Abstract
This chapter uses a case study to explore the role and application of learning theories in the virtual university. In the wake of Covid-19, there is an identified need for learning design to be theoretically informed and evidence-based. For students, the ability to find and critically reflect on knowledge and information is a key skill in contemporary digital environments, as is the ability to act on that knowledge and apply it. In this chapter, we argue that this requires self-directed and self-regulated learning which needs to be explicitly taught and/or designed into learning activities. To do this effectively requires strong evidence-based and theoretical underpinnings. Overall, the findings in the case study presented in this chapter show the importance of ongoing, planned, and structured collaboration between discipline-based lecturers and educational experts. It is important in the virtual university to place the design of theoretically informed and justified technology-enabled learning activities at the heart of its learning and teaching practice that will engage learners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bax, S. 2011. Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching 1 (2): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2011040101.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Expanded Edition. National Academy Press.
Carroll, M., S. Lindsey, M. Chaparro, and B. Winslow. 2021. An applied model of learner engagement and strategies for increasing learner engagement in the modern educational environment. Interactive Learning Environments 29 (5): 757–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636083.
Czaplinski, I (2020). An analysis of learning networks of STEM undergraduate students to promote active learning. PhD Thesis by monograph. Queensland University of Technology. https://doi.org/10.5204/thesis.eprints.201510.
Dahl, B. 2018. What is the problem in problem-based learning in higher education mathematics. European Journal of Engineering Education 43 (1): 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1320354.
Dekker, S., N.C. Lee, P. Howard-Jones, and J. Jolles. 2012. Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology 3: 429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429.
Deng, R., P. Benckendorff, and D. Gannaway. 2020. Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology 51 (1): 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12810.
Dorasamy, N., and R. Rampersad, eds. 2018. Critical perspectives on work-integrated learning in higher education institutions. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Double, K.S., Y.L. Chow, E.J. Livesey, and T.N. Hopfenbeck. 2020. Causal illusions in the classroom: How the distribution of student outcomes can promote false instructional beliefs. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 5 (3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00237-2.
Drucker, P.F. 1994. Post-capitalist society. Harper Business.
Elo, S., and H. Kyngäs. 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62 (1): 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
Elo, S., M. Kääriäinen, O. Kanste, T. Pölkki, K. Utriainen, and H. Kyngäs. 2014. Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open 2014: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633.
Ertmer, P.A., and T.J. Newby. 2013. Behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly 26 (2): 43–71.
Fitzgerald, R., and H. Huijser. 2021. Exploring industry-university partnerships in the creation of short courses and micro-credentials. In Back to the future: ASCILITE ’21: Proceedings ASCILITE 2021, ed. S. Gregory, S. Warburton, and M. Schier, 340–344. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/227133/1/103454821.pdf.
Fitzgerald, R., H. Huijser, D. Meth, and K. Neilan. 2020. Student-staff partnerships in academic development: The course design studio as a model for sustainable course-wide impact. International Journal for Academic Development 25 (2): 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1631170.
Goldie, J.G.S. 2016. Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Medical Teacher 38 (10): 1064–1069. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173661.
Goodyear, P. 2021. Navigating difficult waters in a digital era: Technology, uncertainty and the objects of informal lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13107.
Goodyear, P., and L. Carvalho. 2016. Activity centred analysis and design in the evolution of learning networks. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning, ed. S. Cranmer, N.B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, and J.A. Sime, 193–199. http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/abstracts/pdf/P13.pdf.
Goodyear, P., S. Banks, V. Hodgson and D. McConnell. 2004. Advances in research on networked learning. United Kingdom: Springer.
Goodyear, P., L. Carvalho, and N.B. Dohn. 2016. Artefacts and activities in the analysis of learning networks. In Research, boundaries, and policy in networked learning, ed. T. Ryberg, C. Sinclair, S. Bayne, and M. de Laat, 93–110. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31130-2_6.
Harasim, L. 2017. Learning theory and online technologies. 2nd ed. Routledge.
Hartikainen, S., H. Rintala, L. Pylväs, and P. Nokelainen. 2019. The concept of active learning and the measurement of learning outcomes: A review of research in engineering higher education. Education Sciences 9 (4): 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276.
Hodgson, V., and D. McConnell. 2018. The epistemic practice of networked learning. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on networked learning 2018, ed. M. Bajić, N.B. Dohn, M. de Laat, P. Jandrić, and T. Ryberg, 445–464. http://networkedlearning-conference.org.uk/abstracts/papers/mcconnell_59.pdf.
Jackson, D. 2017. Developing pre-professional identity in undergraduates through work-integrated learning. Higher Education 74 (5): 833–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0080-2.
Kahu, E.R., and C. Picton. 2019. The benefits of good tutor-student relationships in the first year. Student Success 10 (2): 23–33. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v10i2.1293.
Kek, M.Y.C., F. Padró, and H. Huijser. 2022. Towards an interconnected university ecology for a hypercomplex world. In Student support services, ed. H. Huijser, Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek, and F. Padró, 871–883. Springer.
Kirschner, P.A., and P. Gerjets. 2006. Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning. Computers in Human Behaviour 22: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.004.
Kirschner, P.A., and C. Hendrick. 2020. How learning happens. Seminar works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.
Konnerup, U., T. Ryberg, and M.T. Sørensen. 2018. The teacher as designer? What is the role of ‘learning design’ in networked learning? In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on networked learning 2018, ed. B. Milan, N.B. Dohn, M. de Laat, P. Jandric, and T. Ryberg, 331–339.
Kop, R., and A. Hill. 2008. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 9 (3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.523.
Lombardi, D., T.F. Shipley, and Astronomy Team, Biology Team, Chemistry Team, Engineering Team, Geography Team, Geoscience Team, and Physics Team. 2021. The curious construct of active learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 22 (1): 8–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620973974.
McWilliam, E. 2009. Teaching for creativity: From sage to guide to meddler. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 29 (3): 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790903092787.
Nagowah, L., and S. Nagowah. 2009. A reflection on the dominant learning theories: Behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. International Journal of Learning 16 (2): 279–285.
Paulsen, J., and A.C. McCormick. 2020. Reassessing disparities in online learner student engagement in higher education. Educational Researcher 49 (1): 20–29. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19898690.
Pham, H., and T. Ho. 2020. Toward a ‘new normal’ with e-learning in Vietnamese higher education during the post COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Research & Development 39 (7): 1327–1331. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1823945.
Pleschová, G., T. Roxå, K.E. Thomson, and P. Felten. 2021. Conversations that make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development 26 (3): 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1958446.
Rapanta, Ch., L. Botturi, P. Goodyear, L. Guà rdia, and M. Koole. 2020. Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace.org, 14–16. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=f87c61b964e32786e06c969fd24f5a7d9426f3b4
Sweller, J., P.L. Ayres, S. Kalyuga, and P.A. Chandler. 2003. The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist 38 (1): 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4.
Tay, Z.A., H. Huijser, S. Dart, and A. Cathcart. 2023. Learning technology as contested terrain: Insights from teaching academics and learning designers in Australian higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 39 (1): 56–70. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8179.
Utecht, J., and D. Keller. 2019. Becoming relevant again: Applying connectivism learning theory to today’s classrooms. Critical Questions in Education 10 (2): 107–119. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1219672.pdf.
Venaruzzo, L., Ames, K., & Leichtweis, S. (2023). Embracing AI for student and staff productivity: An ACODE whitepaper based on the ACODE 88 workshop and roundtables. https://www.acode.edu.au/pluginfile.php/13426/mod_resource/content/4/ACODE88-Whitepaper.pdf.
Webster, F. 2014. Theories of the information society. Routledge.
Willems, J., C. Adachi, F. Bussey, I. Doherty, and H. Huijser. 2018. Debating the use of social media in higher education in Australasia: Where are we now? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 34 (5): 135–149. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3843.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Czaplinski, I., Huijser, H. (2023). The Role and Application of Learning Theories in the Virtual University. In: Sankey, M.D., Huijser, H., Fitzgerald, R. (eds) Technology-Enhanced Learning and the Virtual University. University Development and Administration. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4170-4_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4170-4_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-4168-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-4170-4
eBook Packages: EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education