eLearning: A Learning Context in Context

In recent years, eLearning has received much publicity, discussion and critique. In this paper we aim to step back from this and review the contexts and purposes of eLearning. In so doing we discuss the roles and goals of education; particularly education to meet the often expressed needs to develop skills for lifelong learning and for active participation in the workplace and society. We take the view that, insofar as learning for these purposes is concerned, eLearning is not the purpose. Rather the focuses should be on context, purpose, and usability. Learning can have a number of goals and ambitions, for example to develop lifelong learning skills and strategies and to realize people’s ambitions in life and work and self-fulfillment. These accord with the goals of formal education – although, at the macro-societal level, these goals may be sidelined in the twin quests of creating ‘good citizens’ and socializing individuals into a society. We begin by setting out the contexts at each of the conventional stages of formalized learning: nursery, primary, secondary and tertiary education. We explore the contexts for learning and, especially eLearning and discuss how learners’ needs change over time. Finally, we discuss how eLearning plays a key role in integrating learning and life and learning for life. eLearning: Contexts and Purposes In recent years, the potential benefits of eLearning have become increasingly clear. eLearning is now widely used in organizations to develop workers’ knowledge, skills, and competencies (Baldwin-Evans, 2004). Technology enables educators and learners to extend their teaching and learning horizons beyond the confines of classroom and library walls and access the wider world of knowledge (see, for example, Sridhar, 2005). Reported empirical data suggest that eLearning is used as a developmental tool in organizations in both the private and public sectors and in hybrid organizations, such as corporate universities (Ivergard and Hunt, 2004; Macpherson et al, 2005). In these situations it is possible to provide learners with a specific learning curriculum focused on their precise learning needs. eLearning can engage a social factor to help prevent a learner’s feelings of isolation and loneliness (Frankola, 2001). choose the eLearning course. A further While the benefits of eLearning are not in dispute, there are a number of impediments to successful use by learners. Impediments to eLearning can be attributed to the learning environment; for example, a lack of support from others in the environment such as the workplace or the home. eLearning can take place in environments that are not designated or recognized) as a space for learning which may lead people to believe they can interrupt the learner in the process of learning. Impediments may relate to the learners themselves. For example, some learners lack the necessary intrinsic motivation or selfdiscipline to conduct or complete the learning course. This may particularly apply when others (such as parents or employers) Brian Hunt and Toni Ivergard impediment may stem from the technology. If learners are unused to the learning technology they will be unable to gain optimum learning benefit from it (see, for example, Perreault et al, 2002). Alternatively, the technology may be less than fit-forpurpose for the learners’ needs in terms of usability (see, for example, Hunt et al, 2004). The situational context of learning raises a number of important issues which need to be addressed. According to Homan and Macpherson (2005), the issues include: the degree of sophistication of the eLearning programs for the learning purposes; the integration of these programs with the organization; the ability of the programs to aid learning processes and outcomes at the corporate wide level. The learning purpose (itself related to the learners’ needs) guides the choice of the eLearning programs. These programs should be fit-for-purpose in terms of suitability for the learning task and the technological competencies of the learner. In a workplace setting, it is important to integrate the eLearning programs with other aspects of the organization (such as a training strategy). Not to do so is to court failure and risk demotivating the employees (see the discussion in Frankola, 2001; also see Homan and Macpherson 2005). It is important to bear in mind that eLearning is not an end in itself. Designing eLearning technologies and syllabuses and implementing eLearning tools for the sole purpose of using a nascent technology is the educational equivalent to putting the cart before the horse. This is a novel approach which ignores the purposes of the horse and the cart and the conveyance needs of the driver. Similarly, we should be wary of harnessing learning to technology per se and thereby ignoring purpose and needs. When seeking to solve problems, Einstein once said, “solutions should be simple – but not too simple.” Our wide exposure to rapid developments in ICT and computer-based training (CBT) brings a confidence nurtured by over-familiarity. When such technologies are part of our everyday consciousness, we feel they hold no secrets from us. Technological developments tend to have an initial novelty value and can attract widespread attention and comment. The increasingly widespread use of these technologies both in the workplace and the home environments have helped lower the thresholds of perceived difficulty of use. We suggest that part of the learning process is the ability to see the potential for the technology as a learning tool and also to see how the learning tool can be optimized for the learning purpose(s). This applies to both leaner and teacher. In this process, instrumental tasks (learning to use the technology and understanding its potential for learning) are key initial way stages on the route towards terminal goals. The terminal goals are the goals for the immediate and for the longer term learning (content learning). However it is preferable that, as much as possible, the inherent instrumental tasks are also content learning. Understanding of technology for learning is a life skill of its own. Armed with this competence, learners gain a self-sufficiency for managing and directing their own learning agenda. The stages of formalized education Throughout the world formalized education is divided into four recognizable stages. Conventionally, these stages are designated nursery, primary, secondary and tertiary levels of education. Each stage has a number of common features such as setting, process and expected outputs. Conversely, each stage is differentiated from the other stages by a number of key factors such as age of the learners, learning content, learning context, and learning purpose. Table 1 shows some of the key common features of formalized education. In terms of describing learning, we do not find these designations overly helpful. The outcomes of teaching and learning are surely cumulative: earlier Special Issue of the International Journal of The Computer, the Internet and Management