logo

Articles

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2020): Debating the status of 'theory' in technology enhanced learning research

Theories, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, models and constructs: Limiting research outcomes through misconceptions and misunderstandings

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.56810a1a
Submitted
25 July 2026
Published
24-06-2020

Abstract

Contributing to knowledge or theory is generally a standard requirement for research and doctoral studies. Whether that contribution should be from a research, policy or practice perspective is often not specifically stated as a requirement, yet one or all are certainly possible. A doctoral study (or indeed any research study) is usually quite firmly cast or framed within a form of theoretical or conceptual framework. Yet, even the definition, selection and formulation of a framework that is appropriate and that can inform a study throughout its various phases and stages is sometimes considered a ‘doctoral or research challenge’ in itself. This paper will argue that the way models, frameworks or theories - all of which in this current paper are collectively termed underpinnings - are conceived and used could well determine whether, how and to what extent a thesis or research study might contribute to a wider knowledge base. The paper offers a theoretical strategic analysis of the issue. It will explore what a conceptual or theoretical framework for a doctoral or wider research study is, what role or roles it can take, and whether, how and to what extent a study might contribute to knowledge or theory. The paper will conclude with ways to question approaches to roles of conceptual or theoretical underpinnings that do not limit the potential of a thesis or study to contribute to theory.

