eLearning

Table 1.1 – Names and abbreviations of technologies in education

The terms, and their acronyms, may be read from a synchronic perspective in order to limit the vast areas of overlap and/or interaction between information technologies and communication and educational practices. It may also be seen from a diachronic perspective that is used to highlight different points of view about this ever-changing object: eLearning.
In particular, one may note the gradual passage from the focus on digital technology, expressed by "based", to its re-thinking as tools of support and help, expressed by "assisted" and "supported". This process placed an initial emphasis on the technological object for excellence: the computer. Therefore, in that sense it is called CBT: Computer Based Training. This was during the 1960s and 1970s when the mainframe (the big brain) imposed itself on the methods of organizations (military, civil, federal and private) and on our collective imaginations: think of the richness of the science-fiction genre in which an enormous mainframe with a metallic female voice played the role of the protagonist, supporting character or antagonist.
The successive diffusion of personal computers and the integration of the digitalization of everyday objects, from water heaters to TVs, cell phones, credit cards, cars and refrigerators, as well as the birth of communication and calculation nets (in which Internet is the "queen") have created a point of view that is less tied to the physical object and more attentive of its electronic soul/essence. In other words, the computer is not a clearly identifiable object in space nor is it powerful and solitary like an oriental despot; it is, in fact, quite fragmented, hidden and omnipresent, much like energy.
Educational activities supported by digital technology place emphasis on different aspects, little by little each underlining the training/instructional or learning dimension (with focus on the contents and the teacher), and the centrality of the learner and the act of acquiring the knowledge respectively).
Of all the terms used, eLearning highlights the role of the digital, from the perspective of technology (regardless of the specific object, i.e. the computer), and, from the perspective of the psycho-pedagogy, the focus on the act of learning. Moreover, learning is the main element in the term; as for the "e", it specifies the context.
For these and other reasons, eLearning is by far the most fortunate and strong of these terms and is the one used in this Knol.
The term’s strength and fortune does not mean that it is unambiguous and has only one definition; on the contrary, it has an almost un-ending extension of meaning.
The OCSE (The Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development) conducted a study on eGovernment that also helps us to outline eLearning’s most important aspects (OECD 2003). It states:

There are many definitions of e-government, and the term itself is not universally used. The differences are not just semantic and may reflect priorities in government strategies. The definitions fall into three groups:

• E-government is defined as Internet (online) service delivery and other Internet-based activity such as e-consultation.
• E-government is equated to the use of ICTs in government. While the focus is generally on the delivery of services and processing, the broadest definition encompasses all aspects of government activity.
• E-government is defined as a capacity to transform public administration through the use of ICTs or indeed is used to describe a new form of government built around ICTs. The aspect is usually liked to Internet uses.

Definitions and terms adopted by individual countries have shifted, as priorities change and as progress is made towards particular objectives. This is as it should be; the area is a dynamic one and policies and definitions need to remain relevant. In the context of the OECD E-government Project, the term "e-government" is defined as: OECD Definition of E-government: The use of information and communication technologies, and particularly the Internet, as a tool to achieve better government. (OECD 2003: 23)

The first family of meanings is clearly the most general and covers a wide range of realities and experiences, from the use of computer generated slides to the distribution of digitally printed handouts, the use of CD-rom and the integration of SMS to communicate with students. Anywhere within an educational context that ICTs is present, one is confronted with eLearning.

The second group of meanings is more specific and addresses a smaller range of experiences. In this group the Internet is used in the field of education. If the Internet allows us to "import" a previously difficult to access experience into the classroom (just think of being able to find and show pictures of people and objects in real time while speaking), the primary focus is therefore on distance education, in which Internet supported communication has opened numerous doors (online learning). It is important to note that this second group is a sub-group of the first: Internet is included in the term ICTs. This means that the definition given to the second is applicable to the first, but not vice versa.

The third family of definitions is by far the most unfocused. It regards those definitions that underline how ICTs, and the Internet in particular, enormously change the context, practices and experiences of education. Many times this includes naive approaches that people think are innovative and will improve the quality of education; for example just placing a computer or the Internet in the classroom as if they had some kind of special power to treat and cure inadequate educational contexts or, better yet, turn everything they touch into gold. But these approaches, which belong to the line of utopian determinism (used in many advertisements), as we will see later, cannot justify the exclusion of these meanings: ICTs and the Internet are changing the world we live in, whether we like it or not. One of the principle activities of our lives is changing, that of communicating, and thus, so is the context of education.

Even institutions where there are no computers or Internet access are affected by eLearning, partly because, often, what teachers know has come from information gathered on the Internet; partly, because learners communicate with each other via SMS, email or instant messaging; and partly because the world experience of teachers and learners is very "digital": from TV to digital phones, music and electronic games.
This is certainly true in heavily digitalized countries, but it is also true in developing countries where there is access to ICTs and the Internet (even if not everyone has access to it), ICTs have created new educational experiences and contexts.
eLearning is therefore also the only form of education possible in a world in which ICTs and the Internet play fundamental roles. Education is tout court embedded in and belongs to the so-called knowledge society.
Once the three families of meanings have been closely examined, it is possible to move toward the definition proposed by the European Union in 2001. In summary, the definition is as follows:

eLearning 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.

(CEC 2001: 2)

Let us examine this in detail.

• "the use of new multimedia technology and the Internet": there is a strong emphasis on the multimedia allowed for by ICTs: actually, along with hypermedia, this is a particularly important element in education where different semiotic codes can be integrated (textual, iconic, musical, etc);

• "to improve the quality of learning": the focus on learning is what is being emphasized here. It is also pointing out what the scope of any wise use of ICTs in an educational environment should be. This part of the definition, however, presents two points of weakness: the concept of quality of learning seems to be difficult to understand, it would (probably) be better to say, "quality of the learning experience" or "efficiency and effectiveness of learning". "To improve" is also problematic because, on one side, it is suggesting what an adequate educational orientation should be, but on the other, does not contribute to its definition: if learning does not improve in quality (whatever that may mean), does that mean that eLearning is not present? Would an unsuccessful learning experience supported by ICTs not be considered eLearning?

• "by facilitating access to services and resources": this is a fundamental aspect of ICTs and the Internet; the possibility to connect archives that are geographically extremely far away and allow access to data and services that were previously only available for use in-person is very important. Moreover, the increase of the digitalization of information born in non-digital contexts is opening even more doors of possibility for learning; think of the digitalization of radio and television archives that have become the principle resource for finding historical information in the last century.

• "as well as exchanges and distance collaborations": the communication that digital technologies allow for may be integrated into educational environments very creatively, so that learning communities, whether of study or of work, are recreated even through great differences in time and space.

If eLearning is so complex and multifaceted, what can be learnt about eLearning?

Starting in the 1970s, and growing with more fervor, many studies and research have been conducted on eLearning based on the principles outlined above (Adelsberger, Collins and Pawlowski 2002, Maurere et.al. 1998). This has brought about a very ample and diversified body of knowledge to which researchers from numerous fields (education, communication, technical, philosophical, economical, psychological, sociological sciences, etc.) have added to (Cantoni and Rega 2004, Kuhn 1999).
What’s more, the more that was learnt and elaborated on, the more common areas of knowledge were created; for example, associations of researchers and operators, interest groups, magazines, conferences and so on. On an academic level, chairs, centers and research institutes dedicated to the deepening and extension of knowledge about eLearning have been formed.
Along with a so-called "internal" push intended to coordinate and integrate ever-evolving acquisitions of research into a single, harmonious body, there has been a so-called "external" push of a social and economic nature: public institutions and companies have invested a lot in eLearning by financing its research, enlarging the empirical base for such research, selecting good methods and rejecting those that are inefficient and ineffective.
But what can be learnt about eLearning?
This question may be addressed based on a communicative-linguistic approach. From this point of view, a scientific discipline is defined in order to respond to a specific question about a defined reality.
For example, let us take a painting, a specific object, and let us "entrust it" with a specific question, "Which school of painting do you belong to?". The question takes on a point of view about, or an interest in, the object. It then singles out an appropriate, or pertinent, response to the question, as well as an inappropriate one. If a question like this (and other similar ones) would be asked from the point of view of history or an art critic, the history of clothing and of mentality would turn to the same object and ask "To what extent do these things represent the time in which you were created?", whereas economy would ask what place it has in the market of economic values.
Physics and chemistry- which are so important for restorers- would ask what materials were used to make the canvas and the colors, and in what environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, etc) would the painting be best conserved in.
In some sciences- those that are more oriented towards theory, i.e. science "for knowledge"- the disciplinary point of view is unique and such that it can identify its own environment in a comprehensive way, or better, it can exclude anything that does not pertain to its specific perspective (think of math or physics). In the "to do" sciences, it is the object itself that imposes an interdisciplinary approach by selecting all- and only- the disciplinary approaches that are useful to understand and further it.
Aeronautical engineering, for example, requires one to choose all of those disciplines that have to do with understanding flight and the creation of flying objects, thus it needs physics, material sciences, electronics, thermodynamics and so on. Glotto-didactics would gather together all the knowledge that makes learning/acquiring and improving a language (whether it be a first or second language) understandable (Cantoni 1996). In these examples, it is possible to see both of the dynamics previously discussed about eLearning: a) the extension of research with the consequent need to coordinate knowledge, something which a single preexisting scientific community was not able to conserve, expand and transmit; b) a heightened social relevance of the object (flight or linguistic capabilities).
A similar discussion may be had about eLearning.
Let us reexamine some of the defining concepts from before, such as information and communication technology, learning/teaching and the socio-economic context of knowledge societies. Research on eLearning has been conducted, as stated above, mostly in the fields of technology, informatics, communications and psycho-pedagogy, and sociology and organization, in order to study the digital technology involved, the psycho-pedagogical dynamics in action, and the social and organizational contexts in which it is born and develops. In addition, eLearning has been looked at from an economic point of view to study the costs and conditions of sustainability. It has also been examined from a historical perspective by having been interpreted in the larger-scale development of the "technologies of the word" and educational practices.
In general, therefore, the study of eLearning "imports" all the useful knowledge from other fields so as to:

• understand the processes involved in ICTs and Internet-assisted learning/teaching

• foster an adequate (one which favors the effectiveness and efficiency of learning as well as the quality of the educational experience) integration of ICTs and Internet in an educational environment

Exploratory research on more than 16,000 bibliographical citations from conventions on eLearning (Cantoni and Rega 2004) have shown that we are still far from identifying one homogenous scientific community . In fact, the bibliographical references show a noteworthy fragmentation and few common points of reference. Still, it seems permissible to say that the creation of a common background is underway. This process is being strongly pushed by the frequent opportunities to share and negotiate research and knowledge. The Internet, which is so strongly involved in eLearning itself, is providing favorable opportunities for the exchange of experiences and knowledge, and is also hastening the construction of a singular scientific community that studies eLearning.one homogenous scientific community . In fact, the bibliographical references show a noteworthy fragmentation and few common points of reference. Still, it seems permissible to say that the creation of a common background is underway. This process is being strongly pushed by the frequent opportunities to share and negotiate research and knowledge. The Internet, which is so strongly involved in eLearning itself, is providing favorable opportunities for the exchange of experiences and knowledge, and is also hastening the construction of a singular scientific community that studies eLearning.