
Volume 1 Issue 1 / Feb 2003
pp1‑50
Editor: Roy Williams
Editorial
To paraphrase the old adage about the relationship between the US and the UK: when the dot‑com’s sneeze, e‑learning catches a cold. The shake out from the ICT dot‑coms crashes, exacerbated by 9‑11 and the US corporate governance scandals put a temporary damper on developments in the ICT and e‑learning sector. But a more realistic attitude to investment in the “knowledge/networked/ learning society” is surely a good thing.
This is a good time to step back and see where we are in e‑learning. So in November 2002 the European Conference on e‑learning was held at Brunel University in London. More than 40 academics and practitioners from the private and public sectors met to exchange ideas, from the Middle East, North America, and all parts of Europe. It was decided to launch an e‑journal to continue this discussion, to publish papers from the conference as well as from other contributors. This first edition of the Electronic Journal of e‑Learning (EJEL) includes a selection of papers presented at the conference. These papers reflect the challenging nature of designing, developing, managing and above all, evaluating e‑learning.
One of the benefits of the recent shakeout in ICT is that most people are now talking of blended learning – quite simply: using the media that are available, and no longer trying to squeeze everything through a not‑very‑broad‑band Internet, for instance. So, WebCD’s are OK, paper has its role, face to face training and learning is valuable, and the trick is to get the “blend” right. And there is still plenty that digitalisation will bring – in mobile/wireless technologies and broadband particularly. All of this is most welcome, and very healthy for the IT sector as well as for learning.
Research in e‑learning is now starting to provide a systematic critique of what might be called the first phase in the development of e‑learning. Up to now, much of the activity has been to get it up and running, to establish the three or four VLE platforms, at least one Open Source VLE – Bodington Common – (http://bodington.org/index.html) and to deliver the goods. That has been done. The second phase will be to develop the next generation of platforms, and provide more user‑friendly environments for learning, as opposed to just ensuring the delivery of courses.
But in order to do that, particularly in the current financial climate, we need to know what works, what fields e‑learning can be applied to, what other modes of communication and learning it fits best alongside – in a blended approach, and of course what it cannot do. We also need to know what it costs. It is crucial to realise that most e‑learning is just a new form of distance education, and that in all good distance education, the up‑front costs are considerable – it is front‑loaded as far as investment is concerned. And that investment is not just financial. The crucial element is to train and support staff and students who are making the substantial transition from face‑to‑face teaching and learning to e‑learning. As Tracy Kent writes in her paper, quoting from the JISC guidelines:
""the implementation of a VLE [Virtual Learning Environment] without significant investment in developing staff will almost certainly not produce good results"".
We welcome papers from anyone who has interesting empirical, theoretical or critical work that they would like to publish. We are also pleased to have case studies, reports on action research was well as reports on work‑in‑progress. All papers will be double blind refereed.
This is a good time to step back and see where we are in e‑learning. So in November 2002 the European Conference on e‑learning was held at Brunel University in London. More than 40 academics and practitioners from the private and public sectors met to exchange ideas, from the Middle East, North America, and all parts of Europe. It was decided to launch an e‑journal to continue this discussion, to publish papers from the conference as well as from other contributors. This first edition of the Electronic Journal of e‑Learning (EJEL) includes a selection of papers presented at the conference. These papers reflect the challenging nature of designing, developing, managing and above all, evaluating e‑learning.
One of the benefits of the recent shakeout in ICT is that most people are now talking of blended learning – quite simply: using the media that are available, and no longer trying to squeeze everything through a not‑very‑broad‑band Internet, for instance. So, WebCD’s are OK, paper has its role, face to face training and learning is valuable, and the trick is to get the “blend” right. And there is still plenty that digitalisation will bring – in mobile/wireless technologies and broadband particularly. All of this is most welcome, and very healthy for the IT sector as well as for learning.
Research in e‑learning is now starting to provide a systematic critique of what might be called the first phase in the development of e‑learning. Up to now, much of the activity has been to get it up and running, to establish the three or four VLE platforms, at least one Open Source VLE – Bodington Common – (http://bodington.org/index.html) and to deliver the goods. That has been done. The second phase will be to develop the next generation of platforms, and provide more user‑friendly environments for learning, as opposed to just ensuring the delivery of courses.
But in order to do that, particularly in the current financial climate, we need to know what works, what fields e‑learning can be applied to, what other modes of communication and learning it fits best alongside – in a blended approach, and of course what it cannot do. We also need to know what it costs. It is crucial to realise that most e‑learning is just a new form of distance education, and that in all good distance education, the up‑front costs are considerable – it is front‑loaded as far as investment is concerned. And that investment is not just financial. The crucial element is to train and support staff and students who are making the substantial transition from face‑to‑face teaching and learning to e‑learning. As Tracy Kent writes in her paper, quoting from the JISC guidelines:
""the implementation of a VLE [Virtual Learning Environment] without significant investment in developing staff will almost certainly not produce good results"".
We welcome papers from anyone who has interesting empirical, theoretical or critical work that they would like to publish. We are also pleased to have case studies, reports on action research was well as reports on work‑in‑progress. All papers will be double blind refereed.
Keywords: e-learning, organisational learning, online learning, virtual learning, distance learning, knowledge, WEBCT, interactive, interactivity, distributed learning, blended learning, digital learning, knowledge management
Share this item:
Look inside Download PDF (free)
Abstract
At the University of Birmingham, Information Services, together with the Staff Development Unit and the Learning Development Unit have been working together to set up a number of initiatives to support staff to use WebCT to underpin its learning and teaching strategy within a flexible framework. The framework seeks to invest in developing appropriate skills and training for University staff to ensure that the quality of the content and the communication tools within the WebCT environment are fully exploited to enhance the student learning experience. Developments include the establishment of an e‑Learning module, team based projects from the Learning Development Unit and a WebCT training and support pathway.
Keywords: WebCT, Academic and support staff training, e-Learning in higher education, University of Birmingham
Share this item:
Mary Dyson, Silvio Barreto Campello
Look inside Download PDF (free)
Abstract
A basic framework is proposed to distinguish between the many ways in which Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) can be evaluated. This includes the purpose of the evaluation, the type of methods that might be used and the measures employed. The framework is not intended to cover all applications but offers one means of structuring a review of past studies or may provide guidance on the type of study to conduct. A pilot study is introduced which compares an online course using different platforms which aims to measure engagement, participation and achievement of goals.
Share this item:
Look inside Download PDF (free)
Abstract
The studies described in this paper sought to investigate several forms of online learning and assessment methods in terms their efficacy in facilitating student learning. The studies also sought to investigate how participants rated each method. Attitudes toward computer‑assisted learning were not related to performance on each of the online methods employed, whereas some relationships were noted between cognitive styles and online learning and assessment. Finally, evaluation feedback from participants indicated that each online task was rated positively. Implications of the findings for further implementation of online instructional methods are discussed.
Share this item:
Look inside Download PDF (free)
Abstract
The potential of the World Wide Web for rapid global communication is driving the creation of specifically tailored courses for employees, yet few practitioners have the necessary experience in on‑line teaching methods, or in preparing documents for the web. Experience gained in developing six online training modules for the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry sectors is informing the development by a partnership of academics and practitioners of seven online modules that will meet requirements for continuing professional development in the health sector. This paper highlights lessons for success.
Share this item:
Look inside Download PDF (free)
Abstract
This paper reports on a study to determine if existing technology is adequate for the delivery of quality distance education. The survey sample was 392 respondents from a non‑traditional graduate level. The study included 15 descriptive questions on course assessment and satisfaction. The three hypotheses used Chi‑square to find relationships between interactivity and three other variables: progress, communication mode, and the desire to take another course. Responses showed that taking a distance education course was worthwhile. Findings, recommendations and conclusion are included.
Keywords: Distance Education, Quality, Interactive, Technology Assessments, E-learning, Interactivity
Share this item:
Look inside Download PDF (free)
Abstract
This paper addresses some key design issues in e‑learning, and its integration with knowledge management. The underlying premise is that the purpose of e‑learning is useful knowledge, and that the design of e‑learning should therefore be integrated with the design of related knowledge management — particularly personal knowledge management. e‑learning will be explored using the notion of "distributed learning". Knowledge management will be explored using the notion of "just‑in‑context knowledge", emphasising both the contextual underpinning of knowledge, and its strategic value — that is to say its applied value, and its embeddedness in decision making processes. The potential for distributed learning to optimise shared resources is also explored.
Keywords: Distributed learning, e-learning, knowledge management, just-in-context knowledge management, digital learning, blended learning
Share this item: