Definition of e-learning

I tried to think whether various exercises I do would “count”

For instance:

1. I give students a scenario involving a company wanting to reduce their travel budget for meetings. In groups of 3 or 4, students research the use of webcams for video conferencing using a Search Engine and create a presentation in PPT to present to the CEO. Plenary of presentations.

2. I make available a Word doc consisting of a set of links to other University/HE websites promoting Final Year shows. In small groups they divide up the list and investigate these individually from an analysis of Brand perspective (using criteria covered in the web-based lecture materials before). Ideas summarised verbally in a plenary. This is as a precursor to them creating a Brand look for their own COMX07 Exhibition.

It seems to me that I would count these, but it’s going to be quite difficult to assess the asynchronous email discussion part. I often get emails from students about materials which I have put on mmedia or suggesting further links for me to add.

Regards
Nina

Reply

Dear e-Benchmarking team

If I adopt these definitions to the 5 modules I am leading this semester (all of which have a webct site. All contain the module outline, assessments etc. All have a discussion tool where students post messages and I reply - usually given time, but not as often or ‘in time’ as I would like. Some are more activity driven that others.) If I adopt strictly, the criteria proposed I would have to conclude that I do not engaged in e learning. Are these definitions more related to distance than to blended approaches to learning?

Another point I want to make is… are we using different criteria in ‘judging’ e-learning, compared to f2f teaching? Students may sit through a 2 hour lecture and there may be very little ‘student activity’ involved in that….. I think we need to debate these definitions face to face. I go back to my question about what are we hoping to get out of this exercise? If we adopt too stringent criteria we may find that the level of e learning is very low… this may be to some advantage when arguing for an increase in resources. Whatever criteria we adopt if must be capable of being understood by Josephine and Joe teacher. Knowing my colleagues they would look at any questionnaire with these definition and their eyes would head skywards if not simply close in incomprehension….

Alan

Reply

Hi Phil (sorry this email is so long)

I have some points of agreement with Alan on the definition’s stringency. I can see the need to empty the term of superfluous activity such as sending an assignment by email, but that is not learning anyway but e-submission. Rather, I think the definition proposed would better describe e-teaching rather than e-learning.

If I go back to thinking in terms of media theory models of medium (knowledge), genre (research activity), delivery technology (F2F lecture or BBC podcast), I find that students could well actively listen to a BBC podcast, just as they would listen to a F2F lecture or watch a film as part of their studies, but this would not be considered e-learning if our definition excludes additional supplementary material. How would I know that the students have learnt anything from the podcast? By the discussions we have F2F, by their assessments, by other learning encounters that are not necessarily online. It is this integration I would want reflected in what we include and as Alan says that would mean keeping in mind criteria to judge F2F as well as e-learning. Are we saying that the tradition of sitting in a lecture theatre listening to a lecture is active learning but researching online resources for preparation for an essay is not? The latter is directed, directed by the student.

I suppose then, this is reflected in the need for a supplementary criterion in the benchmarking statement that more clearly addresses the efforts of LIS in creating, developing and enabling learning through on-line resources, and the efforts of students in actively retrieving legitimate electronic information for weekly tasks and summative assessments. If I were to podcast my lecture and send it to a disabled student every week, would this be e-learning or not? If the digitisation of resources in a learning centre became the focus for research activity, is this not e-learning?

I’m not convinced that drawing together a range of electronic research resources (that could include a blog, a wiki, a podcast, an online academic article, a clip from Youtube, a hyperlink to an industry source all of which have been carefully selected by the tutor and/or learners to provide a portal into a subject for that week’s learning) would simply be using technologies to host materials. Our assumption, if we do think this, is that learners do not actively engage with any media unless told to, ‘directed’ to do so.

