The main aim of this article is to find points of intersection at which learning theories and technologies converge. For this purpose, after a brief review of the historical evolution of learning theories and teaching methods, we define some indicators that allow us to identify the main learning theory applied in each school, as well as the technological resources used. After analyzing 21 schools, the results show that (a) different learning theories coexist in the schools that took part in this research project and (b) some Internet-based resources are more commonly used in Constructivism contexts, while instructional software tends to be more common when behavior theory is applied. Finally, this study points out the need to train teachers in both technological and theoretical aspects.
ÁreaM. (2005) Las tecnologías de la información y comunicación en el sistema escolar. Una revisión de las líneas de investigación [The information and communication technology in the school system. A review of the lines of research]. Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa11(1): 3–25. Retrieved from http://www.uv.es/relieve/v11n1/RELIEVEv11n1_1.pdf.
2.
BaumanZ. (2013) Liquid modernity, Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
3.
BenedekA.MolnárG. (2014) ICT in education: A new paradigm and old obstacle. In: LeistA.PankowskiT. (eds) The ninth international multi-conference on computing in the global information technology, Sevilla: IARIA, pp. 64–80.
4.
BericatE. (1998) La integración de los métodos cuantitativo y cualitativo en la investigación social [The integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in social research], Barcelona, Spain: Ariel.
5.
BoghossianP. (2006) Behaviorism, constructivism, and Socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory38: 713–722.
6.
BoitshwareloB. (2011) Proposing an integrated research framework for connectivism: Utilising theoretical synergies. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning12(3): 161–179.
7.
BorrásI. (1998) Enseñanza y aprendizaje con Internet: Una aproximación crítica [Teaching and learning with the Internet: A critical approach]. Comunicación y Pedagogía151: 28–32.
8.
BrownJ. S. (2002) Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. USDLA Journal16(2): n2.
9.
CalvaniA. (2008) Connectivism: New paradigm or fascinating pot-pourri?University of Florence Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society4(1): 247–252.
10.
CampbellR. A. (2003) Preparing the next generation of scientists the social process of managing students. Social Studies of Science33(6): 897–927.
11.
CastellsM. (1996) The information age: Economy, society and culture. Vol. 1: The rise of the network societyVol. 1, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
12.
CastellsM. (2011) The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and cultureVol. 1, Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
13.
ChuS.ChanC.TiwariA. (2012) Using blogs to support learning during internship. Computers & Education58(3): 989–1000.
14.
DavisB.SumaraD. (2002) Constructivist discourses and the field of education: Problems and possibilities. Educational Theory52(4): 409–428.
15.
De-MarcosL.DomínguezA.Saenz-de-NavarreteJ.PagésC. (2014) An empirical study comparing gamification and social networking on e-learning. Computers & Education75: 82–91.
16.
DecrolyO. (1929) Problemas de psicología y pedagogía [Problems of psychology and pedagogy], Madrid, Spain: Beltrán.
17.
DeweyJ. (1916) Democracy and education, New York, NY: Macmillan.
18.
DriscollM. (2000) Psychology of learning for instruction, 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
19.
DownesS. (2010) Learning networks and connective knowledge. In: YangH. H.YuenS. C-Y. (eds) Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking, New York, NY: IGI Global, pp. 1–26. Retrieved from http://philpapers.org/rec/DOWLNA.
20.
EnkvistI. (2001) La educación en peligro [Education in danger], Madrid, Spain: Unisón.
21.
ErtmerP. A.NewbyT. J. (1993) Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly6(4): 50–72.
22.
ErtmerP. A.NewbyT. J. (2013) Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly26(2): 43–71.
23.
FreinetC. (1964) Les techniques Freinet de l’Ecole moderne, Paris, France: Librairie Armand Colin.
24.
FreireP. (1997) Pedagogía de la autonomía, Madrid, Spain: Siglo XXI.
25.
GagnéR. M. (1985) The conditions of learning and theory of instruction, 4th ed. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
26.
GreenhowC.RobeliaB.HughesJ. E. (2009) Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?Educational Researcher38(4): 246–259.
27.
HargreavesA.ShirleyD. (2009) The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change, London, England: SAGE, Corwin.
28.
HarrisJ.HoferM. (2009) Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference2009(1): 4087–4095.
29.
JenkinsE. W. (2000) Constructivism in school science education: Powerful model or the most dangerous intellectual tendency?Science & Education9(6): 599–610.
30.
Kathleen DunawayM. (2011) Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes. Reference Services Review39(4): 675–685.
31.
KozmaR. (2003) Technology, innovation and educational change: A global perspective, Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
32.
KumariN.NarayanA. (2013) Connectivism and the role of ICT. In: D'SouzaD.SinghU. (eds) Educational technology in teaching and learning: Prospects and challenges, Patna: Women’s College Publications, pp. 64.
33.
LarekiA.Martínez de MorentinJ. I.AmenabarN. (2010) Towards an efficient training of university faculty on ICTs. Computers & Education54(2): 491–497.
34.
LewinC. (2012) Primary schools and ICT: Learning from pupil perspectives. Educational Review64(4): 511–512.
35.
LiX.ChuS. K.KiW. W. (2014) The effects of a wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy on writing ability and attitudes among upper primary school students in Mainland China. Computers & Education77: 151–169.
36.
LimC. P.OakleyG. (2013) Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in primary education. In: TayL. Y.LimC. P. (eds) Creating holistic technology-enhanced learning experiences, Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp. 1–18.
37.
McLoughlinC.LeeM. J. (2007, December) Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In: AtkinsonR. J.McBeathC.SoongS. K. A.CheersC. (eds) ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007, Singapore: Centre for Educational Development, Nanyang Technological University, pp. 664–675. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/.
38.
MerrillM. D. (1991) Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology31(5): 45–53.
39.
MontessoriM. (1912) The Montessori method, New York, NY: Schocken Books.
40.
NickersonR. S.ZodhiatesP. P. (2013) Technology in education: Looking toward 2020, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
41.
PhillipsP.WellsJ.IceP.CurtisR.KennedyR. (2008) A case study of the relationship between socio-epistemological teaching orientations and instructor perceptions of pedagogy in online environments. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education6: 3–27.
42.
PiagetJ. (1964) Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching2(3): 176–186.
43.
RoblyerM. D.DoeringA. H. (2013) Integrating educational technology into teaching, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
44.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (2006) Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In: SawyerR. K. (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97–115.
45.
SiemensG. (2005) Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning2(1): 3–10.
46.
SiemensG. (2008) Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. (Paper 105). Athens, GA: University of Georgia IT Forum.
47.
SiragusaL.DixonK. (2008) Planned behaviour: Student attitudes towards the use of ICT interactions in higher education. Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/siragusa.pdf.
48.
SkinnerB. F. (1953) Science and human behavior, New York, NY: Macmillan.
49.
SlavinR. E. (2012) Classroom applications of cooperative learning. In: KarenR. H.SteveG.UrdanT.AdrianaG. B.SonyaM.LeeS. H. (eds) APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 3: Application to learning and teaching, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 359–378.
50.
SolomonJ. (1994) The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science EducationVol 23: 1–19.
51.
StakeR. E. (1995) The art of case study research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
52.
SteeleM. M. (2005) Teaching students with learning disabilities: Constructivism or behaviorism. Current Issues in Education8(10): 6–16.
53.
TiwariA.LaiP.SoM.YuenK. (2006) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Medical Education40: 547–554.
54.
TraceyR. (2009) Instructivism, constructivism or connectivism?Training and Development in 0 Australia36(6): 8–9.
55.
TrnaJ.TrnovaE. (2013) Implementation of connectivism in science teacher training. Journal of Educational & Instructional Studies in the World3(1): 191–196.
56.
VygotskyL. S. (1978) Mind in society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
WatsonD. (2001) Pedagogy before technology: Rethinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies6(4): 251–266.
58.
WatsonD. (2006) Understanding the relationship between ICT and education means exploring innovation and change. Education and Information Technologies11(3–4): 199–216.
59.
WatsonJ. B. (1913) Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review20: 158–177.
60.
WoolnoughB. E. (1998) Learning science is a messy process. Science Teacher Education23: 17.
61.
YangK. H. (2014) The WebQuest model effects on mathematics curriculum learning in elementary school students. Computers & Education72: 158–166.
62.
YinR. K. (2003) Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63.
YodsanehaS.SopeerakS. (2013) Factors influencing the success of Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi’s ubiquitous learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences103: 400–403.
