Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10245-w

eLearning technology and the advancement

of practical constructivist pedagogies: Illustrations
from classroom observations

Paul L.C. LAM 1 & Hilary K.Y. NG 1 & Alan H.H. TSE 1 & Ming Lu 2 &
Bernardo Y. W. WONG 1

Received: 28 February 2020 / Accepted: 9 June 2020 / Published online: 26 June 2020
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
With the advancement of technology, eLearning is increasingly adopted as an instruc-
tional method in a wide range of educational settings and has opened up new possi-
bilities in teaching and learning practices. However, there is insufficient empirical
evidence to illustrate how eLearning benefits teaching and learning practice in its
real-world applications. Therefore, an important question is raised – How can
eLearning technology facilitate pedagogical advancement practically in the classroom?
In this study, we focus on constructivist pedagogies, emphasizing the dramatic educa-
tional reform from teacher-centered pedagogy to a student-centered, constructivist
approach. Based on observations of 79 eLearning classes in eight primary schools,
four secondary schools, and two special education schools in Hong Kong, this study
illustrates how eLearning technology can advance at least five constructivist peda-
gogies: 1) active learning, 2) student-centered learning, 3) peer learning, 4) personal-
ized learning, and 5) differentiated learning. We illustrate that the interactive, self-
paced, repetitious, and customizable features of eLearning systems facilitate the imple-
mentation of these five constructivist pedagogies. Successful examples from classroom
observations are drawn to illustrate how teachers make practical use of eLearning
technology. This article serves to stimulate further discussion on how eLearning can
be applied across various settings to advance the effectiveness of constructivist peda-
gogies and to encourage practitioners to consider how to make use of eLearning
technology in the classroom.

Keywords eLearning . Pedagogy . Learning technology . Observational study .

Constructivism

* Hilary K.Y. NG
hilaryng@cuhk.edu.hk

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

90 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101

1 Introduction

The rapid progression of eLearning technology is shaping teaching and learning

practices (Lucas and Kinsman 2016). While there are different definitions for
eLearning, it is generally agreed that eLearning is a process in which teaching and
learning is facilitated by computers and other associated technologies (Littlejohn and
Pegler 2007; Philips, McNaught, and Kennedy 2012). Much research attention on
eLearning has been devoted to learning outcomes, for example, heightened learning
satisfaction and performance (Eom 2014), enhanced higher-order thinking skills
(Hedberg 2006), and learning motivation (Groff 2013; Huffaker and Calvert 2003).
Apart from improving learning outcomes, eLearning technologies have also been
shown to enrich the entire learning process with four important features (Twigg
2002; Huffaker and Calvert 2003). First, eLearning systems are generally designed to
include interactive media, which can encourage participation in learning activities and
motivation. The interactive features of Web 2.0 can also facilitate communication and
enhance learning by enabling teachers and students to give and receive instant feedback
to each other. Second, eLearning systems are self-paced, allowing students to set
learning goals independently and progress in their learning pathways at their own pace.
Third, the learning contents of eLearning materials can be accessed repeatedly such that
students can revisit difficult concepts for clarification. Finally, the learning contents in
the eLearning system can be customized by teachers to attend to individualized learning
needs. These four features can provide a more interactive, individualized, and student-
centered learning environment when compared to a traditional classroom. Thus,
eLearning technologies, when incorporated into the traditional classroom, have the
potential to transform the learning environment. However, empirical research on how
eLearning can open up new opportunities to advance teaching and learning practices
remains insufficient. This research, therefore, aims to illustrate how eLearning can be
applied to enrich the learning process in the face-to-face classroom setting.
eLearning holds promising power to enrich the learning process, which in turn
provides valuable opportunities to bring different philosophical pedagogies into real
practice. The present research focuses on constructive pedagogies, even though the
potential of eLearning extends beyond this scope. We choose to focus on constructive
pedagogies in light of the dramatic educational reform from teacher-centered pedagogy
to a student-centered, constructivist approach (Tobias and Duffy 2009; Yang et al.
2008). This pedagogy has been the major theoretical foundation for education nowa-
days as it not only focuses on addressing students’ individual differences during their
learning process but also provides opportunities for students to establish the linkages
between the new concept with the pre-existing knowledge, ideas, and beliefs (e.g.,
Richardson 2003; Staver 1998; Windschitl 2002; Yang et al. 2008). Therefore, the
major objective of this research is to understand how eLearning can be adopted to
practically implement constructivist pedagogies. Specifically, the following five con-
structivist pedagogies will be investigated: 1) active learning, which emphasizes
students’ own exploration through engaging students in different learning activities
(Bonwell and Eison 1991; Prince 2004), 2) student-centered learning, which encour-
ages students to make their own choice in their learning pathways (Rogers 1983), 3)
peer learning, which provides opportunities for students to learn together through
cooperation and competition (Topping 2005), 4) personalized learning, which focuses
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101 91

on fulfilling the unique learning needs of different students (Lu 2004), and 5) differ-
entiated learning, in which teachers tailor specific instructions to suit students’ unique
learning needs (Tomlinson 2003). Hence, this research investigates these five different
pedagogies to understand how eLearning promotes different aspects of constructivism.

2 eLearning applications for constructivist pedagogies

This study adopted a grounded theory approach to illustrate how eLearning technology
can be practically implemented. The grounded theory approach enables researchers to
investigate real-life phenomenon without any preconceptions (Babbie 2014). This
study was part of a three-year longitudinal project that commissioned by the Education
Bureau of Hong Kong (EDB) to evaluate the effectiveness of eLearning in the 12 years
compulsory education system in Hong Kong. The 12 years compulsory education
covers primary school (from primary 1, age 6, to primary 6, age 11) and secondary
school (from secondary 1, age 12, to secondary 6, age 17). There were eight primary
schools, four secondary schools, and two special education schools to participate in this
study (see Table 1). All these schools participated in the Hong Kong Education
Bureau’s support scheme for e-Learning in schools (also known as “WiFi 100”) from
2014 to 2016. This scheme was targeted to improve the WiFi infrastructure and to
provide sufficient mobile computing devices for eLearning. These schools were
pioneered to adopt eLearning in Hong Kong. In sum, we observed 79 classes that
adopt eLearning technological tools to cover a variety of subjects, including English,
mathematics, Chinese, general studies/liberal studies, and others. All 79 face-to-face
classes were observed by at least two research team members, and all classes were
videotaped and evaluated. During observations, researchers completed the Classroom
Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (Smith et al. 2013; COPUS) indepen-
dently and discussed the discrepancies afterwards. This protocol characterized how
teachers and students spend time in the classroom. Hence, the in-class observations
were served to identify how eLearning can be implemented during the entire learning
process, rather than to evaluate the learning outcomes.
In the section below, we first briefly describe the features and benefits of each of these
five constructivist pedagogies, including, 1) active learning, 2) student-centered learning, 3)
peer learning, 4) personalized learning, and 5) differentiated learning. Then, we illustrate
the pedagogies with examples from classroom observations. Our aim is to understand how
eLearning technological tools can be implemented to promote constructivist teaching and
learning practices, and hence only the representative examples are shown. A summary of
the philosophical pedagogies discussed in this paper is provided in Table 2.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for In-class Observations

Number of participating schools Number of eLearning classes observed

1. Primary Schools 8 37
2. Secondary Schools 4 29
3. Special Education schools 2 13
92 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101

Table 2 Summary of Philosophical Pedagogies

Pedagogies Cases Levels Subjects

Active Learning Case A Primary 6 English

Case B Secondary 4 Liberal Studies
Student-Centered Learning Case C Primary 6 Mathematics
Peer Learning Case D Primary 6 General Studies
Case E Secondary 2 Integrated Science
Personalized Learning Case F Primary 3 English
Differentiated Learning Case G Special School (Junior Secondary) Mathematics
Case H Special School (Key Stages 3) Chinese

