Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bridging Learning Theories and Technology-Enhanced Environments: A Critical Appraisal of Its History

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology

Abstract

In education, retrospection is often used as a method for better understanding emerging trends as documented in many books and articles. In this chapter, the focus is not on a broad description of the history of educational technology but on the interplay between learning theories and technologies. However, neither learning theories nor tools are monolithic phenomena. They are composed of multiple attributes, and they refer to many aspects and facets which render the history of educational technology highly complex. Moreover, evolution in both theory and technology reflects no clear successive breaks or discrete developments—rather, waves of growth and accumulation. When looking closer at learning and technology, it becomes clear that many interactions occur. These interactions will be documented following continuous development after World War II. We do not follow a strict timeline but cluster the critical appraisal in the following observations: (1) evolutions in society and education have influenced the selection and use of learning theories and technologies; (2) learning theories and technologies are situated in a somewhat vague conceptual field; (3) learning theories and technologies are connected and intertwined by information processing and knowledge acquisition; (4) educational technologies shifted learner support from program or instructor control toward more shared and learner control; and (5) learning theories and findings represent a fuzzy mixture of principles and applications. The history reflects an evolution from individual toward community learning, from content-driven learning toward process-driven approaches, from isolated media toward integrated use, from presentation media toward interactive media, from learning settings dependent on place and time toward ubiquitous learning, and from fixed tools toward handheld devices. These developments increasingly confront learners with complexity and challenge their responsibility to become active participants in a learning society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • *Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1958). Thinking: An experimental and social study. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 88–101). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 695–713). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, E. G., Volfson, B., Hong, Y.-J., & Lajoie, S. P. (2009). Affective AIED: From detection to adaptation. 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED2009), Brighton, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, G. (1988). The impact of society on educational technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2), 114–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Brophy, S., & Williams, S. (2000). When computer technologies meet the learning sciences: Issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bransford, J., Steven, R., Schwartz, D., Meltzoff, A., Pea, R., Roschelle, J., et al. (2006). Learning theories and education: toward a decade of synergy. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 209–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredo, E. (2006). Conceptual confusion and educational psychology. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 43–57). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., Pieschl, S., & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1988). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction, 11(1/2), 87–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusilovsky, P. (2007). Adaptive navigation support. In P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa, & W. Nejdl (Eds.), The adaptive Web (pp. 263–290). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • *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: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calfee, R. (1981). Cognitive psychology and educational practice. Review of Research in Education, 9, 1–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Calfee, R. (2006). Educational psychology in the 21st century. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 29–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Technology in Learning, SRI International. (1994). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chung, J., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). Instructional prescriptions for learner control. Educational Technology, 32(10), 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Johnson, W. L., & Shaw, E. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 267–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning. The case for fully guided instruction. The American Educator, 36(1), 6–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cognition and technology group at Vanderbilt (1993). Designing learning environments that support thinking: The Jasper Series as a Case Study. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 9–36). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 347–377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, N. J. (1999). Knowledge elicitation. In F. T. Durso, R. S. Nickerson, R. W. Schvaneveldt, S. T. Dumais, D. S. Lindsay, & M. T. H. Chi (Eds.), The handbook of applied cognition (pp. 479–509). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 33(5), 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Selecting learning tasks: Effects of adaptation and shared control on efficiency and task involvement. Educational Psychology, 33(4), 733–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, E. (1953). Audio-visual methods in teaching (7th ed.). New York: Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E. (1996). Computers in education: A brief state of the art. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 129–145). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *De Corte, E. (2010). Historical developments in the understanding of learning. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning. Using research to inspire practice (pp. 35–67). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • *De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Lowyck, J. (1996). Computers, media and learning. In E. De Corte & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 695–700). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Schrooten, H., & Olivié, H. (1993). A Logo-based tool-kit and computer coach to support the development of general thinking skills. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 109–124). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T. (1991). Learning and instruction with computer simulations. Education and Computing, 6, 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *de Jong, T. (2010). Instruction based on computer simulations. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 446–466). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., & Pieters, J. M. (2006). The design of powerful learning environments. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 739–755). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 43–62). Berlin: Springer Science, Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • *Derry, S. J. & Lajoie, S. P. (1993). A middle camp for (un)intelligent instructional computing: An introduction. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 1–11). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. London: Harrap.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • *Dillemans, R., Lowyck, J., Van der Perre, G., Claeys, C., & Elen, J. (1998). New technologies for learning: Contribution of ICT to innovation in education. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reimann (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1993). Designing environments for constructive learning. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J. (1995). Blocks on the road to instructional design prescriptions: A methodology for I.D.-research exemplified. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2008). Theory development. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 705–713). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (1998). Students’ views on the efficiency of instruction: An exploratory survey of the instructional metacognitive knowledge of university freshmen. Higher Education, 36, 231–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, K. M. (1992). SemNet: A tool for personal knowledge construction. In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning (pp. 63–75). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gage, N. L. (1972). Teacher effectiveness and teacher education. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gagné, R. M. (1974). Educational technology and the learning process. Educational Researcher, 3(1), 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gerjets, P. H. & Hesse, F. W. (2004). When are powerful learning environments effective? The role of learner activities and of students’ conceptions of educational technology. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 445–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Glaser, R. E. (1962). Psychology and instructional technology. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and education (pp. 1–30). Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. E. (Ed.). (1965). Teaching machines and programed learning. II. Data and directions. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Glaser, R. E. (1991). The maturing relationship between the science of learning and cognition and educational practice. Learning and Instruction, 1, 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. E., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 631–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., & King, B. G. (2008). Computer-mediated technologies. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 211–224). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grittner, F. M. (1975). Individualized instruction: An historical perspective. Modern Language Journal, 59, 323–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria, Australia: Deaking University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2008). Resource-based learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 525–536). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hannafin, R. D., & Young, M. (2008). Research on educational technologies. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 731–739). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 87–108). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Husèn, T. (1967). Some thoughts concerning educational technology. International Review of Education, 13, 6–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Januszewski, A. (1996). History in educational technology. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (18th, Indianapolis, IN, 1996); Eric (Education Resources Information Center) ED397800.

    Google Scholar 

  • Januszewski, A., & Persichitte, K. A. (2008). A history of the AECT’s definitions of educational technology. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 259–282). London: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning ­environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Semantic networking as cognitive tools. In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning (pp. 19–21). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jonassen, D., Mayes, T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 231–247). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. M. (2003). Local and national policies. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 163–194). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1991). A theory of discourse comprehension: Implications for a tutor word algebra problems. In M. Carretero, M. Pope, R. J. Simons, & J. I. Pozo (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context (pp, Vol. 3, pp. 235–253). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kommers, P. A. M., & de Vries, S. A. (1992). TextVision and the visualisation of knowledge: School-based evaluation of its acceptance at two levels of schooling. In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning (pp. 33–62). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • *Kommers, P. A. M., Jonassen, D. H., & Mayes, J. T. (Eds.) (1992). Cognitive tools for learning. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T. (2001). Revisiting the paradigms of instructional technology. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 15–22). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of Melbourne. Retrieved from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/koschmannt.pdf

  • *Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (1992). Constructing knowledge with learning tool. In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning (pp. 23–32). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. (2000). The relationship between technology and design in educational technology research and development: A reply to Richey. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 19–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kozma, R. B. (2003). ICT and educational change: A global phenomenon. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation and educational change: A global perspective (p. 1–18). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, A. B. (2008). Who puts the education into open educational content? In R. N. Katz (Ed.), The tower and the cloud: Higher education and information technology revisited (pp. 158–168). Boulder, CO: Educause.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. (Ed.). (1991). Computer-assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring systems: Shared goals and complementary approaches. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 467–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25, 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lee, J., & Park O.-C. (2008). Adaptive instructional systems. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 469–484). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levie, W. H., & Dickie, E. (1973). The analysis and application of media. In R. M. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 858–882). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lockee, B. B., Larson, M. B., Burton, J. K., & Moore, D. M. (2008). Programmed technologies. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp.187–197). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockee, B. B., Moore, D. M., & Burton, J. K. (2004). Foundations of programmed instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 545–569). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowyck, J. (2008). Foreword. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. XIII–XV). New York, London: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowyck, J., & Elen, J. (1993). Transitions in the theoretical foundations of instructional design. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 213–229). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lowyck, J., & Elen, J. (1994). Student’s instructional metacognition in learning environments (SIMILE). Leuven, Belgium: KU Leuven, Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lowyck, J., Lehtinen, E., & Elen, J., (Eds.) (2004). Student’s perspectives on learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 401–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowyck, J., & Pöysä, J. (2001). Design of collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(5), 507–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lumsdaine, A. A. (1963). Instruments and media of instruction. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 619–681). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandinach, E. B. (2009). Context is everything: An international perspective of, and its challenges to, research and the evaluation of educational technology. In J. Zaijda & D. Gibbs (Eds.), Comparative information technology (pp. 139–159). Berlin: Springer Science, Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mayer, R. E. (2010). Learning with technology. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning. Using research to inspire practice (pp. 179–198). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. K., & Gibbons, A. S. (2009). Technology I, II, and III: Criteria for understanding and improving the practice of instructional technology. Education Technology Research Development, 57, 377–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1984). What is learner control? In R. K. Bass & C. D. Dills (Eds.), Instructional development: The state of the art II (pp. 221–242). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., Kowalis, T., & Wilson, B. G. (1981). Instructional design in transition. In F. H. Harley & N. J. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education: The state of the union (pp. 298–348). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1990). ID2 and constructivist theory. Educational Technology, 30(12), 52–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Molenda, M. (2008). Historical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. A project of the Association for Educational Communications and technology (pp. 3–20). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, W. E., & Wulfeck, W. H. (1986). Instructional systems design. In J. A. Ellis (Ed.), Military contributions to instructional technology. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983, April). A Nation at risk: The imperative for educational reforms. A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, 31(5), 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prenzel, M., & Mandl, H. (1993). Transfer of learning from a constructivist perspective. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 315–329). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • *Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of educational media. ETR&D, 49(1), 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A., & Ely, D. P. (1997). The field of educational technology as reflected through its definitions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A., & Gagné, R. M. (1983). Selecting media for instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Resnick, L. B. (1981). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 659–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 1–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ross, S. M., Morrisson, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Saettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Säljö, R., Eklund, A.-C., & Mäkitalo, A. (2006). Reasoning with ­mental tools and physical artefacts in everyday problem-solving. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends (pp. 73–90). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational Technology, 42(2), 71–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Salomon, G., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2006). The difficult marriage between education and technology: Is the marriage doomed? In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology. Past, present and future trends (pp. 209–222). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1996). Learning in wonderland. What do computers really offer education? In S. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of education (pp. 111–130). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. (2002). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In A. Koval Chick & K. Dawson (Eds.), Educational technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183–192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for ­knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 245–264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seel, N. M. (2006). Mental models and complex problem solving: Instructional effects. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrock, S. A. (1995). A brief history of instructional development. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future (pp. 11–19). Englewood, CO: Libraries Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuell, T. J. (1988). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(3), 276–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Shuell, T. J. (1992). Designing instructional computing systems for meaningful learning. In M. Jones & P. H. Winne (1992). Adaptive learning environments: Foundations and frontiers (pp. 19–54). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shute, V. J., & Psotka, J. (1996). Intelligent tutoring systems: Past, present, and future. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 570–600). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital ages. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.

  • *Simon, D. P. (1978). Information processing theory of human problem solving. In D. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive process (pp. 291–295). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, P. J. R. (1993). Constructive learning: The role of the learner. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 219–313). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. J., & de Laat, M. (2006). E-pedagogies for networked learning. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends (pp. 239–255). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Meredith Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleeman, D., & Brown, J. S. (Eds.). (1982). Intelligent tutoring systems. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, D. (1973). Historiography and the history of education. Review of Research in Education, 1, 239–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 21–28). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M., Polson, M. C., & Muraida, D. J. (Eds.). (1993). Automating instructional design: Concepts and issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Stolurow, L. M., & Davis, D. (1965). Teaching machines and computer-based systems. In R. E. Glaser (Ed.), (1965), Teaching machines and programmed learning, II. Data and directions (pp. 162–212). Washington, DC: National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P. (1969). Computer technology and the future of education. In R. C. Atkinson & H. A. Wilson (Eds.), Computer-assisted-instruction: A book of readings (pp. 41–47). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sweller, J. (2008). Human cognitive architecture. In J. M Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 369–381). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D. (1992). An educational learning theory for instructional design. Educational Technology, 32(1), 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tennyson, R. D. (2010). Historical reflection on learning theories and instructional design. Contemporary Educational Technology 1(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosti, D. T., & Ball, J. R. (1969). A behavioral approach to instructional design and media selection. AV Communication Review, 17(1), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban-Lurain, M. (1996). Intelligent tutoring systems: An historic review in the context of the development of artificial intelligence in educational psychology. Retrieved from http://www.cse.msu.edu/rgroups/cse101/ITS/its.htm.

  • Van Joolingen, W. (1999). Cognitive tools for discovery learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(3–4), 385–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandewaetere, M. (2011). Learner control for adaptive learning: The importance of learners’ perceptions (doctoral dissertation). Leuven, Belgium: Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • *Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: Computational and cognitive approaches to communication of knowledge. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1987). Instructional design and intelligent systems: Shifts in the designer’s decision-making role. Instructional Science, 16(1), 59–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Winn, W. (1993). A constructivist critique of the assumptions of instructional design. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 189–212). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 79–112). Mahwah, NL: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 466–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucchermaglio, C. (1993). Toward a cognitive ergonomics of ­educational technology. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 249–260). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology (CIP & T), The Education and Training Research Group, Leuven University, Dekenstraat 2, 3773, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Joost Lowyck

Authors
  1. Joost Lowyck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joost Lowyck .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

    M. David Merrill

  3. , Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Jan Elen

  4. Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

    M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lowyck, J. (2014). Bridging Learning Theories and Technology-Enhanced Environments: A Critical Appraisal of Its History. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation