Formulating An E-learning Theory: A Grounded Theory Approach
Rachael Njeri Kibuku †
Faculty of Computing and Information Management
KCA University
Nairobi, Kenya
jjkibuku@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Despite the significant growth and development of e-learning we
still do not have a relevant theory specifically stipulated to guide the
practice up to date. The design, implementation and delivery of e-
learning have been informed by the 20th Century classical theories of
learning namely: Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism. In
2005, we saw the inclusion of the Connectivist theory of learning for
the digital era. However, certain lacunae exist in these classical
learning theories that need further examination and explanation. This
research study therefore seeks to identify the contributions of the
classical learning theories to e-learning as well as establish the gaps
that exist in these theories in their application to e-learning with a
view of extending the connectivist theory into an e-learning theory
using the Grounded Theory (GT) Methodology.
CCS CONCEPTS
 Applied computing → Education →E-learning
KEY WORDS
Learning, E-learning, Theory, Pedagogy, Connectivism
INTRODUCTION
Learning is the permanent change in behavior which is
manifested in acquiring knowledge; change in attitudes and in ability
to perform some behavior [4]. E-learning is learning delivered by
electronic means which includes computer hardware, software, and
the networking infrastructures [17]. A theory is a set of hypotheses
that apply to all instances of a particular phenomenon, assisting in
decision-making, philosophy of practice and effective implementation
through practice [11].
AfriCHI '18, December 3–7, 2018, Windhoek, Namibia
© 2018 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6558-1/18/12.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3283458.3283492
Daniel Orwa Ochieng
School of Computing and Informatics
University of Nairobi
Nairobi, Kenya
dorwa@uonbi.ac.ke
Connectivism is a learning theory that emphasizes the role of
learners’ social and cultural contexts in teaching and learning by
exploiting the connectedness offered by the digital technologies of the
21st Century [9]. Some institutions of higher learning are taking up e-
learning to provide learning services to the increasing number of
students seeking higher education. While e-learning has many
benefits, perhaps the most important is widening access to higher
education to the reach of many in a flexible manner; thus allowing
learning to take place anywhere any time. The learners who take up e-
learning courses usually experience spatial and temporal separation
from fellow learners and tutors. Such learners include those based in
rural communities who have no access to the conventional learning
campus as well as the working class in urban areas who cannot be
able to attend the conventional face-to-face learning programs due to
work and family engagement. Since these learners are away from the
campus, it demands that the e-learning systems’ interfaces, interaction
and collaboration tools, and course materials be designed in such a
manner that they are intuitive to the e-learner. If their usability is
intuitive then the e-learners will be able to overcome many challenges
with ease. Such a usability design can only be based on sound
theoretical principles, which is motivation for this study.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Theoretical principles provide the foundation upon which any
practical discipline is built and thus determine the healthy
development of that practice. There has been significant growth and
development in the field of e-learning; however there still lacks a
relevant e-learning theory specifically formulated to underpin the
practice. Similarly, e-learning research and projects are not based on
e-learning theories [12]. Besides, there are few examples of academic
literature specifically concerned with e-learning theory (ies); with
many published and conferences papers being descriptions of e-
learning strategies, technologies in use, design, pedagogies,
experiences, success stories, challenges and evaluation of
implemented systems [2, 10, 13, 15]. The common practice has been
to use the classical learning theories of Behaviorism, Cognivitism and
Constructivism to guide the design, implementation and delivery of e-
learning. However, even with these theories’ enormous contribution;
there are some shortcomings in their application to e-learning and
thus they cannot be used to address everything that goes on in e-
learning [13]. This is so because; e-learning is a hybrid term of “e”
and “learning” implying that there is something distinctive about e-
learning that makes it different from conventional learning. Thus, a
blanket application of classical theories of learning to e-learning shall
not work since e-learning is different from conventional learning in
 Formulating an E-learning Theory R. Kibuku, et al.

many ways [2, 13]. In 2005, Connectivism theory of learning dabbed
the learning theory of the digital era emerged; which also has some
inadequacies. This study therefore sought to identify the lacunae that
exist in these theories of learning with a view of extending the
connectivist theory to an e-learning theory. Such a theory will
therefore give e-learning practioners, providers and policy makers and
systems designers, a platform to interrogate the complex
technological, social, pedagogical and organizational interplay in the
practice.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODS
This research study seeks to:-
i. Identify the contributions of classical learning theories to e-
learning.
ii. Establish the shortcomings of these theories as applied to the e-
learning practice.
iii. Determine the extent to which e-learning design, implementation
and delivery are influenced by the classical theories.
Table 1: Scoping Review Steps, Activities and Outcomes.
Step/Activities
iv. Establish the variables that are missing in the classical theories
with a view to extend the connectivist theory into an e-learning
theory.
v. Test and validate the theory.
To achieve objective (i) and (ii) above, the study used the
Scoping Review; which is a technique used to map the key concepts
underpinning a research study to the main sources of the literature [8].
Scoping review is useful in studying trends in a relatively new area
such as e-learning where ideas and evidence are still evolving and
emerging [5, 16]. It was used to compare and integrate findings from
past studies with the aim of identifying the major themes or constructs
running across the available body of literature. The identified
materials were then synthesizes and a thematic narrative of the
findings was made. Table 1 below, shows the summary of steps,
activities and outcomes of scoping review technique [3] as employed
in this study.
Outcomes

 Identify research question(s )  What are the contributions of classical learning theories to e-learning?
 What are the shortcomings of these theories in their application to e-learning?

 Identify key terms and use Primary Search Secondary Search

them to find pertinent
studies
(NB: this step is divide into two sub-
steps: Primary search and secondary
search)
The following are the key terms used for the primary A secondary search was done depending on the
search of literature:- results of the primary search and the following
were the key terms used:-
 Learning
 E-learning  Behaviorism
 Learning theories  Cognitivism
 E-learning theories  Constructivism
 Pedagogy  Situated Learning/Social Constructivism
 Learning Pedagogical models  Connectivism
 E-learning pedagogical models  Contribution of learning theories to e-
 Historical perspectives of e-learning learning
 Theoretical perspectives of e-learning  Criticism of learning theories

 Select the related studies The literature review was conducted from a total seventy three (73) documents, as follows:-

 The primary search the yielded thirty-eight (38) journal articles and three (3) books.
 The secondary search yielded eighteen (18) journal articles and two (2) book chapters.
 Three (3) journal articles were used to inform the Scoping Review technique for Literature Review.
 Six (7) Journal articles and two (2) books were used to inform the Grounded Theory (GT)
Methodology

 Extract the major themes
and constructs
The major themes that were running throughout this available literature includes:-
 There are no e-learning theory (ies) specifically stipulated for e-learning.
 The practice has been to use the classical learning theories of Behaviorism, Cognitivism,
Constructivism and Connectivism to underpin certain areas of e-learning.
 There exist certain lacunae/gaps/inadequacies in the classical learning theories, thus they cannot be
used to underpin/explain everything that happens to e-learning.

227
 Formulating an E-learning Theory
 Integrate, summarize and E-learning is different from learning and thus there is need for a theory specifically stipulated toward that
report the findings end. This study does not suggest that we throw away the contributions of the classical theories. It instead
proposes to extend the Connectivism theory into an e-learning theory to include certain of the gaps that were
identified by this literature review.
To achieve objective (iii) the study will use the Observation
Method to establish the design, implementation and delivery features
of the current e-learning systems that are informed by the classical
learning theories.
To achieve objective (iv), Grounded Theory (GT) will be used
since it allows the formulation of new context-specific (substantive)
theory that is grounded in data [6, 18]. In this study, GT refers to both
the process as well as the output (theory). GT is essentially an
inductive methodology of carrying out research with the aim of
getting an in-depth understanding (qualitative inquiry) of a subject
matter (e-learning in the case of this study) especially where current
literature and extant theories do not offer adequate explanation(s) [7].
GT will also give the researcher the opportunity to deeply get
involved with in the social and cultural context of the respondents in
an e-learning environment; by observing them, asking them questions
and listening to their responses and thus allowing exploration of the e-
learning devoid of any assumptions or preconceptions from literature
and extant theories. The Charmaz version [6] of GT will be used in
this study, with a combination of Theoretical Sampling and
Theoretical Saturation during the data collection, analysis and memo
writing. Through constant comparative analysis of the data collected,
the researcher will extend the substantive connectivist e-learning
theory. The data needed relates to the variables and their
characteristics where gaps exist or where variables are not adequately
accounted for in extant theories. Such gaps exist in variables such as
technology, e-learner, e-tutor, e-content, interaction and collaboration.
The technology characteristics that need further exploration include
ICT infrastructure availability, accessibility of the e-learning
platform, bandwidth availability and affordance, cost of technology,
interaction design and usability of the interface. The e-learners’
characteristics to be explored further include: age difference, gender,
motivation levels, interest, learner autonomy, ICT literacy, e-learning
readiness, cultural differences, conflicting priorities, specific roles and
activities of e-learner, and attitudes towards technology and e-
learning. The e-tutor characteristics that need further exploration
include; age, gender, motivation, attitudes, ICT skills and
competencies and e-pedagogical preparedness. The e-content issues to
be considered include content design, presentation, sequencing,
readability, inclusion of multimedia, adequate instructions, up-to-date
content, inclusion of objectives and consistency with learning
objectives. For the collaboration variable, we will explore the
activities that constitute collaboration, the behaviors that define
collaboration, initiation and floor management the interactions,
engagement and participation levels in a collaborative sessions and
group work, the choice of tools for that collaboration, how to relate to
the new tools, and how to focus on the subject matter and not on the
technology. The data collection methods that will be used include
participant observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups.
A case study of KCA University will be used where the “case” refers
to the object of the study (where the data will be collected from) as
opposed to the methodology [7]. The justification of using a case
228
R. Kibuku, et al.
study in this research is that, it renders itself to GT since it allows
detailed, in-depth data collection from its context. KCA University
has two e-learning modules: blended and Distance Learning (DL).
The blended e-learning is classroom-based instruction offered to the
regular students supported by use of ICTs. DL module is purely
asynchronous on-line learning using the MOODLE as their e-learning
platform, with a period two weeks of face-to-face interaction at the
end of the trimester. This study will apply itself to the distance
learning module.
To achieve objective (v), an Experiment consisting of two
groups; the control and the experiment group will be used to test the
theory. The control group will be taught using the current e-learning
system before the proposed theory. The experiment group will be
taught using the updated e-learning system with new/additional
features added after the new theory is formulated. We shall then
compare the outcomes of the two groups to see the effect of the new
theory. We will use focus groups to validate the theory.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Some studies in the past have observed that there are no theories
of e-learning per se; only enhancement of the learning theories to
include the use of technology in learning [10, 13, 14]. This e-learning
theoretical perspective gap was identified in the Handbook of E-
Learning Research; which reported that “what has been lacking in
the literature is a work that emphasizes key theoretical frameworks
that underpin the field, addresses the complex interplay of technical,
social, and organizational aspects of e-learning endeavors, and the
relationship between research, theory, practice and policy” [1]. The
common practice has been to apply the classical learning theories of
behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism in the e-learning
practice. While this study is not seeking to undermine the contribution
of the classical theories, it is of the view that a blanket application of
learning theories to e-learning practice may not work because e-
learning is different from conventional face-to-face learning in a
number of ways. A study entitled “Does Online Education Need a
Special Pedagogy?” highlighted the differences between the two. The
key differences include: course structure, content format, learning
environment and process, instructional tools, content presentation,
learner objectives, attitudes, learning skills, interaction,
communication, collaboration, autonomy, motivation and interest as
well as learner relationships within the group, with the tutor, and the
real world outside the campus [15]. Further, a study entitled “A
Theory for E-learning”, also highlight the lack of an e-learning
theory; this study further went ahead to propose a ten point
hypotheses (principles) of e-learning as a platform for the e-learning
theory debate; however the study failed to formulate an e-learning
theory or update an existing one to include e-learning [11]. Another
study entitled “Review of E-learning Theories, Frameworks and
Models”, alluded to the absence of e-learning theories and application
of classical learning theories in e-learning. While this study reviewed
the major contributions of the classical learning theories to the e-
 Formulating an E-learning Theory R. Kibuku, et al.

learning practice it failed to present the inadequacies of these learning
theories as applied to e-learning practice [10]. A study entitled “Does
E-Learning Require a New Theory of Learning? Intial Thoughts”,
highlighted the critical differences between traditional and e-learning
and thus made a case for an e-learning theoretical framework but
again failed to formulate the e-learning theory [2]. A study entitled “Is
E-Learning Based on Learning Theories? A literature Review”; found
out that the available literature were mainly descriptions of success
stories and challenges that were based on classical learning theories
but failed to present the consequences of lack of an e-learning theory
though they stated clearly that there was the need to formulate an
explicit e-learning theory [12]. Having justified the need for an e-
learning theory, the study entitled “Does Online Education Need a
Special Pedagogy?”; made an attempt to formulate a pedagogical
framework which heavily relied on the classical learning theories but
never formulated an e-learning theory [15]. The proponents of the use
of learning theories in e-learning argue that, e-learning represents
“merely another site for learning” [2]. Some researchers and
educators may disagree that new or a modified e-learning theory (ies)
should be formulated, under the guise that classical theories are
sufficient, well established and are currently used, after being adapted
to the new demands of e-learning with great success [2, 12].
However, the differences between conventional learning and e-
learning are sufficient enough to justify the development of a new
theory (ies) for e-learning. From the foregoing literature as
summarized in Table 2 below, there exist certain lacunae in e-learning
that these classical learning theories do not either account for or
adequately address.
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND STATUS
The research study has achieved objective (i) and (ii) above by
carrying out a review of existing literature by use of scoping review
techniques. The researcher read a total of seventy two (73)
documents: sixty five (66) journal papers, five (5) books and two (2)
book chapters. The results of the contributions of classical theories to
e-learning as well as the inadequacies of these theories are
summarized in Table 2 below. These inadequacies form the research
gaps that will be addressed in this study going forward in objective
(iii) and (iv) The study is in the data collection stage. Chapter 1,
Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of the Thesis document are now complete.

Table 2: Summary of Contributions and Shortcomings of Classical Learning Theories to E-learning

Classical Contribution To E-Learning Inadequacies/Shortcomings/Criticisms/Lacunae/Gaps
Learning Theory

Behaviorism  Advocates for observable and measurable behavior as  Not all behavior can be observed and measured thus
an indicator of learning. encourages learners to learn to do as opposed to learning to be.
 Allows for sequenced instructional steps  The tutor is active(tutor-centered) while the learner is passive
 Advocates for t is structured learning content  Lack of social presence
 It is appropriate for teaching and learning simple  Failure to account how learners make sense of stimuli
concepts before progressing to complex ones.
 It is also appropriate for teaching and learning tasks
that require drilling, practice, operation,
demonstration, procedure and skill
Cognivitism  Argued the learning is an active process of  The tutor is active (tutor-centered) while the learner is passive
information processing that involves memory,  Lack of social presence and learner active participation in the
attention, thinking, reflection, abstraction, motivation, learning process
concept formulation and meta-cognition.
 It advocates for fine-grained content to prevent
learner from memory overload.
 It allows for the inclusion of activities in the learning
content and process for different learning and
cognitive styles.
 It advocates for the use of all senses in the learning
and teaching process.
Constructivism  Advocates for learner-centered learning  It is a theory of learning and not a theory of teaching –the role
 Advocates for group interactive learning of the teacher diminishes under this theory
 Advocates for collaborative and cooperative learning  It is difficult to make meaning of content with a passive
 Advocates for knowledge construction learning teacher or spatially and temporal separated teacher.
 Advocates for discovery learning and critical thinking  Theory fails to account for cultural differences in which the e-
 It is a theory of meaning-making kind of learning learner exists.
 Advocates for authentic learning  Failed to define the nature of collaborative and interactive
behaviors in e-learning

Social  It emphasizes the social context of the learner and  It is a theory of learning not a theory of teaching –the role of
Constructivism Situated Learning. the teacher diminishes in the context of social constructivism.
 It also emphasizes on authentic learning.  It is difficult to make meaning of content with a passive
teacher or spatially and temporal separated teacher

229
 Formulating an E-learning Theory R. Kibuku, et al.

Connectivism  It emphasizes on connectedness of the learners by use
of the modern technology in order to create learning
networks and communities.
 It also emphasizes on knowledge organization with in
the network of learners.
 The role of the tutor is not defined
 The nature of collaborative behaviors are not defined
 The choice and role of the technologies is not informed from a
theoretical perspective
 Knowledge need to be authenticated before sharing. This
cannot happen with a passive tutor.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This PhD research is funded by the National Research Fund (NRF) Kenya

REFERENCES
[1] Andrews Richard and Hythornthwaite Caroline. (2007). Introduction to E-
learning Research. The Sage Handbook of E-learning Research. Sage Publishers.
Thousand Oaks, California.
[2] Andrews Richard (2011). Does E-Learning Require a New Theory of Learning?
Initial Thoughts. Journal of Educational Research Online. 3(1):104-121.
http://www.j-e-r-o.com/index.php/jero/article/view/84/108
[3] Arksey Hilary and O’Malley Lisa (2005). Scoping Studies: Towards a
Methodological Framework. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 8(1):19–32. http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/
[4] Bognar Bronko, Gajger Vesna and Ivić Vlatka (2015). Constructivist E-learning
in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the Conference on Researching
Paradigms of Childhood and Education, UFZG2015 2015, University of Zagreb.
April 2015, Opatija, Croatia, 35-46.
[5] Booth Andrew, Sutton Anthea and Papaioannou Diana. (2016). Systematic
Approaches to Successful Literature Review (2nd Ed.). SAGE Publications Inc,
Cornwall, Ontario.
[6] Charmaz Kathy (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory: Introducing Qualitative
Methods (2nd Ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. London, UK.
[7] Creswell, W. John (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
Among Five Traditions (1st Ed.). SAGE Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks,
California.
[8] Dijkers Marcel (2015). What is Scoping Review? Knowledge Translation for
Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 4(1):1-5.
http://ktdrr.org/products/update/v4n1
[9] Foroughi Abbas (2015). The Theory of Connectivism: Can It Explain and Guide
Learning in the Digital Age? Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice,
15(5):11-26.
[10] Mayes Terry and de Freitas Sara (2004). Review of E-learning Theories,
Frameworks and Models. Joint Information Systems Commitee E-learning
Models Desk Study. (1):1-44.
[11] Nichols Mark (2003). A Theory for E-learning. International Forum for Education
and Information Technologies. 6(2):1-10. http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/6-
2/1.html
[12] Pange Apostolia and Pange Jenny (2011). Is E-Learning Based on Learning
Theories? A Literature Review. International Journal of Social, Behaviuoral,
Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial
[13] Ruth Marco and Kaspar Kai. (2017). The E-learning Setting Circle: First Steps
towards Theory Development in E-learning Research. The Electronic Journal of
E-Learning. 15(1):94-103. www.ejel.org.
[14] Serdyukova Nataliya and Serdyukov Peter (2014). E-Pedagogy: A Model for
Online Education. In Proceeding of the Conference on Academic and Business
Research Institute. Kaiulani Waikiki, June 2014. Hawaii, 1-8.
www.aabri.com/HC2014Manuscripts/HC14024.pdf, 1-8
[15] Serdyukov Peter (2015). Does Online Education Need a Special Pedagogy?
Journal of Computing and Information Technology. 23(1):61-74.
doi:10.2498/cit.1002511.
[16] Stepanyan Karen, Littlejohn Allison and Margaryan Anoush (2013). Sustainable
E-learning: Towards a Coherent Body of Knowledge. Educational Technologies
& Society, 16(2): 91-102.
[17] Suryawanshi Vianshali and Suryawanshi Dayanand (2015). Fundamentals of E-
learning Models. IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering, 2(20) 107-120.
www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jce/papers/NCIEST/Volume%202/20.107-120.pdf
[18] Weische Manuel, Jurisch, C. Marlen, Yetton, W. Philip and Krcmar Helmut
(2017). Gounded Theory Methodology in Infromation Systems Research. MIS
Quarterly.
https://misq.org/skin/frontend/default/misq/pdf/appendices/.../12382_MA_Wiesch
e.pdf

230