Models of eLearning: Technology Promise vs Learner Needs

Literature Review
Sandra Meredith, Instituto Tecnologico y Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus
Guadalajara, Mexico
Becci Newton, Management Development Research Unit & Education Policy and Evaluation
Unit, University of Brighton

Abstract
The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in the delivery of education and man-
agement training has major implications for lecturers, learners and institutions. Whilst there is potential
for major benefits for all concerned, it also continues to set a challenge for providers to develop new
strategies for teaching and learning and raises fundamental questions about the learning process. This
first paper of two for the Models of eLearning project identifies key commentators and issues in
eLearning development and delivery. It explores the rise of eLearning, reviewing the drivers for its
development, and then contextualises eLearning in national and international settings. It then focuses
on the models proposed by key authors to establish a framework for reviewing current practice in UK
Business Higher Education (HE).

Key Words
eLearning; implementation models; evaluation; policy; positioning

Introduction ature has been selected from systematic

The use of information and communication tech-
nologies (ICT) in the delivery of education and
management training has major implications for
lecturers, learners and institutions. Whilst there is
potential for major benefits for all concerned, it
also continues to set a challenge for providers to
develop new strategies for teaching and learning
and raises fundamental questions about the
learning process. A further important considera-
tion is the fact that the growth of ICTs in educa-
tion is a global phenomenon (Laurillard 1993;
Phipps & Merisotis 1999; HEFCE 2000; Burkle &
Sayed 2001) and this creates a competitive mar-
ket for the provision of borderless higher educa-
tion. A consequence of this is that a variety of
approaches and models have evolved on an
international basis (CVCP/HEFCE 2000;
Laurillard 1993, 2002; McBain 2001; Sloman
2001; Collis & Moonen 2001), the scope of which
require identification and understanding. Which of
these approaches and models offer optimum ben-
efits for the learners remains an unknown and it is
likely that each approach offers different benefits
dependent on the perception of the end-users
requirements.
This first paper of two will review and contextu-
alise the current situation regarding the emerging
models of eLearning practice, drawing on the
work of key authors and broadsheet sources to
establish practice in a range of settings. The liter-
searches on academic databases, the internet
and through published works using the terms
eLearning, ICT in education, flexible learning and
models. Further selections were based on their
relevance to the UK and international contexts
and the establishment of models of practice.
The paper commences by reviewing definitions of
eLearning to establish a useful terminology for
this paper and the second, case paper. It then
seeks to place eLearning within society by looking
at the drivers for its implementation. Because the
very nature of eLearning is that it is borderless
and potentially global in scope, the subject neces-
sitates some positioning within an international
context. Hence a brief review of not only the UK
situation but an overview of what is happening on
an international basis is covered, eliciting a range
of perspectives of the emerging models of prac-
tice. The last section reviews literature relating to
models of eLearning to establish a framework
against which the eLearning practice of UK
Business education providers in the follow-up
paper can be evaluated.
Defining eLearning
E-learning has yet to be widely accepted as the
term to describe technologised learning in all its
forms. Authors agree that a single definition for
eLearning has yet to be found (Selinger &

The International Journal of Management Education 43

Pearson 1999; Sloman 2001; Rosenburg 2001).
A range of terms such as tele-learning (Collis
1996), telematics (Selinger & Pearson 1999),
online learning (Salmon 2000), distributed learn-
ing (Bates 2000), flexible learning (Collis &
Moonen 2001), may all point to a similarly con-
ceived educational experience.
For Sloman (2001), it is the idea of connectivity
that best describes eLearning:
eLearning is emerging as the term referring
to the learning technology that takes
advantage of connectivity learning deliv-
ered or received mainly through the inter-
net, intranets, extranets or the web.
Rosenberg (2001), writing about corporate
eLearning, forms a definition based on three fun-
damental criteria:
eLearning is networked, capable of instant
updating, storage/retrieval, distribution and
sharing of instruction and information.
Itis delivered to the end-user via a computer
using standard internet technology.
Itfocuses on the broadest view of learning
learning solutions that go beyond the traditional
paradigm of training.
Collis & Moonen (2001) prefer the term flexible
learning and uses it to describe a shift away from
situated learning, to one which offers the learner
a range of options in their studies. Flexibility is
applied with regard to time, content, entry require-
ments, instructional approach and resources, and
delivery and logistics (Collis & Moonen 2001).
While this does not specifically mention the role of
eLearning, implicit in opening up these options to
students is the role of technology.
Morris & Rippin (2002) recognise the range of
meanings inherent in the term eLearning and grid
their concept of eLearning in terms of hardware,
software, users and location. This produces a
functional framework definition for eLearning.
However no weighting is given to any of the con-
cepts in the framework, thus the potential to con-
nect dispersed groups of learners, to develop new
forms of interaction in the learning experience
and to provide greater flexibility for the learner
appear equal to the use of internet, intranet, tele-
phone and broadband technologies.
44
The definition of eLearning we propose for this
study is a hybrid, taking into account the connec-
tivity with information and people described by
Sloman (2001), with an emphasis on social
aspects of learning (Salmon 2000). The underpin-
ning technologies are important, in that end-user
computing and use of the internet are so ubiqui-
tous that there can be little argument that
eLearning be delivered via them (Rosenberg
2001). For our study, eLearning is learning facili-
tated by internet and www technologies, delivered
via end-user computing, that creates connectivity
between people and information and creates
opportunities for social learning approaches.
