IST-Africa 2019 Conference Proceedings

Paul Cunningham and Miriam Cunningham (Eds)

IIMC International Information Management Corporation, 2019
ISBN: 978-1-905824-63-2

Contributions and Shortcomings of Classical

Learning Theories as Applied to E-Learning:
A Literature Review
Rachael Njeri KIBUKU1, Daniel Orwa OCHIENG2
1
KCA University, P.O. Box 56808, 00200, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 208 070 408/9, [email protected], [email protected]
2
University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 30197, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya.
Tel +254447870, Email: [email protected]
Abstract: The design and delivery of e-learning have been informed by the 20th Century
Classical Learning Theories (CLTs) namely: Behaviorism, Cognitivism and
Constructivism. Though each theory has significantly contributed to e-learning; there exist
certain lacunae in their application to the practice. Connectivism is a recent addition which
is described as a learning theory of the digital era. However, although constructivism and
connectivism were especially stipulated to underpin collaborative learning; they fail to
inform what activities and behaviors constitute collaborative learning in the e-learning
context. This paper presents the literature on the contributions and shortcomings of CLTs
as applied to e-learning as well as their pedagogical and technological implications. The
scoping review method was used to locate, analyze, synthesize and present the findings.
The shortcomings identified from this review formed the basis for the ongoing research to
extend connectivism into a collaborative e-learning theory using the Grounded Theory
Methodology.

Keywords: Learning, e-learning, theory, pedagogy, connectivism, collaborative learning.

1. Introduction
Some Institutions of Higher Learning are taking up e-learning to provide learning services to the
increasing number of learners seeking higher education [43]. However, most of the e-learning
initiatives do not fulfill their promise; they either fail partially or totally [19, 25, 10]. E-learning
initiatives are faced by a number of challenges [10, 37] which eventually lead to a slow uptake of e-
learning especially in the developing countries [23]. Despite the significant development in e-
learning, there still lacks a relevant theory specifically stipulated to guide the practice to date [4,
40]. Theories play a central role in guiding practice across all disciplines. A review of the
available e-learning literature reveals that there are no e-learning theories per se, only
enhancements of the Classical Learning Theories (CLTs) of behaviorism, cognitivism, and
constructivism to include the use of technology in learning [48]. Most of the existing literature
are based on practice and experiences [39]. The argument justifying the application of CLTs to e-
learning has been that e-learning is learning just like conventional learning with the only
difference being the “e”. The “e’ is argued to be just a conduit of delivering learning [39];
however, e-learning being a hybrid term suggests that there is something distinct about it that
makes it is different from conventional learning and thus a blanket application of CLTs to e-

Copyright © 2019 The authors www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2019 Page 1 of 10

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Queensland. Downloaded on October 09,2020 at 01:50:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 learning may not work. Further, CLTs were formulated long before we had e-learning with all
the modern technologies in use today [4].

1.1 Problem Statement

E-learners experience spatial and temporal separation from fellow learners and tutors. A
common challenge with most e-learning systems is their lack of adequate and prompt tutor’s
feedback, limited or lack of learner’s collaboration and campus social interactions resulting to
learner isolation; effectively making e-learning a solitary journey [12, 17, 22]. Isolation results to
low motivation and low completion rates. From a theoretical perspective it is not clear which
variables are important in the design and delivery of e-learning systems to address this isolation
[11, 32, 33, 38, 39]. Connectivism, being a contemporary theory that aims at interconnecting e-
learning participants; also fails to adequately account for the nature of interaction and
collaborative activities intended by that interconnectedness. Since these learners are away from
the campus it is imperative that e-learning systems, interaction and communication tools, tests
and course materials are designed from sound theoretical principles which is the motivation of
this review.

2. Objectives
1. Determine the contributions of CLTs to e-learning.
2. Determine the technological and pedagogical implications of the CLTs to e-learning.
3. Establish the shortcomings of CLTs when applied to e-learning.

3. Significance
The expected contribution of this review are the theoreical gaps in CLTs as applied to e-learning.
These gaps are important because they formed the basis of the ongoing research to extend
connectivism into a collaborative e-learning theory. This review and the extended theory will
equlally be important to the e-learning stakeholders who include the e-learners, e-tutors, e-
learning providers and policy makers. Most importantly to the e-learners who are either based in
rural areas without acces to conventinal campus or working in urban areas where they cannot be
able to attend conventional learning due to work engagement.

4. Methodology
The review used the scoping review technique to map the key concepts underpinning the study to
the main sources of the literature. It is useful in studying trends in contemporary areas such as e-
learning where ideas and evidence are still evolving and emerging [25, 43]. The review was
guided by three research questions intended for the search of the related literature. The found
materials were compared, analyzed and synthesized, yielding three major themes running across
and throughout the available body of literature [1, 30]. The integrated findings of the review
were presented in a thematic narrative. Table 1 below shows the steps, activities and outcomes
of the scoping review method stipulated by [21] and as applied in this review. The study
reviewed 48 documents.

Copyright © 2019 The authors www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2019 Page 2 of 10

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Queensland. Downloaded on October 09,2020 at 01:50:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Table 1: Scoping Review Steps, Activities and Outcomes. Adapted from [43]
Step/Activities Outcomes

1. Identify research 1. What are the contributions of CLTs to e-learning?

question(s ) 2. What are the shortcoming of these theories in their application to e-learning?
3. What have been the pedagogical and technical implications of CLTs to e-learning?

2. Identify key terms Primary Search Key Terms Secondary Search Key Terms
and use them to 1. Learning 1. Behaviorism
find pertinent 2. E-learning 2. Cognitivism
studies 3. Learning theories 3. Constructivism
4. E-learning theories 4. Situated Learning
NB: this step had two 5. E-learning pedagogical models 5. Connectivism
activities: the 6. History of e-learning 6. Contributions of learning theories to e-learning
primary and 7. Theoretical perspectives 7. Criticisms of CLTs as applied to e-learning
secondary search. 8. E-learning technologies 8. Collaborative learning

3. Select the related 1. The primary searches the yielded twenty-six journal articles, three conference papers,
studies one working paper and one book chapter
2. The secondary search yielded eleven journal articles, one book chapter, one conference
paper, one report and three books

4. Extract the major 1. E-learning grew through various generations characterized by certain technologies.
themes and 2. E-learning has been guided by CLTs of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism and
constructs Connectivism; which have certain contributions and shortcomings when applied to in
e-learning.
3. The application of CLTs has had certain pedagogical implications and challenges to e-
learning

5. Integrate, This review study does not suggest that we throw away the contributions of the classical
summarize and theories. Instead it proposes to extend the connectivist theory into an e-learning theory to
report the findings address certain of the gaps identified by this literature review with a view to improving
interaction and improve collaboration.

5. Findings and Discussions

From the literature reviewed, there emerged three themes: technological developments of e-
learning, pedagogical models and theoretical contributions and shortcomings of CLTs to e-
learning.

5.1 E-learning Technological Development

The ‘e’ in e-learning signifies enactment through electronic means, comprising the computer
hardware, software, and the networking infrastructures [40]. E-learning development has been
described from a technological-deterministic view based on the predominating technologies over
time [24, 45, 46]. E-learning owes its history to Distance Learning (DL) and it evolved through
five generations to the present day e-learning. The first generation used written/printed learning
materials that were disseminated to the learners through postal mail. Learner-tutor interaction
was through face-to-face residential sessions at the end of the learning term [6, 24, 46]. The
second generation emerged with the development of the telephone, radio and TV technologies.
Key features of this generation were the Radio and TV broadcast lessons accompanied by audio

Copyright © 2019 The authors www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2019 Page 3 of 10

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Queensland. Downloaded on October 09,2020 at 01:50:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 and video cassettes to deliver content. Teleconferencing complemented face-to-face interaction
[6, 24, 46]. The third generation emerged with the advent of computer technology where learners
were given learning materials in electronic form copied on removable media [6, 24, 46]. The
fourth generation emerged with the development of the Internet. Web 2.0 and semantic web were
further technologies that were included in web-based learning to become what is known today as
e-learning (45, 19). The fifth generation is an extension of the fourth generation which includes
novel types of e-learning such as intelligent and flexible learning, machine learning, mobile
learning, and cloud-based e-learning [6, 19].