There are two problems with that I think: 1) the responsibility for learning is placed too much upon the teacher when in fact we need to encourage independent learning with e-learning and not fall into the trap of using it as virtual spoon-feeding or hand-holding (which I am aware many students often see it as, mainly because they too are working with the definition that the technology is directed at them). 2) It does not reflect the high media-literacy of our students who are already engaging in ‘user-generated content’, clearly showing that they want more directorial control over how technology is used in their lives. So I suppose I would want to see a student-led rewording such as:

“The use of electronic technologies by learners to actively engage in their learning in an integrated and directed way”

It does not look much different but maybe it sends a different message about where the responsibility for e-learning should really lie and may allow us to be more inclusive without being totally overwhelmed.

The reason I would stick on this point is that this university has not recognised the level of work involved in establishing and maintaining VLE sites. Many lecturers who use a VLE in this institution for non-assessment purposes are only able to produce sites that are research resource portals with some discussion activity attached if any. Participation levels can be too low as to outweigh the effort of getting a sense of active learning. If we continue to view e-learning as tutor-directed without ever having acknowledged the level of work needed to truly produce active learning in an integrated way then we will simply find we have very little data to go on. Quite simply, we would ignore the multitude of non tutor-directed ways that students learn using technology and evaluate what we have achieved as ‘well I’m sorry, but you haven’t been e-learning after all’.

Just some thoughts.

Best, Jo

Reply

Hi all

An interesting couple of postings from Jo and Alan and I agree with many of the points made. My concern lies with the definitions of integrated, directed and engage actively. I actually read the definition and feel quite comfortable with that; but that is based upon my interpretation of these terms. Within this I am envisaging the use of learning event/activities/programmes that incorporate or allow the use of e-learning i.e. the use is designed in. Yet the definitions of the terms seem to exclude some of these possibilities (as Alan and Jo have pointed out). Another example, in the current iteration of the EL199 module resources, including podcasts are being made available via PebblePad. These are additional resources that provide good supplementary information for the module and have been designed in, yet these definitions seem to exclude this.

In terms of interpreting integrated and directed the article by Lyn McAlpine from Active Learning (2004) Designing learning as well as teaching (Vol 5, 2 pp119-134) comes to mind as one that could inform this discussion. Her model identifies four phases; engagement, informing, practice and (summative) assessment. If these phases are used and we ask whether the use of e-learning is applied to one of these phases then it helps make a distinction between ‘integrated’, ‘directed’ (though it might be better to change the latter term to be more student centred as Jo suggests) use and the ‘just’ putting up the module guide and assessment.

BW
Martin

Reply

Dear e-Benchmarking team,

Many thanks for your comments regarding our definition of 'e-learning' for the e-benchmarking process. I agree that the definition proposed was quite (intentionally) tight, but it certainly wasn't my intention to discount some of the excellent work that I know is going on in this area around the University.

Although I agree with the comment that some of the points raised could be classed as e-teaching or e-submission, I am aware that many members of staff would consider these to be part of e-learning. (Many of you will know that I am not a fan of the 'e-' word, which I feel is becoming an increasingly redundant term.) However, I do like the idea that the emphasis should be student-centred, and that some learning technology support strategies are intentional and designed in to the curriculum. I wonder if the following is a reasonable compromise:

“e-Learning: The design and integration of electronic technologies into a curriculum to allow students to actively engage in their learning.”

I haven't been able to get hold of a copy of Lyn McAlpine's paper, but we could always add some additional clarification based on Lyn's work if this was felt to be appropriate.

Does this definition allow for most of the activities that you would consider to be e-learning, whilst excluding those that you do not?

Best wishes
Phil

Reply

Hi Phil

Definition is better but personally not sure about the word allow. How about ending with ' ... To support students active engagement in their learning'

Recognise that support will also have some issues. Allow to me says it won't happen if the technology is not being used. Support is more enhancement focused.

BW
Martin

Reply

This is a form of technology-enhanced learning
(TEL) or very specific types of TEL
such as online or Web-based learning.[url=http://www.sunrisesoftware.co.uk]ITIL V3[/url]

Reply