0229590_C6FC0_solomon_negash_michael_e_whitman_amy_b_woszczynski_handbook

E-Learning Classifications

Table 2. Sample* learning management systems

Product	URL	Availability
ANGEL Learning	http://angellearning.com/	Commercial
Apex Learning	http://www.apexlearning.com/	Commercial
Blackboard	http://www.blackboard.com/us/index.Bb	Commercial
Bodington	http://bodington.org/	Open source
Claroline	http://www.claroline.net/	Open source
Desire2Learn	http://www.desire2learn.com/	Commercial
eCollege	http://www.ecollege.com/indexflash.learn	Commercial
iCohere	http://www.icohere.com	Commercial
.LRN	http://dotlrn.org/users/	Open source
Moodle	http://moodle.org/	Open source
OLAT	http://www.olat.org/public/index.html	Open source
Open Campus	http://campus.dokeos.com/index.php	Open source
Reliant	http://reliantlive.com/index.htm	Commercial
Sakai	http://www.sakaiproject.org/	Open source
SimplyDigi	http://www.simplydigi.com/Welcome.aspx	Commercial
Scholar360	http://www.scholar360.com/	Commercial
WebCT	http://www.webct.com/	Commercial

*Selected based on their Web site’s indication of higher education solutions for clients

Table 3. Synchronous e-learning systems

	Product	Report	Installation**	Cross Platform***
		Card*
	Adobe Breeze	B+	In-house	Yes
	Elluminate Live	A-	In-house	Yes
	e/pop Web Conferencing	B-	In-house	No
	Genesys Meeting Center	C+	Hosted	No
	Marratech	B	In-house	Yes
	Microsoft Office Live Meeting	C+	Hosted	No
	Raindance Meeting Edition	C+	Hosted	No
	Saba Centra Live	B+	In-house	No
	WebEx Meeting Center	A-	Hosted	No

*Overall grade assigned by the reviewers

**Installation indicates whether the application was installed at the lab or hosted by the vendor

***Cross platform is defined as running on all three major operating systems: Windows, Macintosh, and Linux

E-Learning Classifications

systems including Elluminate Live, Horizon Wimba, eCollege, e/pop, and Blackboard, our experiencewithMarratechincludesninesemester courses conducted over a 1 year period. We have also used WebCT-Vista since its debut in 2006, and WebCT for several years prior to that. In this section we used a combination of Marratech and WebCT-Vista to illustrate our experience in the six e-learning classifications.

Type I: E-Learning with Physical Presence and without

E-Communication (Face-to-Face)

A traditional classroom supported by WebCTVista. We have taught many traditional face-to- face classes augmented by WebCT-Vista’s LMS. We posted lecture notes (PowerPoint slides) and assignments on WebCT-Vista and enforced as- signmentduedatesthroughWebCT-Vista.Discus- sion board and e-mail communication between students and instructor and among students was facilitated using WebCT-Vista. Student access to the course Web site (hosted within WebCT-Vista) was managed through a login in WebCT-Vista. The student roster was populated by the registrar and only students who registered for the course had access to the course content. As instructors we added teaching assistants and guest speakers as needed. During the course instruction, we were physically present in the classroom and although our primary communication took place in the classroom, e-communications were used to augment the course.

Type II: E-Learning without Presence and without E-Communication

(Self-Learning)

For a data warehousing and business intelligence class we posted a prerecording of a SQL server installationforourstudents;studentsdownloaded the archived instructions and learned the applica-

tion on their own. We also provided instruction on downloading, installing, and using the Marratech system. Students once again learned the process on their own. In both instances, with the exception of a couple of students, the students learned the content on their own without presence, of the instructor, that is, with “No” e-communica- tion. Other examples occurred where the learner purchases instructional CD to learn different application software independently.

Type III: E-Learning without Presence and with E-Communication

(Asynchronous)

Prerecorded Marratech sessions with WebCTVista support. While some of our colleagues used this format for an entire semester, our experience is limited to a few sessions. We recorded lectures inadvancewithfullvideoandaudio.Therecorded sessions were placed within WebCT-Vista where students were able to download and access the instructionmaterialattheirownpace.AllWebCTVista features described in Type I above were applied here. We found the asynchronous approach very convenient during instructor absence (i.e., during travel to conferences or emergencies). We did not meet with the students during the asynchronous sessions but we had extensive e- communication through WebCT-Vista.

Type IV: E-Learning with Virtual Presence and with E-Communication

(Synchronous)

“Live” Marratech sessions supplemented with

WebCT-Vista.Weconductedseveralclassesinthis format. One course was conducted entirely with a synchronous format without any physical contact with students. In a typical session as instructors, we entered a virtual room, uploaded the PowerPoint slides, and turned on audio and video. In the virtual room, we appeared as a talking-head,

in a 20 inch x 18 inch (50 cm x 45 cm) window. A thumbnail with a picture and username was also shown in the display window. In this setting, we also had synchronous chat with our students; the system time stamped the messages and included the sender username. All WebCT-Vista features described in Type I above were applied here. We used the whiteboard area to display PowerPoint slides and to present the lecture to students who were present via audio/video connection from their home. Students who had full-duplex audio were able to ask questions or make comments at any time. Students were given “presenter” privileges when they lead discussions or presented a project. The “live” audio/video link allowed us to be virtually present at all times. We also used e-communication during content delivery and content access.

Type V: E-Learning with Occasional

Presence and with E-Communication (Blended/Hybrid-Asynchronous)

Face-to-faceclassroomcombinedwithprerecord- ed Marratech sessions supplemented by WebCTVista. When conference travels or emergencies arose, we prerecorded the class lecture using the Marratech system and uploaded the recorded session to WebCT-Vista. We have also used this option when we wanted to target the face-to-face classroom for discussion and collaborations; in these cases we posted the prerecorded content in advance. Students were able to learn the material at their own pace and come to class for the discussion and collaboration. All WebCT-Vista features described in Type I above were applied here. We met with students during the face-to- face sessions but not during the asynchronous sessions; presence was therefore occasional. We used WebCT-Vista for communication with students and to enable students to interact with each other. E-communication in these instances was therefore “Yes.”

E-Learning Classifications

Type VI: E-Learning with Presence and with E-Communication

(Blended/Hybrid-Synchronous)

We combined physical presence (face-to-face) and virtual synchronous presence (Marratech) along with e-communication support from We- bCT-Vista. Some of our classes were scheduled with the options to attend classes online. The face-to-face sessions were always in progress in these classes but students were given the option to attend 50% of the classes online. In these class sessions, when students joined the online session they joined the “live” class in progress with the instructor and those students who had chosen to attend in the face-to-face format. The majority of the students who did not utilize the online option and instead attended all class session in the face- to-face format indicated that they did not make use of the online option because they were already on campus, had scheduled classes back-to-back, and did not have time to go home to participate in the online class. Students who choose to take advantage of the online option had the opportunity to ask questions and participate in the class discussion during the “live” session. Unlike in the asynchronous mode, the synchronous hybrid/ blended mode had participants’ presence inside and outside of the classroom during instruction. The WebCT-Vista features described in Type I above were applied here and e-communication was supported by WebCT-Vista.

A summary of the examples of e-learning systems is outlined in Table 4.

TheMarratechinterfaceusedinthecoursesdiscussed in the examples is depicted in Figure 1.

The Marratech user interface shows a large whiteboard on the left; this is where we displayed the PowerPoint slides. On the right hand side there are three stacked panes with a talking head, a list of participants, and a chat window.

E-Learning Classifications

Table 4. Summary of e-learning systems

	Classification	Presence	E-communication
	Type I: face-to-face	Physical	post lecture notes
			schedule assignments
			discussion and e-mail outside classroom
	Type II: self-learner	None	None
	Type III: asynchronous	None	includes all listed for Type I
			audio/video lecture recordings
	Type IV: synchronous	Virtual	includes all listed for Type III
			“live” audio
			“live” video
			synchronous chat
	Type V: blended/hybrid-	Physical	includes all listed for Type III
	asynchronous
	Type VI: blended/hybrid-	Physical and	includes all listed for Type IV
	synchronous	Virtual

Figure 1. Marratech user interface

User Interface

tM

	video:
	see who is talking to
	enhance the lesson
whiteboard	How Leaves Work
Present &
Collaborate
	Participants:
	See who is in the
	meeting

group and Private instant Message / chat

voice over iP

Highest quality available

e-leaRning enviRonMents

E-learning is the general term used for com- puter-enhanced learning. It differs from distance learning because in e-learning, a computer is a prerequisite. Distance learning, however, may use computers but is not required. Advances in information technology (IT) continually expand the capabilities of e-learning (Seng & Al-Hawam-

deh, 2001). Cogburn and Hurup (2006) identified 15 must-haves for Web conferencing: VoIP, video, participant roles, interactive capabilities for participants, diverse session content options, live application sharing, recording and archiving capabilities,break-outrooms,bandwidthmanage- ment, accessibility, security, integration, session management, customization and support, crossplatform functionality, and compliance with the

E-Learning Classifications

Table 5. E-learning technologies and features

Accessibility for disabled	E-mail	Screen casts
Application sharing	Educational animation	Security
Archiving	Electronic voting	Session management
Audio	Games	Simulations
Bandwidth management	Hypermedia	Text chat
Blogs	Instant messaging	VoIP
Break-out rooms	Interactive participants	Video
Computer aided assessment	Learning management systems	Webinars
Content access options	MP3 players	White board
Cross-platform functionality	Palm pilots	Wikis
Customization and support	Assigned Participant roles
Discussion board	Podcasts

Americans with Disabilities Act. We have used a number of these features in our classrooms and they have enhanced the students learning experience. Table 5 provides a partiallisting of technologies that can be employed in e-learning.

Content delivery in e-learning utilizes many of these technologies. The extent to which these technologies are used varies from instructor to instructor as well as from learner to learner.

Piccoli et al. (2001) use the term virtual learning environments (VLEs) to describe e-learning environments and they defined them as “com- puter-based environments that are relatively open systems which allow interactions and encounters with other participants and providing access to a wide range of resources” (Piccoli et al., 2001, p.

402; Wilson, 1996).

E-learning environments can becharacterized by six dimensions which distinguish them from traditionalclassroomsandcomputeraidedinstruction. These dimensions are time, place, space, technology, interaction, and control (Piccoli et al., 2001). We adopted the basic definitions from

Piccoli et al. (2001) and expanded them to differentiate between synchronous and asynchronous communication. The six dimensions are further discussed below:

Time is definedas“thetimingofinstruction”

(Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404). In an asynchronous e-learning environment the learner decides the timing of instruction access. “When instruction is delivered asynchronously in [an e-Learning environment], participants retain control over when they engage in the learning experience. Learners determinethetimeandpaceofinstruction”(Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404), the time constraints for learnersinasynchronouse-learningenvironments are therefore removed (Piccoli et al., 2001). In synchronous e-learning environments two time modalities exist: time of instruction delivery and time of accessing archived sessions. At the time of instruction delivery the learner has to be present, albeit virtually. In a synchronous format learners do not have control over when they can engage in the learning experience and time constraints for the learner are the same as in a face-to-face delivery, where learners have to meet with the instructorandotherlearnersataspecifiedclasstime.

When accessing archived sessions, the learner decides when to access instruction; in this case the time constraint is removed. This is similar to an asynchronous e-learning environment.

Time flexibility and learner control are found tobebenefitsofe-learning environments (Piccoli

0

E-Learning Classifications

et al., 2001), however, synchronous e-learning environments fix the delivery time, eliminating this advantage. In asynchronous e-learning environments, the learner has a greater degree of control during the time of instruction access. Learner control in synchronous e-learning environments, however, takes on a different form. In synchronous e-learning environments, the responsibility for learner control is retained by the instructor and the burden of time management is removed from the learner. In synchronous e- learning environments the familiar face-to-face classroom environment is maintained.

Place is defined as “the physical location of instruction” (Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404). In an asynchronous e-learning environment there is no formal class meeting and learners can access instructionfrom“anywhere”(e.g.,homeorwork).

In synchronous e-learning environments learners can also access instruction from “anywhere.”

However, because synchronous e-learning environments have a formal class meeting, learners must coordinate their time with the scheduled class session.

Space is definedas“thecollectionofmaterial andresourcesavailabletothelearner”(Piccoliet al., 2001, p. 404). “While it is possible to expand the traditional model of classroom-based instruction to include the variety of resources available in [e-Learning environments], generally these materials remain only a secondary resource in instructor-led classroom education” (Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404). In asynchronous e-learning environments timing for instruction access is independent of instruction delivery; therefore the learner controls the pace of learning. Because learners control the pace of learning they can access a wide array of resources as often as desired. Thesameistruewhenaccessingarchivedsessions for synchronous environments. In a synchronous classroom, however, because learners have to be present at the time of content delivery the array of resources available to the learner is limited by the instructor’s presence. Instructor control of

content in the synchronous mode is managed by the instructor despite the fact that the student is in a different location. In the Marratech e-learn- ing system, described earlier, as the instructor changed to a new page the learner was redirected to the same page as the instructor.

Technology is defined as “the collection of tools used to deliver learning material and to facilitate many-to-many communication among participants” (Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404). “In

[asynchronous e-Learning environment] technology is used to deliver learning material and to facilitate many-to-many communication among distributed participants” (Piccoli et al., 2001, p.

404).Manytechnologiesincludingtext,hypertext, graphics, streaming audio, streaming video, computer animation and simulation, embedded tests, dynamic content, e-mail, and online threaded discussion boards are used in asynchronous e- learning environments. Synchronous e-learning environments use live audio, live video, synchronous chat, and desktop videoconferencing in addition to the technologies used in asynchronous e-learning environments.

Interactionis definedas“thedegreeofcontact and educational content exchange among learners and between learners and instructors” (Piccoli et al.,2001,p.404).“[Asynchronouse-Learningenvi- ronments]relyoninformationandcommunication technologies to create the venue for knowledge transfer and to monitor the progress of learning. [E-Learning environments] are open systems that allow for communication and interaction among participants” (Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404). In an asynchronous format, interaction with the instructor and among learners can take place at the time of content access; however, content delivery is a one-waycommunicationfrominstructortolearner. In synchronous e-learning environments, on the other hand, learners can interact with the instructor and among learners at the time of instruction delivery. Interaction in synchronous e-learning environments for access to instruction material (archived sessions) is the same as in asynchronous

classrooms.Synchronouse-learningenvironments such as Marratech provide private interaction between learner and instructor and among learners during content delivery.

Control isdefinedas“theextenttowhichthe learnercancontroltheinstructionalpresentation”

(Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404). “A certain degree of learner control can be built into traditional classroom instruction, but [asynchronous e-Learning environments] have the potential to provide far greater personalization of instruction and a much higher degree of learner control than traditional classroom education. Traditional learning environments do allow students, when outside of the classroom, to control the pace and sequence of material, and the time and place of their study. Asynchronous e-Learning environments], however, provide this flexibility during instruction aswell.”Inanasynchronouse-learning environment a learner can control the pace and sequence of content access (Piccoli et al., 2001), however, asynchronous learners do not have control over the delivery of content. Archived sessions of synchronous classrooms provide the same level ofcontrolasasynchronousenvironments.Learner control in a synchronous e-learning environment is limited during instruction delivery since it is controlled by the instructor. For example, when using Marratech, learners are able to move around the instruction material presented to them during an online class session at a pace and sequence they chose, but they are redirected to the instructor-led page each time the instructor changes the page. In an archived session however, participants have control over the pace and sequence just like in the asynchronous classrooms.

Pilot study-tyPe vi: hybRid/blended synchRonous e-leaRning

Piccolietal.(2001)proposeaframeworktotestthe effectiveness of e-learning environments. Their

E-Learning Classifications

framework, shown in Figure 2, depict dimensions and antecedents of e-learning environments.

The design dimensions in the framework includelearningmodels,technology,learnercontrol, content, and interaction. The human dimensions include learners (students) and instructors. Effectiveness is measured by performance, self-ef- ficacy, and satisfaction.

A pilot study using the constructs in this framework was conducted to compare a Type VI: blended/hybrid-synchronous e-learning environment to a Type I: traditional face-to-face classroom.

Examples of blended/hybrid-synchronous e-learning are not easily attainable, therefore we included an empirical pilot study comparing a blended/hybrid-synchronous e-learning to a traditional face-to-face classroom.

In synchronous e-learning environments learners use networked resources and a computer basedinterfacetoaccessthelearningmaterialand to communicate with classmates and instructors (Piccoli et al., 2001). We therefore hypothesize:

H1: Students in synchronous hybrid e-Learning environmentswillreporthigherlevelsofcomputer self-efficacythantheircounterpartsintraditional learning environments.

The general student population is used to the traditional learning environment (face-to-face classroom instruction) (Simon, Grover, Teng, & Whitcomb, 1996). Some studies have found satisfaction in traditional environments to be higher than e-learning environments (Maki, Maki, Patterson, & Whittaker, 2000). Therefore we hypothesize:

H2:Students in traditional learning environments will report higher levels of satisfaction than students in virtual learning environments.

The university setting, course description, learning environment, and results of the pilot study are discussed below.

E-Learning Classifications

Figure 2. Dimensions and antecedents of e-learning environment effectiveness (adopted from Piccoli et al., 2001)

Design Dimension

learning Model

Objectivist

Constructivist

technology

Quality

Reliability

Availability

learner control

Pace

Sequence

Content

content

Factual knowledge

Procedural knowledge

Conceptual knowledge

interaction

Timing

Frequency

Quantity

the university setting and the courses

The setting for the study was a large, public 4-year AACSB-accreditedUniversitywithanenrollment of over 20,000 students. Three courses were examined in thestudy: asystemsanalysis anddesign (undergraduate) course, a project management (graduate) course, and an IT resource management (undergraduate) course.

The systems analysis and design course is a required course for all information systems and computer science students, and a prerequisite for allupperdivisioncorecourses.Atermprojectwas used to practice the course content and students had to work in groups to complete the project. As part of the project, students were required to select an organization for their project, identify requirements,anddevelopaproposedinformation system.Themodelinglanguageusedwasunified modeling language (UML). Four major outputs were expected from the term projects: an activity

diagram, class diagram, sequence diagram, and methodspecifications.Atake-homemidtermand finalexamwereadministeredforthecourse.The exams consisted of a case study which required the students to create the four major outputs specified above.

The IT resource management course is a capstone course for undergraduate information systems (IS) majors. This course is taken after students have completed 90 semester credit hours and is typically taken by senior students. The aim of the course is to bring together the concepts from the core course requirements in the IS program. Students were evaluated through their case study analyses, oral presentations, and term research papers.

The project management course is a core requirement of the Masters degree in the IS program. In this course, students are assigned individual projects. No exams are administered for the course. Instead student performance is assessed based on six assignments and a simulation

project. Students are required to submit a writeup of their assignments in addition to making class presentations. The simulation project ran for six weeks.

the learning environment

The Marratech and WebCT-Vista technologies described above were used for the project management and systems analysis and design classes. For the third course, IT resources management, WebCT-Vista and Camtasia Studio3 were the technologies used.

The recordings for the systems analysis and designandprojectmanagementclasseswerecompleted in the classroom; sessions were recorded at the same time the face-to-face lectures were delivered. Students in these classes were given the e-learning option for half of the scheduled classes. With the e-learning option, students connected tothe“live”classroomfromlocationsotherthan the classroom, that is, from home. Some students selected the e-learning option—attending half of the classes outside of the classroom—while others attended all classes in a face-to-face environment.

