VOL. 25, No. 1
This article examines the problem of defining a broad conceptual theory for the applications of the advanced technologies in educational settings, most particularly in higher education. The article starts with discussing the multiple and confusing meanings of e-learning in the relevant literature; it proceeds to examine the problem of putting the learners in the center of the study process and exaggerating their self-directed abilities; it identifies noticeable gaps in the e-learning research; and it concludes with an analysis of some inherent challenges embedded in both conducting meaningful research on the advanced technologies in learning/teaching settings and in their actual implementation.
E-learning is a generic term used to describe a wide range of applications of electronic technologies (TV, radio, CD-ROM, DVD, cell phone, Internet, etc.) in study environments, with a special emphasis on learning through the web. In the last two decades, hundreds of scholarly articles, books, conferences and symposia have been devoted to examining the rich plethora of uses of advanced technologies in educational settings from kindergarten to universities, from the public sector to the private and corporate worlds. Some zealous advocates of electronic technologies have gone as far as predicting a total overhaul of traditional education institutions, and an introduction of a new paradigm of learning/teaching (Drucker, 1997, 1998; Duderstadt et al., 2002; Matkin, 2002). Peter Drucker, for instance, predicted in 1997 that "thirty years from now the big university campuses will be relics. Universities won't survive. It is a large a change as when we first got the printed book" (Drucker, 1997). However, several years on, the euphoria surrounding the sweeping effects of advanced technologies on education systems and training markets has subsided. It turned out that the implementation process of technologies is much more complicated than expected, and that the obvious advantages of the new technologies are far from being self-evident.
To date electronic technologies have affected the management and administration of educational institutions and the corporate world, the enhancement of research networks, the restructuring of libraries, the production process of books, journals and newspapers, the design of the physical infrastructure of study environments, the establishment of new institutes based mainly on e-learning, and various changes in teaching/learning processes at all educational levels. However, though the far-reaching expectations of the 1990s were related mainly to the domain of learning/teaching practices, most of the sweeping expectations have not materialized so far (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009a). It was assumed that the new technologies would transform learning and teaching processes from being highly teacher-dominated to student-centered, and that this transformation would enable students to develop their problem-solving abilities, information reasoning skills, communication skills, creativity, and other higher order thinking skills. However, there is limited research data to support these claims. (Arafeh, 2004; Guri-Rosenblit, 2005, 2009a; Trucano, 2005; Zemsky & Massy, 2004).
Obviously, we are dealing with a relatively young phenomenon that has not yet established clear boundaries. The immaturity of the e-learning field is reflected in a plethora of different terms trying to depict the nature of the new technologies in educational and training environments, in scattered research findings which are often contradictory, and in a lack of consolidation of the many findings into a coherent conceptual theoretical framework.
In this article we attempt to clarify some of the confusion that exists in the field of e-learning research, we identify some of the key research gaps, and we discuss some of the challenges to the implementation of e-learning. We make four major and related points:
Multiple Terms
Electronic technologies are quite complex and serve a wide array of functions. The number of different terms used to describe e-learning in the literature creates confusion as to its actual and potential uses (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009a). Even a modest exploration of the growing number of articles and publications describing technology applications in study and training settings yields a long list of hard-to-distinguish terminology. There are currently multiple terms that describe the employment of the new technologies in learning/teaching settings, such as - Internet mediated teaching, web-based education, online education, computer-mediated communication (CMC), computer assisted learning, e-learning, virtual classrooms, information and communication technologies (ICT), open and distance learning (ODL), distributed learning, web-based learning, technology-enhanced learning, instructional technologies, virtual learning, etc. Donohue & Howe-Steiger (2005) claimed that the marketplace of ideas related to the applications of the new technologies has become a cacophony of jargon. The many terms describing the uses of electronic technologies in educational and training settings reflect the ambiguity as to their roles and functions, and highlight the fact that the domain of e-learning has not established itself yet as a well defined field of study and research.
Some terms focus on the interactivity of the online communication, while other definitions highlight the access to rich and remote data sources. Some scholars are excited by the sophistication of producing multi-media packages, whereas others are thrilled by the ability to apply collaborative work in the teaching/learning process. Most applications of the digital technologies are used as add-on functions in the traditional routine of teaching, while some other uses require a major restructuring of learning/teaching settings (Arafeh, 2004; Bates, 2005, 2009; Guri-Rosenblit, 2009a; Khan, 2005; OECD, 2005; Trucano, 2005).
There seems to be a "Tower of Babel" syndrome in the discourse on the applications of electronic technologies in educational and training settings, resulting from the fact that people refer to totally different roles and functions while using the same generic terms, and vice versa – use many different terms to describe the same phenomena (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009a). Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the new technologies are complex and portray a wide range of qualities and abilities in different domains of educational practices.
E-learning: Various Meanings
Multiple meanings are attached to the term e-learning. In a recent study on the definitions of e-learning, Sangrà and Vlachopoulos (2010) defined four categories of definitions related to the applications of e-learning: technology driven, delivery system oriented, communication oriented, and as an educational paradigm by itself.
Technology driven definitions emphasize the technological aspects of e-learning. For instance, Koohang & Harman (2005: 77) define e-learning as “the delivery of education through various electronic media. The electronic media could be the Internet, intranets, satellite TV, video/audio tape, and/or CD-ROM”. According to Qvortrup (2006: 17) e-learning is defined as “the use of new multimedia technologies and the Internet to improve the quality of learning by facilitating access to resources and services as well as remote exchanges and collaboration”.
Many definitions of e-learning focus on the delivery function. Abbas et al., for instance, state that: “E-learning can be defined as a wide set of applications and processes, which uses available electronic media (and tools) to deliver vocational education and training” (Abbas et al., 2005: 80). Moore provides another definition of e-learning: “(E-learning is) the delivery of learning, training or education program by electronic means” (Moore, 2006: 198).
E-learning is also characterized as support for communication and interaction. Several scholars emphasize the contribution of the new technologies to the constructive building of knowledge through dialogue and discussion between students and teacher and between students and other peer students. Herrington & Oliver (2000) claimed that e-learning can support and improve highly effective types of learner-to-learner interactions through various communication tools, guidance, coaching and feedback. Particularly, discussions and group work can contribute to the development of a collaborative, participative learning environment (Anderson & Elloumi, 2004; Rovai, 2004; Woo & Reeves, 2007).
The final category proposed by Sangra and Vlachopoulos (2010) is e-learning as an educational paradigm. Khan, for example, defines e-learning as "an innovative approach for delivering well-designed, learner-centered, interactive, and facilitated learning environment to anyone, anyplace, anytime by utilizing the attributes and resources of various digital technologies along with other forms of learning materials suited for an open, flexible, and distributed learning environment" (Khan, 2005:33). Henri referred to the holistic nature of e-learning as: “the appropriate application of the Internet to support the delivery of learning, skills and knowledge in a holistic approach not limited to any particular courses, technologies, or infrastructures” (Henri, 2001: 252). The Canadian Council on Learning (CCL, 2009) emphasized the contribution of e-learning to a life-long-learning concept: “E-learning provides students the flexibility to learn at their own pace at any stage in the lifespan - thereby fostering positive attitudes about the value of lifelong learning” (CCL, 2009).
The lack of a precise and widely accepted definition of e-learning and the confusion surrounding related terms describing the use of the electronic technologies, frequently causes misunderstanding and vigorous debates between researchers. For instance, when Zemsky and Massy (2004) published a controversial report on the failure of e-learning to achieve its initially proclaimed goals in American colleges and universities, they referred to e-learning as a "thwarted innovation". Carol Twigg published a critique against Zemsky and Massy's report questioning what e-learning does mean: Is e-learning "a faculty member at Foothill College using PowerPoint? A company like UNext trying to attract venture capital? A distance learning program serving off-campus students? An Ivy League university setting an ivy.com? Well, the answer is clear, it's all of the above and more" (Twigg, 2004).
The confusing terminology has an immense impact on blurred and confusing research outcomes. Bates has analyzed more than 200 studies on the applications of electronic technologies, and attested that it was impossible to determine from many of the studies what exactly is "e-learning", "online learning", "web-enhanced technology teaching", etc. (Bates, 2007). It is of tremendous importance to define clearly in each discourse or research on e-learning, or on any other relevant term, the exact parameters which are being referred to.
E-learning and Distance Education: Not Synonym Terms
A major problem with the discourse on e-learning is the confusion between the terms e-learning and distance education. Many policy makers, scholars and practitioners in higher education tend to use the two terms interchangeably, referring to e-learning as the new generation of distance education (Annand, 2007; Arafeh, 2004; Harasim, 2000; Nipper, 1989). For instance, in a comprehensive report issued by The Pew Learning and Technology Program in the USA it was stated that: "The terms 'distance learning', 'distance education', 'distributed learning' and 'online learning' are used more or less interchangeably" (Twigg, 2001: 4).
Bates stressed that "distance learning can exist without online learning, and online learning is not necessarily distance learning" (Bates, 2005: 14-15). Distance education and e-learning do overlap in some cases, and even some distance teaching universities, such the Universidad Oberta de Catalunya, are based on e-learning. However, in our view, "distance education" and e-learning" are not synonymous (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005, 2009a,b).
Distance education can be traced back many years, whereas e-learning is a relatively new phenomenon associated with the development of the Internet in the 1990s. E-learning is a direct descendant of instructional technology and computer-assisted instruction (Larremendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006), and its purpose has been less about bridging distance and more about the use of new technologies to enhance and enrich learning. E-learning is by no way exclusively meant for distance learners.
Furthermore, distance education, by its very definition, denotes the physical separation of the learner from the instructor, at least at certain stages of the learning process. Distance is not a defining characteristic of e-learning. None of the digital technologies' uses denotes the physical separation of the learner from the teacher at any stage of the study process. Many of the new technologies' qualities can be used most efficiently to enrich and support lectures, seminar meetings and face-to-face tutorials. In 2004/5 the OECD conducted an in-depth survey of e-learning practices in 19 tertiary education institutions in 13 countries in the Asia-Pacific region (OECD, 2005). One of the main conclusions was that: "Consistent with their current activities, institutions' dominant rationales for e-learning strategies at campus-based institutions centered on on-campus enhancement through increased flexibility of delivery and enhanced pedagogy" (OECD, 2005:13). In other words, most higher education institutions use the new technologies to enhance classroom encounters rather than adopt a distance teaching pedagogy. The fact is that distance education today in most higher education systems in not delivered through the new electronic media, and vice versa – e-learning applications in most universities and colleges all over the world are not used exclusively for distance education purposes (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009a).
Blended teaching which combines both face-to-face encounters and distance teaching methods is currently expanding both within conventional educational institutions and distance teaching institutions which offer, when possible, face-to-face tutorials, seminars and summer schools to augment the distance teaching delivery (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009a).
It is of tremendous importance when discussing and conducting research on the implementation of e-learning in various contexts, to clearly specify whether the examined applications are being used in distance teaching settings or in conventional schools and campus-based institutions; and whether this use is situated far from the campus or is geared towards on-campus students.
Can Students Learn by Themselves?
Many adherents of e-learning have emphasized the importance of putting students in the center of the teaching/learning process, and of designing student-centered programs that will enable students to develop high order thinking skills, and enhance their creativity and self-directedness. They claim that today's students are willing and able to design their own study programs based on their interests, and control their own study process. The underlying assumption is that the role of teachers in an e-learning environment should be reduced from a "sage on the stage" to a "guide on the side" (Dede, 2005; Veen, 2005).
The popular “net generation” discourse goes further and argues that the young generation of students who have been called "digital natives", "millennial students" or "Homo Zappiens", possess a natural inclination towards learning with technology and take more responsibility for their personal and educational activities (Candy, 2004; Dede, 2005; Oblinger, 2003; Veen, 2005). However, research does not support this view (Bullen et al., forthcoming). While many of today’s learners use ICT for various purposes, such as downloading music files, chatting with friends, playing games and even preparing fancy PowerPoint presentations, their ability to use digital technologies for learning is limited as is their preference for technology-mediated learning. Zemsky & Massy (2004), for example, concluded that one of the erroneous assumptions about e-learning was that "the kids will take to e-learning like ducks to water". They found that students used computers mainly to be entertained by games, music and movies, and they also wanted to present themselves and show off their work in sophisticated ways festooned with charts, animations and pictures, but most of them were not enthusiastic about studying through the web.
When Schramm et al. (2001) examined student perceptions of the effectiveness of web-based courses, they concluded that students generally felt inadequately trained for the online course experience, and most of them found the online method of delivery less effective and less satisfactory than their on-campus classes.
The Educational Testing Service (ETS) in the US, a non-profit group that created the SAT tests and a number of other standardized tests, have worked since 2001 with educators, information technology experts, and other institutions to develop a new test designed to measure what it means to be literate in the digital age (ETS, 2008). In their overview, they approach higher education institutions with the following question: "Your students can text message and download music files, but can they problem solve and think critically in a digital environment?" From their experience they conclude that: "Today's students are part of a technology-savvy generation, but they are often still at loss when it comes to using their critical thinking and problem solving skills in a digital environment; a skill set identified as Information and Communication Technology Literacy". It follows, that studying effectively and efficiently through electronic technologies requires training and study, and cannot be taken for granted as a natural attribute possessed by the young generation. Furthermore, it highlights the important role of teachers and experts in designing meaningful study experiences.
An interesting example portraying the important role of teachers is reflected in the adaptation of the materials provided by the Open Courseware Project of MIT. By putting syllabi and some other relevant materials of about 1,600 courses online, MIT has led the current open courseware movement (Olsen, 2002; Vest, 2007). Some professors at other universities worldwide have indicated that a typical MIT course load is too heavy for their students, and the materials deemed necessary for a quarter period at MIT would require a whole year for the students of their institutions (Olsen, 2002). The adaptation of the materials is conducted by expert teachers. Very few, if any, independent students benefitted from the MIT materials. This is particularly true at the undergraduate level. Many students lacked the ability to manage their learning independently. Most students need substantive guidance, support and counseling throughout their study.
Crucial Role of Teachers
The tendency to diminish the role of teachers in the digital age mirrors the response in the 1960s to Russia’s successful Sputnik launch of 1957, which prompted the investment of millions of dollars to produce high quality materials in sciences and other disciplines for kindergarten children and elementary school students,. Americans felt they had to raise the level of education from kindergarten onward, and design high-quality curricula by the best academics at universities. Many countries followed the American curriculum revolution, and established professional curriculum centers to develop high quality materials for school children. Some believed that the study packages were so good that even poor teachers would not be able to misuse them, and some even went so far as to claim that the high-quality curricula were "teacher proof". The reality showed that it was impossible to circumvent the teachers. Teachers did whatever they wanted behind the classroom door (Apple, 2008). Since the 1970s it has become clear in all educational establishments and professional centers of curriculum development that teachers constitute a crucial factor for the successful implementation of any innovative program. Similarly, teachers in web-enhanced environments also play a prominent role (Guri-Rosenblit, in press).
Part of the misconception related to the important role of teachers in the digital era stems from the confusion between access to information and knowledge construction. The Internet enables boundless access to information of any nature but there is an immense difference between imparting information versus constructing knowledge.
The traditional role of educational establishments at all levels, from kindergarten up to university, has been to assist their students to construct knowledge through guidance, tutoring and personal attention, and not merely to impart information. Accessible information does not turn automatically into meaningful knowledge without the assistance of a teacher or an expert (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009a, forthcoming). It follows that the discourse and research on e-learning should be complemented by an e-teaching counterpart, focusing on the new roles which teachers should acquire in order to manage effectively e-learning practices. E-learning programs require more than merely moving face-to-face encounters to an online setting.
Academic faculty need to assume new responsibilities and to develop a range of new skills. Universities will have to deliberate on how to prepare new generations of academic faculty to operate in a world where blended courses and online teaching constitute an integral part of academic teaching responsibilities.
Multiple and Complex Research Dimensions
As a research domain, e-learning is complex and multi-dimensional. It covers a vast range of research topics, from those that focus on technological infrastructures to those with wide socio-cultural implications. Andrews & Haythornthwaite (2009) provided a wide framework for examining various applications of e-learning attempting to deal with the complexity of this area in the Handbook of E-Learning Research. They defined four primary areas of research related to e-learning: administration and management, technological infrastructures, pedagogy, and social context. Change in any of these areas also affects other areas. For instance, if we analyze the implementation of a certain technology in any given institution or framework, the administrators of the relevant institution have to make decisions about how to support the adoption of this technology and maintain it on an ongoing basis. From the perspective of pedagogy, the adoption of the technology entails the changing roles of teachers and learners using the new technology, the provision of appropriate support systems and the restructuring of the study environment. The adoption of any innovative technology also has long-range implications for the relevant community involved in the institution or the wider community constituency surrounding it.
Though it is of crucial importance to have a broad conceptual model depicting the complexity of e-learning implementations, most e-learning research is sporadic and scattered in nature, and quite often yields contradictory findings. For example, a meta-data analysis conducted by the US Department of Education found that many studies on e-learning suffered from weaknesses, such as a small sample size, failure to report retention rates for students in the environments being investigated, and, in many cases, there appeared to be a potential bias of the study authors due to their dual role as experimenters and instructors (Means et al., 2009).
Many studies on e-learning represent only short-term evaluations of the impact of technologies. The typical question of most studies is related to what is the effect of X on learning in a specific case? “X” usually stands for a specific tool or technology. If we review studies from the 1980s, 1990s, and the first decade of the 2000s, the differences are in the content of “X” (multimedia, wiki, blog, augmented reality, etc). The questions change in response to the evolution of technology, but not in their basic restricted design. Thus, there is a repetition and a constant iteration of the same question, simply changing the specific learning methodology or technology. Such studies are very limited in their ability to portray the broad spectrum of e-learning implementation, and comprehend fully its impacts as well as its problems. Likewise, most studies on e-learning lack evidence to support the impact of the changes over time (Trucano, 2005).Macro, Meso and Micro Levels of Research
Some interesting attempts took place in the past decade to depict the implementation of electronic technologies at institutional and national levels (Abel, 2005; Arafeh, 2004; Collis & van der Wende, 2002; OECD, 2005; Trucano, 2005). The major findings of these broad studies and surveys indicate that the information and communication technologies are used mainly as add-on functions both in campus-based and distance teaching institutions; most institutions lack a strategic view for using advanced technologies; and national policies on the implementation of electronic technologies are almost non existent.
Zawacki-Richter (2009) and Zawacli-Richter et al. (2009) conducted two interesting broad studies on research in the distance education literature, in which technologies constituted one of the research areas. In both studies they established three broad areas of research: macro, meso and micro levels. In general, the macro level refers to broad conceptual frameworks of distance education theories and systems. The meso level relates to management, organization and technology at the institutional level; and the micro level is focused mainly on teaching and learning processes. Zawacki-Richter (2009) and Zawacli-Richter et al. (2009) revealed in these broad studies that there is a strong imbalance in the representation of the three research levels. Research on distance education is mainly dominated by issues that refer to the micro perspective. Over 50% of all examined papers dealt with the top three issues: interaction and communication in learning communities (17.6%), instructional design (17.4%), and learner characteristics (16.3%). Research works on issues at the meso and macro level are few and these tended to be very descriptive.
It seems that these findings related to research on distance education are also applicable to the research on the digital technologies. Unquestionably, much work still needs to be done at the meso and macro levels related to the implementation of the technologies at institutional or national system settings. There is also a great need for more research on the role of culture and cultural differences in the implementation of the technologies in different national jurisdictions and in diverse educational and training environments (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009a).
Even at the micro level, where most of the studies on e-learning take place, there exist research gaps. Many studies on e-learning at the micro level focus on measuring the impact of the new technologies on student achievements, and their conclusions are frequently contradictory (Hiltz et al., 2001; Russel, 2001; Trucano, 2005).
Impact Studies
Despite thousands of impact studies, the effect of the new technologies on student achievements remains difficult to measure and open to much reasonable debate. According to Trucano (2005) who reviewed hundreds of studies on the impacts of new technologies on student achievements, there are few conclusive statements, pro or con, about the use of these technologies.
For every study that cites significant impact, another study finds little or no such positive impact. For instance, Hiltz et al. (2001) did a meta-analysis of 19 empirical studies comparing student learning and other subjective measures in asynchronous learning online (ALN) compared to traditional face-to-face learning, and found that ALN tends to be as effective or more effective than traditional modes of course delivery at the university level. Russel (2001) examined at the same year as Hiltz et al. more than 200 citations of empirical research on the implementation of digital technologies in elementary and secondary education, higher education, adult education and professional training. His major conclusion was that there is no significant difference between achievements of students who studied through educational approaches that have used technology and those that have not.
Moreover, Trucano (2005) pointed out that many studies that find positive effects of information and communication technologies on student learning often rely to an uncomfortable degree on self-reported data, which may be open to a variety of positive biases. The fact is that where the impacts of the technologies are measured by most standardized tests, few such gains are found. Trucano stressed that a lot of work has to be done in the area of monitoring and evaluation. Bias is a very real issue in most of the monitoring and evaluation work done on the information and communication technologies in educational settings. Currently, there are no common international usage, performance and impact indicators for the use of technologies to improve student achievements.
Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness constitutes an immense issue in the implementation of the electronic technologies, particularly at multi-campus universities and distance teaching providers. It seems that economies-of-scale provided by the large distance teaching universities, operating on the basis of the industrial model, also led many to believe that studying through information and communication technologies should be cost effective.
However, it turned out to be that developing online coursework and setting and maintaining appropriate technological infrastructures are far more expensive than once expected. Analyzing the cost structure of electronically mediated education, Rumble (2001) demonstrated that e-education is more costly than traditional distance education delivery. Many e-learning applications are labour intensive, and require expensive technical support and small online classes in order to be efficiently used to compensate for the loss of classroom interaction.
Many claim that much work needs to be done related to the costs of implementing digital technologies in educational environments (Arafeh, 2004; Perraton, 2000; Trucano, 2005). Few good, rigorous cost studies on the applications of technologies in higher education settings have been conducted in developing countries, and also, surprisingly, very few such studies have been conducted in OECD countries either (Perraton, 2000).
Technologies: Rapid Pace of Development
As mentioned, most of the technological applications are not implemented on the basis of robust research findings. Obviously, there are some inherent difficulties in conducting research on the many uses of the new technologies in various settings and for many purposes. The development of the new electronic media has been rapid. This makes it difficult for researchers to conduct longitudinal studies on the effects and capabilities of digital technologies. Martin Trow phrased the main problem of technological implementations as early as 1999: "We need research in this area because while we can say with some confidence that the new forms of instruction will have large effects, for the most part we do not know the nature of those effects, nor their costs, material or human" (Trow, 1999: 203).
One inherent limitation is tied to their speed of development. Research in academia is characterized by the ability of the researchers to examine any investigated phenomenon from a perspective of time and through a relatively long reflective process of deliberation and trials. The speed of the electronic technologies' development inhibits this very basic characteristic of academic research. Researchers do not have the luxury of time to examine the influences of new technologies on human learning, since the technologies they are investigating might become obsolete before their conclusions are drawn. It follows, that the tendency of academics to examine new phenomena rationally and carefully is strongly reduced by the uncertainties of future technological developments (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009a).
Many studies on the applications of technology for pedagogical purposes have difficulty following the rapid change and long-term educational consequences. In many cases, the main goal of research in this field is based on the effectiveness of ICTs in a limited and restricted situation. As mentioned, few rigorous research studies on the effectiveness of online learning have been published (Cabero et al., 2009; Means et al., 2009). Many researchers in the field of e-learning feel that the time has come to design a robust data collection strategy in order to develop a catalogue of lessons learned, both from past successes as well as from failures (Bates, 2005, 2009; Guri-Rosenblit, 2009a; Trucano, 2005). Critical variables in the implementation process of electronic technologies should be identified that are less sensitive to the speed of the development of innovative and complex new technologies.
E-Learning: Better or Cheaper?
Each time when a new technology emerges, it needs to demonstrate whether it is better than the traditional methods or former technologies used in learning/teaching processes, or whether it is cheaper. Much of the writing about the role of educational technologies and other pedagogical innovations in education is based on a “compare and replace paradigm” (Ellis-Goodyear, 2010). Each new technology is viewed as a challenge to the old one. For this reason, the new one must be demonstrably better than the older or provide economies-of-scale.
Many studies on e-learning yield zero-sum results, which are referred to in the relevant literature as the "no significant difference phenomenon". Clark (2001) argued that the amount of learning produced by different media is similar (there is no significant difference regarding students' achievements), and all approaches are adequate to meet our instructional goals, then all treatments are equally valuable for learning but still differ in their cost and convenience. This fact provides policy makers and teachers the opportunity to adopt the technology that is most cost-effective, whether human- or media-based, and that best suits their pedagogical preferences and personal style of teaching.
Arafeh (2004) stressed an important issue related to investigating the costs of e-learning. Most cost studies fail to ask perhaps the most fundamental question: Can one reach the same educational goals and objectives in a different manner at less cost without using new technologies? Technologies should not be implemented in any case and at any cost just because they are innovative and fancy. They should demonstrate a clear added value.
There are some emerging policy recommendations as to how it is possible to cut the high costs associated with e-learning. For instance, researchers of an OECD study on the applications of technology at the tertiary level in 13 different countries (OECD, 2005) suggested that e-learning could become a less expensive model compared to conventional face-to-face or distance education using a number of different strategies, such as: substituting some online provision for on-campus teaching (rather than duplicating it), facilitating increased peer/automated learning, use of standard/pre-existing software, drawing on the open standards and learning objects model to increase material re-use and sharing, avoidance of duplication of effort, and greater course standardization. Unquestionably, demonstrating cost-effective models of utilizing the digital technologies constitutes a most urgent task for researchers, policy makers and practitioners.
Advanced Technologies and the Digital Divide
Some of the advanced technologies have the potential to decrease the digital divide between rich and poor and between developed and developing countries, whereas some other technologies contribute to its widening. In the mid 1990s the term "digital divide" (or "digital gap") surfaced as a means for politicians and social scientists to describe the socio-economic chasm between individuals, societies and nations who have access to computers and those who do not (Warschauer, 2003). The ability of new technologies to overcome geographical barriers has resulted in the erection of new barriers as manifested in the digital divide. Noticeable gaps in the appropriate infrastructure needed for the employment of digital technologies in education do exist between developing and developed countries, and between rich and poor in any national jurisdiction. Particularly among the developing countries, the digital divide sets apart the technologically more advanced countries from the less advanced ones.
Whereas a few African countries with small populations still lack even one Internet host, in Singapore 98% of households use the Internet. The technological divide is reflected in the number of personal computes per 1,000 inhabitants. A World Bank survey found that there was only computer per 1,000 inhabitants in Burkina Faso, compared with 27 in South Africa, 38 in Chile, and 348 in Switzerland (World Bank, 2002). Broadcast technologies such as radio and television have a much greater penetration than the Internet throughout much of the developing world, and this substantial gap is not expected to close soon (Bates, 2005; OECD, 2005; Trucano, 2005; World Bank, 2002).
Great strides have been made in the last decade by government agencies and several international and non-governmental organizations, such as the Commonwealth of Learning, UNESCO, the World Bank, to bridge over the digital gap. The emerging wireless technologies are thought to hold much promise for providing connectivity to remote areas, particularly in developing countries (Attewell, 2005; Motlik, 2008; Visser & West, 2005). The capabilities of mobile phones, game consoles, and cameras are currently merging to provide a networked, multimedia device that can accompany anyone, anytime, anywhere, and might be utilized widely in developing countries.
This article has attempted to unbundle the problem of defining a broad conceptual framework for the applications of electronic technologies in educational and training settings, as well as to examine the obstacles inherent in their actual implementation. It seems that both the discourse on e-learning and its related research are currently in flux. The article made four major points. First, the discussion on advanced technologies is characterized by a long list of hard-to-distinguish terms. This confusing terminology stems from the fact that the variable technological abilities are rich and complex. It does not seem possible at this stage to aggregate the multiple terms into one accepted term, to be used by all practitioners and researchers in this field. It is most likely, that new terms will enter the discourse on technologies in learning/teaching processes as new technologies and new technological applications continue to develop. However, it is possible to issue a plea to all players in the e-learning field to explain clearly the exact roles of the technology, which they are referring to in their discussion and/or research, to specify whether the implementation takes place in campus-based, distance teaching or blended learning environments, and to relate the extent to which the technology augments or replaces traditional practices. Such a clarification might assist greatly in consolidating the multiple pieces of current research findings into a more coherent framework and in conducting an intelligible discussion.
Second, the time seems ripe to acknowledge the fact that putting the students in the center of the learning process, and assuming that the information and communication technologies have the power of turning them into self-directed and autonomous learners have turned out to be quite naïve and unsubstantiated assumptions. Most students, even digital natives that were born with a mouse in their hand, are unable and unwilling to control fully or largely their studies. Teachers should not be seen only as guides on the side. They have a tremendously important role in implementing the wide range of possibilities enabled by the new technologies. However, their roles are not self-evident. Materializing the potential of the technologies in learning/teaching settings does not mean just transplanting the practices of face-to-face encounters to the technological milieu. Both students and teachers need to be trained to become proficient computer literates, and support systems should be provided on an ongoing basis throughout the study process. Definitely, these constitute challenging tasks which necessitate investment of money, time and appropriate expertise.
Third, the research on e-learning is marked by large gaps, particularly at the institutional and system- wide levels. There are currently thousands of scattered studies at the micro level of teaching and learning in classroom settings, whether virtual or real. These studies yield contradictory results, suffer from various biases, and mostly do not yield robust conclusions that enable policy makers to use them in an intelligible way. Great effort should be invested by institutions and governments to plan wide-scope studies, to improve the quality of existing studies on the applications of technologies in various settings, and to consolidate the many findings into a comprehensive framework that might serve policy makers, practitioners, and researchers at different levels.
Fourth, both the research and practice of e-learning are embedded with inherent challenges that should be tackled by all participants. Technologies develop at an accelerated rate that makes it difficult to reflect on their impact retrospectively . Critical variables in the implementation process should be identified that are less sensitive to the development of new technologies. The benefits of using technologies should be considered in relation to their cost or added value. If they provide a distinct added value in various learning/teaching practices, their implementation might be justified, even if they are more expensive as compared to existing technologies and practices but if the findings of studies point to a "zero sum effect" compared to traditional practices, then their applications are justified only if they provide economies-of-scale. Very few studies exist currently on the costs of applying the new technologies. Technologies should not be implemented by any means just because they are considered to be innovative in nature. They should be implemented only if they prove to be better or cheaper. And last, developers of new technologies should be aware of the impact of innovative technologies on the narrowing or he widening of the digital gap between rich and poor and between developed and developing countries. Mobile technologies today have the potential to decrease the digital divide, while some other innovative technologies are increasing the gap. Bridging over the digital divide constitutes a burning need in the global and interconnected world in which we live.
Abbas, Z., Umer, M., & Odeh, M. (2005). A semantic grid-based e-learning framework. Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid, 1, 11-18.
Abel, R. (2005). Implementing the best practices in online learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28 (3), 75-77.
Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. (2004). Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University, Canada.
Andrews, R., & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.) (2009). Handbook of E-learning research. Los Angeles: Sage.
Annand, D. (2007). Re-organizing universities for the information age. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3).
Apple, M. W. (2008). Curriculum planning: Content, form, and the politica of accountability. In: M. Connely, M.F. He & J. Phillion (Eds.). The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction. Los-Angeles: Sage Publications, 25-44.
Arafeh, S. (2004). The implications of information and communications technologies for distance education: Looking toward the future. Arlington, VA: SRI International, Final Report, P11913.
Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning: A technology update and M-learning project summary. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Bates, A.W. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education (2n ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Bates, A. W. (2007). Distance education in a knowledge-based society, A keynote address in the ICDE Conference on The Metamorphosis of Distance Education in the Third Millennium, Toluca, Mexico.
Bates, A. W. (2009). “¿Se comprende realmente qué es el e-learning?. En A. Gewerc (2009) (Coord). Políticas, prácticas e investigación en tecnología educativa. Barcelona: Octaedro/ICE-UB.
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital Learners in Higher Education: Generation is Not the Issue. Accepted for publication in Canadian Journal of Learning Technology.
Cabero, J. et al. (2009). E-learning: Meta-análisis de investigaciones y resultados alcanzados. [tecnologiaedu.us.es/nweb/htm/pdf/ProyectoEA08.pdf]. [Fecha de consulta: 11/01/2010]
Candy, P. C. (2004). Linking, thinking: Self-directed learning in the digital age. Department of Education, Science and Training, Commonwealth of Australia.
http://www.dest.gov.au/research/publications.linking_thinking
CCL (Canadian Council on Learning) (2009). State of e-Learning in Canada. Ontario: Canada.
Clark, T. (2001). Virtual schools: Trends and issues: A study of virtual schools in the United States. San Francisco: Distance Learning Network, WestEd.
Collis, B., & van der Wende, M. (2002) Models of change: ICT and the internationalization of higher education, Journal of Studies in International Education, 6 (2), 87-100.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillenial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(1), 7-12.
Donhue, B., & Howe-Steiger, L. (2005). Faculty and administrators collaborating for e-learning courseware. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(1), 20-32.
Drucker, P. F. (1997, March 10) Seeing things as they really are. Forbes.
Drucker, P. F. (1998). The future has already happened. Futurist, 32(8), 16-19.
Duderstadt, J., Atkins, D., & van Houweling, D. (2002). Higher education in the digital age. Wesport, CT: Praeger.
Ellis, R.A., & Goodyear, P. (2010) Student experiences of e-learning in higher education: the ecology of sustainable innovation. London: RoutledgeFalmer
ETS (2008). ISkills overview.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). Distance education and e-learning: Not the same thing. Higher Education, 49, 467-493.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2009a). Digital technologies in higher education: Sweeping expectations and actual effects. New York: Nova Science.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2009b). Distance education in the digital age: Common misconceptions and challenging tasks. Journal of Distance Education, 23(20), 105-122.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (In press). Five reasons for the reluctance of academic faculty to employ a web-enhancd teaching. In: G. Trentin & M. Repetto (Eds.). Faculty training in web-enhanced learning. New York: Nova Science
Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. Internet and Higher Education, 3(1-2), 41-61.
Henri, P. (2001). E-learning technology, content and services. Education and Training, 43(4), 249-255.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environment, Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (3),23-38.
Hiltz, S. R., Zhang, Y., & Turoff, M. (2001). Studies of effectiveness of learning networks. Newark, N.J.: New Jersey Institute of Technology.
Khan, B. H. (2005). Managing e-learning: Design, delivery, implementation, and evaluation. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Koohang, A., & Harman, K. (2005). Open source: A metaphor for e-learning. Informing Science Journal, 8, 75-86.
Larremendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567-605.
Matkin, G. W. (2002). The whys and how of online education at UC: A dean's perspective. UC Tltc News and Events.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education.
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
Moore, D. (2006). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(2), 197-200.
Motlik, S. (2008). Mobile learning in developing nations. International Review in Open and Distance learning, 9(2).
Nipper, S. (1989). Third generation distance learning and computer conferencing. In: R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 63-73.
OECD. (2005). E-learning in tertiary education: Where do we stand? Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.
OECD. (2007). Evidence in education: Linking research and policy. Paris: OECD.
Olsen, F. (2002, December 6). MIT's open window: Putting course materials online: The university faces high expectations. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Perraton, H. (2000). Open and distance learning in the developing world. London: Routledge.
Qvortrup, L. (2006). Knowledge education and learning: E-learning in the knowledge society. Frederiksberg Denmark: Forlaget Samfundsliteratur Roskilde Universitets Forlag.
Reiman, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable and event-centered approaches to process analysis. Research Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 239-257.
Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning, Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79-83.
Rumble, G. (2001). Just how relevant is e-education to global education needs? Open learning, 16(3), 223-232.
Russell, T.L. (2001). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education.Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
Schramm, R. M., Wagner, R. J., & Werner, J. M. (2001). Students' perceptions of the effectiveness of web-based courses. Madison WI: Magna Publications.
Sangrà, A., & Vlachopoulos, D. (In press). E-Learning definition. UOC.
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practices and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-22.
Trow, M. (1999). Lifelong learning through the new information technologies. Higher Education Policy, 12(2), 201-217.
Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge maps: ICTs in education. Washington D.C.: InfoDev, The Information for Development Program.
Twigg, C. (2001) Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond the no significant difference. Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Center For Academic Transformation, Pew Learning & Technology Program.
http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewSym/Mono4.html
Twigg, C. (2004). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, The Learning Market Space, Section 1, July 4, 2004. The Center for Academic Transformation.
http://www.center.rpi.edu/LForum/LM/July04.html
Veen, W. (2005). 2020 Visions. Presented at the Online EDUCA Berlin Conference, 29 November, 2005.
Vest, C. M. (2007). The American research university from World War II to World Wide Web. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Visser, L., & West, P. (2005). The promise of M-learning for distance education in South Africa and other developing nations. In: Y. Visser, L. Visser, M. Simonson & R. Amirault (Eds.). Trends and issues in distance education: International perspectives. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 117-129.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15-25.
World Bank. (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary education. Washington D.C.: Directions in Development. Zawacki-Richter, O. (2009). Research areas in distance education: A delphi study. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-17.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Bäcker, E. M., & Vugt, S. (2009). Review of distance education research (2000 to 2008): Analysis of research areas, methods and authorship patterns. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 21-49.
Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted innovation: What happened to e-learning and why. A Final Report for 'The Weatherstation Project' of The Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania in Cooperation with the Thomson Corporation. University of Pennsylvania: The Learning Alliance for Higher Education.
Sarah Guri-Rosenblit works at the Open University of Israel. E-mail: saragu@openu.ac.il
Begoña Gros works at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain. E-mail: begros@gmail.com