E-Learning, Designing and Implementing

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


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


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)


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



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)


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



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)


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



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)


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



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)


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



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)


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



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.

http://www.chea.org/pdf/mono_2_spec-accred_02.pdf

http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i01/odonoghue003.html

Date post:	19-Jun-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ijeldi
View:	166 times
Download:	4 times

E-Learning, Designing and Implementing

Documents