You are here:

E-learning Environments in Academy: Technology, Pedagogy and Thinking Dispositions ARTICLE

, , Jerusalem College of Technology, Israel

JITE-Research Volume 11, ISSN 1539-3585 Publisher: Informing Science Institute


Around two decades have passed since higher education institutions began incorporating the internet as an alternative studying environment, together with frontal class teaching and learning. This kind of environment still poses meaningful challenges for students and teachers that take an active part in E-learning courses. Today it is quite clear that taking part in online courses requires new technological, behavioral, and thinking skills, in order to best handle and even successfully finish the course. Although technological skills are a must for taking part in an online course, a majority of students participating in these kinds of courses have arrived thus far without suitable prior computer experience or background, internet working skills, and internet based studies skills. This research tests the effects of teaching and pedagogical elements in academic e-courses on the change of intellectual thinking dispositions according to the dispositional theory of Perkins, Jay and Tishman (1993). The study tested the changes that occurred in the thinking dispositions of 285 students from the Department of Information Science and the Department of Political Studies at Bar Ilan University as a result of studying in an e-learning environment. In the course of the study asynchronous and synchronous courses, which are transferred fully through the web (except for one frontal orientation meeting), were tested. The quantitative data was collected using three questionnaires in three phases. In the first phase was a 'pre-virtual course' questionnaire, which tested the seven thinking dispositions before taking an e-course. The second phase: at the end of each course a second questionnaire was distributed, which tested the seven thinking dispositions 'post virtual course'. The third questionnaire (post – part 2), also distributed at the end of the course, constituted the third phase and tested previous computer and internet knowledge and experience, further e-courses taken and the students' personal information. We found that in the ecourses there is an interactive system of relations between a number of elements that work together: the e-environment, study technologies, the teacher's activity and the teaching process and its elements. These components worked well together and brought on a change in the students' thinking dispositions in a functionally balanced and complete way. The study's results show that there is a significant statistical effect of studying in an e-environment on the changes of intellectual thinking dispositions in all seven thinking dispositions. This effect is evident in the pedagogical and technological elements of e-courses, in all seven thinking dispositions, in changing levels of positive power. The conclusions of the study show that studying in an e-environment online contributes to the change in thinking dispositions and, so promotes intellectual thinking and behavioral patterns.


Bouhnik, D. & Carmi, G. (2012). E-learning Environments in Academy: Technology, Pedagogy and Thinking Dispositions. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11, 201-219. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved November 18, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Alexander, G. (2004). Hypertext-a new technology or other literacy? Script Literacy: Research, Study and Action, 8-7 [Online] (In Hebrew). Retrieved: 01.03.2006 from Anderson, J.R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  2. Barell, J. (1991). Teaching for thoughtfulness: Classroom strategies to enhance intellectual development. New York: Longman.
  3. Baron, J.B. (1985). Rationality and intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Baron, J.B. (1987). Being disposed to thinking: A typology of attitudes and dispositions related to acquiring and using thinking skills. Boston, MA: The University of Massachusetts, Critical and Creative Thinking Program.
  5. Beller, M., & Or, A. (2001). Virtual learning is Exists reality. Academia: Journal of the University Heads Committee, 9, 27-34.
  6. Ben-Ami, Y. (2007). Digital knowledge technologies: The extension of native cognition or a qualitative change? Doctoral Dissertation, School of Education, Tel-Aviv University (In Hebrew).
  7. Bouhnik, D., & Carmi, G. (2006). Thinking styles of students on virtual learning course. Talpiyot: Academic college of education yearbook 13-14, 2006, pp. 221-235 (In Hebrew).
  8. Brett, C. (2006, May). Why reading matters even more in the digital age. Educational Computing Organization of Ontario Annual Conference, Toronto. Retrieved: February 6, 2007, from
  9. Brunken, R., Plass, J.L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53-61.
  10. Cavanaugh, M.A., Milcovich, G.T., & Tang, J. (2000). The human and technical dimensions of Multimedia Distance Learning (MDL): A study of MDL effectiveness in global human resource management class-Working Paper. New York: Cornell University.
  11. Dabbagh, N. (2002). Using a Web-Based course management tool to support face-to-face instruction. Technology Source, March-April. Retrieved August 11, 2003, from
  12. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, Mass: Heath.
  13. Dweck, C.S. & Bempechat, J. (1983). Children's theories of intelligence: Consequences for learning. In: S.G. Paris, G.M. Olson& H.W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 239256).
  14. Ennis, R.H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J.B. Baron& R.S. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26). New York: W.H. Freeman.
  15. Ennis, R.H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18, 4-10.
  16. Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-106. Retrieved November 14, 2005, from Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
  17. Fitzpatrick, R. (2001). Is distance education better than the traditional classroom? Accelerating the point of information. Retrieved January 10, 2003, from Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning, In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspective and practice (pp. 8-13). NY: Teacher College, Columbia University Press.
  18. Gelbart, R. (2000). Improving collaboration in distance learning courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale.
  19. Gunn, C. (2001, December). Effective online teaching– How far do the frameworks go? In Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCLITE, 2001, pp. 235-244), Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved November
  20. Harmon, S., & Hirum, A. (1996). A systemic approach to the integration of interactive distance learning into education and training. Journal Education for Business, 71, 267-271.
  21. Henry, L.A. (2006). Searching for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59, 614-627.
  22. Hirumi, A. (1999). Student-Centered, Technology-Rich Learning Environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. University of Houston. E-learning Environments in Academy
  23. Idan, A. (2001). E-Learning– The future learning and its institutions. Eureka, 14. [Online]. Retrieved May 11, 2004 from Insung, J. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the context of distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 525-534.
  24. Kanai, E. (1999). E-learning models. Studies in Science and Technology, 30, 3-10. (In Hebrew).
  25. Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.
  26. Lipman, M., Sharp, A., & Oscanyon, F. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  27. Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
  28. McPeck, J.E. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  29. Metros, S.E., & Woolsey, K. (2006). Visual literacy: An institutional imperative. Educause Review, 41(3), 80-81. Retrieved December 24, 2006, from Mor, N. (2001). Learning concept perception changes as a function of experiencing a new learning environment. Doctoral Dissertation, School of Education, University of Haifa (In Hebrew).
  30. Newell, A. (1990). Theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  31. Nickerson, R., Perkins, D.N., & Smith, E. (1985). The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  32. Passmore, J. (1967). On teaching to be critical. In R.S. Peters (Ed.), The concept of education (pp. 192212).
  33. Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-11.
  34. Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 39(1), 1-21.
  35. Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G. Kirkman (Ed.), The global information technology report: Readiness for the networked world (pp. 32-37). Oxford University Press.
  36. Rimor, R., & Kozminsky, E. (2003). An analysis of the reflections of students in online courses. Research Report for Burda Center for Innovative Communications. [Online]. Retrieved December 26, 2008, from Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in learning from different sources. Educational Psychologist, 18, 42-50.
  37. Schrag, F. (1988). Thinking in school and society. New York: Routledge.
  38. Salomon, G. (2000). Technology and education in the information age. University of Haifa. (In Hebrew).
  39. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D.N. (1996). Learning in wonderland: What computers really offer to education? In S. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of education (pp. 111-130). NSSE Yearbook. Chicago:
  40. Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  41. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp.19-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers& Education, 34, 119-140.
  43. Tyler-Smith, K. (2006). Early attrition among first time e-learners: A review of factors that contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners undertaking e-learning programs. JOLT: Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 2(2). Retrieved December 10, 2006, from
  44. Wadmany, R., Rimor, R., & Rozner, E. (2011). The relationship between attitude, thinking and activity of students in an e-learning course. REM – Research on Education and Media, 3(1).
  45. Whipp, J.L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a Web-Based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5-22.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact