster devel-
opment of learning communities” (Boitshwarelo, 2011, p. 172), in addition to
presenting their students with a series of questions that they should be able to
respond to and then guiding them through the learning process, the teacher
would also try to encourage them to get in touch with agents living in the city
they are studying. These agents could be other students or people that could
offer significant information about the new knowledge the students need to
acquire (in our example, information about the human geography of the
European city). Thus, the teacher not only has to design a well-sequenced
range of activities, they must also actively foster the creation of a basic infra-
structure that enables their students to be part of a community that uses
technology to communicate and learn.

Learning Theories, Teaching Methods, and Technological Resources

Some authors (Siragusa & Dixon, 2008) claim that the use of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICT) and digital technologies can help to plan
and implement teaching methods that are related to Behaviorism theories.
Others, such as Driscoll (2000), Watson (2001), Brown (2002), Kozma (2003),
Área (2005), Siemens (2008), Downes (2010), and Lewin (2012), have highlighted
the importance of changing the way we view educational practices and teaching
methods when working with ICT and the Internet. Some, such as Borrás (1998)
and Área (2005), believe that Constructivism or Social-Constructivism are more
appropriate for teaching and learning using this technology.
Indeed, there is a wide range of experiences that attest to the success of using
technological resources in constructivist contexts. For example, Chu, Chan, and
Tiwari (2012) explain how to use blogs to support learning; Yang (2014) presents
an example of the use of webquest in mathematics learning with elementary
school students; Li, Chu, and Ki (2014) have studied the effects of a wiki-based
collaborative process for teaching writing skills on the writing ability and atti-
tudes of upper primary school students; and De-Marcos, Domı́nguez, Saenz de
Navarrete, and Pagés (2014) highlight the benefits of social networks and games.
Siemens (2005) and Downes (2010), however, claim that Connectivism is the
theory to follow. Both authors suggest that learning occurs in networks,
which can involve both human and nonhuman resources. Therefore, according
to Connectivism, knowledge is distributed across an information network and
can be stored in a variety of digital formats. Learning and knowledge are thus
said to “rest in a diversity of opinions” (Siemens, 2008, p. 8).
Some experiences exist of digital technologies being used in association with
Connectivism theory (Kumari & Narayan, 2013). Other authors state that the
“implementation of connectivism factors and teaching/learning methods in science
210 Journal of Educational Computing Research 53(2)

education is the necessity. We identify the set of connectivistic factors and teach-
ing methods which influence science education” (Trna & Trnova, 2013, p. 490).
In light of this, and taking into account the current widespread use of tech-
nology in education, other similar studies go to the root of problem and analyze
the close relationship that currently exists between educational learning theories
and technology. Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006), for example, analyze the
knowledge building process, describing links between theories, pedagogy, and
technology; Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes (2009) focus on the learning and
teaching process in the digital age; and Watson (2001) encourages us to rethink
the relationship between ICT and teaching.
Our project aimed to ascertain what exactly is happening in schools, and, in
particular, (a) what the most commonly implemented learning theory is and (b)
what technological tools are used when different learning theories are applied. Our
study therefore aims to gather information through different indicators that enable
us to identify the predominant educational theory that schools are implementing
and to analyze the different digital tools that are used in each, to identify any
possible relationship between educational theories and digital technologies.

Material and Methods

To carry out this study, we established a case study method (Campbell, 2003;
Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003) that enabled us to answer the aforementioned questions
and to fulfill our objectives. This method proved very useful in gathering in-
depth knowledge about how schools really work and what technology they use.
We collected different types of data by combining both quantitative and
qualitative techniques and tools that generated a greater richness and diversity
of information. This enabled us to strengthen the validity of the study and
overcome the limitations of using only one methodology (Bericat, 1998).
The main techniques used were as follows: participant observation, a structured
interview, a questionnaire, and discussion groups.
Twenty-one different schools participated in the study, which started in 2009
and finished in 2013. Schools were chosen on the basis of their willingness to
collaborate, as well as their availability and proximity. They also fulfilled a
specific set of requirements: All of them were working with ICT in at least
one subject and with at least one teacher; all had an ICT manager or a person
responsible for this area; the socioeconomic situation in the catchment area is
considered medium to high; and all implement a bilingual teaching program.
The main difference between some of them is the funding model, with schools
being either public or private. In specific terms, 12 were public or state schools,
and nine were private or independent schools.
Schools that took part in the project were located in provinces in the north of
Spain (three in Álava, six in Bizkaia, six in Gipuzkoa, three in Navarra, and one
in Barcelona) and the south of France (two in Aquitaine). Each school was
Altuna and Lareki 211

