0229590_C6FC0_solomon_negash_michael_e_whitman_amy_b_woszczynski_handbook-1

xx

with each other and with artifacts within the worlds. These artifacts may be linked to different resources, Web pages, and tools necessary to provide content and support for various kinds of synchronous and asynchronous interactions. The authors show how small and large group shared workspace tools enable interactive conversations in text chats, threaded discussion boards, audio chats, group sharing of documents, and Web pages.

Chapter IV presents a quasi experiment to compare behavior modeling (teaching through demonstration), proven as the most effective training method for live instruction, in three environments: face-to- face, online synchronous, and online asynchronous. Overall satisfaction and performance as measured by knowledge near-transfer and knowledge far-transfer effectiveness is evaluated. The authors conclude by stating that when conducting software training, it may be almost as effective to use online training (synchronous or asynchronous) as it is to use a more costly face-to-face training in the long term. In the short term the face-to-face knowledge transfer model still seems to be the most effective approach to improve knowledge transfer in the short term.

Chapter V proposes a framework that links student performance and satisfaction to the learning environment and course delivery. The study empirically evaluates the proposed framework using the traditional classroom setting and distance education setting. The authors conclude that a well-designed distance education course can lead to a high level of student satisfaction, but classroom-based students can achieve even higher satisfaction if they also are given access to learning material on the Internet.

Chapter VI introduces how to differentiate instruction in an online environment. The study reviews the literature on differentiation and its connection and impact to online learning and discusses the principles that guide differentiated instruction. The authors posit that the “one size fits all” approach is not realistic for either face-to-face or online setting and provide online learning environment strategies that respond to the diverse needs of learners.

Chapter VII explores student motivation to engage in origination and distant site in an IP-based teleconferencing.The study posits that understanding student motivation for participating in IPteleconferencing as part of a class lecture will inform teachers on how to incorporate it in the curriculum. The authors examine three studies on student motivation to understand the benefits of teleconference-based DL.

Chapter VIII presents six requirements for next generation groupware systems to improve team cooperation and awareness in DL settings. The requirements are grouping, communication and discussion, specialization, collaboration by sharing tasks and resources, coordination of actions, and conflict resolution.The authors use two case studies to illustrate how the five requirements can be realized; they elaborate on how an ideal collaborative education tool can be used to construct a shared mental model among students in a team to improve their effectiveness.

Chapter IX reports survey findings on the impact of chat on facilitating participation in collaborative group learning processes and enhancing understanding of course content from a sociocultural constructivist perspective. The study used a qualitative case study of a distant course exemplifying the innovative instructional application of online synchronous (chat) interaction in virtual tutorials. The results reveal factors that affected both student perception and use of participation opportunities in chat tutorials, and understanding of course content. The authors conclude by recommending that the design of learning environments should encompass physical and virtual instructional contexts to avoid reliance on any one mode which could needlessly limit the range of interactions permitted in distance educational programs.

Chapter X investigates the factors that encourage student interaction and collaboration in both processand product-oriented computer mediated communication tasks in a Web-based course that adopts interactive learning tasks as its core learning activities. The authors analyzed a postcourse survey questionnairefromthreeonlineclassesandpositthatsomeoftheimportantfactorsthatinfluenceparticipation and contribute to sustained online interaction and collaboration are the structure of the online discussion, group size, group cohesion, strictly enforced deadlines, direct link of interactive learning activities to

xxi

the assessment, and the differences in processand product-driven interactive learning tasks.

Chapter XI proposes a four step model of greeting, message, reminder, and conclusion (GMRC) to gain a closer relationship between teachers and students in a DL environment. The authors posit that when using the GMRC approach, teachers can relate their concerns with each DL learner’s specific questions and needs. The authors provide examples to support their proposed model.

Chapter XII presents a framework for developing Web courses, demonstrates the design and application of an online course, and discusses the experimental results for the selected course. The study compares speed of loading, file size, security, and flexibility of different development tools based on analytical discussions and experimental results; a sample course implementation that integrates the proposed principles and selected tools is presented. The authors conclude by presenting design rules of thumb for online Web courses.

Chapter XIII provides the lessons learned from teaching information security in a DL setting. The case study identified successful DL techniques and technologies for teaching information security. The authors found that lecture recording and virtual private network (VPN) technologies were relevant for teaching online information security courses. The later, VPN technology, was used to support hands-on laboratory exercises virtually.

Chapter XIV examines the challenges and opportunities of teaching computer programming in management information systems (MIS) curriculum in general and teaching computer programming instructions for MIS curriculum in particular. The study describes a hybrid computer programming course for MIS curriculum that embraces an assignment-centric design, self-paced assignment delivery, low involvement multimedia tracing instructional objectives, and online synchronous and asynchronous communication. The authors employed survey methodology to evaluate the course and observed two opportunities that impact MIS research and practice: the integration of ICT for instructional purposes, and the development, use, and validation of instruments designed to monitor our courses.

Chapter XV provides a primer on establishing relationships with high schools to deliver college-level IT curriculum in an asynchronous learning environment. The study describes the curriculum, provides details of the asynchronous online learning environment used in the program, and discusses the challenges and key lessons learned. The authors posit that the college environment, in which professors have local autonomy over curriculum delivery and instruction, differs from a public high school environment where curriculum has rigid standards that must be achieved, along with guidelines on methods of delivery. The authors state that forming a politically savvy team aware of how to navigate the high school environment is a must for ensuring success.

Chapter XVI presents an in-depth study of the factors influencing asynchronous distance learning courses purchase decision. The study identifies motivators and inhibitors of distance course adoption among consumers, focusing on the impact of relations with the medium, service considerations, and perceived purchase risk. The empirical study results show that perceived course utility, lack of mistrust in the organizing institution (service considerations), and satisfaction with the use of Internet when doing this type of training (relations with the medium) determine the asynchronous distance learning course purchase intention.The authors conclude by providing a set of recommendations to positively influence the purchase decision of asynchronous DL courses.

Chapter XVII analyzes e-learning from an industry perspective by evaluating the use of ICT technologies for university teaching. A scenario framework developed for the study of ICT impact on knowledge industries is applied to an e-learning case study. The study outlines a scenario framework for analyzing ICT impact on knowledge services, discusses different types of e-learning from the authors’experiences, and provides an analysis of the market for e-learning. The authors posit that the most important lesson from the experiences is that although a substantial part of the learning can be done by use of ICT, it is

xxii

essential for students to meet occasionally; once personal contact among students and fellow teachers is established, interactive learning by use of online communication can be performed much more efficiently.

Chapter XVIII evaluates the relationship between the size of student enrollment in distance learning education and unit operational costs. Per conventional wisdom, the authors posit that the larger the size of the DL educational facility in terms of student enrollments, the lower the unit capital and unit operating costs; empirical evidence in the correlation between enrollments and average total costs is unmistakable, if not significant.The study looks at the nature and strength of these relationships.The authors conclude by suggesting minimum efficient scale (MES) to achieve economies of scale.

conclusion

This book shares lessons learned from hands-on experience in teaching in synchronous and asynchronous DL. The book discusses DL issues ranging from learning environments to course design and technologies used in the classroom.The first section, learning environment, identifies different formats, presents the design of blended learning environment, and discusses the experience of 3D learning communities and a longitudinal experiment comparing face-to-face, synchronous, and asynchronous learning environments.

The second section, effectiveness and motivation, presents a framework for designing an effective DL course, shares lessons learned on how to differentiate DL courses to meet learners needs, and discusses student motivation to participate in teleconferencing. The third section, interaction and collaboration, presents suggestions on how to improve team collaborations in DL courses, a discussion on lessons learned from virtual tutorial moderated by synchronous chat, and recommendations on factors that promote online discussion and collaborations. The last section, economic analysis and adoption, presents the motivation for purchase decisions of DL courses, discusses the impact of DL technologies on knowledge industries, and compares the nature and strength of relationship between DL enrollment and operational costs.

RefeRences

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Research commentary: Technology mediated learning-a call for greater depth and breadth of research. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 1-10.

Alavi, M., Marakasand, G. M., & Yoo, Y. (2002). A comparative study of distributed learning environments on learning outcomes. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 404-415.

Dagada, R., & Jakovljevic, M. (2004). Where have all the trainers gone? E-learning strategies and tools in the corporate training environment. In Proceedings of the 2004 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries (pp. 194-203). Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa.

DeNeui, D. L., & Dodge, T. L. (2006). Asynchronous learning networks and student outcomes: The utility of online learning components in hybrid courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(4), 256-259.

Freed, K. (1999a). A history of distance learning: The rise of the telecourse, part 1 of 3. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www.media-visions.com/ed-distlrn1.html

xxiii

Freed, K. (1999b). A history of distance learning: The rise of the telecourse, part 3 of 3. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www.media-visions.com/ed-distlrn1.html

Hodges, C. B. (2005). Self-regulation in Web-based courses: A review and the need for research. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(4), 375-383.

Hsu, J. (2007). Innovative technologies for education and learning: Education and knowledge-oriented applications of blogs, wikis, podcasts, and more. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 3(3), 70-89.

Keegan, D. (1995). Distance education technology for the new millennium: Compressed video teaching

(Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389 931). ZIFF Papiere. Hagen, Germany: Institute for Research into Distance Education..

Levy, Y. (2005). Comparing dropout and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers & Education, 48(2), 185-204.

Morabito, M. G. (1997). Online distance education: Historical perspective and practical application. Dissertation.com. ISBN: 1-58112-057-5. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www.bookpump.com/ dps/pdf-b/1120575b.pdf

Nasseh, B. (1997). A brief history of distance learning. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www. seniornet.org/edu/art/history.html

Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401-426.

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital% 20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? 9(6), 1-6. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%2 0Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

Simpson, O. (2004). The impact on retention of interventions to support distance learning students.

Open Learning, 19(1), 79-95.

Terry, N. (2001). Assessing enrollment and attrition rates for the online MBA. THE Journal, 28(7), 64-68.

Valentine, D. (2002). Distance learning: Promises, problems, and possibilities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(3). Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/ fall53/valentine53.html

VanSlyke, T. (2003). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Some thoughts from the generation gap. The technology resource archives, University of North Carolina. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://technologysource.org/article/digital_natives_digital_immigrants/

Solomon Negash

Kennesaw State University

Section I

Learning Environments

Chapter I

E-Learning Classifications:

Differences and Similarities

Solomon Negash

Kennesaw State University, USA

Marlene V. Wilcox

Bradley University, USA

abstRact

This chapter identifies six e-learning classifications to understand the different forms of e-learning and demonstrates the differences and similarities of the classifications with classroom examples, including a pilot empirical study from the authors’experience. It argues that understanding the different e-learning classifications is a prerequisite to understanding the effectiveness of specific e-learning formats. How does the reader distinguish e-learning success and/or failure if the format used is not understood? For example, a learning format with a Web site link to download lecture notes is different from one that uses interactive communication between learner and instructor and the latter is different from one that uses “live” audio and video. In order to understand effectiveness, or lack thereof of an e-learning environment, more precise terminology which describes the format of delivery is needed. To address this issue, this chapter provides the following six e-learning classifications: e-learning with physical presence and without e-communication (face-to-face), e-learning without presence and without e-communication (self-learning), e-learning without presence and with e-communication (asynchronous), e-learning with virtual presence and with e-communication (synchronous), e-learning with occasional presence and with e-communication (blended/hybrid-asynchronous), and e-learning with presence and with e-com- munication (blended/hybrid-synchronous). E-learning classifications can aid researchers in identifying learning effectiveness for specific formats and how it alters the student learning experience.

Copyright © 2008, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

intRoduction

Technology is transforming the delivery of education in unthinkable ways (DeNeui & Dodge,

2006). The impact and influence of technology can be seen rippling through academe and industry as more and more institutions of higher education and corporations offer, or plan to offer, Web-based courses (Alavi, Marakasand, & Yoo, 2002; Dagada & Jakovljevic, 2004).

There is a call for studies that enable researchers to gain a deeper understanding into the effectiveness of the use of technologies for e-learning (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Alavi et al., 2002). Such studies need to be qualified by differentiating among e-learning formats.

Brown and Liedholm (2002) compared the outcomes of three different formats for a course in the principles of microeconomics (face-to-face, hybrid, and virtual) and found that the students in the virtual course did not perform as well as the students in the face-to-face classroom settings and that differences between students in the face-to-face and hybrid sections vs. those in the virtual section were shown to increase with the complexity of the subject matter. Piccoli, Ahmadand, and Ives (2001) found that the level of student satisfaction in e-learning environments for difficult (or unfamiliar) topics like Microsoft

Access dropped when compared tofamiliar topics like Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. Brown andLiedholm(2002)foundthatstudentsinvirtual classes performed worse on exams than those in face-to-face classes where the exam questions required more complex applications of basic concepts. Brown and Liedholm (2002) conclude that ultimately there is some form of penalty for selecting a course that is completely online. These studies,whileimportant,donotdistinguishamong the different e-learning formats used to conduct the courses; they are based on the premise that the e-learning formats are the same.