5.2 E-learning Pedagogical Models

E-learning pedagogical models are the specific roles played by technology in supporting e-
learning at the pedagogical and implementation level [22, 28, 31, 36]. They include: Open
Learning, Distributed Learning and Learning Communities. Open learning is a learner-centered
approach that focuses on individual and local needs of learner based on the here and now. Its’
characterized by flexible offerings such as “short courses, evening or part time courses,
workshops, seminars, conferences, certificate, diploma and degree programs” [28, 36] by use of
“knowledge networks, knowledge portals, asynchronous learning networks, virtual classrooms,
and tele-learning” [36]. Distributed learning is education delivered anytime, anywhere, to
multiple locations, using telecommunication technologies [28]. Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning is a form of distributed learning based on peer interaction and group
working [12, 31], that utilizes emails, discussion forums, chatrooms, and video conferencing.
Learning activities in a distributed model are self-paced and at self-appointed times [36].
Learning Communities (LCs) are social networks of learners with similar learning goals working
together in project, where learners participate in authentic socio-cultural activities in their
discipline [28, 36]. LCs informally provide academic and social support such as counseling and
tutoring to their members with an emphasis on learning as opposed to teaching [31, 36].

5.3 Contributions and Shortcoming of CLTs

Learning theories provide empirically-based accounts of the factors that determine how learning
occurs [16, 48]. The analysis and evaluation of any e-learning systems is based on identifying the
key logical variables that underpin the pedagogical success of e-learning [27, 48]; thus learning
theories should be mapped onto pedagogical models [43]. This section presents the CLTs
chronologically from behaviorism, to cognitivism, to constructivism and finally to connectivism.
Behaviorism was founded by Pavlov, Watson and Skinner [7, 13, 35]. They postulated that
learning is the change in behavior(response) as a result of external stimuli, where the change is
an increase or decrease of certain behavior relative the learning goals. Repetition coupled with
positive or negative reinforcement is used to master the desired behavior. Positive reinforcement
(reward) increases the desired behavior while negative reinforcement (punishment) suppresses
the undesired behavior [4, 35, 50, 43]. Behaviorist perceive the learner’s mind as a black-box in
the sense that a response can only be observed quantitatively, totally ignoring the thought
processes [18, 13, 35]. Thus, observable behavior indicates whether learning has occurred or not,
but not what is going on in learner’s mind. Its relevance to e-learning is in instructional
sequencing and content structuring; such that simple concepts are presented before complex
concepts in order to elicit the appropriate behavior [18]. It’s also appropriate for teaching and
learning skills that require drilling, demonstrating and operational procedures [2, 18].

Copyright © 2019 The authors www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2019 Page 4 of 10

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Queensland. Downloaded on October 09,2020 at 01:50:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Behaviorist are accused of limiting the learner to “learning to do/behave as opposed to
learning to be” [45]. This view is wrong because learning is more than behavior change and not
all behavior is observable [31, 45], hence learning outcomes should constitute more than
measurable behavior. In e-learning; the desired behavior change can be difficult to measure; or
the tutor may miss to observe it due to the spatial and temporal separation. Behaviorists also fail
to account for how learners make sense of information and how they process it to produce the
behavior. For them, explanations that have no basis in human behavior are irrelevant [50], which
is the shortcoming that spawned cognitivism [51]. The black-box view cannot be wholly true;
because some information processing happens in the mind as demonstrated by the subsequent
cognitivists. Further, behaviorism treats all learners like machines by requiring them to exhibit
the same behavior, but learners are indeed different intelligent beings who act differently even to
similar stimuli [50]. In the e-learning context, owing to the global nature of e-learners with
different characteristics; this view can lead to failure to meet their different needs. Finally, being
a tutor-centered theory, with a passive learner and lacking in social presence [45], behaviorism
exacerbates the situation for the e-learners who are already spatially separated by widening the
separation. This is the gulf that all e-learning systems’ designers should be trying to bridge.
Cognitivism was founded by Jean Piaget; who is credited with human cognitive development
stages. It contended that the black-box of the mind can be opened to understand the learner’s
internal thought process that involves memory, attention, thinking, reflection, and abstraction [4,
7, 26]. To them, the mind is a white-box and a processor of stimuli, which are processed through
the three levels of memory namely: sensory, short-term and long-term memory. The learnt
knowledge is permanently stored in the long-term memory. New knowledge is acquired as result
of interaction between new experiences and previously learnt knowledge. Cognitivism
appreciates individual learner differences hence it argues that learning strategies should
accommodate those differences [2, 18]. In the e-learning context; content should be broken down
into small chunks to avoid memory overload, new information should be built on existing
information, teaching strategies should involve all senses, and e-learning materials and processes
should include activities for the different cognitive styles [18]. The equivalent pedagogy for
cognitivism is the open learning model [28, 29, 36].
Cognitivism is criticized for its lack of social presence, tutor-centeredness and
encouragement a passive learner [45], hence consequently described as a theory of teaching as
opposed to learning; a shortcoming that is amplified in the e-learning context since the learner is
away from the tutors and fellow learners. Thus, its application to e-learning is limited because
the e-learner has to play the reverse role (active) in the absence (passive) of the tutor;
necessitating the need for redefining the roles of both parties. Its application is limited to course
design and delivery technologies, however it fails to match the cognitive capabilities and
limitations of the learner [45, 46].
Constructivism was postulated by John Dewey who proposed the ‘active learning’ concept
[7, 47, 14]. Constructivists believed that learners construct knowledge from the learning
experience rather than being given by tutors. They argued that understanding is gained through
an active process of creating hypotheses and building new forms of understanding through
critical inquiry as opposed to absorbing information [4, 48]. Its implication for e-learning is that,
tutors should provide interactive online activities to allow collaborative learning and encourage
learners to take control of the learning process. Learning materials should focus on interactive
group activities that encourage discovery and reflection from real world situations [2, 18]. Social
Constructivism was an extension of constructivism by Vygotsky and Bruner who emphasized on

Copyright © 2019 The authors www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2019 Page 5 of 10

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Queensland. Downloaded on October 09,2020 at 01:50:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 social presence in learning. They argued that knowledge and understanding of the world are
jointly constructed in coordination with members of the society where learners exist [47]. The
situative perspective implication in e-learning is that; learning situations should be modeled as
close as possible to real life situations in which the learner functions [41]. The equivalent
pedagogy for constructivism is a combination of distributed learning and learning communities
[28, 29, 36].
Constructivism and social constructivism are perceived as theories of learning as opposed to
teaching [45, 49], where the tutor is a facilitator and helper. However, there still exists a gap as to
what elements constitute an effective constructivist tutor [16]. Since tutor’s mastery of the
subject matter is considered secondary in constructivism, constructivist tutors complain that they
desire to teach in a normal classroom setting where they can demonstrate that mastery and be
perceived as authorities in the subject matter by their learners [49]. In the e-learning context; the
tutor’s role is more blurred given that s/he is already passive. Further, being a meaning-making
theory, constructivism suggests that the learner should be able to make meaning from the
activities encountered in a constructivist environment such as tutors’ instructions, content and the
various knowledge construction and the interaction tools. However, for the constructivist e-
learner, it becomes difficult to make sense of the content and relate to the various interaction
technologies. Finally, it heavily emphasizes the social-cultural framework within which learners
exist and where learning occurs; but fails to account for the cultural differences that exist among
the individuals [49]. 
Connectivism was proposed by Siemens and Downes in 2005. It postulated that knowledge is
located in a network of Learning Communities (LCs), and that learning occurs when a learner
joins a community where s/he contributes knowledge to or takes knowledge from. Thus learning
rests in the different views of the community members [3, 42]. An LC is a group of “learners
with similar interests that allows communication exchanges, thinking and problem-solving
together” [42]. LC members support each other in their learning agendas, participate in projects,
share knowledge, learn from their environment and engage in collective socio-cultural activities
[28, 42]. Thus, e-learning design should include learning groups that are made of active
participants of both learners and tutors, where tutor’s role is not only limited to facilitation; but
also includes offering support and help to the learners especially when dealing with complex
content. [16, 47]. Connectivism is influenced by the 21st Century technologies; and its rationale
is that CLTs were created during a time when learning was happening in different technological
contexts; however, it also has its inadequacies in its’ application to e-learning [5, 34].
Being a theory that emphasizes the use of modern technologies for interconnection [3]; its
equivalent pedagogies are consequently techno-centric; best mapped to learning communities
and social networks [36]. The problem with techno-centric pedagogies is that, key decisions are
informed by technologies as opposed to learning objectives and available theory(ies). Another
problem associated with technology is that, it is ever evolving hence, connectivism is not clear
about emerging technologies [34]. Furthermore, these technological tools may distract the
learners from the content being conveyed by the very technologies; thereby preventing them
from achieving the learning goals. For connectivism to work, it depends on the availability of
key resources such as electricity, Internet, and funds to afford the technologies to interconnect
among other constraints [34]. Besides, in order to function in a connectivist environment, e-
learning participants must be trained on how to use the modern technologies. Further, it’s
accused of neither being a theory of learning nor teaching; it’s more distinctly a theory of
knowledge and its organization [44, 45], thus making it difficult to render itself to pedagogical

Copyright © 2019 The authors www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2019 Page 6 of 10

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Queensland. Downloaded on October 09,2020 at 01:50:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 practices since it is hard to map it into ways of learning and harder still to ways of teaching [22,
45]. The notion of a tutor is almost foreign in connectivism, except perhaps as a facilitator and
fellow node in the network [45], which is not right because the tutor is needed by nearly all
learners to provide help and support in navigating through the learning content and activities, in
authenticating and validating the information and in critically analyzing the content with the
learners [42]. It also lacks class control; learners learn better when they can sense some level of
control akin to the conventional classroom setting. The yearning for a controlled environment is
heightened in a connectivist e-learning environment especially in the beginning where learners
feel lost and confused in the new environment. This is partly so due to the difficulties in relating
the multiple technologies and navigating the connected cyber environment [44, 45]. Finally, it
fails to account for how the technology will be used to achieve the desired social connectedness,
what activities constitute collaborative learning, the nature of tutorial support to be provided, the
influence of different social-cultural backgrounds on group dynamics, and the impact of
interconnectedness or failure to interconnect on learner performance.
Table 2, summarizes the pedagogies, technologies, contributions and shortcomings of CLTs
as applied to e-learning.

Copyright © 2019 The authors www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2019 Page 7 of 10

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Queensland. Downloaded on October 09,2020 at 01:50:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Table 2: Summary of pedagogies, technologies, contributions and shortcoming of CLTs: Adapted from [43, 45]
Classical Pedagogical Technology Contribution to E-Learning Shortcomings in E-learning Context
Learning Model Used
Theory
Behaviorism N/A Printed 1. Advocates behavior change after learning. 1. Not all behavior can be observed/measured
Materials 2. Allows for sequenced instructional steps 2. It is tutor-centered with passive learner
3. Advocates content structuring 3. Lacks social presence
4. Appropriate for teaching and learning simple 4. Fails to account how learners make sense of
before hard concepts stimuli
5. Appropriate for teaching and learning tasks that
require drilling, operation, procedure and skill
Cognitivism Open Print, TV, Advocates for: 1. It is tutor-centered with passive learner
Learning radio, one-to- 1. Active learning through information processing, 2. Lacks social presence
one memory, attention, thinking, reflection, and
communication abstraction,
2. Fine-grained content to prevent learner from
memory overload.
3. Inclusion of activities in the learning content and
process for different learning and cognitive styles.
4. Use of all senses
Constructivism Distributed Conferencing Advocates for: 1. Theory of learning as opposed to teaching thus
Learning 1. Learner-centered diminishing tutor role
2. Group and collaborative learning 2. Difficult to make meaning of content with a passive,
3. Knowledge construction spatially and temporal separated tutor.
4. Discovery and authentic Learning 3. Doesn’t account for e-learners’ cultural differences
5. Meaning-making and critical thinking 4. Doesn’t define collaborative and interactive
behaviors
Social Distributed Conferencing, 1. Social context, Situated and Authentic 1. Theory of learning as opposed to teaching causing
Constructivism Learning many-to-many Learning tutor role to diminishes
& communication 2. It is difficult to make meaning of content with a
Learning passive, spatially and temporal separated tutor.
Communities 3. Doesn’t account for e-learners’ cultural differences
4. Doesn’t define collaborative and interactive
behaviors
Connectivism Learning Web 2.0: 1. Emphasizes connectedness of the learners and 1. Tutor’s role not defined
Communities Social tutor by use of the modern technology 2. Collaborative behaviors are not defined
& networks, 3. Choice and role of technologies not informed
Social Media Chatrooms, 2. Emphasizes knowledge organization from a theoretical perspective
Networks forums 4. Knowledge needs authentication

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Queensland. Downloaded on October 09,2020 at 01:50:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Copyright © 2019 The authors www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2019 Page 8 of 10
 6. Conclusions and Recommendations
None of the CLTs was completely replaced by the successive theories; instead the e-learning
pedagogical models available today are a combination of various concepts from each of these
theories. From the foregoing literature review it is clear that CLTs and connectivism have
contributed immensely to e-learning; however as demonstrated, there are certain lacunae in
CLTs hence they cannot adequately account for all aspects of e-learning, and hence the need for
an e-learning theory. Further, these CLTs were postulated long before the modern day e-learning
with all its technologies hence they cannot underpin everything that goes on in e-learning. It is
therefore recommended that e-learning design and delivery should be informed from a
theoretical perspective to address some the challenges that face it. It’s also recommended that
pedagogical and technological choices be informed from an equivalent e-learning theory. The
lacunae identified in this review formed the basis upon which further research is underway to
extend connectivism into a collaborative e-learning theory using constructivist Grounded Theory
Methodology. The research is at the data collection and analysis stage using observations and
intense unstructured interviews.