2.1 Active learning

Active learning transforms the traditional relationship between teachers and students by
reducing the emphasis on one-way knowledge transmission from teachers to students.
In an active learning classroom, students no longer sit passively as an audience listening
to a presentation. Instead, they participate in activities that develop higher-order
thinking skills (Bonwell and Eison 1991). Common active learning strategies include
reflection, writing, group discussion, peer review, and role-playing (Meyers and Jones
1993). These learning activities are structured in ways that facilitate the understanding
of concepts and principles (Puntambekar and Kolodner 2005). Hence, the focus of
active learning is on how to engage students in the learning process. Empirical findings
suggested that active learning pedagogy has a positive effect on student motivation,
engagement, performance, and creativity compared to traditional lecturing (e.g., Free-
man et al. 2014). A recent meta-analysis also showed that learning in a technology-
enabled active learning environment is more beneficial to traditional lecture-based
environment (Shi et al. 2020). Beyond this, active learning approach has also been
useful and effective to offer an inclusive learning environment for students from diverse
backgrounds, such as reducing the achievement gap between disadvantaged and non-
disadvantaged students (Haak et al. 2011), or improving performance and motivations
among female students with learning disabilities (Qadan 2016).
Our observations in these 14 schools show how eLearning technology can
facilitate active learning in the classroom. One common practice was to spend more
class time on interactive learning activities through technological tools, which
provided opportunities for students’ active involvement and self-exploration of
the learning content (Bonwell and Eison 1991). For example, in a Primary 6 English
reading comprehension class, students were asked to read a paragraph about Hong
Kong festivals on their iPads and then complete several related multiple-choice
questions using a student response system on Nearpod after a group discussion
(Case A). Students’ responses were then shared instantly with the whole class
through a classroom projector and Nearpod. The teacher discussed the responses
one by one. Next, the teacher invited the students to share their favorite festival on
iPads and explain their reasons. Students expressed their views by speaking up in
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101 93

class or typing on their iPads. Students actively participated in this activity because
each of them was allowed to express their opinion through their mobile devices.
The teacher then summarized all responses and ended the class.
Similarly, in a Secondary 4 liberal studies class, the teacher made use of eLearning
technology to arrange a series of in-class activities to teach self-concept theory (Case
B). Students were first asked to rate their personal characteristics on a 10-point scale
and explain their ratings. All the students’ responses were sent anonymously to the
teacher through their Nearpods, in which students could borrow the device from
teachers if they did not have their own device. Then, the teacher introduced the theories
of self-concept and applied these theories to analyze the students’ responses. Because
of the personal relevancy, this activity stimulated students’ interest to master the basic
understanding of self-concept. To help students engage in higher-order thinking,
students were finally asked to apply the self-concept theories to analyze a video
featuring a young adult with serious social difficulties and submit their responses via
Nearpods.
In technology-enriched classroom environments, such as these examples, active
learning is facilitated by the adoption of eLearning technology. In our observations,
the students’ tablets, the teachers’ devices, and the classroom projectors were the
necessary eLearning infrastructures to allow instant student response in class. Such
active participation from students would not be possible in a traditional classroom
setting where only one student could express his/her idea at a particular moment. Our
observations also show how eLearning technology could give teachers a greater
flexibility to design a more interactive learning environment and to make the learning
process more engaging.

2.2 Student-centered learning

While active learning emphasizes students’ active participation in the learning activi-
ties, student-centered learning further aims at encouraging students to become auton-
omous and independent students (Rogers 1983). Students’ choice in their education
pathways is the key element (O’Neill and McMahon 2005). They are not only given
options to choose what to study, but also how and why the topic might be of interest to
them (Burnard 1999). To achieve this, the relationship between students and teachers
needs to be equal and respectful. Both parties ought to share a mutual aim to promote
students’ development (Lea et al. 2003). Specifically, students should take full respon-
sibility for their own learning progress and must be actively involved in the learning
process, while teachers should act as facilitators who can help students achieve their
learning goals (Lea et al. 2003). In short, student-centered learning enables students to
be fully responsible in their learning process to choose what they want to learn and how
to learn. This skillset is essential for lifelong learning that enables them to ask
appropriate questions and to reveal the related answers for different phenomenon
without the assistant of a trainer (Wulf 2019). eLearning technology holds promise to
transform the role of students and teachers, bringing student-centered learning into
practice (Groff 2013).
An example from a Primary 6 mathematics class clearly demonstrates how
eLearning technology can facilitate student-centered learning (Case C). During the
lesson, students set their own learning objectives by choosing one of the figures (e.g.,
94 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101

spheres, cones, and cylinders) in their textbooks. Then, they took photos with a mobile
app in iPads to digitalize the chosen figures. With the digital illustrations on their
mobile devices, students were encouraged to discuss and explore the properties of
different three-dimensional shapes on their own, as well as to ask any questions when
they needed. In the second half of the class, the teacher guided students towards a
deeper understanding by introducing some other complicated methods to explore the
properties of different shaped figures. In this example, students made decisions during
their learning process, while the teacher acted as a facilitator to enhance the learning
outcomes. The mobile device equipped with specific software enabled students to
experiment on their own. Without eLearning technology, such student-centered exper-
imentation would be less accessible. Thus, this example demonstrates how eLearning
technology shifted the focus from teacher to student, the primary requirement for
student-centered learning.

2.3 Peer learning

In addition to learning from their teachers, students can also learn from their peers. Peer
learning refers to the educational practice where students attain their learning goals
through interacting with companions of equal social status (Topping et al. 2017). It has
been regarded as the most cost-effective learning strategy (e.g., Levin et al. 1987). Peer
learning is shown to foster positive learning outcomes, such as critical reflection,
reassessment of one’s own point of view, and in-depth understanding of the materials
(Boud et al. 1999; Boud 2001; Topping 2005). It has also been associated with
increased psychological well-being (Hanson et al. 2016) as well as enhanced social
skills, including collaboration and communication skills (Boud 2001; Topping 2005;
Topping et al. 2017).
Peer learning can take place in different forms, but peer tutoring and co-
operative learning have attracted the most intensive research (Topping 2005). Co-
operative learning and peer tutoring refer to different social interaction patterns
among peers. The former focuses on learning through developing a positive
interdependence (Slavin 1990), while the latter highlights the structured learning
process between tutor and tutee (Topping 2005). Specifically, co-operative learn-
ing emphasizes the development of a collaborative relationship to achieve spec-
ified learning goals and complete learning tasks with equal participation
(Topping 2005). Peer tutoring focuses on structured materials and interactive
behaviors.
Our school visits observed various examples of co-operative learning facilitated by
eLearning technology. For example, in a Primary 6 general studies class, students were
paired up to deliver a presentation on invertebrates (Case D). To prepare for the
presentation, they were required to work co-operatively to search for information,
identify graphics, and analyze features relevant to the topic with the use of Schoology.
They could also access the online learning system to retrieve the course resources. Five
groups were chosen at random to give in-class presentations. They prepared the
presentation slides that composed of pictures, texts and analysis using Showme. Each
group of students demonstrated excellent co-operative skills with a clear division of
work during the presentation. Specifically, while one team member (student A) deliv-
ered the presentation, another member (student B) controlled the iPad with an access to
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101 95

Apple TV and managed the presentation slides in line with the flow of his/her partner.
If in-depth details were discussed, student B magnified the picture to assist the
explanation of student A. Hence, the students created a good synergy with their
learning partners and formed collaborative relationships in pursuit of the shared
learning goals. As a result, students seemed to learn more than the subject content
alone.
Apart from learning through co-operation, students can also learn through compe-
tition. The following example illustrates how technology can facilitate these two forms
of peer learning (Case E). In a Secondary 2 integrated science class, students worked in
groups of three to develop an electric circuit based on the diagrams provided by the
teacher. When they formed a complete circuit successfully, the connected light bulb
glowed. Then, they were asked to upload photos of their final products to the internet
with the use of Nearpod. The first group that completed the task would be the winner.
The teacher reported the groups’ progress from time to time. Students were motivated
to learn the foundation of electric circuits in order to win the competition. Hence,
eLearning facilitated both peer collaboration within groups and competition between
groups.
On the whole, our observations show that eLearning technology can be a valuable
tool to assist peer learning. Technology-assisted classroom peer learning can facilitate
both collaborative or competitive group work throughout the entire learning process
because of its special ability to provide collaborative working spaces and mechanisms
that encourage well-organized co-operative learning.

