Virtual Learning Environments - Essay Example

? Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) Number A VLE Is Sometimes Termed as a “Walled Garden” for Educational Activity. Discuss How Teaching and Learning Activities Gain or Loose by Being Contained in Such Areas. Abstract The utilisation of virtual learning environment (VLE) in education at the college and university level has become prevalent in the recent years. VLEs are claimed to offer schools with a number of benefits like anytime, anywhere access, improved motivation, access to higher or novel learning, chances for autonomous erudition, better incorporation of information and communication technology (ICT) implements, not to forget increased parental engagement (Becta, 2004). However, while such facilities provide significant advantages to both learners and teachers, they also bring difficulties. One of the main problems is about the lack of discrimination by the students to the materials available for research in the Internet and so the solution can be provided through the setting up of a walled garden. This protects the learner of an institution from the outside users and allows the teacher to upload chosen materials which are available exclusively for their student. However, while this solves one problem, it creates the potential to limit students’ research capability and need for them to learn to be discerning in assessing the usefulness of learning materials. Key Words: Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), ICT, Electronic, Learning, Walled Garden, Web 2.0. Contents Abstract 2 Contents 2 1.0.Introduction 3 2.0.Basic Information about VLEs 4 E-Learning provides a number of unique features such as collaborative activities, peer commenting, and online assessment of coursework within a VLE. Common online course models include: 8 1)The content and support model – provides a separate tutorial support and standard course content; 8 2)The wrap around model – adopts the resource-based learning by combining the provision of classroom and online learning activities. Thus, giving more autonomy and accountability to the students; and 8 3)The integrated model – does not provide distinction between online tutorial support and course content (Mason, 1998). 8 Regardless of the type of online course model, a college or a university is using; there will always be some teaching and learning benefits, that can be gained by establishing a strong and reliable VLE (Nagi, 2011; Zhu and Bu, 2009; Fisher, Cox and Gray, 2008; Kroski, 2007; Nian-Shing and Yi-Hung, 2005). 8 3.0.Ways on How the Provision of “Walled Garden” could protect the Online Learners from Outside Forces and How It can impede the Students’ Learning 12 4.0.Conclusion and Recommendations 15 5.0.References 16 1.0. Introduction VLE is an electronic system that can make online interactions of various kinds available, taking place among learners and tutors, as well as online learning (Comas-Quinn et al., 2012). The use of ICT and other related technologies significantly change the way educational activities are being conducted today. Though the history of VLE style tools can probably be traced back to the earliest days of educational computing, increased availability of technology is quite recent it is critical to state that much of the recent use has been motivated by technological advancement rather than the need for education progress (Becta, 2004). Every year, colleges and universities, are investing in the development of web based classes. Owing to significant development in Internet-based technology, educational organisations have restructured their course curricula to fit the course requirements of a virtual classroom and have started offering online distance learning courses. The control and direction regarding the use of the VLEs has been critical with respect to the learning institution. This is in regard to protecting the students from unwanted sources of information. This has led to the formation of walled gardened VLEs that take into consideration the interests of the students as will be exhibited in this paper. The provision of Internet-based instructions can give students more control over the learning environment and easy access to a much wider range of learning materials (Pituch and Lee, 2006). The interactions have led to enhanced use of software, and the students get the motivation to learn the new features (Wells Fieger and De Lange, 2008; Weller, 2007). Using case scenarios related to home-school links, this study will provide some arguments on how excessive use of web 2.0 services can increase or decrease the quality of teaching and learning activities between the tutors and students. 2.0. Basic Information about VLEs Weller (2005:5) defined a virtual learning environment (VLE) as “a software system that combines a number of different tools that are used to systematically deliver content online and facilitate the learning experience around that content”. In other words, the main reason why most colleges and universities, are investing in the development of VLEs is to enable them to facilitate online learning and endeavour to reach out to individuals who wish to carry out their studies using distance learning. The use of VLE has presented unashamedly social pedagogy and can be termed to have promoted the learner independence and autonomy. With respect to class works that have been differentiated and availed online, students are favoured with the chance of selecting from the range of activities available (Wells, Fieger and De Lange, 2008). On the same context, whilst the homework quizzes are made a must for students to tackle, some resources and activities are left open for learners to select for themselves (Nian-Shing and Yi-Hung W., 2005). These include practice exercises, social interactions, and topics for interactive discussions among others. This has further promoted the students’ sense of responsibility for their learning. On the same context, regarding the instructors’ use of the technology, basing the discussion from a management perspective, the access to lesson plans, resources and data for assessment has provided a valuable tool for institutional knowledge management. The availed opportunity to share content and courses across institutional content and courses across the institutional boundaries stringently facilitates a collaborative approach for the development