From Behaviourism to Connectivism and Beyond: Evolving Theories for Technology-Enhanced Education

Digital pedagogy has transformed the theoretical framework of technologies-enhanced learning, such as e-learning, blended learning, and distance education, that has grown rapidly. The development of learning theories since the time of behaviourism and cognitivism through constructivism, social constructivism and connectivism, as well as the analysis of modern theoretical frameworks like Activity Theory, Learning Analytics, TPACK, SAMR and rhizomatic/networked learning, are presented in this study. This paper presents empirical findings and a literature review done within the last ten years; therefore, drawing on these findings, this paper argues that technology-enhanced learning can be effectively done based on a multi-theoretical and integrated approach that can co-align pedagogical goals with digital opportunities and socio-cultural backgrounds. The examples are illustrative of how hybrid theoretical frameworks can be used to design courses, create assessment plans, and community-building in online and blended classes. Two conceptual maps: a historical roadmap and a synthesized theoretical map are provided to help educators and researchers in knowing how the traditional theories and the contemporary frameworks correlate with each other. The paper ends with the further research directions, such as the synthesis of the theory, cross-disciplinary discovery, and implications of the emerging technological tools, which are artificial intelligence and immersive learning environments, to the pedagogical process.

Blended Learning, E-Learning, Learning Theories

1. Ahmad, A. R., Ali, D. F., Wahab, N. A., Kamaruzaman, N., & Othman, N. F. (2024). Exploring learning theory usage in web based learning: A comprehensive literature review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13(4), 1983–1994. https://doi.org/10.46886/IJARPED/v13-i4/18981 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Banihashem, S. K., et al. (2022). A systematic review of the role of learning analytics in enhancing feedback practices in higher education. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bates, T. (2019). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Tony Bates Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Blundell, C. N., et al. (2022). A scoping review of the application of the SAMR model in educational research. Computers & Education: X. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bozkurt, A., Honeychurch, S., Caines, A., & Bali, M. (2016). Community tracking in a cMOOC and nomadic learner behavior identification on a connectivist rhizomatic learning network. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 17(4), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.09231 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chen, X., & Chan, S. (2023). Implementing digital pedagogy in TVET: A Connectivist perspective. Vocational & Technical Education Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chuane Q (2025). Conceptual framework of applying CoI-based blended learning approach to enhance students' vocabulary and vocabulary learning motivation. PLoS One. 2025 Aug 12;20(8): e0330115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330115. PMID: 40794725; PMCID: PMC12342318. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. (Blog/essay). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Dalsgaard, C. (2023). A theoretical framework for digital learning spaces. Research in Learning Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Drachsler, H., & Greller, W. (2011). The pulse of learning analytics: Understandings and expectations from the stakeholders. In Proceedings of the Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (pp. –). https://doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330634 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Du-Preez, I., & Jacobs, L. (2025). Pedagogical and visual design principles for online learning material: Insights from quality guiding documents in diverse educational contexts. Interactive Learning Environments. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2523390 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71. (Foundational synthesis still cited in recent reviews) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fakir, M. S. B., Azman, H. A. B., & Zahid, A. Z. B. M. (2024). Exploring online group work through Connectivism theory. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(8). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Iyamu, T. (2019). The use of Activity Theory to guide information systems research. Education and Information Technologies. (Used by more recent studies examining socio-technical contexts of digital learning) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 215–239). Lawrence Erlbaum. (Classic, cited in modern digital pedagogy reviews) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Joshi, S. (2023). TPACK and teachers' self-efficacy: A systematic review. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. (CJLT) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Khalil, M., et al. (2022). Learning analytics frameworks: mapping current practice and challenges. ACM Computing Surveys / Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Khalil, F. (2019). Experimental review of mobile learning technology research: Activity Theory framework (2014–2019). Global Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(4), 302–320. https://doi.org/10.37187/gjoes.1219.0104.02 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kholid, M. N., et al. (2023). A systematic literature review of TPACK in subject domains. Cogent Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kurt, S. (2023, September 20). SAMR model: Substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition. https://educationaltechnology.net/samr-model-substitution-augmentation modification-and-redefinition/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kurt, S. (2018). TPACK: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework (updated September 16, 2019). https://educationaltechnology.net/technological-pedagogical content-knowledge-tpack-framework/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Levin, D., Semenov, A., & Gorsky, P. (2025). AI-assisted adaptive learning in higher education:Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 28(1), 4562. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lewis, M., Jones, A., & Hunter, B. (2017). Women’s experience of trust within the midwife mother relationship. International Journal of Childbirth, 7(1), 40–52.https://doi.org/10.1891/2156-5287.7.1.40 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Mukhlis, H., Haenilah, E. Y., Sunyono, S., Maulina, D., & et al. (2024). Connectivism and digital age education: Insights, challenges, and future directions. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 45(3), 803–814. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Pratama, F. R., Santoso, H. B., Junus, K., & et al. (2025). Constructivism in online and hybridlearning before and after COVID 19: A systematic literature review. Jurnal EduScience, 12(4), 1111–1129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, selfregulation, and the development of communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal ofInstructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Appleton-Century-Crofts. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. University of Queensland, Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation. (2021). Learningtheories and frameworks for digital learning. (Overview of connectivism and other theories in networked learning contexts). (UQ Teaching & Learning Innovation) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Zhang, Y., et al. (2023). Investigating the impact of the Community of Inquiry framework onstudent online learning outcomes. Online Learning Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Declaration: Generative AI was used in some analysis and was also used to enhance the structure of the write-up. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar