e-learning, designing and implementing
DESCRIPTION
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and ImplementingTRANSCRIPT
Volume 5, No.65, 2010
Contents
Defining a Semantic Web-based Framework for EnablingAutomatic Reasoning on CIM-based Management PlatformsBy Deryn M. Watson
for Continuous Water Level ModelingBy Helen Drenoyianni
A Preliminary Study on the Suitability of Data Driven Approach
of the Future. Carolyn Dowling and Kwok-Wing LaiBy R. Kara and M. Can
LOD exploitation and Fast Silhouette Detection for ShadowVolumesBy Rachel Or-Bach and Wouter R. Van Joolingen
Information and Communication Technology and the Teacher
E-Learning in Higher EducationBy C. Periasamy
By Wishart, J. M Virtual Reality in Education
By Manetta.CDesigning and Implementing a Virtual Library
Communicate:
Guide Association (IJELDI)
7654, Boulevard Jourdan,
Paris-75014, France.
Tel: +33-1-63239349
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
Vol. 5, No. 65, (2010) pp.
ISSN 5372-8942
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
E-Learning in Higher Education
C. Periasamy1
Abstract
Teaching and learning are no longer confined to class room or school or college today. There are many technologies that can offer a great deal of flexibility in, when, where and how education is distributed. The e-Learning technologies are indented in implementing e-Learning concepts. This study argued Why is e-learning important for Higher Education, Technological Change and the Learning Experience and E-Learning through Stakeholders. It is concluded that Stakeholder group has an important role to play while working together towards the common goal of enhancing the overall learning experience. Students and Instructors should participate as proactively as possible; provide feedback to improve future experiences, and communicate the learning possibilities that e-learning creates. Institutions should provide the technical infrastructure and support needed to enable comprehensive solutions. Content and Technology Providers should provide high quality, interoperable solutions that consider learning principles. Accreditation Bodies should provide and enforce clear guidelines for this new form of learning delivery. Employers need to recognize the validity of this form of education and work with other stakeholders to ensure that graduates meet the needs of the job market. Institutions of higher education could utilize the stakeholders’ responsibility matrix presented in this paper as a starting point when undertaking a new e-learning initiative. The stakeholders involved and their associated responsibilities could then be adapted to the nature of the particular initiative at hand.
Keywords: E-Learning, Higher Education
E-Learning in Higher Education
Introduction
Teaching and learning are no longer confined to class room or school or college
today. There are many technologies that can offer a great deal of flexibility in, when,
where and how education is distributed. The e-Learning technologies are indented in
implementing e-Learning concepts. The first general purposes e-Learning system was
the PLATO system, developed at the University of Illinois, USA. The PLATO system
involves control data, which created the first authorizing software used to create e-
Learning content. The authoring software is called PLATO.
Subsequently, the same e-Learning system was introduced in Singapore as a joint
operation between WICAT and BAAL system. It is from this design the entire
computer learning centers globally evolved which was pioneer of e-Learning.
Organization such as SKILLSOFT, EPIC and learning steps.com are leading innovators
1 General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
IJELDI, vol. 5, No.65 (2010)
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1566
in the design and development of e-Learning in the commercial world. Of all these
organizations, SKILLSOFT is the largest and most experienced in the global e-Learning
market.
Definition of e-Learning
Any learning that utilizes a network (LAN, WAN or INTERNET) for delivering
interaction or facilitation is called e-Learning. This would include distributed Learning,
e-Learning (Other than pure correspondence), computer based training, delivered over
network, and web based training synchronous, asynchronous instructor lead, or
computer based or a combination. Distance education, distributed learning or remote
education are the synonymous, conveying the same meaning as e-Learning and defined
by the following criteria:
1. The teacher and students are separated by distance (this distance could make
different class rooms in the same school or different locations, thousands of
miles apart).
2. The instruction is delivered by print, voice, video or computer technologies.
3. The communication is interactive. In that the teacher receives some feedback
from students. The feedback may be immediate or delayed.
The classification of e-Learning is given in the following Table 1:
Technology Synchronous Asynchronous
Video Video conferencing 1) Videotape
2) Video Broadcast
Audio Audio conferencing 1) Audiotape
2) Radio
Data 1) Internet Chat
2) Desktop
3) Video conferencing
1) E-mail
2) CD-ROM
E-Learning in Higher Education
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1567
Why is e-learning important for Higher Education
A student who is learning in a way that uses Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) is using e-learning. These interactive technologies support many
different types of capability:
IJELDI, vol. 5, No.65 (2010)
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1568
v internet access to digital versions of materials unavailable locally
v internet access to search, and transactional services
v interactive diagnostic or adaptive tutorials
v interactive educational games
v remote control access to local physical devices
v personalised information and guidance for learning support
v simulations or models of scientific systems
v communications tools for collaboration with other students and teachers
v tools for creativity and design
v virtual reality environments for development and manipulation
v data analysis, modelling or organisation tools and applications
v electronic devices to assist disabled learners
For each of these, there is a learning application that could be exploited within
Higher Education. Each one encompasses a wide range of different types of interaction
– internet access to services, for example, includes news services, blogs, online auctions,
self-testing sites, etc. Moreover, the list above could be extended further by considering
combinations of applications. Imagine, for example, a remotely controlled observatory
webcam embedded in an online conference environment for astronomy students; or a
computer-aided design device embedded in a role-play environment for students of
urban planning.
The range and scale of possible applications of new technologies in Higher
Education is almost beyond imagining because, while we try to cope with what is
possible now, another technological application is becoming available that will extend
those possibilities even further. Everything in this chapter will need updating again
when 3G mobile phones begin to have an impact on our behaviour. Never mind; we
keep the focus on principles and try to maintain our equanimity in the face of these
potentially seismic changes.
E-learning is defined for our purpose here as the use of any of the new
technologies or applications in the service of learning or learner support. It is important
because e-learning can make a significant difference: to how learners learn, how quickly
they master a skill, how easy it is to study; and, equally important, how much they enjoy
E-Learning in Higher Education
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1569
learning. Such a complex set of technologies will make different kinds of impact on the
experience of learning:
Cultural – students are comfortable with e-learning methods, as they are similar
to the forms of information search and communications methods they use in other
parts of their lives.
Intellectual – interactive technology offers a new mode of engagement with
ideas via both material and social interactivity online
Social - the reduction in social difference afforded by online networking fits with
the idea that students should take greater responsibility for their own learning
Practical – e-learning offers the ability to manage quality at scale, and share
resources across networks; its greater flexibility of provision in time and place makes it
good for widening participation
There is also a financial impact. Networks and access to online materials offer
an alternative to place-based education which reduces the requirement for expensive
buildings, and the costs of delivery of distance learning materials.
Technological Change and the Learning Experience
The information revolution is sometimes compared with the Gutenberg
revolution, when the printing press harnessed a mass delivery system to the medium of
the written word. It is a good parallel to draw for the impact of the Internet, but it
undervalues the other key feature of the interactive computer - its ability to adapt. The
simple fact that it can adapt its behaviour according to a person’s input means that we
can engage with knowledge through this medium in a radically different way.
A better analogy than the printing press, to give a sense of the power of this
revolution, is the invention of writing. When our society had to represent its
accumulated wisdom through oral communication alone, the process of accretion of
communal knowledge was necessarily slow. Writing gave us the means to record our
knowledge, reflect on it, re-articulate it, and hence critique it. The means by which the
individual was able to engage with the ideas of the society became radically different as
we developed a written culture. When a text is available in written form, it becomes
easier to cope with more information, to compare one part with another, to re-read, re-
analyse, reorganize and retrieve. All these aspects of ‘knowledge management’ became
IJELDI, vol. 5, No.65 (2010)
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1570
feasible in a way that had not been possible when knowledge could only be
remembered. The earliest surviving text - the Rosetta Stone - shows that ‘information
management’ was an important benefit of the medium, recording the resources
available, allowing a tally to be kept, enabling better management of the way the society
operated.
The nature of the medium has a critical impact on the way we engage with the
knowledge being mediated. The oral medium has the strength of having a greater
emotional impact on us which enables action through motivation; the written medium
has the strength of enabling a more analytical approach to action. As we create and
generate knowledge and information we naturally use different media, depending on the
nature of the content and the objective we want to achieve. It is impossible, for
example, to use a verbatim transcript of a lively lecture for a print version. The spoken
word written down usually reads badly. Medium and message are interdependent; there
is an internal relation between them.
A spreadsheet holds a different kind of working model. It holds not just data
but also ways of calculating with the data to represent different behaviours of a system.