References

  1. Abualbasal, W., Abu-Shanab, E., & Al-Quraan, H. (2016). Dynamic Analysis of UTAUT: The Case of Microsoft Project Management Software. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies. 11, 40-54. DOI: 10.4018/IJWLTT.2016070104
  2. Aimard, V. (2011). Overview of the potential of e-Learning for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.vie.unu.edu/file/get/3029
  3. Alenezi, A. (2013). A teacher perspective of ICT integration in Saudi Arabia secondary schools as a possible alternative to western ICT integration. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  4. Alenezi, F. (2014). The Integration of ICT within Teaching and Learning Environments in Education Faculties in Saudi Universities: Challenges and Potential for Change. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  5. Almpanis, T. (2015). Staff development needs of academic staff involved in blended and online course delivery in higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  6. AlOkailly, R. (2019). Moving Towards Flexible Ubiquitous Agnostic Design (FUAD) Framework from an Informed View of Lecturers’ Practices. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  7. Alwani, A.E.S. & Soomro, S. (2010). Barriers to effective use of information technology in science education at Yanbu Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: E-Learning Experiences and Future. Retrieved from http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/barriers-to-effective-use-ofinformation-technology-in-science-education-at-yanbu-kingdom-of-saudi-a
  8. Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a Theory of Online Learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.). Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp.33-60). Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Press.
  9. Bennett, S., & Oliver, M. (2011). Talking back to theory : the missed opportunities in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 179–189.
  10. Berman, J. (2013). Utility of a conceptual framework within doctoral study: A researcher’s reflections. Issues in Educational Research, 23(1), 1–18.
  11. Biljon, J. & Renaud, K. (2008). A Qualitative Study of the Applicability of Technology Acceptance Models to Senior Mobile Phone Users. In I.-Y. Song et al. (Eds.). ER Workshops 2008, LNCS 5232, (pp. 228–237). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
  12. Bower, M. (2019). Technology-mediated learning theory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1035–1048.
  13. Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & Ballard, J. (2019). Who Built Maslow’s Pyramid? A History of the Creation of Management Studies’ Most Famous Symbol and Its Implications for Management Education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 18(1), 81–98.
  14. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  15. Bruner, J.S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
  16. Campo, S. (2013). Device Neutral Assignments: DNA for BYOD. Retrieved from https://www.smore.com/r0um-deviceneutral-assignments
  17. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  18. Cobern, W. (1991). Contextual Constructivism: The Impact of Culture on the Learning and Teaching of Science. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338488.pdf
  19. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
  20. Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2010). Ubiquitous Learning: An Agenda for Educational Transformation. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.). Ubiquitous Learning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  21. Corbett, H. & Rossman, G.B. (1989). Three Paths to Implementing Change: A Research Note. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(2), 164-179.
  22. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
  23. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
  24. Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  25. Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5–10. DOI: 10.2307/1511837
  26. Cross, N. (2007). Forty years of design research. Design Studies, 28(1), 1–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2006.11.004
  27. Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage.
  28. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
  29. Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
  30. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  31. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  32. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.). Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
  33. Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  34. Educational Research Lancaster University. (2020). Study for a PhD in Educational Research. Retrieved from https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/educational-research/study/phd/#
  35. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
  36. Engeström, Y. & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.
  37. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.
  38. Essam, R. (2019). A professional development programme for supporting teachers in the design, development, and implementation of Technology Enhanced Learning activities for teaching Arabic as a foreign language. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  39. Felder, R.M. & Soloman, B.A. (1993). Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire (ILS). Retrieved from https://www.webtools.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/
  40. Findley, C.A. (1988). Collaborative Networked Learning: On-line Facilitation and Software Support. Burlington, MA: Digital Equipment Corporation.
  41. Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717-732.
  42. Gibson, J.J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  43. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
  44. Glynn, S.M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2009). Science Motivation Questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 127–146.
  45. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in Research on Networked Learning. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  46. Grant, C. & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house”. Connecting Education, Practice and Research, 4(2), 12–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
  47. Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (Eds.). (2010). Second International Handbook of Educational Change. Part 1. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  48. Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case Study Research: Foundations and Methodological Orientations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(1), Art. 19. Retrieved fromhttp://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1701195
  49. Haythornthwaite, C. & Andrews, R. (2011) E-learning theory and practice. London: Sage.
  50. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (translated by J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson). Oxford: Blackwell.
  51. JISC. (2017). Building digital capability: The six elements defined. Retrieved from http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6611/1/JFL0066F_DIGIGAP_MOD_IND_FRAME.PDF
  52. Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.). The uses of mass communications: current perspectives on gratifications research (pp.19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  53. Kim, M.C. & Hannafin, M.J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403-417.
  54. Kirkpatrick, D.L. & Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2007). Implementing the four levels: A practical guide for effective evaluation of training programs. San Francisco, CA: Koehler Publishers Inc.
  55. Kivunja, C. & Kuyini, A.B. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26-41.
  56. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  57. Kotsovoulou, M. (2020). Exploring student perceptions about the use of visual programming environments, their relation to student learning styles and their impact on student motivation in undergraduate introductory programming modules. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  58. Kwon, T. & Zmud, R. (1987) Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. In R. Hirshheim (Ed.). Critical issues in information systems research. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
  59. Lai, C.H., Yang, J.C., Chen, F.C., Ho, C.W., & Chan, T.W. (2007). Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: the interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 326-337.
  60. Lambrecht, H. (2015). Tackling low learning outcomes in South Africa: The contribution from informal mobile learning. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  61. Lancaster University. (2018). Manual of Academic Regulations and Procedures 2018-29: Postgraduate Research Regulations (Applicable from October 2018). Lancaster: Academic Standards and Quality, Lancaster University.
  62. Laurillard, D. (1999). A conversational framework for individual learning applied to the “learning organisation” and the “learning society”. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(2), 113–122.
  63. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
  64. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  65. Lee, C. (2018). Assessing the uses and impacts of Facebook for teaching and learning in classroom education contexts in Malaysian universities. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  66. Letourneau, N. & Allen, M. (2006). Post-positivistic critical multiplism: A beginning dialogue. In W.K. Cody (Ed.). Philosophical and theoretical perspectives for advanced nursing practice (pp. 221-231). Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
  67. Lytras, M., Sarirete, A., & Damiani, E. (2020). Technology-enhanced learning research in higher education: A transformative education primer. Computers in Human Behavior, 109. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563220301035
  68. MacDonald, I. (2018). Innovative online computer supported collaborative assessment: the influence of learning approach and intensity of use on outcomes for healthcare undergraduates in a single university setting. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  69. Manchester Metropolitan University. (2019). Study: Postgraduate Study – PhD (Doctor of Philosophy). Retrieved from https://www2.mmu.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/course/phd-doctor-of-philosophy/?start=2019
  70. Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  71. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography - A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-49. Reprinted in R.R. Sherman & W.B. Webb (Eds.). Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (pp.141-161). London: Falmer Press.
  72. Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96.
  73. McDowell, J. (2018). The Whole World In Their Hands: An investigation of the influence of mobile technologies on learner engagement of primary school children in outdoor settings. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  74. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  75. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
  76. Ngai, E.W.T., Tao, S.S.C., & Moon, K.K-L. (2015). Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks. International Journal of Information Management, 35(1), 33-44.
  77. Oliver, M. (2002). JISM special issue on theory for learning technologies: Editorial. Journal of Interactive Multimedia Education, 9. Art. 8. Retrieved from https://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2002-9/
  78. 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.
  79. Papert, S. (1986). Constructionism: A New Opportunity for Elementary Science Education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory, Epistemology and Learning Group.
  80. Passey, D. (2010). Mobile learning in school contexts: Can teachers alone make it happen? IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(1), 68-81.
  81. Passey, D. (2014). Inclusive technology enhanced learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
  82. Passey, D. (2019). Technology‐enhanced learning: Rethinking the term, the concept and its theoretical background. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 972-986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12783
  83. Passey, D., Dagienė, V., Atieno, L., & Baumann, W. (2019). Computational Practices, Educational Theories, and Learning Development. Problemos, 2018(Suppl.), 24-38.
  84. Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children (translated by M. Cook). New York, NY: International University Press.
  85. Pintrich, P.R. & de Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
  86. Pruet, P., Ang, C.S., & Farzin, D. (2016). Understanding tablet computer usage among primary school students in underdeveloped areas: Students’ technology experience, learning styles and attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1131-1144.
  87. QAA. (2014). UK Quality Code for Higher Education - Part A: Setting and Maintaining Academic Standards. The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
  88. Ravenscroft, A., Wegerif, R., & Hartley, J. (2007). Reclaiming thinking: dialectic, dialogic and learning in the digital age. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series, Series II, Issue 5, 39-57.
  89. Richardson, J.T.E. (1999). The Concepts and Methods of Phenomenographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53-82.
  90. Rikala, J. & Kankaanranta, M. (2014). The Nature Tour mobile learning application. Implementing the mobile application in Finnish early childhood education settings. In CSEDU 2014: 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education. Barcelona, Spain: SCITEPRESS-Science and Technology Publications.
  91. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
  92. Roulstone, A. (1998). Enabling technology. Disabled people, work and new technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  93. Ryan, A. & Tilbury, D. (2013). Flexible Pedagogy: new pedagogical ideas. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/flexible-pedagogies-newpedagogical-ideas
  94. Sage Journals. (n.d.). Theory and Research in Education. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/aims-scope/TRE
  95. Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. (2013). Laurillard’s conversational framework for instruction. Retrieved from http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/~instructtech/lol/laurillard/
  96. Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. London: Routledge Falmer.
  97. Scanlon, E., Blake, C., Issroff, K. & Lewin, C. (2006). Evaluating learning technologies: frameworks and case studies. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(2-3), 243–263.
  98. Sen, A. (2016). Study and Evaluation of Active and Multimodal Practical Learning in a Novel Technology-Enhanced Anatomy Learning Laboratory. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  99. Shulman, L. (2005a). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134, 52-59.
  100. Shulman, L.S. (2005b). Pedagogies of uncertainty. Liberal Education, 91(2), 18–25.
  101. Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
  102. Snelbecker, G. (1983). Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  103. Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  104. Tam, R. (2014). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption, diffusion and use of web-based learning technologies: a single case study in higher education. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  105. Tight, M. (2017). Understanding Case Study Research: Small-scale Research with Meaning. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
  106. Topol, R. (2016). Manipulating affordances in practice: A hermeneutic phenomenological study of mobility impairment and uses of digital technologies in work. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  107. Varadarajan, R. (2019). Theoretical underpinnings of research in strategic marketing: a commentary. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 30–36.
  108. Varga-Atkins, T. (2019). Designing curricula to develop digitally capable professionals in engineering and management - the case in two UK universities. Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  109. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, F.D., & Davis, G.B. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.
  110. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  111. Wang, F. & Hannafin, M.J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53, 5–23.
  112. Wiley. (2020). Educational Theory. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17415446
  113. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  114. Zimmerman, H.T. & Land, S.M. (2014). Facilitating place-based learning in outdoor informal environments with mobile computers. TechTrends, 58(1), 77-83.