The purpose of the Forum was to discuss the concept of e-learning: its role, its potential and its definition. Two months after its inauguration, the Forum has sparked a vibrant debate.

From the comments posted, there appears to be unanimous agreement on the need to change education and that e-learning happens to be "in the right place and in the right time". There seems to be a coincidence between e-learning as a tool and the necessity to modify the traditional model of education.

The essence of e-learning

“As far back as 1985, Neil Postman posed the question: ‘Does television shape culture or merely reflect it?’ and concluded that ‘The question has largely disappeared as television has gradually become the culture’. Fast-forward to 2003 and pose the same question about e-learning and you might reasonably reach an analogous conclusion,” reasons Jim Devine, Director of the Institute of Art, Design and Technology Dun Laoghaire (Ireland), in a comment with the meaningful title “What’s e-Learning: New Paradigm or New Toy?”. This question summarizes an important part of the Forum discussion.

Chris O’Hagan, from the University of Derby, provided an answer: e-learning “is not a paradigm shift. It may be heralding a shift of some kind, but the role of e-learning appears to be in exposing anomolies in the current educational systems”. According to his opinion, “there is very little new 'pedagogically' in e-learning. (….) Technology is used to mimic the pedagogies of traditional teaching - lecture, seminar discussion, objective testing etc. The methods are the same, though the delivery is notionally different”.

“What is the difference between learning and e-learning?”, asks Karl Donert, International Fellow and Senior Lecturer, Liverpool Hope University College. The possible answer should consider “that learning is learning whether or not is has an extra 'e' in it or not”. (…) “What concerns me is the continued hype about technology - it always seems to be moving forward without pause for reflection and consideration of the outcomes for learners. So we never really understand the processes taking place. Thus in e-learning I think we need to concentrate on the learning component rather than the 'e'. “

Jim Devine proposes that the question “might be more appropriately asked: 'What does e-learning enable?' (....) e-Learning, in terms of a set of methodological instruments, is by its very nature highly visible, public and democratic. That's the difference! But we must also ask the reciprocal question: 'What enables e-learning?' Can we be sure that the technological infrastructure is reliable and adequate, that the pedagogical and graphic design of the content is of high quality, that the level of interactivity is appropriate and, finally, that our students can reliably access the relevant portal on a regular, reliable and convenient basis?”.

Does e-learning obscure learning?

Donert identified other relevant questions: “we have perhaps lost the plot - what actually enables people to 'learn'? Do we actually understand what are the processes involved?”, and in conclusion “We need to analyse and evaluate the learners, understand their needs, requirements, preferences and actions before they e-learn. Far too much attention is concentrated in the technology, in hands of the e-community, rather than the learning communities”.

In a similar way, Claude Almansi from the Associazione di Diritto Informatico della Svizzera italiana, thinks that “the technology is made obtrusive and obnoxious instead of facilitating by the "e-community"(...), although “the "e" can simplify learning greatly - and make it much more interesting, and enhance the responsibility for learning.

Looking beyond the “hype on technology”, Mike Sharples, from the University of Birmingham shares an example in which technology and learning appeared to be harmoniously integrated: “Yesterday I visited a school (Ninestiles, in Olton near Birmingham UK) where all 800 children in the first years of the school have laptop computers, connected to a wireless network throughout the school. The children can also take their laptops home to work on school and personal projects. What struck me is that in this school, there is no clear distinction between learning and e-learning. The separation between the technology and the education is beginning to disappear, the children use computers as a natural part of their classroom and home education, and the school will soon be starting to remove separate computer labs.”


Identifying the specifical nature of e-learning

Alexandra Draxler, Formerly Secretary to the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century Initiative, summarizes the 4 elements one can examine to observe the differences between e-learning and face to face learning:

1. Information acquisition.
e-Learning transforms the process of information acquisition into something more directly under the control and responsibility of the learner, where the mediator is either non-existent or in a role of counselor. It is also a process.

2. Transformation of information into knowledge.
e-Learning liberates the learner into a world of almost infinite sources of information, and there is little to guide the learner. The traditional guides (judgement of teacher, choice of information to put into a library) are not operative, and the learner has a great deal of responsibility in choosing, sorting and evaluating that information. The transformation process is more open, more subject to individual choice and judgement, and therefore both promising and dangerous.

3. Mediation.
The mediation process can to some extent be freed of human intervention. The human interchange is potentially more immediate, more intense, but also freer of constraints (one can walk away from a machine more easily than a person).

4. Validation.
Here the difference between e-learning and other types is small: most of the same techniques and issues prevail. It might be useful to seek out what significant differences and opportunities exist.

Mike Sharples’s observations on the integration of e-learning seems to illustrate perfectly Alexandra Draxler’s description: The school he visited in Birmingham “is also moving towards a programme of more independent, resource based learning, with the children choosing their pattern of study. The teachers are enormously motivated, not only about the technology but also about the opportunities for student-centred learning”. Notably: “this change has not been brought about by the technology, but by the interaction between teachers and students, technology and learning.

Returning to the initial question posed by Jim Devine, Ulla Gjorling, from the Danish project ‘Pedagogical ICT Licence’, posted a comment that integrates many of the discussion themes: “e-Learning, the Internet, CAL or whatever technology that has hit education may speed up evolution but they are not the initial reasons for change. Educational debate has evolved around problem based learning, situated learning, process writing, differentiation, project based work etc for quite a long time now. These signal words are part of the educational debate because ideas about teaching and learning are moving in that general direction - not because the Internet was invented. The Internet, elearning and other e-tools are hand-in-glove as far as current educational ideas are concerned. Our task is to make sure that educationalists realise this and to make sure that they acquire sufficient competencies to fully utilise these excellent tools".