labeled with one alphabetical letter (from A to U). At the end of the observation
process, data were obtained from classrooms with students aged between 10 and
12 (837 students and 134 teachers), and another 42 people were also interviewed
(most of them Information Technology managers at the schools).
The data were organized into two main categories: (a) educational theories
and (b) digital resources. To link each school to one of the three educational
theories (Behaviorism, Constructivism, and Connectivism), we listed the differ-
ent features of each theory based on the work of different authors such as
Watson (2006), Calvani (2008), Harris and Hofer (2009), Tracey (2009),
Lewin (2012), and Ertmer and Newby (2013). Subsequently, a group of experts
chose the seven most significant indicators for each theory, so as to maintain a
balance between all three. The indicators were as follows:
Behaviorism:

– Teacher-led process with little or no student autonomy.

– Students are required to learn by following the teacher’s instructions and
textbook content.
– Training through stimulus-response-reinforcement.
– Teaching through the transmission of content.
– Learning focuses on memorizing, repetition, and individual work.
– Content is highly structured and sequenced.
– Assessment is mainly based on measuring learnt content.

Constructivism

– Active process of interaction between participants and their environment.

– The teacher is a mediator who assists in knowledge construction.
– Training through action and collaboration with others.
– Teaching is based on interaction and discussion with others.
– Learning strives to be meaningful, cooperative, and problem solving.
– There is flexibility in programming contents and activities.
– Assessment is based on both work and the skills acquired.

Connectivism:

– A process in which human and material sources are connected.

– Teaching is seen as a set of small contributions made by many participants
and socialization agents.
– Training is based on contributions from individuals and technological devices
that include a diversity of viewpoints.
– Teaching occurs in a process of networking.
– Continuous learning is necessary to maintain links and the ability to see
connections between fields, ideas, and concepts.
212 Journal of Educational Computing Research 53(2)

Indicators were assigned to schools after the end of the observation process,
and only once interviewees had confirmed the impression gained from this
process.
The digital resources used in each school were divided into seven different
groups, following criteria similar to those used by Lareki, Martı́nez de
Morentin, and Amenabar (2010):

– Search engines like Google, Yahoo, Bing, and others specific to the field of
education.
– Instructional software: Hot Potatoes, JClic, Quadern Virtual, Exelearning,
and so forth.
– Webquest and treasure hunters.
– Wikipedia (only as a consultative website).
– The creation of blogs.
– Resources linked to networking projects like Google Docs, virtual drives, or
specific software designed to participate in local or collaborative projects.
– Other resources: specific software for content learning, videogames, hardware
(digital blackboard), Learning Manager Systems, and so forth.

Note that by instructional software we mean programs that are designed to

teach skills or information through demonstrations, examples, explanations, or
problem solving. Examples are tutorials, drill-and-practice programs, and
simulations (Roblyer & Doering, 2013). Some examples of this kind of pro-
grams are JClic, Hot Potatoes, Thatquiz, and video tutorials. While we under-
stand that the instructional software programs themselves may differ greatly,
we have grouped all of them into the same category because the main goal for
schools was to practice and drill some contents or to inform or show some
information. The diversity of tools involving instructional software has to be
taken into account when interpreting the results and conclusions presented in
this article.

Data Analysis
The analysis of the data was carried out using NVivo 9.0 software. Following
qualitative techniques, significant data were sorted into the aforementioned
categories, and the content of each category was analyzed. Moreover, some
nonparametric analyses such as frequencies and percentages were also con-
ducted. For this, we used SPSS 21.0, and specifically, the chi-square test.
To reduce the possible influence of the researchers themselves, which often
occurs when participant observation techniques are used, we cross-checked the
information obtained from the different people interviewed from each school.
We also conducted data triangulation to achieve the highest possible degree of
data uniformity. Although schools are improving and changing every day, the
Altuna and Lareki 213

results presented later give us an idea of how the schools in the study use both
educational theories and digital resources.

Limitations
First of all, the indicators selected for each learning theory allow us to gauge the
affinity that each school has for each theory or theories. However, because nei-
ther schools nor theories are static, unchanging elements, but rather dynamic
entities, the results are approximate and should be taken as indicative of general
trends. The study does not, therefore, attempt to assign each school a specific
theory, as a static label, but rather aims to identify each school’s tendencies in
relation to the indicators. We will therefore discuss which features are most
predominant or commonly used in each school but will not attempt to associate
specific theories with specific schools.
Second, digital resources are constantly evolving, and although we have tried
to be as specific as possible in each resource category, they may have various
uses and possibilities. For example, in instructional software, the diversity of
programs such as JClic, Hot Potatoes, or Thatquiz and the various activities that
can be carried out with each of them may influence and determine the relation-
ship between software and learning theory. For this reason, further studies are
required to deepen our understanding of each type of software, to clearly link
certain applications to each theory.
Lastly, the schools were chosen for both convenience and because they ful-
filled a set of requirements. Their proximity and our close contact with them
helped provide access and enabled us to gain permission to investigate how they
work and how they use technology. This can be seen as a negative aspect in
research in which the sample group aims to be representative and participants
are chosen at random to enable the results to be generalized. Nevertheless, the
main objective of our study was not to generalize our results, but rather to
acquire a thorough understanding of a specific context.

Results and Discussion

Eight out of the 21 schools display all seven of the criteria related to
Behaviorism, and 14 out of 21 display at least four of them (Table 1). In
relation to Constructivism, six out of the 21 schools display all seven indica-
tors of this theory, and similarly, 14 out of 21 display at least four of them.
Finally, none of the schools in the study displayed all seven indicators for
Connectivism, and just two schools meet more than four of the criteria estab-
lished for this theory.
As shown in Table 1, indicators that correspond to Behaviorism appear 93
times (44%), and indicators that correspond to Constructivism appear 87 times
(41%). Only 33 (15%) Connectivism indicators were registered.
214
Table 1. Number of Indicators Met by the Schools in Relation to Learning Theories.

Schools

Theory and indicators A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U

Behaviorism (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .906)

Teacher-led process with little or no student x x x x x x x x
autonomy.
Students are required to learn by following the x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
teacher’s instructions and textbook content.
Training through stimulus-response- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
reinforcement.
Teaching through the transmission of content. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Learning focuses on memorizing, repetition, and x x x x x x x x x x x
individual work.
Content is highly structured and sequenced. x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Assessment is mainly based on measuring learnt x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
content.
Behaviorism: Number of indicators met by each 7 5 2 1 4 7 4 7 7 7 2 0 6 5 7 0 3 7 0 5 7
school
Constructivism (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .859)
Active process of interaction between partici- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
pants and their environment.
(continued)
 Table 1. Continued

Schools

Theory and indicators A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U

The teacher is a mediator who assists in know- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

ledge construction.
Training through action and collaboration with x x x x x x x x x x x x x
others.
Teaching is based on interaction and discussion x x x x x x x x x x x x
with others.
Learning strives to be meaningful, cooperative, x x x x x x x x x
and problem solving.
There is flexibility in programming contents and x x x x x x x x x x x x x
activities.
Assessment is based on work and the skills x x x x x x x x x x
acquired.
Constructivism: Number of indicators met by 2 4 7 7 4 0 5 0 4 3 7 7 2 4 4 7 6 0 7 6 1
each school
Connectivism (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .769)
A process in which human and material sources x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
are connected.
(continued)

215
216
Table 1. Continued

Schools

Theory and indicators A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U

Teaching is seen as a set of small contributions x x x x x x x

made by many participants and socialization
agents.
Training is based on contributions from individ- x x x x x x
uals and technological devices which include a
diversity of viewpoints.
Teaching occurs in a process of networking.
Continuous learning is necessary to maintain links x x
and the ability to see connections between
fields, ideas, and concepts.
Content and activities should be updated and up-
to-date.
The ability to learn more and possess updated x
knowledge is assessed.
Connectivism: Number of indicators met by each 1 1 0 3 3 0 1 1 1 1 3 4 0 0 1 6 2 0 3 1 1
school
Altuna and Lareki 217

Beginning with the section corresponding to Behaviorism, a horizontal read-

ing of Table 1 highlights some specific aspects. Notably, 17 out of the 21 schools
studied base their teaching on the transmission of content, 16 carry out an
assessment focused on measuring learnt content, and the training process in
14 out of the 21 schools studied is carried out through stimulus-response-rein-
forcement. Note that the content to be learnt corresponds to what the teacher
and the textbook say.
In the second section, corresponding to Constructivism, it is important to
point out that 16 schools make an effort to stimulate active interaction between
participants and their environment/context. In 14 of those schools, teachers try
to assist pupils in the difficult task of knowledge construction.
In the last section, related to Connectivism, only one item stands out:
16 schools implement learning processes in which human and material resources
are connected, which means that they use technological resources to design tasks
that require the use of Internet tools to connect people through technology.
In light of this analysis, it becomes clear that schools combine different the-
ories in many different ways; in other words, most of them meet indicators
related not just to one, but rather to two or more different theories. Nearly all
schools (90.48%) use items from at least two different theories, and 57.14% of
them display indicators linked to all three. Behaviorism and Constructivism
prevail, normally in combination with indicators from other theories.
However, it is possible to group schools in accordance with the main theory
implemented in each (see Table 1). To do this, we took two criteria into account:
(a) The school had to comply with at least half of the indicators of the main
theory and (b) the difference between the main theory and the other theories
applied must be more than two indicators. In accordance with these two criteria,
schools can be divided into three different groups:

– Group 1: (N ¼ 9) 42.99% Behaviorism: A, F, H, I, J, M, O, R, U.

– Group 2: (N ¼ 5) 23.88% mixed Behaviorism–Constructivism: B, E, G, N, T.
– Group 3: (N ¼ 7) 33.33% Constructivism: C, D, K, L, Q, S, P.

Also note that no school was found to primarily implement Connectivism

theory.
The Internet services and applications used in the schools were summarized to
determine whether there was any relationship between them and the learning
theories. At the top of Table 2, we show the different theories and the percentage
of schools related to each one, distributed into three columns. On the left-hand
side, we list the digital resources. These factors are then contrasted to determine
whether any significant differences exist in the use of digital resources in accord-
ance with the learning theories applied.
In the first row, we can see that search engine is a constant and commonly
used resource because every single school in the study uses this digital tool.
218 Journal of Educational Computing Research 53(2)

Table 2. Chi-square Between Learning Theories and Digital Resources.

Learning theories

Mixed Behaviorism–
Behaviorism Constructivism Constructivism

Percent Percent Percent Sig. chi-

Digital resources N¼9 42.99 N¼5 23.88 N¼7 33.33 square

Search engine Yes 9/9 100 5/5 100 7/7 100 –a

No 0/9 0 0/5 0 0/7 0
Instructional Yes 6/9 66.7 4/5 80 1/7 14.3 .042b
software No 3/9 33.3 1/5 20 6/7 85.7
Webquest Yes 1/9 11.1 0/5 0 2/7 28.6 .355
No 8/9 88.9 5/5 100 5/7 71.4
Wikipedia Yes 7/9 77.8 5/5 100 5/7 71.4 .439
(consulting) No 2/9 22.2 0/5 0 2/7 28.6
Blogs (creation) Yes 0/9 0 0/5 0 3/7 42.9 .030b
No 9/9 100 5/5 100 4/7 57.1
Networking Yes 1/9 11.1 1/5 20 5/7 71.4 .031b
projects No 8/9 88.9 4/9 80 2/9 28.6
Other Yes 6/9 66.7 4/9 80 5/9 71.4 .869
resources No 3/9 33.3 1/9 20 2/9 28.6
a
No statistics are computed because search engine is a constant.
b
The chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

In the second row, instructional software (JClic, Hot Potatoes, video tutorials,
Thatquiz) is significantly (p ¼ .042) more used in Behaviorism (60%) and mixed
Behaviorism–Constructivism (80%) learning styles than in Constructivism
(14.3%) contexts.
Another significant finding emerges when we analyze blog creation (p ¼ .030).
In this case, neither Behaviorism (0%) nor mixed Behaviorism–Constructivism
(0%) schools use this kind of digital resource. However, its use in constructivist
schools is widespread (42.9%).
One last significant aspect was found in relation to resources for implement-
ing networking projects (p ¼ .031). While these are commonly used in
Constructivism style schools (71.4%), only 11.1% of Behaviorism schools and
20% of mixed Behaviorism–Constructivism schools employ these resources.
To determine the kind of educational tasks that are carried out, we conducted
an in-depth qualitative analysis. Schools linked to the Behaviorism theory
mainly use the following services: the Google search engine, the Hot Potatoes
application to create questionnaires, the JClic program for specific topic- or
Altuna and Lareki 219

subject-related activities, and Thatquiz to work with mathematical exercises and

operations. It is important to note that all these are static resources in which
students are limited to answering questions or carrying out directed activities.
This is why we have labeled these tools one-directional because they are based on
a transmitter–consumer relationship.

We use Hot Potatoes to do some exercises which help students practice the content
that we have covered beforehand in class. (JT02: 52–53).

Constructivist schools use other resources, such as Treasure Hunts or WebQuest,

that help students conduct research tasks in a partially directed way.

Students enjoy working with treasure hunts and Webquest because they know they
have to find out something about a specific topic. They also enjoy learning while
interacting with other students. (OS01: 112–114).

Another tool used to write and share activities, projects, and classroom experi-
ences is the creation of blogs (always carried out by the teacher), often using the
Blogger platform. Furthermore, cooperative projects have proved popular, and
many schools now participate in the creation and sharing of multimedia tasks
with educational topics and aims.

Blogs encourage our students to write about our work and projects, explaining
their activities clearly to fellow students and their parents. This motivates them to
write correctly. (ST03: 25–27).

In relation to Connectivism, none of the schools studied could be deemed to

implement this theory as their main approach, but there is one school that has
started to use some tools that go beyond the classroom. In this case, two prin-
cipal tools are used: Google Docs, which has been used to create and share
information among all participants, and educational platforms such as
Moodle, that allow many activities to be carried out at the same time, enable
content to be shared among the different educational stakeholders involved, and
let teachers assess and continuously supervise their students’ work.
Finally, to determine whether any significant differences exist in the length of
time for which technological resources are used every week, we conducted a chi-
square test. As shown in Table 3, 77.8% of the schools that implement
Behaviorism theories normally spend less than 1 hr (60 min) per week on tasks
involving the use of digital technologies.
In contrast, 42.9% of Constructivist schools dedicate more than 1 hr to these
tasks, while a further 28% spend more than 90 min a week on them. However,
despite observing this trend, given the results of the chi-square test, we cannot
say that these differences are statistically significant.
220 Journal of Educational Computing Research 53(2)

Table 3. Learning Theories and Time per Week Dedicated to the Use of Technological
Resources in the Classroom. Cross-tabulation.

Time dedicated to the use of

technological resources per
week in the classroom
Sig. chi-
Educational theory <60 min 60–90 min >90 min Total square

Behaviorism Number 7 1 1 9 .182

Expected number 5.1 1.7 2.1 9.0
% within educational 77.8% 11.1% 11.1% 100.0%
theory
% within time per 58.3% 25.0% 20.0% 42.9%
week in classroom
Mixed Number 3 0 2 5
Behaviorism– Expected number 2.9 1.0 1.2 5.0
Constructivism % within educational 60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 100.0%
theory
% within time per 25.0% 0.0% 40.0% 23.8%
week in classroom
Constructivism Number 2 3 2 7
Expected number 4.0 1.3 1.7 7.0
% within educational 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 100.0%
theory
% within time per 16.7% 75.0% 40.0% 33.3%
week in classroom
Total Number 12 4 5 21
Expected number 12.0 4.0 5.0 21.0
% within educational 57.1% 19.0% 23.8% 100.0%
theory
% within time per 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
week in classroom

Conclusions
In light of the aforementioned results, we have divided our conclusions into
three different areas: the coexistence of different learning theories, the relation-
ship between resources and theories, and the features of teacher training.

Diverse Learning Theories Coexist Side by Side

First, this study shows that a variety of learning features exist in the different
schools that took part in the research project. Some of these differences reflect
Altuna and Lareki 221

divergent organizational styles, as well as different ways in which educational

stakeholders participate and interact. There is also substantial variation in how
students are assessed, and how the objectives of the curriculum are attained.
As shown in Table 1 (see the Results section), in 16 of the 21 schools (76.19%)
studied, we were able to identify one predominant theory. The results confirm
that Behaviorism is still the most commonly implemented theory (nine out of the
21 schools, 42.99%), closely followed by Constructivism (seven out of the
21 schools: 33.33%). The rest of the schools displayed a wide range of indicators
from two different theories, although in none of them was Connectivism theory
found to be the principal approach.
Second, and as stated at the beginning of this article, the development of the
different learning theories has followed an historical sequence: Behaviorism with
Watson (1913), Constructivism with Vygotsky (1978) and Piaget (1964), and
Connectivism with Siemens (2005). Following the historical line of learning
theory development, we may deduce that education was initially based on
behavioral methods and then on Constructivism and that nowadays schools
are moving toward Connectivism. However, the process of moving from one
theory to another can occur in two different ways: progressively (if there are
moments that combine, at least, two theories) or hermetically (when one theory
is completely superseded by a new one).
Nevertheless, the results obtained in this study run counter to a hypothetical
hermetic linearity because almost all schools (90.48%) incorporate at least one
characteristic from a minimum of two different theories, as shown in Figure 1.
Only two out of the 21 schools studied (9.52%) implement indicators from just
one single theory (Behaviorism).
This clashes with the idea that these theories are applied in a hermetic way
and suggests that each theory has valuable and interesting aspects for some
schools and teachers, particularly in modern-day society in which personalized
learning is becoming more and more important (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009).
If each person has their own learning style, then why not conduct educational
practices in accordance with different learning theories, if this is useful for
achieving previously defined objectives? This argument is posed by Steele
(2005) in relation to teaching students with disabilities by using teaching meth-
ods resulting from the application of either behavioral or constructivist theories.
Similarly, in the same classroom and with the same group of students, situ-
ations may arise in which we need to implement methods that are more typical
of behavioral teaching theories, while in other circumstances, methods more
typical of constructivist or connectivist theories are more appropriate.
We must not forget that the application of different methodologies is related
to the acquisition of different skills by students. For example, cooperative learn-
ing enables students to develop working group skills (Slavin, 2012), problem-
based learning develops students’ critical thinking (Tiwari, Lai, So, & Yuen,
2006), and lecturing may help improve students’ attention and memory.
222 Journal of Educational Computing Research 53(2)

Figure 1. Percentage of diversity and combined use of theories in schools.

Therefore, practices corresponding to different theories may be beneficial and

appropriate, depending on variables such as context, the subject, the groups, the
teacher’s skills, or students’ characteristics. Future studies may wish to analyze
this issue in greater depth and show how these variables determine the choice of
learning theory.

Different Resources Are Used in Different Theories

Regardless of the theory implemented, we can conclude that every single school
that took part in this research project uses digital resources when managing
students’ learning processes. However, significant differences were found
between the types of resources that schools use when different learning theories
are implemented. For instance, schools in the Behaviorism or mixed
Behaviorism–Constructivism categories tend to use more instructional software
like Hot Potatoes or JClic, while schools implementing Constructivism theory
tend to use creation tools such as blogs and normally dedicate more time to
networking projects that use specific software.
Altuna and Lareki 223

Despite this, however, no significant differences were found between the time
that each school dedicates to using these resources in classroom.
These results suggest merely using digital resources is not enough to indicate
adherence to a specific theoretical approach. However, some Internet-based
resources (blogs and networking software) are more likely to be used in
Constructivism contexts, and instructional software in Behaviorism-based
educational environments. These findings coincide with those of other studies
(Chu et al., 2012; Li et al., 2014; Yang, 2014) that outline the link between
Internet resources and Constructivism methodologies.
Finally, according to Lim and Oakley (2013), digital technology could help
bring about a methodological change in schools. However, to prove this, new
longitudinal studies (that would complement our study) need to be carried out to
define the role of digital resources and ICT in the process of changing teaching
methods.

Teacher Training
According to Nickerson and Zodhiates (2013), students should be taught to
develop enough skill with apprentice tools to get by in the current liquid modernity
(Bauman, 2013) and the network society (Castells, 2011). This means that stu-
dents, in addition to learning curricular contents that are normally structured into
several subjects, must also develop solid human values, autonomy, greater sens-
ibility, and a social conscience. Furthermore, young people should develop auton-
omy, creativity, and the skills required to communicate, cooperate, and
collaborate with others, working in groups and respecting other people’s ideas,
reaching consensuses or solutions to be highly qualified, socialized, and equipped
with the appropriate digital knowledge, ready to live in our changing society.
Students will have the opportunity of acquiring these competences if teachers
are able to offer a wide range of educational tasks that require these skills. For
that, teacher training curricula should include not only ICT management but
also educational theories. Only when teachers have knowledge of both these
areas will they be able to identify and change, where appropriate, the learning
theory that they use when engaging in educational tasks based on digital
resources.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
224 Journal of Educational Computing Research 53(2)

References
Área, M. (2005). Las tecnologı́as de la información y comunicación en el sistema escolar.
Una revisión de las lı́neas de investigación [The information and communication tech-
nology in the school system. A review of the lines of research]. Revista Electrónica de
Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 11(1), 3–25. Retrieved from http://www.uv.es/
relieve/v11n1/RELIEVEv11n1_1.pdf
Bauman, Z. (2013). Liquid modernity. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
Benedek, A., & Molnár, G. (2014). ICT in education: A new paradigm and old obstacle.
In A. Leist & T. Pankowski (Eds.) The ninth international multi-conference on comput-
ing in the global information technology (pp. 64–80). Sevilla: IARIA.
Bericat, E. (1998). La integración de los me´todos cuantitativo y cualitativo en la investiga-
ción social [The integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in social research].
Barcelona, Spain: Ariel.
Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, constructivism, and Socratic pedagogy. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 38, 713–722.
Boitshwarelo, B. (2011). Proposing an integrated research framework for connectivism:
Utilising theoretical synergies. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 12(3), 161–179.
Borrás, I. (1998). Enseñanza y aprendizaje con Internet: Una aproximación crı́tica
[Teaching and learning with the Internet: A critical approach]. Comunicación y
Pedagogı´a, 151, 28–32.
Brown, J. S. (2002). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the
ways people learn. USDLA Journal, 16(2), n2.
Calvani, A. (2008). Connectivism: New paradigm or fascinating pot-pourri?. University of
Florence Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 4(1), 247–252.
Campbell, R. A. (2003). Preparing the next generation of scientists the social process of
managing students. Social Studies of Science, 33(6), 897–927.
Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture. Vol. 1: The rise of
the network society (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, soci-
ety, and culture (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Chu, S., Chan, C., & Tiwari, A. (2012). Using blogs to support learning during internship.
Computers & Education, 58(3), 989–1000.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2002). Constructivist discourses and the field of education:
Problems and possibilities. Educational Theory, 52(4), 409–428.
De-Marcos, L., Domı́nguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., & Pagés, C. (2014). An empirical
study comparing gamification and social networking on e-learning. Computers &
Education, 75, 82–91.
Decroly, O. (1929). Problemas de psicologı´a y pedagogı´a [Problems of psychology and
pedagogy]. Madrid, Spain: Beltrán.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Downes, S. (2010). Learning networks and connective knowledge. In H. H. Yang & S. C-
Y. Yuen (Eds.) Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: Implications of web-based
Altuna and Lareki 225

communities and networking (pp. 1–26). New York, NY: IGI Global Retrieved from
http://philpapers.org/rec/DOWLNA
Enkvist, I. (2001). La educación en peligro [Education in danger]. Madrid, Spain: Unisón.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism:
Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism:
Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.
Freinet, C. (1964). Les techniques Freinet de l’Ecole moderne. Paris, France: Librairie
Armand Colin.
Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogı´a de la autonomı´a. Madrid, Spain: Siglo XXI.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in
a digital age web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?.
Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational
change. London, England: SAGE, Corwin.
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curri-
culum-based TPACK development. Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference, 2009(1), 4087–4095.
Jenkins, E. W. (2000). Constructivism in school science education: Powerful model or the
most dangerous intellectual tendency?. Science & Education, 9(6), 599–610.
Kathleen Dunaway, M. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice
for networked information landscapes. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675–685.
Kozma, R. (Ed.),. (2003). Technology, innovation and educational change: A global per-
spective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Kumari, N., & Narayan, A. (2013). Connectivism and the role of ICT. In D. D’Souza &
U. Singh (Eds.) Connectivism and the role of ICT. Educational technology in teaching
and learning: Prospects and challenges, 64.
Lareki, A., Martı́nez de Morentin, J. I., & Amenabar, N. (2010). Towards an efficient
training of university faculty on ICTs. Computers & Education, 54(2), 491–497.
Lewin, C. (2012). Primary schools and ICT: Learning from pupil perspectives.
Educational Review, 64(4), 511–512.
Li, X., Chu, S. K., & Ki, W. W. (2014). The effects of a wiki-based collaborative process
writing pedagogy on writing ability and attitudes among upper primary school stu-
dents in Mainland China. Computers & Education, 77, 151–169.
Lim, C. P., & Oakley, G. (2013). Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in
primary education. In L. Y. Tay & C. P. Lim (Eds.) Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) in primary education. Creating holistic technology-enhanced learn-
ing experiences, 1–18.
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2007, December). Social software and participatory
learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In R.
J. Atkinson, C. McBeath, S. K. A. Soong & C. Cheers (Eds.) ICT: Providing choices
for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 664–675). Singapore:
226 Journal of Educational Computing Research 53(2)