The Drivers for Change
Rosenberg (2001) points out that the history of
using technology for learning is replete with prom-
ise and disappointment. He discusses various
media that others have predicted would replace
textbooks and classroom teaching: film, radio, tel-
evision, and videotapes. This poses the question
of what the difference is between these tried tech-
nologies and the eLearning revolution (Sloman
2001). Castells (1996) answers this question in a
very definite way. A technological revolution, of
which e-learning is a part, is seen by Castells to
be an event of historical significance which has
transformed the social landscape of human life.
Centred around information technologies and the
power that they increasingly wield within the
global economy, it can be asserted that eLearning
has drivers that previous learning technologies
lacked. A review of literature reveals a multiplicity
of factors that drive the revolution, and these are
illustrated in Figure 1.
ELearning can be seen as both a result of rapid
technological change and a response to the
changes happening in culture and society. The
shifts towards an information society (Castells
1996), e-governance (Holzer 2001), learning
organisations and knowledge workers (Senge
1990) are facilitated by the use of technology.
ELearning itself is viewed as an enabler of a shift
from discrete units of training to continuous learn-
ing (Sloman 2001). Education, through the use of
technologies in learning, is helping prepare mem-
bers of society for this new information age
(Gartner Report 2001). Part of the promise of
eLearning is the connection of dispersed groups
of learners and individualised curricula that can
deliver just-in-time learning on a global basis and
this enables corporations to create development
The International Journal of Management Education
Figure 1: Drivers of the E-learning Revolution

structures that reflect the global nature of their financial and pedagogic terms (Graves 1997;
business. Bacsich & Ash 1999; Sloman 2001). Shopfloor
experience suggests that integration of ICTs in
education has led to higher costs, with greater
UK Context efficiency still a promise for the future (Dearing
Within the UK, many higher education institutions 1997). This may be a reflection of the level of
(HEIs) are offering elements of, or whole courses, maturity of the sector, indicating that eLearning is
through electronic means. The vision for online still in a developmental stage and that cost-bene-
learning offered by the Higher Education Funding fit analysis is only now becoming possible
Council for England (HEFCE) is that it will be a (Rumble 2001).
dynamic new way of delivering high quality
This is a rapid growth sector, and disparities are
higher education to students via the internet
developing between different institutions and
(HEFCE 2000a). A key espoused aim contained
providers (Morris & Rippin 2002). For entrepre-
within the discussion documentation of HEFCEs
neurial business schools, the rise of eLearning
proposed eUniversity is to be a globally competi-
has been an opportunity to expand their market
tive provider of higher education programmes on
share through the development and implementa-
a virtual distance learning basis (HEFCE 2000b).
tion of fully online programmes. More conserva-
The desire for an accessible and flexible mode of
tive institutions may be only just considering their
study to meet the ambitions of the Dearing Report
presence in this arena as they experience
for widening access and developing lifelong learn-
increased competition for student numbers. A
ing underpins this initiative. Alongside these driv-
growing response to the eLearning dilemma is
ers, the shift towards tuition fees in HE over the
the development of consortia for the delivery of
past 10 years is commercialising HE, turning stu-
eLearning programmes, the UK eUniversity being
dents into consumers with high level expectations
an example of this (HEFCE 2001). This strategy
(Guardian Education 2003). One way for an HEI
can not only enable better market reach and bet-
to market itself within this climate is to demon-
ter quality programmes through collaboration, it
strate that at minimum it has considered
can help offset the risk and cost, and reduce the
eLearning for resource delivery and can hence
level of necessary investment.
demonstrate the number of students who are
using VLE/MLE systems. However, as a JISC
ELearning is changing the approach to teaching
study demonstrates (Condron & Sutherland
in many institutions. Laurillard (1993; 2000) has
2002), the gap between owning a system and
argued for a reconsideration of university teach-
knowing how best to implement it for learning
ing to move towards a more constructivist frame-
remains largely unfilled, exposing a tension
work, where learning develops from a
between the policy and practice of eLearning.
conversational model between student and tutor,
Debate flourishes on whether electronically-based
developing an appropriate use of technology in
education will enhance learning and be more
the learning experience via this conversation.
cost-effective for institutions, or pose risk in both
This constructed form of learning also appears in

The International Journal of Management Education 45

the work of Salmon (2000), where a model for
developing interaction is presented along with the
need for understanding of participation, emotional
experience and the sense of time spent learning
online. Mason (1998) was an early advocate of
using computer-mediated communication to facili-
tate learning in the Open University and provides
a framework for assessing the evolution of a
course into an integrated online environment.
These forerunners have greatly influenced under-
standing of eLearning in UK HE. New variants of
eLearning are emerging from different providers
including ideas such as blending eLearning with
other delivery approaches (McBain 2001; Sloman
2001). The advantages appear to concern the
induction of learners and the building of a com-
munity prior to the use of the eLearning resource.
However, a feature of many eLearning initiatives
is that they appear to be initiated on an ad-hoc
basis, without a comprehensive policy to underpin
them. As Reeve and Flowers point out, IT-medi-
ated education is important, but as analysis
moves further down the supply chain to the
providers on the ground, clarity gives way to
confusion, multiple images and wildly differing
scenarios (Reeve & Flowers 2001). While
Salmon (2000) would argue for significant staff
development prior to any entry to eLearning, and
recommends that this development takes the
form of an eLearning course, the reality for staff
on the ground is that this form of development
does not exist. Much publication in the area of
eLearning is sharing experience of and present-
ing structures for using eLearning (Holley 2001;
2002; MacFadzean 2001; Newton & Rospigliosi
2002), which is demonstrative of the lack of clarity
about best practice in the arena.
Global Initiatives
European Perspective
At the European level, policy is evolving and
eLearning can be seen to be developing its reach
and role. The appointment of a Minister for
eLearning at European level is indicative of the
perceived importance of this form of learning
(Guardian 2002). On average, across the EU, just
under 30% of commercial training is delivered via
eLearning, with the highest proportion (50%) in
Sweden (CEDEFOP 2002). The benefits of this
form of learning are viewed to be the flexibility to
deliver individualised curriculum, the speed with
which materials can be updated and the inde-
pendence in terms of location and time.
46
Illustrative of the expected potential of eLearning
to deliver higher education within Europe is the
European Commissions Action Plan (2002):
eEurope 2005: An Information Society for all.
This document details the extent to which
eLearning will deliver the curriculum within all
aspects of education but within higher education it
promises that:
By the end of 2005, Member States
should ensure that all universities offer
online access for students and researchers
to maximise the quality and efficiency of
learning processes and activities.
In addition, and in view of some of the drivers for
this educational change, the plan envisions the
role of eLearning to help all members of society
become part of the knowledge society by creating:
virtual campuses for all students. By end
2003, Member States should launch
actions to provide adults with the key
skills needed for the knowledge society, to
improve their employability and overall
quality of life. These actions will take
advantage of the possibilities offered by
eLearning.
The vision is established and the policy is devel-
oping but how exactly institutions will meet these
targets has yet to be clarified. The implementation
of eLearning benefits immensely from explicit pol-
icy and support within institutions, an exemplar of
this being TELETOP at the University of Twente,
Netherlands. A major enabler of the Twente
implementation (Collis 1997) was gaining the
funding to enable the staff development pro-
gramme and the provision of Instructional
Designers to spend significant time with faculty to
enable the appropriate and preferred use of tech-
nology in each area of the curriculum. Collis and
Moonen (2001) further conceptualise eLearning
implementation through the identification of four
key factors:
InstitutionalImperative: the need to modernise,
enter new markets, maintain reputation, gain
new sources of funding;
Implementation strategies: to gain staff
involvement
Pedagogy: shift away from predetermined
product, allow for constructivist approaches, let
learners guide the development of the resource
Technology: flexible systems, core and
The International Journal of Management Education
 complementary, that offer something for
everyone involved.
What is characterised by Collis is a holistic devel-
opment model, with an incremental change strat-
egy as its focus.
USA
In the USA the drive for greater delivery of educa-
tion and training via eLearning is strong. However
implementation has not been without its prob-
lems, particularly from an economic viewpoint.
The initial promise of eLearning, of being able to
reduce the resource-base to support learners,
leading to greater profit, drove many universities
to set up for-profit higher education institutes to
deliver eLearning. As with the dot.com crash, not
all of these have been successful, indeed Noble
(2001) reports on the economic failures and ques-
tions the drive to implement this new model of
learning, regarding it as a push to deprofession-
alise academia. US policymakers are, however,
determined that eLearning is the mode of learning
for now and the future and not all academics
adhere to Nobles scepticism (Guardian
Education 2002). The US Governments recent
announcement of $1bn to deliver higher educa-
tion to its armed forces and families through dis-
tance-based eLearning is illustrative of the
strength of policy and the perceived value of
eLearning. Two major operators stand out:
University of Phoenix Online (UoP), a private uni-
versity, and the University of Maryland University
College (UMUC), a public university (Ryan 2002).
The UoPs new online programme now attracts
more than 10% of its student body, approximately
29,000 students. UMUC has built on well-estab-
lished distance learning provision, incorporating a
comprehensive curriculum, an efficient instruc-
tional design system and long-term provision to
US forces and international distributed learning
centres. A distillation of Ryans proposition is a
markets model, whereby success in eLearning
depends on an institution having an established
reputation and their course offerings meeting the
needs of a specific market.
For external entrants, the USA has proved a mar-
ket too far for distance e-learning. The case of the
Open University is a good example, for after only
four years the Board of United States Open
University closed its operations at the end of the
spring semester 2002. Withdrawal of their
eLearning venture was due to a lack of take-up
on their courses, leaving this initiative uneco-
The International Journal of Management Education
nomic and the OU with losses of 9 million
(Guardian Education 2002). This raises questions
regarding the future potential of the globalisation
of education, especially in understanding the
needs of international learners and identifying
niche markets.
Latin America
For Mexico and parts of South America,
eLearning has mainly been developed within pri-
vately funded universities, with a focus on
advanced functionality for the learner. Burkle &
Meredith (2002) report on the model of simultane-
ous use of multiple technologies to deliver learn-
ing to geographically distanced campuses,
serving over 85,000 students (Tec de Monterrey
2002). The drivers for integrating this advanced
technological approach are the underdevelop-
ment of traditional education generally (1999 sta-
tistics indicate that 40% of the population failed to
complete primary education and only 4.5% man-
aged to obtain a university degree), the geo-
graphic dispersion of the student population, and
the availability of private funding to promote the
initiative.
However, when delivered through a private
funded university, eLearning is reaching mainly
those who can afford to enter the university sys-
tem, or who are lucky enough to have gained a
scholarship. Tec de Monterrey is advanced in its
use of technologies to facilitate learning and to
generate economies of scale across large geo-
graphic areas. As part of its policy for extending
the range of delivery of courses, the university is
currently supporting Government vision and policy
by collaborating with the Ministry of Education in
setting up eLearning centres in rural communities
serviced through satellite systems.
Canada
Canada benefits from a long tradition in distance
education and electronic learning. The very
nature of the geographic spread has made this
mode of learning almost a necessity. Main writers
and researchers in the area such as Bates (1999;
1997) and Harasim (1990; 1991) have been at
the vanguard of research with an interest starting
in computer-mediated communication, especially
computer conferencing, and the comparison of
online education with traditional face-to-face
teaching. Bates has focused on institutional
strategies, developing an ACTIONS model which
integrates access, costs, teaching functions, inter-
actions and user friendliness, organisational
47
issues, novelty and speed of course development
(Reid 1999). Harasim developed a conceptual
framework of online education comprising the
convergence of its key attributes1. This moved to
the understanding that there was a need for theo-
retical and methodological perspectives that illu-
minated not only the known features of traditional
education, but also interrogated the potential of
the newness of the medium.
Australasia
Given the geographical spread of population,
Australasia is another continent that has
embraced the benefits of on-line distance educa-
tion. Perhaps it is this strong necessity for the use
of eLearning that allows critical analysis to
emerge. Writers such as Reid (1999) identify the
difficulties that face universities, being pressured
from a range of forces to move into delivery of
courses via online methods. Critical issues that
need to be addressed are identified by Reid as
scalability, interoperability, consistency and flexi-
bility. Addressing all of these issues will allow
academic managers to be strategic in their choice
of technology and style of delivery. A report on
borderless higher education by Ryan (2002)
refers to the cautionary approach to the e-educa-
tion bubble taken both by the UK and Australia.
Predictions of large numbers of eager new educa-
tional consumers driving billion dollar education
and training programmes (Morgan Keegan 2000)
motivated both for-profit and not-for-profit to join
in the race, have not presented in reality. Even
when supported by commercial ventures and
state and national governments, many of these
initiatives have failed to develop into economically
viable programmes.
Corporate Ventures
The drive towards greater integration of
eLearning has led non-HE corporate entrants into
this market. Failure has been experienced by
some big players in the field, particularly those
within the business model (Pearson Publishing
Groups initiative lost 83 million in 2000, while
McGraw-Hills experience forced the closure of its
UK arm of MHLL) suggest the market has still to
be developed and the users convinced of its util-
ity. As Mansell and Steinmueller (2000) stress,
progress towards the information society
depends fundamentally upon the degree of user
engagement with the process. Although there are
pockets of excellence and success, this brief
review makes it apparent that on a global basis e-
learning has still to be embedded into the user
48
psyche. That is not to say that it will not happen,
but that the technology, user skills and market
demand has still to develop and mature to such a
stage that all factors converge to allow the phe-
nomenon to take off.
The Nature of Learning learning
modes and styles
The evolution of eLearning runs in parallel to a
paradigm shift in the understanding of teaching
and learning. Laurillard (1993; 2002), writing
about the integration of learning technologies,
analyses the change from tutor as transmitter of
knowledge to the facilitator of knowledge transfor-
mation, leading to a conversational framework of
learning evolution. The processes she identifies
as enabling the evaluation of the effectiveness of
learning are:
Discussion between teacher and learner at the
level of description;
Interaction between the learner and some
aspect of the world defined by the teacher;
Adaptation of the world by teacher and action by
learner;
Reflection on learners performance by teacher
and learner.
It is this framework she believes which can be
applied to evaluate technologies in learning. She
proposes the need for situated, contextualised
learning in higher education, to allow broader
understanding of applicability of traditionally
abstract concepts of academic learning. For
Laurillard the integration of e-Learning can only
effectively be achieved through gaining an under-
standing of the nature of student learning and
through posing such questions as what learning is
and how learning actually occurs.
Michaelson (2002) provides a critique of
Laurillards approach, arguing that its applicability
is limited to distance-based education where one-
to-one relationships with teacher/tutor are a fea-
ture. Michaelson questions the value of the model
to the forms of social learning that have devel-
oped in traditional university settings such as
group and collaborative learning. She also ques-
tions Laurillards lack of vision for collaborative
learning groups facilitated through eLearning.
Salmons model (2000) of learning within a CMC
setting could be viewed as a combination of
Laurillard and the collaborative vision that
The International Journal of Management Education
Michaelson proposes. The constructivist view is Delivery models (Rashty 1999)
evidenced in the model (stage 4); however, it is Learning models (Salmon 2000)
through group discussion and evaluation followed
by personal reflection and development (stage 5)
that significant learning is achieved. Further to this, we discuss two models that have
arisen from our understanding of the issues pre-
Collis and Moonen (2001) deliver a model of ped- sented in the literature:
agogy for flexible learning that is built around U
over four quadrants of delivery with lesser or 1. Heuristic development model: development
greater flexibility in each quadrant (See figure 2). of eLearning solutions through trial and
Their model recognises that there are both trans- error experimentation.
mission and transformation requirements within
learning, that knowledge has first to be acquired 2. Convergence model: a second ideal model:
before it can be applied and adapted. This model convergence between technology, learner
is demonstrative of a blended approach to peda- capability and pedagogy.
gogy in eLearning, an issue that has yet to be
Holistic Model
explored elsewhere in the literature.
Collis & Moonen (2001) envision a holistic model
of flexible learning establishment. The factors for
Defining a framework of Models consideration are illustrated in their diagram
below, with order illustrating the complexity of the
The purpose of this paper is to gain an under-
individual factor and the nested structure their
standing of the different models and approaches
interrelation. To each factor, opportunities and
within UK Business HE to eLearning implementa-
barriers are ascribed. This holistic view has much
tion, to understand the range of settings in which
to offer within each individual factor and as a
some form of eLearning has been applied and to
whole; however, they recognise it proposes an
ascertain what distinguishes eLearning in each of
ideal to which many providers fail to aspire.
these settings. We have outlined the complexity
Institutions may consider the need for more flexi-
of the situation, offering a review of emerging
ble learning formats, perhaps to develop market
models and issues at national and international
share, and may provide, for instance, an under-
level. We now review in more depth some of the
pinning technology for faculty to use. However
predominant models for eLearning analysis.
implementation is often not as mature in
approach as Collis & Moonens model and, cer-
Holistic development model (Collis and Moonen
tainly, developing pedagogical approaches has a
2001)
tendency to remain in the domain of individual
Origins of eLearning (Morris & Rippin 2002)
faculty members (Conrath et al 1999).
Institutional policy and support (Collis 1997)
Pedagogic evolution model (Mason 1998)

Figure 2: Collis & Moonen 2001: Holistic model of flexible learning:

implementation and design

The International Journal of Management Education 49

Origins of eLearning
Morris & Rippin (2002) crystallise origins of
eLearning within institutions and the implications
these origins have for eLearning development.
Their research indicates four categories of institu-
tion, illustrated in Figure 3, below.
Their findings, reflecting the literature, indicate the
prevalence of eLearning to originate from the e-
xplorer & e-nthusiast category. Often the e-nthu-
siasts developments will lead to the formation of
institutional policy, potentially following a Collis
style implementation model (see below).
However, in some cases, institutional policy and
e-nthusiasts developments do not align, forcing
back-tracking and loss of enthusiasm for these
early innovators.
Institutional Policy & Support Model
Institutional strategy and support for eLearning
have a clear role in evolving practice within that
Figure 3: Morris & Rippin 2002: Origins of eLearning
Figure 4: Policy models
50
institution (Colllis 1997; Reid 1997; Reeve &
Flowers 1999). Collis presents a staged, bottom-
up model of tolerating the pioneers, supporting
the volunteers, letting 1000 flowers bloom prior to
policy formation; a form of bottom-up manage-
ment. The opposite of this is the formation of a
clear strategic aim to move into the eLearning
arena and, alongside this, the provision of tech-
nologies and support to enable it to happen, a
form of top-down management. The bottom-up
policy allows for faculty to experiment and
develop their own responses to using technolo-
gies in learning, however, the culture of champi-
ons can soon lose impetus if policy and support
do not evolve to underpin their efforts (Nettleton
2000).
Nettleton (ibid) provides a case study of two HE
implementations at the two extremes of strategy
and support continuum. Coventry University
developed its eLearning provision with a clear
The International Journal of Management Education
management strategy and central institutional
support to enable individual academics and
schools to move with the initiative. The University
of Brighton has taken a less top-down approach,
allowing the pioneers to experiment and allowing
policy towards eLearning to evolve over time.
This ground-up development has begun to shift to
Colliss third stage of institutional policy with the
purchase of an off-the-peg MLE system; however,
he reports that this has been at the cost of the
early adopters who have lost impetus as their
developments have been seen as the preserve of
techies with pedagogical concerns lying with the
educationalists. At Coventry he sees the estab-
lishment of a shared vision which appears to
have supported its academics to cross the
chasm into eLearning development.
Salmon (2000) recommends a policy of support
and development to enable faculty to engage with
eLearning. The form she recommends that this
take is for faculty to experience learning online
prior to delivering eLearning. This has alignments
with Colliss, model, but for most institutions eco-
nomic factors mean that this form of development
does not happen.
Pedagogic Evolution Model
Mason (1998) proposes an evolutionary frame-
work for the consideration of distance-based
online courses (see Figure 5) which reflects on
Figure 5: Mason 1998: Evolution of curriculum
Figure 6: Rashtys Delivery Models
The International Journal of Management Education
learner interaction with content, other learners,
and the extent to which pedagogic re-engineering
has taken place. She presents a continuum
against which to evaluate the level of pedagogic
evolution and the learners engagement within the
eLearning intervention. Although set against the
distance-learning paradigm, it is a useful frame-
work in that it seeks to establish how the peda-
gogy has evolved in relation to eLearning,
potentially a sign of maturity within an eLearning
intervention.
Delivery Systems Model
The developing debate about delivery models
within eLearning is distilled by Rashty (1999)2 and
reflects debate about eLearning in the literature
(McBain 2001; Henry 2002). The models he pro-
poses are based on mode of delivery mecha-
nisms where eLearning is either an adjunct to
traditional learning and teaching modes, or is pro-
vided as a blended solution, or at the other
extreme is the vehicle for the whole programme
of study. However, the mode of delivery does not
necessarily enlighten the level of either pedagogic
evolution or the learner engagement with the
eLearning solution. Thus, where eLearning is an
adjunct to more traditional forms of learning and
is an optional part of the learners curriculum, it
might be expected that the pedagogic evolution
has been less than for mixed or fully online solu-
tions. However, there may be only slight differ-
51
ences between the pedagogic evolution of
eLearning as an adjunct and eLearning as a
mixed or fully online approach.
In addition, where mixed or blended approaches
are used, there is little published to enlighten
whether what is blended is purely the mode of
delivery or whether the blended approach is
applied to learning modes and styles (Henry,
2002).
Learning models: Social, Constructivist &
Collaborative
One of the most influential models for the social
elements of eLearning is Salmons (2000). Her
process is derived from a causal analysis of com-
puter-mediated communications (CMC) interven-
tions and was originally envisaged as a tool to
understand the process and requirements from
both the learners and the tutors perspective.
However, through this understanding, the model
is gaining prevalence as a course design tool. It
presents a five-stage process for gaining partici-
Figure 7: Salmon 2000: Model for
understanding learning via CMC
Figure 8: Meredith and Newton 2002: Heuristic development of eLearning
52
pation to lead to knowledge construction and syn-
thesis of learning. Emphasis is placed on building
scaffolds for the learner to help them progress up
to the top three levels of the model where learn-
ing occurs. Salmon perceives a role for telephone
and email communication, i.e. technologies with
which the learner is already comfortable, to help
them into the new technology setting. As scaf-
folds to the processes described in the model,
she aligns e-tivities (electronic activities) to each
stage to provide a structure for contributing, with
the aim of gaining the engagement of the learner.
This social and collaborative model links to
Slomans definition of eLearning in that it devel-
ops not only connectivity between learners, but
connectivity in content through information shar-
ing.
The final two models are derived from our under-
standing of the current landscape in eLearning
and are quite different in approach from the previ-
ous sections. The first model, a heuristic
approach, attempts to conceptualise eLearning
from an individual providers perspective. The
second, convergence model, suggests that three
factors need to converge for eLearning to be a
success.
Learning through doing an heuristic model
This model is emergent from our understanding,
through the literature review, of actual practice
within eLearning. Best practice has yet to
emerge, and a single best practice model is
unlikely given the range of teaching styles and
the potential ways technology can be imple-
mented in these processes. However, the litera-
ture is replete with examples of experience and
practice (Oliver & Osmari 1999; Holley 2001;
2002; Humbert 2002; Newton & Rospigliosi 2002;
Romme 2002), an unsurprising commonality of
these is learning by the experience of doing. It
The International Journal of Management Education
appears, particularly in e-nthusiast (Morris &
Rippin 2002) environments that academics start
out with some kind of problem they wish to solve:
they develop a solution using an eLearning type
intervention and reflect on the experience.
Although their initial solution may not have been a
complete success, their enthusiasm for eLearning
linked with their reflections on the initial solution,
lead them to try a new variant eLearning solution
in their setting. The learning cycle continues and
new variants and approaches emerge.
Based on the Notion of Convergence
The subtitle of this research is technology prom-
ise vs learner needs and intends to discover
whether there are tensions between what the
technology of eLearning delivers and what the
learners actually want and need. We envisage
three strands that need to converge to ensure the
success of an eLearning intervention. These are
illustrated in figure 9.
Salmon (2002), writing about technology plat-
forms and pedagogy, finds the majority of Virtual
Learning Environments (VLEs) appear to be
based on an instructional model of teaching and
an affordance of publishing and quotes Cubans
identification of the mismatch between rampant
featurism and the teachers practical needs
(Cuban 2001). The predominant instructional
model for VLEs, she perceives, is the traditional
paradigm of teacher as a transmitter of knowl-
edge and student as receptor. Given the argu-
ments for the reconsideration of learning and
teaching in the 21st century (eg. Laurillard) it is
unclear why this model should exist for
eLearning. Salmon argues that the priority should
be on how instructors and students feel about
working in online groups rather than on the tech-
nology itself. However, as she identifies, the pur-
Figure 9: Meredith and Newton 2002: Convergence of three key factors model
The International Journal of Management Education
chase or development of a VLE can tend to be a
highly politicised decision with little mapping to
the pedagogic frameworks of those facilitating in
the eLearning setting.
Learner capability is closely linked to this, eluci-
dated by Salmon in her five-step model of CMCs.
Learners need to be inducted to the technology,
ensuring they gain access to the eLearning envi-
ronment and feel supported in doing so (see ear-
lier) and also develop the skills of online
communication for learning in the latter stages.
Another aspect of learner capability is ensuring
course materials are presented at a suitable level
for participants (Meredith & Francis 2001a&b) and
potentially providing content in a variety of for-
mats to enable self-selection by learners.
Further to this, as eLearning activities (eg. ICTs in
the classroom and University for Industry)
become further embedded within pre-HE settings,
learner capability will change over time. Learners
are more likely to arrive in HE with an under-
standing of how eLearning functions, and will
have an increased skill base for retrieving and
analysing e-information. This is likely to further
challenge those involved in the delivery of
eLearning and will drive change in the delivery of
curricula through eLearning.
Conclusion
This paper, the first of two on this subject, has
attempted to track the emergence of eLearning
both in the UK and in international settings. It has
established the complexity inherent in the devel-
opment of eLearning, in part due to different geo-
graphic, cultural and technical infrastructures. It
has highlighted how different key authors are
viewing the acceptance of eLearning into main-
53
stream education at a global level. It has estab-
lished and presented a range of emergent models
for eLearning development and delivery at
national and international levels. In the process, it
goes some way to demonstrate the way in which
eLearning has the capacity to change educational
delivery systems modes of learning as well as
the markets which the institutions chose to enter.
To a certain extent the identification of the emer-
gent models and the discussion surrounding this
raises more questions that it answers. For exam-
ple, what are the factors influencing the form the
eLearning courses take? Why are some institu-
tions more concerned with the technology side of
the subject and strive to offer a fully-online experi-
ence, whilst others place their students at the
heart of this revolution? What triggers these dif-
ferent approaches, and importantly, how do they
affect the learner experience and success rate?
In the second paper in this series, we will move
from an examination of secondary sources to
gathering primary information through interviews
with practitioners, in an effort to gain answers to
these questions.
Endnotes
1 http://education2.edte.utwente.nl/teletophome-
Harisim lists these as: many-to-many commu-
nication, text-based interaction, place-independ-
ence, time-independence/flexibility and
computermediated interaction (Harisim 1991)
2 Rashty is one of the pioneers in developing
Internet technologies in Israel. He developed the
first Hebrew Internet browser (1993) and the
first web-based information system in Israel at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (1994).
References
Bacsich, P. & Ash, C. 1999, The hidden costs of
networked learning: The impact of a costing
framework on educational practice, Paper pre-
sented at the ASCILITE Conference,
Queensland University Technology, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia.
Bates, T. (1997) The impact of technological
change on open and distance learning,
Distance Education, 18, 1.
Bates, T. 1999, Strategies for the Future,
http://bates.cstudies.ubc.ca/strategies.html
54
Bates, T. 2000, Managing Technological Change:
Strategies for College and University Leaders,
Jossey Bass, California, USA.
Burkle, M. & Sayed, Y. 2001 (Forthcoming),
Integrating ICT in Higher Education: The Case
of ITESM, Mexico, International Journal of
Education
Burkle, M., Bonecchi, M. & Meredith, S. 2002,
Diverse models of on-line distance learning
and the learner experience: A Mexican-UK
comparative case study, Paper presented at
the 9th EDiNEB Conference, Guadalajara,
Mexico June, 2002.
Castells, M. 1996, The Rise of the Network
Society, Volume 1, Blackwell, Oxford and
Malden, MA.
CEDEFOP Survey 2001, eLearning: What is the
extent of eLearning in Europe?,
http://www.trainingvillage.gr/
Collis, B. 1996, Tele-learning in a digital world:
The future of distance learning, International
Thomson, London.
Collis, B. 1997, Implementing ICT in the faculty:
letting a 1000 flowers bloom or managing
change?, Keynote presentation for the national
conference, Studying in Digital Learning
Environments, University of Utrecht,
December 1997,
page.nsf/PapersNLViewForm?readform
Colllis, B. & Moonen, J. 2001, Flexible learning in
a digital world: experiences and expectations,
Kogan Page, London.
Condron, F. & Sutherland, S. 2002, Learning
Environments Support in the UK Further and
Higher Education Communities, JISC report,
London,
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=mle_rel
ated_les
Conrath, D., Cuneo, C., Evers, F., Kalmin, A.,
Malinski, M, & Warrick, D. 1999, Emerging
themes in the use of educational technologies,
IASTED International Conference,
Philadelphia, 1999
CVCP/HEFCE 2000, The business of borderless
education: UK perspectives - summary report,
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/bookshop/dow
nloads/BorderlessSummary.pdf
Cuban, L. 2001, Oversold and Underused:
Computers in the Classroom, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA & London.
European Commission 2002, Whats New in
eLearning, June-July 2002,
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?
The International Journal of Management Education
 p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/02/623|0|RAPID&lg
=EN&display=
Gartner Report 2001, Advisor Radar, Where Is E-
Learning Headed?,
http://www.advisor.com/Articles.nsf/aid/SMITT
318
Graves, W. 1997 Free trade in higher educa-
tion: The meta university, Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1, 1
Guardian Business 9 May 2002 A steep e-learn-
ing curve,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,42
73,4410012,00.html
Guardian Education, 5 February 2002,OU closes
US operation
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/st
ory/0,9830,645198,00.html
Guardian Education, 13 March 2003, Students
will become more demanding http://educa-
tion.guardian.co.uk/students/tuitionfees/story/0,
12757,914099,00.html
Harasim, L. (Ed) 1990, Online Education:
Perspectives on a new environment, Praeger
Publishers, New York
Harasim, L. 1991, Researching online education:
perspectives and methodologies, Paper pre-
sented at Panel on Researching Educational
Networks, AERA, Chicago.
HEFCE 2000a, HEFCE launches e-University
Business model, Council Briefings, October
2000,
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/CBrief/CB31.pdf
HEFCE 2000b, Project to develop virtual dis-
tance learning in Higher Education, e-
University Project, Annex A,
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/CircLets/2000/cl0
4_00a.htm
HEFCE 2000c, e-University project: business
model,
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2000/00_43
.htm
HEFCE 2001, E-University project attracts sup-
port from public and private sectors, press
release, 20 February 2001,
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2001/euniv.
htm
Henry, D. 2002, Blended eLearning, Eastern
LINKS Regional Newsletter, winter 2002,
http://www.easternlincs.org/newsletter/win-
ter2002/Blendedelearning.htm
Holley, D. 2001, Which room is the virtual semi-
nar in?, BEST Conference, 2000
The International Journal of Management Education
http://www.business.ltsn.ac.uk/events/BEST%
202000/Papers/HolleyHaynes.PDF
Holley, D. 2002, The INCOTERMS challenge:
using multimedia to challenge learners,
Presented at BEST 2002 Conference,
Supporting the Teacher, Challenging the
Learner, Edinburgh,
http://www.business.ltsn.ac.uk/events/BEST%
202002/Papers/HolleyHaynes.PDF
Holzer, M. 2001, Benchmarking E-government: A
Global Perspective, Report for United Nations
Division for Public Economics and Public
Administration and American Society for
Public Administration,
http://www.unpan.org/e-
government/Benchmarking%20E-
gov%202001.pdf
Humbert, M. 2002, Mixed Mode Teaching and
Flexible Learning in Large Classes, EDINEB
Conference, 2002, Mexico
Laurillard, D. 1993, Rethinking University
Teaching, Routledge, London.
Laurillard, D. 2002, Rethinking University
Teaching, 2nd Edition, Routledge/Falmer,
London.
Mansell, R., & Steinmueller 2000, Mobilizing the
Information Society, strategies for growth and
opportunity, Oxford University Press.
Mason, R. 1994, Using Communications Media in
Open and Flexible Learning, Kogan Page,
London.
Mason, R. 1998, Models of online courses, ALN
Magazine, 2, 2, October 1998,
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/vol2_issu
e2/Masonfinal.htm
McBain, R. 2001, E-learning: Towards a Blended
Approach, Manager Update, 13, 1, Autumn
2001.
MacFadzean, E. & McKenzie, J. 2001,
Facilitating virtual learning groups: a practical
approach, Journal of Management
Development, 20, 6.
Meredith, S. & Francis, D. 2001a, Understanding
the learner experience of work-based, on-line
learning: identifying critical success factors,
paper presented at the EDINEB Conference,
Nice, June 2001
Meredith, S. & Francis D. 2001b, The student
experience of work-based, on-line learning:
preliminary findings of a European research
project, paper presented at the IAMCR
Conference, Budapest, Hungary, September
2001.
55
Michaelson, R. 2002, Re-Thinking Laurillard: uni-
versities, learning and technology,
International Journal of Management
Education, 2, 2, Spring 2002.
Morgan Keegan 2000, E-Learning: The Engine of
the Knowledge Economy, Morgan Keegan, NY
Morris, H. & Rippin, A. 2002, E-Learning in
Business and Management: The Current State
of Play, Presented at BEST 2002 Conference,
Supporting the Teacher, Challenging the
Learner, Edinburgh,
http://www.business.ltsn.ac.uk/events/BEST%
202002/ Papers/MorrisRippin.PDF
National Committee of Enquiry into Higher
Education (The Dearing Report) 1997,
Appendix 2 (compiled by Chiddick, D.,
Laurillard, D., Quigley, G. & Wolf, D.),
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/a2_001.ht
m
Nettleton, G. 2000, The implementation of online
learning: a comparison between the University
of Brighton and Coventry University, unpub-
lished paper
Newton, B. & Rospigliosi, A. 2002, Improving
large group participation for business students
in an eLearning environment using sustained
role play in a virtual business, 9th Annual
EDINEB International Conference, Breaking
Boundaries for Global Learning, Monterrey
Institute of Technology and Higher Education,
Guadalajara, Mexico
Noble, D. 2001, The Future of the Faculty in the
Digital Diploma Mill, Academe Online, 87, 5,
September-October 2001,
http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/01
SO/so01nob.htm
Oliver, R. & Omari, A. 1999, Using online tech-
nologies to support problem based learning:
Learners responses and perceptions,
Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
15, 1
Phipps, R. & Merisotis 1999, Whats the
Difference? A review of contemporary
research in the effectiveness of Distance
Learning in higher education, The Institute for
Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC,
USA, April 1999.
Rashty, D. 1999, eLearning Process Models,
http://www.addwise.com/articles/eLearning_Pr
ocess_Models.pdf
Reeve, S. & Flowers, S. 1999, The shape of
things to come: a discussion on the nature of
the technologised higher education institution.
Proceedings from the 10th annual CTI-AFM
Conference,
56
http://www.business.ltsn.ac.uk/cti/conference/p
aperlst.html
Reid, I. 1999, Online strategy in higher education,
Proceedings from AusWeb99, the Fifth
Australian World Wide Web Conference,
Southern Cross University, Australia,
http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw99/papers/reid/pa
per.html
Romme, A. 2002, Business Simulators for
Management Education and Learning,
Presented at BEST 2002 Conference,
Supporting the Teacher, Challenging the
Learner, Edinburgh
Rosenberg, M. 2001, E-Learning: strategies for
delivering knowledge in the digitial age,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Rumble, G. 2001, The costs and costing of net-
worked learning, Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 5, 2,
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol5_issue2/
Rumble/5-2JALN%20Rumble.pdf
Ryan, Y. 2002, Emerging Indicators of Success &
Failure in Boarderless Higher Education, The
Observatory on borderless higher education
Report, International Strategic Information
Service. February 2002.
Salmon, G. 2000, E-moderating: the key to teach-
ing and learning online, Kogan-Page, London.
Salmon, G. 2002, Pedagogic requirements of
VLEs: Pets and Planets, UCISA TLIG-SDG
User Support Conference, Leeds, 2002,
http://sstweb.open.ac.uk:8282/oubs/gilly
Selinger, M. & Pearson, J. 1999, Telematics in
Education: Trends & Issues, Pergamon
(Elsevier Science Ltd), Oxford.
Senge, Peter M. 1990, The Fifth Discipline: The
Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday, New York.
Sloman, M. 2001, The E-learning Revolution,
CIPD, London.
Tec de Monterrey 2002, Information Brochure,
Campus Guadalajara.
The International Journal of Management Education