2.4 Personalized learning

A transformation of the relationships between students and their teachers alone is not
enough to optimize the learning process and learning performance. The unique learning
needs of individual students should be taken into consideration. Even in the same
learning stage, each student comes with a unique knowledge background, a specific
learning style, special learning demands, and different learning needs (Lu 2004). These
factors play a substantial influence on the learning process and outcomes. For example,
excessively difficult course materials or irrelevant materials can frustrate students,
while excessively easy course materials can reduce students’ sense of challenge and
diminish learning outcomes (Csikszentmihalyi et al. 1993). A more personalized
learning strategy can be achieved in a technology-enriched environment that is highly
sensitive to the individual differences of students. A technology-enriched environment
can build on what students already know and use this sensitivity and knowledge to
provide tailored feedback for students, such as setting appropriate learning goals
(DeMink-Carthew and Olofson 2020) and providing personalized feedback (Pérez-
Segura et al. 2020).
In our observations, a series of activities were organized to teach the English
vocabulary for dates, numbers, and time to a class of Primary 3 students (Case F).
The teacher first introduced the basic expressions of time in English using videos, and
then provided each student with a Samsung tablet, earphones, and microphone. Stu-
dents then completed an interactive game that facilitated by the provided mobile
devices. They could stop, pause, and play the game according to their preferences.
During the game, students were first asked to select flash cards on their mobile devices
96 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101

based on what they had heard through their earphones, and then students were asked to
match the card with the correct Chinese translation before their answers were sent to the
teacher through the internet.
This eLearning activity was able to meet individual learning needs in several
ways. First, the teacher reviewed each answer and provided individualized feedback
through the internet. Second, students learned according to their own learning
progress because questions were repeated until they provided the correct answer.
Third, students learned at their own pace because they were interacting with the
eLearning tools independently. Thus, this example shows how the use of techno-
logical tools in eLearning can facilitate personalized learning. These tools can help
teachers to identify the unique learning needs, knowledge background, and styles of
individual students, and then create a learning environment that is responsive to
each student’s needs.

2.5 Differentiated learning

While personalized learning emphasizes the role of students in fulfilling their learning
needs, another way to address students’ unique learning needs is through differentiated
learning. Differentiated learning, or differentiated instruction, is a teaching philosophy
that emphasizes the matching of teaching practices to students’ readiness levels,
interest, and preferred modes of learning (Tomlinson 2003). In other words, the person
who takes the responsibility in matching the learning needs of students is different in
personalized learning and differentiated learning. The former is the students while the
latter is the teachers. Differentiated learning allows teachers to provide instructional
strategies that are appropriate to students’ learning styles and needs, thus increase
students’ engagement and outcomes. Previous research demonstrated that differentiated
learning that allows students in the same class to work on different tasks or homework
according to their own levels of ability can improve students’ learning outcomes (e.g.,
Haelermans et al. 2015; Keane and Heinz 2019; Magebleh and Abdullah 2020; Morgan
2013). eLearning technology can afford the customization of learning to suit individual
student’s needs (Groff 2013). Specifically, teachers can make use of eLearning tech-
nology to proactively differentiate learning content, teaching methods, resources, and
outcomes based on students’ needs. Such techniques can maximize the learning
opportunities for every student, which in turn enhances students’ intrinsic motivation,
productivity, and achievement (e.g., Amabile 1996; Collins and Amabile 1999;
Tomlinson et al. 2008).
Differentiated learning is particularly important in classrooms that are typified by
academic diversity in terms of students’ readiness, interest, ability, and learning profile,
such as giftedness, special educational needs, and cultural diversity (Tomlinson 2003;
Handa 2019). eLearning technology can facilitate the in-class arrangement of learning
activities that are tailored to address these unique learning needs.
In one of our observations, different learning activities were arranged for two groups
of junior secondary school students in a mathematics class based on their ability (Case
G). Advanced students in the class were asked to search for the price of different items
online, calculate the total cost, and make a PowerPoint presentation to the whole class.
The remaining students practiced calculations through hands-on activities with concrete
objects of cookies and playing cards. We also observed this practice in a Chinese
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101 97

reading and comprehension class for Key Stage 3 students in a special education
classroom (Case H). In this class, students were grouped according to their differential
learning stages. That is, those who showed advanced reading and comprehension skills
were asked to analyze the content of a passage in an interactive online game, while the
remaining group was asked to answer knowledge questions in an eBook. Analyzing the
content was more suitable for the advanced students because it involved more complex
thinking skills than respond to knowledge questions (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001).
Apart from working on a group basis, this teacher selected some students to
complete extra learning activities based on their abilities and interest. One student
was chosen to control and manage the computer during class because he was good at
using electronic devices. Another student was selected to record and upload his speech
because he had accurate pronunciation. His speech could help other students to learn
outside the classroom. In these examples, teachers demonstrated how different learning
activities can be tailored according to students’ learning needs. Incorporating eLearning
technology holds promise to widen the options for learning activities, which in turn
provides a wide range of possibilities for differentiated learning.

3 Discussion and conclusion

To explore the potential of how eLearning can facilitate a paradigm shift in education,
this paper discussed and illustrated some of the opportunities for eLearning to improve
classroom teaching and learning practices. Specifically, eLearning technology has been
found to transform traditional teaching practices into constructivist practices. Teaching
and learning practices were observed across multiple classrooms to illustrate the current
status of eLearning and to showcase how eLearning technology can bring different
constructivist pedagogies into practice.
In our experience, eLearning technology can enrich teaching and learning practices
in real-life settings. These enriched teaching and learning experiences would be less
accessible without eLearning technology (Groff 2013). Specifically, the current re-
search observed that eLearning technology could enable students to become autono-
mous learners that actively explore the learning content (i.e., active learning), to decide
their own learning goals and pathways (i.e., student-centered learning), and to fulfill
their unique learning needs (i.e., personalized learning). It also provides opportunities
for students to learn together in a co-operative and competitive manner (i.e., peer
learning). Moreover, it facilitates teachers to offer differentiated teaching instructions
to suit students’ unique learning needs (i.e., differentiated learning). These findings
indicated that eLearning can be effectively adopted to bring at least five different
pedagogies into practice, thus promoting a constructivist learning environment for
students. These findings can extend the existing literature on eLearning. There is
abundant research attention on its benefits, such as learning satisfaction and outcomes
(Eom 2014).
Apart from eLearning, the present research can in fact promote the constructivist
movement practically. Windschitl (2002) identified four important dilemmas for
teachers adopting constructivist teaching, which include conceptual, pedagogical, cul-
tural, and political considerations. The representative examples identified in this re-
search can provide solutions to address the pedagogical dilemmas concerning how
98 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101

teachers design the curriculum and learning experience to fulfill the requirements of
constructivism. Therefore, teachers can devise their constructivist teaching strategies
with reference to the representative examples illustrated above. These representative
examples can be adopted as resources to develop guidance for teaching and inspiration
for workshops sharing how to implement eLearning technological tools.
Beyond pedagogical philosophies and constructivist movement, the current research
provided evidence to show how eLearning can benefit the learning process in general.
There are research syntheses showing that incorporating technological tools is benefi-
cial to students’ learning. For example, among 24 studies, incorporating technological
tools in learning mathematics had a moderate to strong benefit on student’s learning
performance, learning motivation, and learning attitude (e.g., Higgins et al. 2019). The
present findings not only supported the benefits of incorporating eLearning technology
in learning but also showed how technological tools could be incorporated in real-life
settings and, more importantly, across different age groups and academic disciplines.
To be specific, this research investigated the implementation of eLearning across
primary, secondary, and special education schools in Hong Kong. We observed that
learning activities utilizing eLearning tools could be varied to suit the needs of students
in different years of study.
Our findings also shed light on the functions of incorporating technological tools in
enriching teaching and learning practice. It is understandable that the class capacity has
a direct influence on teaching and learning performance. Specifically, the increase of
class capacity is usually related to the decrease of in-class interaction between teachers
and students as well as shorten students’ attention span on learning (Wood and Shirazi
2020). Our findings clearly illustrated that technological tools could be a solution to
enrich teaching and learning practice. First, technological tools, such as student re-
sponse systems, can facilitate the delivery of learning materials. The learning materials
can be delivered in a variety of ways that are useful to engage students. In one of our
examples, students can explore the properties of different three-dimensional shapes on
their own. This is in line with the existing studies showing that technological tools can
provide a well-designed environment with adequate guidance for students to learn
(Gibson 2018). Second, technological tools can also be a communication medium for
teachers and students. Students can express their own understandings and ideas while
teachers can collect instant feedback from the class to monitor the learning progress. In
our examples, students were motivated to express their ideas while teachers gained
better control over the teaching process, which enriched the learning atmosphere and
facilitates in-class communication. Thus, the flexible use of such tools can bring
practical benefits to the teaching and learning process. Therefore, it is a golden
opportunity for teachers to consider how to make use of the rapid technological
advancement to improve their teaching practices, as well as for students to consider
how to maximize their learning gain in a technology-enriched learning environment.
There is a caveat that awaits future research attention. This research investigated
only the education system in Hong Kong. Such a context-specific research design may
indicate that the findings may not be generalizable to other parts of the world.
Therefore, future research is needed to conduct a similar investigation in other cultural
contexts. However, the findings offer valuable insight to showcase that eLearning
technology can benefit the learning process by bringing different constructivist peda-
gogical philosophies into practice. We hope this paper will stimulate further discussion
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101 99

on how eLearning technology can best be applied to educational settings so the learning
process and outcomes can both be optimized.

Availability of data and material The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code availability There are no software or code involved in this study.

Funding information This study receives support from the Education Bureau of The Government of Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest or competing interest.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. New York: Westview Press.

Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. E. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: A revision
of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Babbie, E. (2014). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC
higher education report no. I. Washington DC: The George Washington University, School of Education
and Human Development.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 24, 413–426.
Boud, D. (2001). Introduction: Making the move to peer learning. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & J. Sampson
(Eds.), Peer learning in higher education (pp. 1–17). Sterling, VA: Kogan Page.
Burnard, P. (1999). Carl Rogers and postmodernism: Challenges in nursing and health sciences. Nursing and
Health Sciences, 1, 241–247.
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
creativity (pp. 297–312). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihaiyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: A longitudinal study of their
development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeMink-Carthew, J., & Olofson, M. W. (2020). Hands-joined learning as a framework for personalizing
project-based learning in a middle grades classroom: An exploratory study. Research in Middle Level
Education Online, 43, 1–17.
Eom, S. (2014). Empirical research on effects of interaction on elearning satisfaction and outcome: A review
and future research direction. In Proceeding of 2014 international conference on education technologies
and computers (ICETC) (pp. 98–102). New York City, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P.
(2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8410–8415.
Gibson, L., & Obiakor, F. (2018). Computer-based technology for special and multicultural education:
Enhancing 21st Century learning. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing Inc.
Groff, J. (2013). Technology-rich innovative learning environments. OCED CERI Innovative Learning
Environment project.
Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning
reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332, 1213–1216.
Haelermans, C., Ghysels, J., & Prince, F. (2015). Increasing performance by differentiated teaching?
Experimental evidence of the student benefits of digital differentiation. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 46, 1161–1174.
Handa, M. C. (2019). Leading differentiated learning for the gifted. Roeper Review, 41, 102–118.
100 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101

Hanson, J. M., Trolian, T. L., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2016). Evaluating the influence of peer
learning on psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 191–206.
Hedberg, J. G. (2006). Methods and technologies for learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37,
307.
Higgins, K., Huscroft-D’Angelo, J., & Crawford, L. (2019). Effects of technology in mathematics on
achievement, motivation, and attitude: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
57, 283–319 https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117748416.
Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2003). The new science of learning: Active learning, metacognition, and
transfer of knowledge in e-learning applications. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, 325–
334.
Keane, G., & Heinz, M. (2019). Differentiated homework: Impact on student engagement. Journal of
Practitioner Research, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.5038/2164-0866.4.2.1111.
Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning:
Beyond ‘educational bulimia’. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 321–334.
Levin, H. M., Glass, G. V., & Meister, G. R. (1987). Cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction.
Evaluation Review, 11, 50–72.
Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Lu, J. (2004). A personalized e-learning material recommender system. In Proceedings of the 2nd international
conference on information technology for application (ICITA), (pp. 374–379).
Lucas, H., & Kinsman, J. (2016). Distance- and blended-learning in global health research: Potentials and
challenges. Global Health Action, 9, 33429.
Magebleh, I. S. I., & Abdullah, A. (2020). On the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in the enhance-
ment of Jordanian students’ overall achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 13, 533–548.
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, H. (2013). Maximizing student success with differentiated learning. The Clearing House: A Journal
of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87, 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2013.832130.
O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centered learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers?
In G. O’Neill, S. Moore, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning
and teaching (pp. 30–39). Dublin: All Ireland Society for Higher Education.
Pérez-Segura, J. J., Ruiz, R. S., González-Calero, J. A., & Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. (2020). The effect of
personalized feedback on listening and reading skills in the learning of EFL. Computer Assisted
Language Learning., 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1705354.
Phillips, R., McNaught, C., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Evaluating e-learning: Guiding research and practice.
New York: Routledge.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education,
93, 223–231.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students
learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 185–217.
Qadan, H. (2016). The effect of active learning-based instructional program on improving motivation and
achievement towards science among middle stage students with learning disabilities in Riyadh.
International Research in Education, 4, 63–75.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105, 1623–1640.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80's. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.
Shi, Y., Yang, H., MacLeod, J., Zhang, J., & Yang, H. H. (2020). College students’ cognitive learning
outcomes in technology-enabled active learning environments: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58, 791–817. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119881477.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis.
Review of Educational Research, 60, 471–499.
Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for
undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices.
CBE Life Science Education, 12, 618–627.
Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 501–520.
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for
responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:89–101 101

Tomlinson, C. A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school: Making revolutionary
changes in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Topping, K. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645.
Topping, K. J., Buchs, C., Duran, D., & Van Keer, H. (2017). Effective peer learning: From principles to
practical implementation. London and New York: Routledge.
Twigg, C. (2002). Quality, cost and access: The case for redesign. In M. S. Pittinsky (Ed.), The wired tower:
Perspectives on the impact of the internet on higher education (pp. 111–144). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the
conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenge facing teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 72, 131–175.
Wood, R., & Shirazi, S. (2020). A systematic review of audience response systems for teaching and learning in
higher education: The student experience. Computers & Education, 153, 103896. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.compedu.2020.103896
Wulf, C. (2019). “From teaching to learning”: Characteristics and challenges of a student-centered learning
culture. In H. A. Mieg (Ed.), Inquiry-based learning – Undergraduate research: The german multidis-
ciplinary experience. New York: Springer International Publishing.
Yang, F.-Y., Chang, C.-Y., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2008). Teacher views about constructivist instruction and personal
epistemology: A national study in Taiwan. Educational Studies, 34, 527–542.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Affiliations

Paul L.C. LAM 1 & Hilary K.Y. NG 1 & Alan H.H. TSE 1 & Ming Lu 2 & Bernardo Y. W.
WONG 1
1
Centre for Learning Enhancement And Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, Hong
Kong
2
University of Cologne, Germany, Cologne, Germany