Centre for Educational Development, Nanyang Technological University. Retrieved

from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/
Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology,
31(5), 45–53.
Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori method. New York, NY: Schocken Books.
Nickerson, R. S. & Zodhiates, P. P. (Eds.). (2013). Technology in education: Looking
toward 2020. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Phillips, P., Wells, J., Ice, P., Curtis, R., & Kennedy, R. (2008). A case study of the
relationship between socio-epistemological teaching orientations and instructor per-
ceptions of pedagogy in online environments. Electronic Journal for the Integration of
Technology in Education, 6, 3–27.
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and
learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186.
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching
(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and
technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences
(pp. 97–115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and
designers. (Paper 105). Athens, GA: University of Georgia IT Forum.
Siragusa, L., & Dixon, K. (2008). Planned behaviour: Student attitudes towards the use of
ICT interactions in higher education. Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educa-
tional technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved from http://www.as-
cilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/siragusa.pdf
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Slavin, R. E. (2012). Classroom applications of cooperative learning. In R. H. Karen,
G. Steve, T. Urdan, G. B. Adriana, M. Sonya & S. H. Lee (Eds.) APA educational
psychology handbook, Vol 3: Application to learning and teaching (pp. 359–378).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Solomon, J. (1994). The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education
(Vol 23, pp. 1–19).
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Steele, M. M. (2005). Teaching students with learning disabilities: Constructivism or
behaviorism. Current Issues in Education, 8(10), 6–16.
Tiwari, A., Lai, P., So, M., & Yuen, K. (2006). A comparison of the effects of problem-
based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Medical
Education, 40, 547–554.
Tracey, R. (2009). Instructivism, constructivism or connectivism?. Training and
Development in 0 Australia, 36(6), 8–9.
Trna, J., & Trnova, E. (2013). Implementation of connectivism in science teacher training.
Journal of Educational & Instructional Studies in the World, 3(1), 191–196.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watson, D. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Rethinking the relationship between
ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), 251–266.
Altuna and Lareki 227

Watson, D. (2006). Understanding the relationship between ICT and education means
exploring innovation and change. Education and Information Technologies, 11(3–4),
199–216.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20,
158–177.
Woolnough, B. E. (1998). Learning science is a messy process. Science Teacher Education,
23, 17.
Yang, K. H. (2014). The WebQuest model effects on mathematics curriculum learning in
elementary school students. Computers & Education, 72, 158–166.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Yodsaneha, S., & Sopeerak, S. (2013). Factors influencing the success of Rajamangala
University of Technology Thanyaburi’s ubiquitous learning. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 103, 400–403.

Author Biographies
Jon Altuna, PhD, is a professor at the Department of History and Theory of
Education, within the University of the Basque Country’s Faculty of Philosophy
and Educational Science. His research has focused on the integration of Internet
services in the teaching of different subjects. He has published papers on the
socialization of minors on Internet-based social media and has 13 years’ teaching
experience in both primary and secondary schools. This teaching experience
provides him with a first-hand knowledge of the educational contexts on
which a large part of his research activities focus. He has been a member of
the University of the Basque Country for the past 8 years, combining his
research work with teaching activities on undergraduate and postgraduate
social education, pedagogy, and secondary school teacher training degree
courses.

Arkaitz Lareki, PhD, for the past 12 years, has been a professor at the
Department of Didactics and School Organization, within the University of
the Basque Country’s Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Science, lecturing
in different areas related to educational technology. He also worked in primary
and secondary schools for 8 years and has participated in diverse research
groups working investigating the educational applications of the Internet and
other digital technologies. Some of his work focuses on the university context,
while other projects center on educational intervention in formal and nonformal
teaching contexts. He currently divides his time between research and teaching,
lecturing on undergraduate and postgraduate social education, pedagogy, and
secondary school teacher training degree courses.

View publication stats