Results

Students from all three courses participated in the survey online. A total of 63 students completed

Table 6. Subject participation by age

Age Range (Years)	No. of Students	Percentage
19-23	4	6
24-29	22	35
30-35	16	25
36-40	8	13
41-45	0	0
46-49	5	8
>50	3	5
No Response	5	8

E-Learning Classifications

the survey with 30% (19) graduate and 70% (44) undergraduate. The distribution of the participant age ranges is shown in Table 6.

The gender mix of survey participants was 70% (44) male and 21% (13) female, 10% (6) did not provide a response to this question. All the graduate students were enrolled in the Masters of IS program. Graduate students accounted for 30% (19) of the total survey participants. Undergraduate students accounted for 62% (39). Over two-thirds (70%) of the undergraduate students were IS majors and the balance were computer science (CS) majors. They were comprised of 43% (27) seniors, 30% (19) juniors, 16% (10) sophomores. Eight percent (5) of the participants did not respond to this question.

All respondents indicated that they had computer and Internet access from home. Computer experience for participants was reported as 73% professional users, 17% frequent users, and 2% reported being somewhat experienced; 3 respondents did not answer this question. Eighty-nine percent of respondents said they enjoyed working with computers while only 2% indicated that they felt threatened by computers.

Onascaleof1to10,with10beingthehighest,a largenumberofrespondentsratedthemselveshigh for self-efficacy (over 70% of the participants).

Satisfaction with the class experience was measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 5 being verysatisfying.Over90%oftherespondentsfrom each of the courses reported their satisfaction as either a 4 or 5.

discussion

In this section we discuss the pilot study results, differences in asynchronous and synchronous e-learning environment, hybrid-learning, limitations and future study.

E-Learning Classifications

Pilot study Results

For the purpose of this study students were classified as traditional classroom learners or hybrid/blended-synchronous e-learning learners. The traditional classroom students were those students that attended all classes in a face-to-face format. Hybrid/blended-synchronous e-learning studentswerethosestudentswhoattendedsomeof the classes in the synchronous hybrid e-learning format. In the pilot study 18 respondents (29%) indicated that they used the synchronous hybrid

Table 7. Self-efficacy questions

e-learning format and 44 respondents (70%) reported using the traditional classroom format. One student did not respond to the question.

Each respondent was asked a set of 10 questions on self-efficacy. The questions are listed in Table 7.

A T-test was used to determine if significant differences exist between e-learners and traditional classroom learners. The results are shown in Table 8.

Self-efficacyQuestions1,3,4,5,6,7,8,and10 resulted in slightly higher means for those in the

	I could complete the job using the software package…
1	…if there was no one around to tell me what to do as I go.
2	…if I had never used a package like it before.
3	…if I had only the software manuals for reference.
4	…if I had seen someone else using it before trying it myself.
5	…if I could call someone for help if I got stuck.
6	…if someone else had helped me get started.
7	…if I had a lot of time to complete the job for which the software was provided.
8	…if I had just the built-in help facility for assistance.
9	…if someone showed me how to do it first.
10	…if I had used similar packages before this one to do the same job.

Table 8. Self-efficacy responses for research groups (Traditional Class format = 39 cases; e-Learning = 18 cases)

Self-Efficacy		Mean		T-Test
	Mean e-Learning	Traditional
Question			t		Sig.
		classroom
1	7.22	7.23	.013		.990
2	6.44	6.59	.218		.828
3	8.28	7.31	-1.488		.142
4	8.39	7.82	-1.092		.280
5	8.72	7.69	-1.548		.127
6	8.89	8.33	-1.032		.307
7	7.56	8.51	1.375		.175
8	7.83	7.38	-.668		.507
9	8.44	8.92	.805		.424
10	8.67	8.56	-.147		.883