of learning materials and curricula (Wessa et al., 2011). Further, it avails the access to VLE’s log files permitting highly sophisticated multivariate data analysis, via the utilisation of relevant and effective techniques. Among the most common VLEs available for teaching and learning activities are Blackboard, COSE, MOODLE, and WebCT. Based on its user-centred design, Web 2.0 makes it possible for web applications to intersect with one another (Nekrotafaeio, 2012; Michie, 2011; Roca et al., 2006). The interoperability function of the Web 2.0 system makes it possible, for the end-users to share virtual information easily (Oreilly, 2007). In response to the rapid development of Internet technology, developers had successfully adopted the paradigm of Web 2.0 when developing VLEs. To improve the online learning environment, VLEs are commonly linked to Web 2.0 tools like blogging, media sharing services, Google search engine optimization, web services, social networking sites, social bookmarking and wikis (Hussein, Alaa and Hamad, 2011; Oreilly, 2007). As part of establishing more reliable and user-friendly VLEs, colleges and universities can integrate the use of different teaching and learning tools, such as, digital audio- and video, CD-ROM, Internet, intranet/extranet (LAN/WAN), satellite broadcast, and interactive TV into Web 2.0 (Weller, 2007). Since the paradigm, of Web 2.0 was used in developing personal websites like blogging, and tools like Google search engine optimization, Skymap, web services, and social networking sites among others, most of colleges and universities today are using these platforms to create entirely new and user-friendly VLEs. As explained by Martinez-Torres et al. (2008), VLEs are secured knowing that, unauthorized users will not be able to access; either teachers’ or students’ accounts, in order to modify and/or delete the teachers’ or students’ profiles, including the students’ assessment results and historical communication activities, that take place among teachers and students. To increase online security and make it easier to distinguish a teacher from a student, the administrator of VLEs is expected to assign a unique teacher ID and student ID to online teachers and students respectively (Whatis, 2012; Martinez-Torres et al., 2008). To improve the efficiency of a VLE, several studies mentioned the importance of creating an online environment that is appealing, secured, reliable, and well-structured (Chang and Tung, 2008; Martinez-Torres et al., 2008; Roca, Chiu and Martinez, 2006; Pituch and Lee, 2006; Chiu et al., 2005; Wang 2003). To be able to create an appealing, secured, reliable, and well-structured VLE, developers are being challenged to design an online teaching and learning environment that is “student-centred, flexible, and dynamic” (Comas-Quinn, de los Arcos and Mardomingo, 2012:129). Each type of information technology is distinct from one another. Since a wide-range of information technologies can be utilized to promote teaching and learning activities, the development and promotion of VLEs is a fun way of making online teaching and learning more exciting (Mayer, 2002). For example, university A can develop a VLE by integrating the use of an online threaded discussion forum, calendars, access to online assessment tools and course curriculum, file sharing options, and access to video clips. On the other hand, university B may choose to design a VLE that utilises the electronic mails, discussion forums, file sharing options, free access to e-library, and video conferencing network. 2.1. Web 2.0 and VLEs Web 2.0 is commonly used when designing virtual learning environments (VLEs). Despite the teaching and learning benefits associated with the use of a VLE, there will always be some limitations regarding the use of Web 2.0. These are in context to the lack of restriction towards the use of Web 2.0 in the interactive learning with the technology and Internet (Zhu and Bu, 2009). On the same note, the cost of installation and utilising Web 2.0 has not been prioritised with regard to many institutions around the world. This has made access to the use of Web 2.0 a far reach experience. To add on the same, the there has been minimal research initiated to look into the advantages of using the new technological tools towards the improvement of learning in the schools. With more research, more channels will be established that will look into the introduction of barriers or restrictions towards the realisation of a ‘walled garden’ in the learning environments (Wang, 2003). Factors acting as barriers to the use of Web 2.0 in the V LEs have not been clearly outlined. The use of Web 2.0 results to excessive dependent, which can be a problem of the VLEs if the interaction is not bringing out positive results with regard to education targets. The use of Web 2.0 technologies allow various tools to seamlessly interact and give a similar learning environment as the original VLEs, but customised to the preference of the individual (Oreilly, 2007). To give the learners a better understanding of the significance of a ‘walled garden’ in the development of VLEs, this study will first discuss the context behind VLEs concept followed by considering the teaching and learning benefits, as well as the flaws of VLEs. In response to the limitations of Web 2.0 discussed above, the ways on how provision of ‘walled garden’ could protect the online learners from outside forces ad how it can impede the students’ learning will be extensively discussed (Pitucha and Lee, 2006). Considering the limitations of Web 2.0, this study aims to carefully examine and discuss how teaching and learning activities can be positively or negatively affected if there is too much reliance on the use of VLEs. 2.2. Teaching and Learning Benefits of VLEs E-Learning provides a number of unique features such as collaborative activities, peer commenting, and online assessment of coursework within a VLE. Common online course models include: 1) The content and support model – provides a separate tutorial support and standard course content; 2) The wrap around model – adopts the resource-based learning by combining the provision of classroom and online learning activities. Thus, giving more autonomy and accountability to the students; and 3) The integrated model – does not provide distinction between online tutorial support and course