E-Learning Classifications

Studies on success and failure of e-learning presuppose that all online learning deliveries are thesame, but there are differences. Those who cite the failure of e-learning formats often cite lack of supportforstudents,lackofinstructoravailability, lack of content richness, and lack of performance assessment. Of course,it all depends on thecourse content being offered; but it also depends on the course delivery format. For example, an online class where the learner is provided only a Web site link to download the lecture notes is different from one where the learner has interactive communication with the instructor. The latter is also different from an e-learning class that provides the learner with “live” audio and video vs. one that does not.

In order to understand the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of an e-learning environment, more precise terminology which describes the format of delivery is needed, since all online instruction delivery formats are not equal; different content require different delivery formats. Technology advances have provided many tools for e-learning but without a clear understanding of the format of delivery it is difficult to assess the overall effectiveness of the environment. The question arises astowhatclassificationcanbeusedtounderstand the different e-learning formats. To help address this issue, this chapter provides an e-learning classificationanddemonstrateswithaclassroom example from the authors’ experience.

There are seven sections in this chapter. First, we identify six classifications and describe them briefly. We then describe learning management systems (LMS) and give some examples. In the third section, we discusse-learning environments and six dimensions that distinguish e-learning environments from face-to-face classrooms. The fourth section provides an example of each classification,followedbyapilotempiricalstudy and a framework for e-learning environment effectivenessinsectionfive.Sectionssixandseven provide a discussion and the conclusion.

E-Learning Classifications

e-leaRning classifications

Falch (2004) proposes four types of e-learning classifications: e-learning without presence and without communication, e-learning without presence but with communication, e-learning combined with occasional presence, and e-learning used as a tool in classroom teaching.

Following Falch’s (2004) presence/communicationclassification,wehaveredefinedtheterms “presence” and “communication” and expanded the classifications to six in order to make a distinction between physical presence and virtual presence. The six classifications are outlined in

Table 1.

In order to understand the differences between classifications it is important to differentiate between content delivery and content access. In this classification we consider presence available as “Yes”onlyiftheinstructorandlearneraresimultaneously availableduring content delivery, either physicallyorvirtually.Weclassifye-communica- tion available as “Yes” only if e-communication exists between instructor and learner at the time of instruction delivery or e-communication is the primary communication medium for completing the course.

Table 1. E-Learning classifications

Brief descriptions of the six e-learning classifications are provided in this section; more details and examples are given in later sections. The descriptions are as follows:

type i: e-learning with Physical Presence and without e-communication (face-to-face)

This is the traditional face-to-face classroom setting. The traditional face-to-face classroom is classifiedase-learning because of the prevalence of e-learning tools used to support instruction delivery in classrooms today. In this format both the instructor and learner are physically present in the classroom at the time of content delivery, therefore presence is available. An example of Type I e-learning is a traditional class that utilizes PowerPoint slides, video clips, and multimedia to deliver content. Many face-to-face classrooms also take advantage of e-learning technologies outside the classroom, for example, when there is interaction between the learner and instructor and among learners using discussion boards and also e-mail. In addition, lecture notes and PowerPoint slides may be posted online for students to access and assignment schedules may be set up online. It

	Classification	Presence*	eCommunication**	Alias
	Type I	Yes	No	Face-to-Face
	Type II	No	No	Self-Learning
	Type III	No	Yes	Asynchronous
	Type IV	Yes	Yes	Synchronous
	Type V	Occasional	Yes	Blended/Hybrid-
				asynchronous
	Type VI	Yes	Yes	Blended/Hybrid-
				synchronous

* Presence is defined as real-time presence where both instructor and learner are present at the time of content delivery; it includes physical and virtual presence

** E-communication refers to whether the content delivery includes electronic communication or not.

should be noted that in a traditional face-to-face classroom, e-learning tools do not have to be used for instruction; however, it is common today for many e-learning tools to be used for content delivery. The primary communication between learner and instructor takes place in the classroom or is handled through office visits or phone calls; e-communication is therefore classified as “No,” or not available.

type ii: e-learning without Presence and without e-communication (self-learning)

Thistypeofe-learningisaself-learningapproach. Learners receive the content media and learn on their own. There is no presence, neither physical nor virtual in this format. There is also no commu- nication,e-communication,orotherwisebetween the learner and the instructor. With this e-learning format, the learner typically receives prerecorded content or accesses archived recordings. Communication between the learner and instructor (or the group that distributes the content) is limited to support or to other noncontent issues like replacing damaged media or receiving supplemental material. Type II e-learning is content delivered onaspecificsubjectorapplicationusingrecorded media like a CD ROM or DVD.

type iii: e-learning without Presence and with e-communication (asynchronous)