References
[1] A. Booth, A. Sutton & D. Papaioannou, Systematic Approaches to Successful Literature Review (2nd Ed.), ISBN
978-0-85702-134-2. SAGE Publications Inc., Cornwall, Ontario, 2016, pp 17-35.
[2] A. F. Alzaghoul, The Implications of the Learning Theories on Implementing E-learning Courses. The RBJ-ACM,
2012, 2(2), pp. 27-30.
[3] A. Foroughi. The Theory of Connectivism: Can it Explain and Guide Learning in the Digital Age? JHETP, 2015,
15(5), pp. 11-26.
[4] A. Pange & J. Pange, Is E-Learning Based on Learning Theories? A Literature Review. IJSBEEBIE 2011, 5(8), pp.
932-93.
[5] A. Ravenscroft, Designing E-learning Interaction in the 21st Century. Revisiting and Rethinking the Role of
Theory. EJE, 2001, 36(2), pp. 133-156.
[6] B. Anderson & M. Simpson, History and Heritage in Distance Education. JOFD, 2012, 16(2). pp 1-10.
[7] B. Bognar, Theoretical Backgrounds of E-learning. CJE, 2016, 18(1), pp. 225-256.
[8] B. Bognar, V. Gajger & V. Ivi, 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, 2015, pp. 35-46.
[9] B. Mueller & N. Urbach, Understanding the Why, What, and How of Theories in IS Research. CAIS, 2017, 0(0),
pp. 1-65.
[10] C.R. Wright, G. Dhanarajan & S. A. Reju, Recurring Issues Encountered by Distance Educators in Developing
Nations. IRRODL, 2009, 10(1), pp 1-25.
[11] C. L. Scott, The Future of Learning 3: What Kind of Pedagogy for the 21st Century Education Research and
Foresight? Working Papers. 2015, pp. 1-21.
[12] C. X. Wang, M. D. Hinn, & A. G. Kanfer, Potential of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning for Learners
with Different Learning Styles. JRCE, 2001, 34(1), pp. 75-85.
[13] D. H. Schunk, Behaviorism. In Paul Smith (Ed.). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. Pearson
Education Inc. Boston, MA. USA, 2012, pp 71-116. ISBN-13: 978-0-13-707195-1. 6th Ed. pp. 1-8.
[14] D. H. Schunk, Constructivism. In Paul Smith (Ed.). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. Pearson
Education Inc. Boston, MA. USA, 2012, pp 228-277. ISBN-13: 978-0-13-707195-1. 6th Ed.
[15] D. Laurillard, The Pedagogical Challenges to Collaborative Technologies. IJCSCL, 2009, 4(1), pp. 5-20.
[16] D. M. Watson, Pedagogy Before Technology. Rethinking the Relationship Between ICT and Teaching, IFEIT,
2001, 6(4), pp. 251-266.
[17] E. M. Muuro, P. W. Wagacha, R. Oboko, & J. Kihoro, Student Percieved Challenges in Online Collaborative
Learning Environment: A Case Study of Higher Learning Institutions in Nairobi, Kenya. IRRODL, 2014 15( 6),
pp. 133-161.
[18] F. Modtritscher, E-learning Theories in Practice:A Comparison of Three Methods. JUSTL, 2006, pp. 3-18.
[19] G. M. Kundi, & A. Nawaz, From E-learning 1.0 to E-learning 2.0. Threats and Opportunities for High Education
Institutions in Developing Countries. EJSD, 2014, 3(1), pp 145-160.

Copyright © 2019 The authors www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2019 Page 9 of 10

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Queensland. Downloaded on October 09,2020 at 01:50:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 [20] G. Ssekakubo, H. Suleman & G. Marsden, Issues of Adoption: Have e-Learning Management Systems Fulfilled
their Potential in Developing Countries? In Proceedings of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and
Information Technologists Conference on Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership in a Diverse, Multidisciplinary
Environment. Cape Town, South Africa: ACM New York, NY, USA, 2011, pp. 231–238.
[21] H. Arksey & L. O’Malley, Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. IJSRM, 2005, 8(1), pp. 19–32.
[22] J. Janssen & D. Bodemer, Coordinated Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Awareness and Awareness
Tools. EP, 2013, 48(1), pp. 40-55.
[23] J. Nyerere, Open and Distance Learning in Kenya: A Baseline Survey Report. CWL. 2016, pp 1-23.
[24] K. Aoki, Generations of Distance Education: Technologies, Pedagogies and Organization. PSBS-INTE, Elsevier.
2012, pp. 1183-1187.
[25] K. Stepanyan, A. Littlejohn & A. Margaryan, Sustainable E-learning: Towards a Coherent Body of Knowledge.
ETS, 2013, 16(2), pp. 91-102.
[26] K. Yilmaz, The Cognitive Perspective on Learning: Its Theoretical Underpinning and Implications for the
Classroom Practice. The Clearing House. Routledge-Francis and Tylor Group LLC, 2011, 84(0), pp. 204-212.
[27] L. Harasim, Learning Theory and Online Technology. ISBN: 978-0-203-84693-3 Routledge Tylor and Francis
Group. New York. 2012, (1st Ed.), pp 2-14.
[28] M. Aparicio, F. Bacao & T. Oliveira, An E-learning Theoretical Framework. JETS, 2016, 19(1), pp. 292-307.
[29] M. Bhowmik, B. Benerjee & J. Bernerjee, The Role of Pedagogy in Effective Teaching. BJERR, 2013, 2(1), pp.1-
5.
[30] M. Dijkers, (2015). What is Scoping Review? Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research,
2015, 4(1), pp. 1-5.
[31] M. J. Weiss, A. Mayer, A. Ratledge, C. Sommo, & J. Diamond, A Random Assignment Evaluation of Learning
Commuinities at Kingsborough Community College. JREE, 2014, 8(2), pp. 189-217.
[32] M. Nichols, A Theory for E-learning. IFEIT, 2003, 6(2), pp 1-10.
[33] M. Ruth & K. Kaspar, The E-learning Setting Circle: First Steps towards Theory Development in E-learning
Research. EJE, 2017, 15(1), pp. 94-103.
[34] M. Sahin, Pros and Cons of Connectivism as a Learning Theory. IJPSS, 2012, 2(4) pp. 437-454.
[35] M. Standridge, Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology,
2010, 2nd Ed. pp 271-276.
[36] N. Dabbagh, Pedagogical Models of E-learning: A Theory-based Design Framework. IJTTL, 2005, 1(1), pp. 25-44.
[37] N. Serdyukova & P. Serdyukov, E-Pedagogy: A Model for Online Education. In Proceeding of the Conference on
ABRI. Kaiulani Waikiki, June 2014. Hawaii, 2014, pp. 1-8.
[38] P. Serdyukov, Does Online Education Need a Special Pedagogy? JCIT, 2015, 23(1), pp. 61-74.
[39] R. Andrews , Does E-Learning Require a New Theory of Learning? Initial Thoughts. JERO, 2011, 3(1), pp. 104-
121.
[40] R. Andrews & C. Hythornthwaite, Introduction to E-learning Research. The Sage Handbook of E-learning
Research. Sage Publishers. Thousand Oaks, California, 2007, 1st Ed. pp. 1-53.
[41] R. J. Amineh, & H. D. Asl, Review of Constructivist and Social Constructivism. JSSLL 2015, 1(1), pp. 9-16.
[42] R. Kop & A. Hill, Connectivism: Learning Theory of the Future or Vestige of the Past. IRRODL, 2008, 9(3), pp. 1-
13.
[43] R. N. Kibuku & D. O. Ochieng, Formulating an E-learning Theory: A Grounded Theory Approach. In the
Proceedings of the 2nd Conference for HCI, AfriCHI’18, NUST, Dec 2018, Windhoek, Namibia, pp. 226-230.
[44] T. Anderson, Flexible Learning: Towards a Theory of Online Learning. AU Press Athabasca University, 2008, 2nd
Ed. pp. 1-28.
[45] T. Anderson & J. Dron, Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy. IRRODL, 2011, 12(3), pp. 81-97.
[46] T. Anderson & J. Dron, Learning Technologies Through Three Generations of Technolgy Enhanced Distance
Education. EJODEL, 2012, 2, pp 1-14.
[47] T. Kalpana, A Constructive Perspective on Teaching and Learning: A Conceptual Framework. IRJSS, 2014, 3(1),
pp 27-29.
[48] T. Mayes & S. deFreitas, Review of E-learning Theories, Frameworks and Models. JISCEM-Desk Study, 2004,
(1), pp. 1-44.
[49] V. Richardson, Constructivist Pedagogy. TCR:TCCU, 2003, 105(9):1623-1640
[50] W. Tomic, Behaviorism and Cognitivism in Education. PJHB, 1993, 30(3/4), pp. 38-46.
[51] Z. Bezhovski & S. Poorani, The Evolution of E-learning and New Trends. JIKM, 2016, 6(3), pp. 50-57.



Copyright © 2019 The authors www.IST-Africa.org/Conference2019 Page 10 of 10

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Queensland. Downloaded on October 09,2020 at 01:50:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.