A common application is for modelling cash flow for a business. The user can
determine the initial data about costs and pricing, for example, and the spreadsheet
calculates the profit. By changing the prices, the user can experiment with the effects on
profits. The cash flow model embodies an assumption about the effect of prices on
sales - for example, that they will fall if the price goes above a certain limit. But the user
can also change that assumption, by changing the formulae the spreadsheet uses for
calculating profits. So there are two ways in which the user can engage with this model
of the cash flow system: by changing the inputs to the model, and by changing the
model. The adaptive nature of the medium offers a creative environment in which the
user can inspect, critique, re-version, customize, re-create, design, create, and articulate a
model of the world, wholly different from the kind of model that can be created
through the written word.
These two examples illustrate the power of the interactive computer to do a lot
more than simply provide access to information. It makes the processing of that
information possible, so that the interaction becomes a knowledge-building exercise.
Yet the excitement about information technology has been focused much more on the
E-Learning in Higher Education
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1571
access than on the processing it offers. And the technology developments so far have
reflected that. The focus has been on the presentation of information to the user, not
on tools for the user to manipulate information.
The sequence of technological change in interactive technologies has been a
historical accident, driven by curiosity, the market, luck, politics – never by the needs of
learners. Learning technologies have been developing haphazardly, and a little too
rapidly for those of us who wish to turn them to advantage in learning. This becomes
apparent if we compare these technological developments with the historical
development of other key technologies for education. Table 1 shows some of the main
developments in information, communication, and delivery technologies over the last
three decades, and against each one proposes a functional equivalent from the historic
media and delivery technologies. The story begins with interactive computers because
the move away from batch processing brought computing to non-programmers. The
user had access to a new medium which responded immediately to the information they
put in. As a medium for information processing, it was radically different from the
much more attenuated relationship between reading and writing, thus creating a new
kind of medium for engaging with ideas.
There is one very striking point about Table 2. The development in information
and communication technologies over the last three decades is comparable with the
development in information and communication technologies over the last three millennia.
No doubt there are alternative ways of drafting such a table, but that point at least is
likely to be common to any analysis of ICT.
Attempting to construct these equivalences is instructive in itself. It is difficult to
represent the importance of computer-mediated conferencing, for example, as there is
really no clear historical equivalent to enabling large group discussion across huge
distances. Table 1 does not cover the full range of new technology forms, but succeeds,
nonetheless, in illustrating the extraordinary capabilities of the technologies we are now
struggling to exploit. We have to be aware of the impact this fecund inventiveness is
having on our intellectual life. The chronological sequence of discoveries obeys no user
requirements analysis of learners’ needs – electronic inventions are created by engineers
and computer scientists working in a spirit of enthusiastic co-operation, debugged in the
crucible of intensive peer-review (Naughton, 1999) - but the sequence matters.
IJELDI, vol. 5, No.65 (2010)
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1572
Table 2: New media and delivery technologies for information processing and
communications compared with their functional equivalents for reading and writing
Date New technology Old technology equivalent
Learning support function
1970’s Interactive computers
Writing New medium for articulating and engaging with ideas
Local hard drives and floppy discs
Paper Local storage with the user
1980’s WIMP interfaces Contents, indexes, page numbers
Devices for ease of access to content
Internet Printing Mass production and distribution of content
Multimedia Photography, sound, and film
Elaborated forms of content presentation
1990’s Worldwide Web Libraries Wide access to extensive content
Laptops Published books Personal portable access to the medium
Email Postal services Mass delivery of communications messages
Search engines Bibliographic services Easier access to extensive content
Broadband Broadcasting, telephones
Choice of elaborated content and immediacy of communication
2000’s 3G Mobiles Paperbacks Low-cost access to elaborate content
Blogs Pamphlets Personal mass publishing E-Learning through Stakeholders�
Students
Students are the consumers of e-learning. In the context of higher education,
they are under-graduate or graduate students enrolled at a university or college. Students
are motivated to use e-learning to gain access to higher education. For some, it may be a
component of a traditional course; while for others entire courses may be entirely
online. Particularly for this second group, e-learning may create access to higher
education that they would not have otherwise because of geographic or time constraints.
E-learning presents an entirely new learning environment for students, thus
requiring a different skill set to be successful. Critical thinking, research, and evaluation
E-Learning in Higher Education
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1573
skills are growing in importance as students have increasing volumes of information
from a variety of sources to sort through. Also, particularly in courses that are entirely
electronic, students are much more independent than in the traditional setting. This
requires that they be highly motivated and committed to learning, with less social
interaction with peers or an instructor. Students in online courses tend to do as well as
those in classrooms, but there is higher incidence of withdrawal or incomplete grades
Instructors
In e-learning, as in traditional classroom learning, instructors guide the
educational experiences of students. Depending on the mode of e-learning delivery,
instructors may or may not have face-to-face interaction with their students. Instructors
may be motivated to use e-learning in their courses for a variety of reasons. For
example, they may be encouraged or pressured by their institutions; they may wish to
reach a broader audience of students; or they may have an interest in the benefits of
technology mediated learning. E-learning technologies bring as much change to
instructors as they do to students, again requiring a new set of skills for success. In the
e-learning environment, instructors shift from being the primary source of students’
knowledge to being the manager of the students’ knowledge resources. For example, in
a traditional classroom scenario, the instructor delivers the content to the class and
responds to their questions. In contrast, in a technology only asynchronous e-learning
environment, the instructor is more of a coordinator of the content, which students
then peruse at their own pace. Thus, the skills that are most important for an instructor
to possess may depend on the e-learning attributes of their course.
Educational Institutions
Educational institutions, in the context of higher education, include colleges and
universities. In addition to the traditional list of postsecondary institutions, the rise in
popularity of e-learning has lead to the creation of new, online only educational
institutions. Educational institutions integrate technology into classrooms to facilitate
lecture delivery and create new technology mediated learning opportunities for students.
They provide distance learning, including e-learning, to create access to a larger pool of
students. As e-learning becomes more widely accepted and more courses are offered
IJELDI, vol. 5, No.65 (2010)
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1574
online, geographic boundaries between institutions and students are removed often,
budgetary restriction is a primary issue for institutions. Tight budgets make it difficult to
implement broad, campus-wide e-learning solutions. There is a tendency for individual
departments to implement their own solutions, which may not be consistent with the
rest of the institution. This reduces the potential for cross-departmental efficiencies, and
can make the process more complicated for faculty, staff, and students, particularly if
they are involved with more than one department. Depending on the technological
infrastructure in place at an institution, the implementation of e-learning courses can
involve very costly technology upgrades. E-learning systems require several components
including sufficient bandwidth, course management systems, technology equipped
classrooms, and adequate computer facilities for student use. This increase in
technology generally requires a corresponding increase in support staff as well.
Content Providers
In the higher education context, online course content may be created by
instructors or acquired from external sources. The growth in e-learning has created a
market for commercialized educational content creators, particularly for more
introductory courses that are offered consistently at multiple institutions. Whether the
content provider is the instructor or an external source, their motivation is to provide
content modules that will result in effective learning. Commercial content providers are
motivated by profit to develop content modules that are flexible enough to be readily
utilized across institutions with minimal adaptation efforts. The main concern for
content providers in e-learning tends to be intellectual capital rights. Independent
content providers in particular, need to ensure their retention of copy rights in order to
sell their product to multiple customers.
Technology Providers
Technology providers develop the technology that enables e-learning delivery.
This category consists of a broad range of services, from the facilitation of individual
distance learning courses, to complete Learning Management Systems (LMS) provided
by companies such as Blackboard. Similar to content providers, technology providers
are motivated to provide learning environments that will result in effective learning for
E-Learning in Higher Education
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1575
students. Technology standards are an important consideration for this stakeholder
group as well. Since educational institutions often have different solutions implemented
by various departments, adherence to common standards facilitates interoperability.
Constant evolution in hardware and consumer expectations creates pressure for
technology providers to rush to market with new product offerings. In order for these
businesses to be sustainable, the cost of pursuing this constant innovation must be
controlled.
Accreditation Bodies
Accreditation bodies are organizations that assess the quality of education
institutions offerings. Those institutions meeting the minimum requirements will be
accredited, providing them a level of credibility that non-accredited institutions will not
possess. As the proportion of education delivered by electronic means grows, it is
increasingly important for accreditation bodies to encompass e-learning in their
standards. Neglecting to do so will limit the relevance of their accreditation since it will
only be relevant to the traditional education component of educational institutions’
offerings. The growth of e-learning presents new challenges for accreditation bodies. As
the number of learning institution grows in an attempt to capitalize on the excess
demand for higher education, accreditation bodies have an increasing number of
institutions seeking their approval. This increase in volume of work is combined with a
change in the
nature of the work that these bodies do. The Council for Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA) in the United States defines distance learning as educational or
instructional activity that is delivered electronically to students at a distance. By this
definition, all distance learning (including e-learning) is subject to the same accreditation
and securitization.
Employers
Employers, in this context, are those organizations that will potentially hire
graduates of higher education institutions. Often, there is a tendency for employers to
view online education from reputable traditional institutions in a more positive light;
however the acceptance of online degrees in general is increasing (Chaney, 2002). This is
IJELDI, vol. 5, No.65 (2010)
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1576
a positive trend for e-learning in general and for completely online educational
institutions in particular. Employers are increasingly motivated to consider e-learning as
a higher education alternative. Denying the value of e-learning will restrict their pool of
potential hires. It will also limit the availability of courses and professional development
activities that their employees may participate in. Since many students pursue higher
education for the purpose of beginning or advancing their careers, a lack of support for
e-learning by employers could deter employees from pursuing their coursework through
electronic means, thereby restricting their opportunities. One issue that employers have
with e-learning is the decreased interpersonal interaction inherent in many of these
courses. Employers typically rank technical skills and expertise from 6 to 8 on a scale of
10, and rank interpersonal skills to be of higher importance. Some feel that while e-
learning may be suitable for delivering content, it may not be capable of developing
these interpersonal skills that employers value so highly.
Conclusion
E-learning is a large and growing market with great potential in higher
education. In order to maximize this potential, e-learning implementations should
endeavor to satisfy the needs and concerns of all stakeholder groups as much as
possible. The Stakeholders’ analysis undertaken in this paper and culminating in the
Stakeholders’ Responsibility Matrix is a step in that direction.
Stakeholder group has an important role to play while working together towards
the common goal of enhancing the overall learning experience. Students and Instructors
should participate as proactively as possible; provide feedback to improve future
experiences, and communicate the learning possibilities that e-learning creates.
Institutions should provide the technical infrastructure and support needed to enable
comprehensive solutions. Content and Technology Providers should provide high
quality, interoperable solutions that consider learning principles. Accreditation Bodies
should provide and enforce clear guidelines for this new form of learning delivery.
Employers need to recognize the validity of this form of education and work with other
stakeholders to ensure that graduates meet the needs of the job market.
Institutions of higher education could utilize the stakeholders’ responsibility
matrix presented in this paper as a starting point when undertaking a new e-learning
E-Learning in Higher Education
International Journal of E-Learning, Designing and Implementing
1577
initiative. The stakeholders involved and their associated responsibilities could then be
adapted to the nature of the particular initiative at hand. As such, the matrix will help
institutions to identify the appropriate stakeholders’ and develop a set of expectations
for each.
References 1. Ebner, M., Scherbako, N., Maurer, H(2005). New feature for e-Learning in higher education
for civil Engineering. IN: G Richards (ED) proceeding of world conference on e-Learning in
Corporate, Office, Govt. Healthcare and Higher education 2002, PP 635-642.
2. Sadik Alaa (2007). The readiness of faculty member to develop and implement e-Learning: The
case of an Egyptian University, EJ 763594.
3. Wang, L (2002). Student perceptions toward using instant messenger to facilitate e-Learning
online interaction in conventional versus virtual graduate classrooms. N : G Richards (ED).
Proceedings of world conference on e-Learning in Corporate Office, Govt. Healthcare and
Higher education 2002, pp. 2353-2355.
4. Chea (2002a). Accreditation and Assuring Quality in Distance Learning. CHEA Monograph Series 2002,
Volume 1, retrieved July 1, 2007 from http://www.chea.org/pdf/
mono_1_accred_distance_02.pdf.
5. CHEA (2002b). Specialized Accreditation and Assuring Quality in Distance Learning. CHEA
Monograph Series 2002, Volume 2, retrieved July 1, 2007 from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/mono_2_spec-accred_02.pdf.
6. Zhang, D., Zhou, L., & Briggs, R.O. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the
impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & Management, 43, 15-27.
7. Collis., B. A., & Wende, M.C. van der (Eds.) (2002). Models of Technology and Change in
Higher Education, An international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in
Higher Education. Enschede; University of Twente.
8. Oblinger, D. G., & Hawkins, B. L. (2005). The myth about E-learning. Educause review.
9. Singh, G., O’ Donoghue, J. & Worton, H. (2003). A study into the effects of e-Learning on
higher education. JUTLP, (2) 1. Retrieved July 22, 2005 from
http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i01/odonoghue003.html.
10. Knight, J. (2002) Trade in Higher Education Services: The Implications of GATS, The Observatory on
Borderless Higher Education, London.