In this format the instructor and learner do not meet during content delivery and there is no presence, neither physical nor virtual; presence is thereforeclassifiedas“No”ornotavailable.With this format, the instructor prerecords the content (content delivery) and the learneraccesses content (content access) at a later time (i.e., content delivery and content access happen independently so there is a time delay between content delivery and

E-Learning Classifications

access). In this environment, the instructor and learner communicate frequently using a number of e-learning technologies. A Type III e-learning format is the typical format most people think of when they think about “online learning.” Even though the instructor and learner do not meet at the time of content delivery, there is, however, rich interactionusing e-learningtechnologies like threadeddiscussionboardsande-mailandinstruc- tors may post lecture notes for online access and schedule assignments online. E-communication is not available at the time of content delivery, however, e-communication is the primary mode of communication for the asynchronous format; e-communication is therefore categorized as

“Yes,” or available.

type iv: e-learning with virtual Presence and with e-communication (synchronous)

This is synchronous e-learning, also referred to as

“real-time.”Insynchronouse-learningtheinstruc- tor and learner do not meet physically, however, theyalwaysmeetvirtuallyduringcontentdelivery, therefore, presence is classified as available, or “Yes.” In this format e-communication is used extensively and the virtual class is mediated by e-learning technologies; e-communication is therefore classified as available, or “Yes.” The technologies used in a Type IV e-learning environment include all of the technologies used in asynchronous e-learning in addition to synchronous technologies such as “live” audio, “live” video, chat, and instant messaging.

type v: e-learning with occasional Presence and with e-communication (blended/hybrid-asynchronous)

This is a blended or hybrid e-learning format with occasional presence. In this format content

E-Learning Classifications

is delivered through occasional physical meetings (face-to-face classroom, possibly once a month) between the instructor and learner and via e-learning technologies for the remainder of the time. This arrangement is a combination of face-to-face and asynchronous e-learning. In this format e-communication is used extensively just like the asynchronous format; therefore e-com- munication is classified as available, or “Yes.”

Presence, on the other hand, is occasional; there is physical presence during the face-to-face portion and no physical or virtual presence during the asynchronous portion, therefore presence is categorized as “occasional.”

type vi: e-learning with Presence and with e-communication (blended/hybrid-synchronous)

This is a blended or hybrid e-learning format with presence at all times. In this format e-commu- nication is used extensively just like with a synchronous format; e-communication is therefore classified as available, or “Yes.” In this environment, presence alternates between physical and virtual. Some class sessions are conducted with physical presence (i.e., in a traditional face-to- face classroom setting) and the remaining class sessions are conducted with virtual presence (i.e., synchronously). With this format the learner and instructor meet at the same time, sometimes physically and other timesvirtually; nevertheless, presence exists at all times. In this format, presenceisthereforeclassifiedas“Yes,”oravailable.

An example of Type VI e-learning is where the instructor and learner use the classroom for part of the time and for the other part they use live audio/video for their virtual meetings. In both cases, meetings take place with both participants available at the same time, which is a combination of face-to-face and synchronous e-learning.

leaRning ManageMent systeM (lMs)

Learning management systems (LMS) facilitate the planning, management, and delivery of content for e-learning; it is therefore important to mention them here briefly. LMSs can maintain a list of student enrollment in a course, manage courseaccesswithlogins,lecturefilesandlecture notes, support quizzes and assessments, schedule assignments, support e-mail communication, manage discussion forums, facilitate project teams, and support chat. These systems support many-to-many communication among learners and between learners and instructors.

A search for “learning management system” on Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) results in a listing of 35 commercial and 12 open source LMS products. See Table 2 for a partial listing.

Some LMSs include technologies for creating content, such as assignments and quizzes, and provide support for instant messaging, “live” audio,“live”video,andwhiteboards.Thesetypes of LMSs can host asynchronous e-learning and some are even capable of hosting synchronous e-learning.

e-learning system: an example

Therearemanye-learningsystemscapableofsup- porting all six e-learningclassifications.Cogburn and Hurup (2006) conducted a lab performance test at Syracuse University to compare nine types of Web conferencing software capable of supporting postsecondary teaching. A summary of their study, listed alphabetically by product, is provided in Table 3. We encourage the reader to look at their study for further details.

In order to help illustrate the six e-learning classifications, we describe our experience with one of the nine e-learning systems, Marratech1 (http://www.marratech.com), along with one LMS system, WebCT-Vista2 (http://webct.com). While we have experience with other e-learning