PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences

ISSN 2454-5899

Alqurashi , 2018
Volume 3 Issue 3, pp.1442-1454
Date of Publication: 6th February 2018
DOI-https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2018.33.14421454
This paper can be cited as: Alqurashi , M. (2018). An Exploratory Study To Identify Teaching Styles In
Saudi Arabia Based On Three Learning Theories. People: International Journal Of Social Sciences , 3(3),
1442-1454.

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY TO IDENTIFY TEACHING

STYLES IN SAUDI ARABIA BASED ON THREE LEARNING
THEORIES
Mohammed Alqurashi
Department of Educational Technology, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO, United
States
[email protected]

Abstract
The purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate Saudi teachers’ philosophy in teaching
based on three major learning theories (behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism). Also, it
showed the different between gender (male, female), and teachers’ experiences in teaching (1-5,
6-10, 11-15, 16-20, more than 20 years), and level of teaching (Elementary, Middle, and High)
school in the preferred teaching philosophy. The result showed that Saudis’ teacher proffered
using cognitivism philosophy more than constructivism philosophy and behaviorism philosophy.
Although the male teacher had preferred behaviorism school more than female teachers, the
female teachers had preferred cognitivism and constructivism schools more than male teachers.
Also, the teachers who had more experience preferred cognitivism and constructivism schools
more than behaviorism school.
Keywords
Teacher, Learning theories, Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism

1. Introduction
The purpose of teaching is to simplify learning and to encourage student to learn. The
learning and teaching are very important terms, so we need to know what is learning? And how

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1442
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

do people learn? And when do we learn? Although every learning theory has its own version of
the term “learning,” some general definitions of it are presented. Researchers and theorists have
defined the term “learning” in many different ways. In literature, the term learning tends to be
used to refer to “the activity or process of gaining knowledge or skill by studying, practicing,
being taught, or experiencing something: the activity of someone who learns.” Learning is also
defined as a change in behavior or the ability to behave in a certain way; this change is a result of
individual practice and experience (Shuell, 1986, p. 412). For Oblinger (2004), learning is a
constructed, "active process" (para. 1); the main factors of knowledge are facts, experience, and
practice. According to a definition provided by De Houwer, Barnes-Holmes, and Moors (2013),
learning is “functional” changes in the learner’s behavior as a result of experience. Scholars
have developed many theories about the way we learn. There are three general learning theories:
behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism (Reiser & Dempsey, 2006). Learning can be
achieved when learners move from one situation to a new situation by using new knowledge to
solve problems (Oblinger, 2004). This changing in a learner’s situation can be achieved with
any of the previous theories (Boyer, Akcaoğlu, & Pernsteiner, 2015).

2. Literature review
There are many learning theories. As found in the literature review, the three major
learning theories are behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism (Reiser & Dempsey, 2006).
2.1 Behaviorism Schools
Behaviorism is a learning theory that concentrates on observable behaviors and ignores
mental activities (Schunk, 1991). Behaviorism is a theory of human and animal learning.
Behaviorism theorists consider learning as gaining new behavior (Burton et al., 1996). They see
the mind as a “black box” as they disregard the effect of thought processes happening in the
mind (Alzaghoul, 2012, p. 27). The behaviorist school proposes that learning is only the
observable, quantitative behavioral response to an external stimulus in the environment. They
see observable behavior as the measure of learning a new thing and do not consider what occurs
in the learner’s brain (Alzaghoul, 2012; Burton et al., 1996; Schunk, 1991).
According to behaviorism theory, the role of learners is mainly passive; their role is just
to respond to stimuli (Driscoll, 2005). Students learn by following the teacher’s instructions and
the writing materials. Regarding the role of teachers, their responsibility is to design and control

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1443
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

the learning context and supervise the learning process. Thus, teachers mainly lead the learning
process independently from the student. The main concept of teaching in behaviorism theory is
teachers basically present (transmit) the information and students have to show they understand
what they listened to and complete tasks. Finally, students are evaluated mainly through
individual and written tests (Burton et al., 1996; Schunk, 1991).
The teacher’s role, according to behaviorism theory, is to form the learner’s behavior by
positive or negative reinforcement. Reinforcement is used to increase the probability of eliciting
a specific behavior by delivering a stimulus immediately after a response/behavior. On the other
hand, negative reinforcement increases the probability of the desired response by removing an
undesirable stimulus as a result of completing the desired response. Finally, punishment is used
to eliminate undesirable behaviors by presenting an undesirable stimulus when the behavior
occurs (Driscoll, 2005; Schunk, 1991).
The development of instructional objectives is the main implication of behaviorism
theory; it can be used when there is a need to meet specific goals. It allows the learner to focus
on achieving those goals since there is a cue to lead the learner’s behavior. Instructional cues
allow one to predict a learner’s behaviors/responses (Austin, Orcutt, & Rosso, 2001; Ertmer &
Newby, 2013). Behaviorism theory is dependent on stimulus-response and instructional design
is dependent on the workplace or classroom containing the appropriate stimuli to get the desired
behavior. Therefore, if a certain stimulant is not available, then the desired behavior may not
occur (Altuna & Lareki, 2015). Also, Skinner (cited in Altuna & Lareki, 2015) found some
behaviors do not have a reinforcement mechanism and, thus, it will be difficult for instructors to
maintain reinforcement (Ertmer & Newby, 2013; Reiser & Dempsey, 2006).
In terms of e-learning, instructors must explicitly provide learners with the desired
outcomes of the online course so they will be able to set expectations for themselves to achieve
those outcomes. Learners will be assessed for achieving the learning outcomes (Altuna &
Lareki, 2015; Alzaghoul, 2012). Although, teachers can use different technological resources
with the behaviorist approach, many of these resources are one-directional; the only way the
students can engage in the learning process is through answering questions or performing the
directed activities. It is merely “a transmitter–consumer relationship” (Altuna & Lareki, 2015, p.
219), i.e., using technology from the behaviorist perspective is for the presentation purpose only.
Thus, the student’s role is still passive without involvement in the learning process.

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1444
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

With respect to educational gaming, behaviorism-learning theory is compatible with first

generation educational games (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). This generation started in the 1980s
when the edutainment games were designed. This generation of educational games focused on
the direct learning such as repeated drill and practice (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005).
2.2 Cognitivism School
In contrast to behaviorism, cognitivism concentrates on the human mind. In cognitive
theory, learning is based on changes between states of knowledge and not on changes in the
probability of behavior as in behaviorism (Shuell, 1986). Cognitivism theory stresses internal
mental (cognitive) processes that include thinking, language, memory, and problem solving
(Schunk, 1991). The cognitivism theorist studies the mechanism of how the human mind
receives information, stores, and retrieves it in the learning process (Altuna & Lareki, 2015).
Therefore, in cognitivist theory, learning is reached when information is stored in the memory in
a meaningful way. Since cognitive theory focuses on mental processes, it is a proper approach
for explaining complex shapes of learning that include mental structures such as reasoning and
problem-solving (Driscoll, 2005; Schunk, 1991; Shuell, 1986).
In contrast to behaviorism, cognitivist theory states that if we consider the mind as a
“black box,” we must open and understand it (Alzaghoul, 2012, p. 27). As stated previously, in
this theory, the learner’s role is to process information, similar to a computer processor, storing
it, and later retrieving it (Alzaghoul, 2012). The learner is dependent on the depth of his/her
information processing capacity as well as the amount of effort put into this process to fully
understand and transfer new knowledge. The main focus of the cognitive approach is to
encourage the learner to use suitable learning strategies (Driscoll, 2005; Shuell, 1986).
A main concept of cognitivist theory is the model of information processing. This model
goes through three stages (Shuell, 1986). The first stage is sensory register--where information
is received as an input from the senses. Following that is short-term memory (STM)--where
important sensory input is transferred from the sensory register to short-term memory. After that
stage, the stored information in the STM is transferred to be stored for long term use in the
unlimited capacity memory stage called long-term memory and storage (LTM). Information is
stored in LTM through rote memorization and deeper levels of processing where the learner
generates links between old and new knowledge (Driscoll, 2005; Reiser & Dempsey, 2006;
Shuell, 1986; Winn & Snyder, 1996).

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1445
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

According to cognitivist theory, the role of teachers is to manage problem solving.

Teachers should help learners organize acquired knowledge in some way by using techniques
such as analogies, hierarchical relationships, and matrices. Teachers have to provide students
with opportunities to relate and compare new knowledge to an existing schema (Alzaghoul,
2012).
With regard to the instructional design process, learners’ thinking, attitudes, beliefs, and
values are all important in the learning process in cognitivist theory. Relying on the cognitivist
model, instructional designers must consider the learner when determining how to design
instruction to be easily assimilated. The instructional designer specifies the goals by developing
the learning objectives, i.e., the designer determines the important information to be learned by
the students and finds the proper way to transfer that knowledge to the students. Since learners’
thoughts are the focus of the learning process, the designer should consider learners’ thinking as
well as experience levels during the instructional design process. Consequently, this type of
design may require additional cost and time (Driscoll, 2005; Ertmer & Newby, 2013; Reiser &
Dempsey, 2006).
Following cognitivism theory, the instructional designer necessarily must specify a fixed
set of goals and expectations. However, having predetermined goals may be problematic
because it may restrict learning potentials. Moreover, in cognitivism, the instructor also specifies
the cues to do the tasks and the learner knows the way to do tasks based on those cues. This may
be an efficient way to do tasks in some specific environments or scenarios but may not be
effective in others (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
With respect to e-learning, cognitivism theory is useful if the goal is to teach principles
and processes. Different learning and cognitive forms should be considered when designing
these learning materials. To improve the learning process, teachers need to attract learners’
attention by concentrating on critical information. Also, teachers should rationalize the
instruction and show learners how to connect new to existing knowledge in long-term memory
by using advanced organizers. The information has to be presented in an organized, collective
manner such as lists, hierarchical structures, spider-shaped information maps, or charts. This
method of representing knowledge decreases the issue of cognitive overload (Alzaghoul, 2012).
With respect to educational gaming, cognitivism learning theory was the center of the
second generation of educational games in the 1990s (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). The second

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1446
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

generation of educational games focused on the learner rather than focusing on behavior
(Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005).
2.3 Constructivism Schools
Constructivism theory sees learners as the center of the learning process. The learning
process is seen as a meaningful creation formed from experience (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy,
& Perry, 1991). It is a constructive method where learners construct information based on their
prior experience as well as culture to aid their learning (Driscoll, 2005). In constructivism
theory, learners connect new information to their prior knowledge. Constructivists consider all
learners to have the ability to build upon information in their own minds by discovery and using
problem-solving skills (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
Constructivism is known as a branch of cognitivism in that both theories view the
learning process as a mental activity. However, they are different in some ways. Cognitivists
see the human mind as a reference for knowledge while constructivists see the human mind as a
filter of the real world to generate its own reality (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Also, although both
cognitivism and constructivism involve the learner in the learning process, constructivism sees
the role of the learner as more than just an active processor of information. The learner’s role in
constructivism theory is to construct new ideas from current/past knowledge. Constructivists
involve the learner in the interpretation process of given information, social interaction, and
motivation that affect the construction process (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). The constructivism
approach gives learners the responsibility of deriving goals while still being able to discuss those
goals with teachers. The constructivism theory approach gives learners instruction in how to
construct knowledge to encourage them to collaborate with others and exchange their
perspectives to solve a particular problem (Driscoll, 2005; Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
The role of instructors is modified when compared to behaviorism and cognitivism.
Rather than simply presenting the facts in the content, teachers should assist and show the
learners how to construct the information (Driscoll, 2005). They should connect their teaching
strategies to students’ responses and encourage students to analyze and interpret the information
(Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
In the constructivist approach, instructional designers consider hypertext and hypermedia
that allow for a branched design rather than a linear format of instruction. However, learners
need to be guided in hypermedia or hypertext environments, which equals a combination of

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1447
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

objective (behaviorist and cognitivist) and constructive instructional designs (Altuna & Lareki,
2015; Reiser & Dempsey, 2006).
In the current learning context, constructivism theory presents many possibilities for
learning activities and varied implications such as collaborative learning to expose learners to
alternative viewpoints, problem-based learning, higher-order thinking skills and deeper
understanding, object-based learning, modeling, and coaching (Driscoll, 2005).
Regarding educational technology, Altuna and Lareki (2015) found significant research
asserting that we should change traditional teaching approaches and strategies when working
with information and communication technology. Also, scholars emphasize that constructivism
is the most appropriate approach for teaching and learning when technology is used (Altuna &
Lareki, 2015). In support of this assertion, a number of studies have verified the success of using
technological resources in constructivist contexts (Altuna & Lareki, 2015). Moreover, it has
been found that instructors who have a constructivism perspective are more likely to use
technology in their teaching (Obafemi & Eyono Obono, 2014). Since constructivism learning
theory focuses on knowledge construction based on learners’ previous experience and
knowledge, which in turn determines learning achievement, this theory is very appropriate for an
e-learning approach. More specifically, constructivism theory focuses on each learner
individually with his/her unique needs and experience and is a very effective component of e-
learning courses (Alzaghoul, 2012). Moreover, using technology to communicate with others
enables students to be in an active role to construct and present their knowledge (Means &
Olson, 1997). Using some computer-based activities in learning would also increase problem-
solving skills of students since most of these activities require collaboration with others. These
types of learning clearly represent constructivist perspectives. Thus, a constructivist learning
approach works properly with technology-based learning activities (Means & Olson, 1997;
Obafemi & Eyono Obono, 2014).
With respect to educational gaming, the third generation of educational games was based
on constructivism learning theory (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). This generation represents the last
generation of educational digital games compatible with constructivism-learning theory
(Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005).

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1448
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

3. Methodology
The population involved in this study consisted of teachers of public and private schools
in Saudi Arabia. The teacher population consisted of the total population of teachers, those who
are currently teaching in (elementary, middle, and high schools). In Saudi Arabia, there are
441,529 teachers, 45.6% of them male and 54.4% female. (Ministry of Education in Saudi
Arabia, 2014).
The questionnaire consisted of two parts: The first part asking about teacher’s
background such as gender, level of teaching, years of experience in teaching. The second part
is about the teacher’s philosophy. It contains three questions; each question relates to a specific
learning theory (behaviorism, cognitivism, or constructivism).
The reliability of the instrument was calculated with study data. The overall internal
consistency of the Instrument was 0.92. The results showed a high level of internal consistency
for the scales (Creswell, 2012).

4. Research Questions
This study has four research questions guided this study. The first question was
descriptive question. Next, there are three comparison questions to determine how two or more
groups on an independent variable differed in one dependent variables (Creswell, 2012).

Q1. What is the school of learning (behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism) the Saudi
teachers prefer and use in their teaching?
Q2. Is there a significant difference between teachers’ gender in their school of learning
(behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism) that preferred?
Q3. Is there a significant mean difference among teachers’ grade level (elementary school,
middle school, and high school) in their school of learning (behaviorism, cognitivism,
constructivism) that preferred?
Q4. Is there a significant mean difference among teachers' years of experience (1-5, 6-10, 11-
15, 16-20, more than 20 years) in their school of learning (behaviorism, cognitivism,
constructivism) that preferred?

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1449
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

5. The Results
The Sample size of this study was 1004 teachers (see Table 1). Male teachers were 448
and represented 44.6% of the participants while female teachers were 556 and represented 55.8%
of the participants.
Table 1: Frequencies and Percentages of Variables
Variables Frequency Percent
Gender Male 448 44.6
Female 556 55.4
Level of teaching Elementary school 424 42.2
Middle school 258 25.7
High school 322 32.1
Teachers’ experience in 1-5 228 22.7
6-10 239 23.8
teaching
11-15 147 14.7
16-20 175 17.4
More than 20 years 215 21.4

To answer the first question, descriptive methods such as mean and standard deviation
were calculated for three teaching philosophies: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.
As can clearly be seen in Table 2, cognitivism philosophy had a slightly higher mean (M = 3.9,
SD = 0.78) than constructivism philosophy (M = 3.8, SD = 0.94) and behaviorism philosophy (M
= 3.3, SD = 1.11).
Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Teaching Philosophy
Teaching Philosophy N Mean SD
Behaviorism 1004 3.3 1.11
Cognitivism 1004 3.9 0.78
Constructivism 1004 3.8 0.94

To answer the rest questions, each school theory was tested separately. In behaviorism
school, for the question two, the results of the T-Test showed there was a statistically significant
difference between male and female teachers in their preferred and using behaviorism school, t-
test (1002) = 4.713; (p < 0.0001). An inspection of the mean scores indicated male teachers had
preferred behaviorism school (M = 3.5, SD = 1.01) more than female teachers (M = 3.1, SD =
1.16).

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1450
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

For the question three, the results of the ANOVA showed there was no a statistically
significant difference between level of teaching (elementary, middle, and high) in their preferred
and using behaviorism school, F(2,1001) = 0.29; (p < 0.75).
For the last question, the results of the ANOVA showed there was no a statistically
significant difference between teachers' years of experience (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, more than
20 years) in their preferred and using behaviorism school, F(4,1000) = 2.6; (p < 0.064).
In cognitivism school, for the question two, the results of the T-Test showed there was a
statistically significant difference between male and female teachers in their preferred and using
cognitivism school, t-test (1002) = -5.9; (p < 0.0001). An inspection of the mean scores indicated
female teachers had preferred cognitivism school (M = 4.1, SD = 0.68) more than male teachers
(M = 3.7, SD = 0.85).
For the question three, the results of the ANOVA showed there was no a statistically
significant difference between level of teaching (elementary, middle, and high) in their preferred
and using cognitivism school, F(2,1001) = 0.74; (p < 0.48).
For the last question, the results of the ANOVA showed there was a statistically
significant difference between teachers' years of experience (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, more than
20 years) in their preferred and using cognitivism school, F(4,1000) = 3.41; (p < 0.009). The
significant difference appeared between teachers who had 1-5 years of experience (M = 3.7, SD
= 0.78) and teachers who had 20 years of experience (M = 4.1, SD = 0.67), (p < 0.012). Also, the
difference appeared between teachers who had 1-5 years of experience (M = 3.7, SD = 0.78) and
teachers who had more than 20 years of experience (M = 3.98, SD = 0.79), (p < 0.03).
In constructivism school, for the question two, the results of the T-Test showed there was
a statistically significant difference between male and female teachers in their preferred and
using constructivism school, t-test (1002) = -5.7; (p < 0.0001). An inspection of the mean scores
indicated female teachers had preferred constructivism school (M = 3.93, SD = 0.68) more than
male teachers (M = 3.5, SD = 1.001).
For the question three, the results of the ANOVA showed there was no a statistically
significant difference between level of teaching (elementary, middle, and high) in their preferred
and using constructivism school, F(2,1001) = 0.11; (p < 0.89).
For the last question, the results of the ANOVA showed there was a statistically
significant difference between teachers' years of experience (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, more than

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1451
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

20 years) in their preferred and using constructivism school, F(4,1000) = 3.37; (p < 0.009). The
significant difference appeared between teachers who had 1-5 years of experience (M = 3.6, SD
= 0.98) and teachers who had 20 years of experience (M = 3.92, SD = 0.82), (p < 0.014). Also,
the difference appeared between teachers who had 1-5 years of experience (M = 3.6, SD = 0.98)
and teachers who had more than 20 years of experience (M = 3.9, SD = 0.88), (p < 0.03).

6. Discussion And Conclusion

In general, our result showed that Saudis’ teacher proffered using cognitivism philosophy
more than constructivism philosophy and behaviorism philosophy. Although the male teacher
had preferred behaviorism school more than female teachers, the female teachers had preferred
cognitivism and constructivism schools more than male teachers. That means the female Saudi
teachers are more ready to use any technology tools more than male teachers. So, male teachers
need to adopt cognitivism and constructivism theories in their teaching, which will help them
when applying any new technology tools in their classroom.
On the other hand, there was no difference in teachers’ teaching philosophy among levels
of teaching (elementary school, middle school, and high school). However, for teachers' years of
experience (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, more than 20 years), the teachers who had more experience
preferred cognitivism and constructivism schools more than behaviorism school.

References
Altuna, J. & Lareki, A. (2015). Analysis of the use of digital technologies in schools that
implement different learning theories. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
53(2), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115597869
Alzaghoul, A. (2012). The implication of the learning theories on implementing e-learning
courses. The Research Bulletin of Jordan ACM, 11(11), 27-30.
Austin, K., Orcutt, S., & Rosso, J. (2001). How people learn: Introduction to learning theories.
Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/class/ed269/hplintrochapter.pdf
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How
do we link? In T. M Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and technology of
instruction: A conversation (pp. 17-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boyer, M., Akcaoğlu, M., & Pernsteiner, S. (2015, June). Connecting game and instructional

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1452
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

design through development. EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and

Technology, 1660-1669.
Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional
technology. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational
communications and technology (pp. 46-73). New York: Macmillan.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Moors, A. (2013). What is learning? On the nature and
merits of a functional definition of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 631–
642. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0386-3
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn
and Bacon.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond edutainment: Exploring the educational potential of
computer games.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143
Learning. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/learning
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1997).Technology and education reform: Studies of education reform.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia. (2014, March 13). Statistical reports [Data file].
Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sa/Arabic/Ministry/Pages/Statistical-reports.aspx
Obafemi, S. T., & Eyono Obono, S. D. (2014). Educators’ adherence to learning theories and
their perceptions on the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning. International
Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation, 8(11), 3385- 3392.
Oblinger, D. G. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive
Media in Education, 8(1), Art. 10. https://doi.org/10.5334/2004-8-oblinger
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2006).Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Macmillan.

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1453
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(4),

411-436. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543056004411
Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology.

© 2018 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1454
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/