content (Mason, 1998). Regardless of the type of online course model, a college or a university is using; there will always be some teaching and learning benefits, that can be gained by establishing a strong and reliable VLE (Nagi, 2011; Zhu and Bu, 2009; Fisher, Cox and Gray, 2008; Kroski, 2007; Nian-Shing and Yi-Hung, 2005). Social network sites can also serve as online community websites that allow the end-users to connect with one another through sharing their personal interests and activities with someone they know (Kroski, 2007). When using a personal computer, laptop, notebook, iPad, or smart phone the students who are currently enrolled in online courses can easily access a list of SNSs (i.e. MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin) in order to communicate with their fellow students regarding their online course curriculum requirements. Aside from sharing files, they can make use of social networks to establish a close relationship with their fellow students (Nagi, 2011; O'Leary, n.d.). When using VLEs, the students are expected not only to think about the course requirements for themselves such as asking themselves about the course content and what the learner is expected to do, but also interact with the teacher and other students (Nisbet, 2004). Ewing-Taylor and Overall (2003) explained that the constant collaboration between teachers and the students increases the chances wherein the students can learn more from online classes. Aside from the utilisation of social networking sites (SNEs), web-based education tools and online forums like blackboard discussion board, e-mails and chat allow an open communication link among the students and amid the students and teachers on a 24/7 basis (Nian-Shing, Kinshuk and Yi-Hung, 2005). Several studies revealed that access to anonymous, open communication through the use of web-based communication lines (i.e. electronic blackboard discussion board, e-mails and chat); can motivate shy students to speak up and participate more during an online class discussion; this provides an advantage to the learning context of these students (Zhu and Bu, 2009; Fisher, Cox and Gray, 2008; Vonderwell, 2003). O’Leary (n.d.) purports that the use of VLEs can provide more flexible teaching and learning support to both teachers and students. Instead of being too dependent on the teachers’ attendance within a typical classroom setting, Heirdsfield et al. (2011) points out that the use of blackboard technology makes the teachers more accessible to students. Consequently, the VLE can also enable the teachers and students to store, process, and distribute a wide-range of learning materials (McGill and Hobbs, 2008). Combined with the use of other ICT tools, this particular aspect of the VLE requires teachers to use educational approaches, which are only applicable for online learning and teaching. Using the framework of Web 2.0, Internet technology such as the Google has significantly changed the way people are learning new things. Using Internet accessible gadgets like computers, iPad, and/or smart phones, teachers and students can navigate Google search engines to effortlessly gain access to a wide-range of unlimited on and off-campus academic literature and other related information (Nagi 2011; O'Leary, n.d.). Furthermore, the use of this particular information technology will provide both teachers and students with largely up-to-date and current news, and other related reading materials. Apart from enhancing the learning experience of the students, the use of the Google search engines can train them to become self-directed learners. 2.3. Teaching and Learning Challenges and Flaws when Using VLEs Despite the teaching and learning benefits that teachers and students can receive from using VLEs, an online learning environment is not always the best alternative to a traditional contact education facility. The utilization of technology has been faced by considerable challenges ranging from laxity in the embracing of proper technology, lack technical skills to guide and install the software and lack of funds to finance the installation and maintenance of the same (O'Leary, n.d.). On the same note, flexibility with regard to the various channels for achieving the use of Web 2.0 VLEs have brought about mixed desires among the learners and teachers with regards to fit with learners lifestyles and teachers flexibility to teaching. Apart from the flaws associated with the use of Web 2.0, the ongoing promotion of on-line learning or distance learning will continue to bring up threats and new challenges for colleges and universities on how they will effectively design their online courses to meet the expectations of both teachers and the students (Johnson et al., 2000). With this in mind, it is necessary that college or university administrators address these challenges, if they are able to deliver the best educational services to their users into the future. E-security is one of the most critical issues that VLE developers need to address. Even though unique teacher ID and/or student ID are issued to online teachers and students respectively (Whatis 2012; Martinez-Torres et al., 2008), the free flow of online information via Web 2.0 increases the need for e-security. Although the students can easily find much valid and reliable online learning materials using the Google search engines, there will still be a risk of students accessing misleading information online. For this reason, as discussed by the U.S. Department of Education (2008), it is a challenge for both teachers and online learners to be more cautious when selecting valid and reliable materials when completing their course curriculum requirements. According to Wells et al. (2008), there are cases where students erroneously believe that a VLE provides a one-way communication line between teachers and students. Therefore, it is possible that some of the online students are only using the VLE to access lecture notes and information about the course curriculum. As stated above, the main purpose of creating a VLE is to promote active interaction among the online students, and between teachers and students (Nagi, 2011; Weller 2007; O'Leary, n.d.). Therefore, if students are only using the VLE to access lecture notes and information about the course curriculum; then, it is highly articulate that the main purpose of VLE is unmet. On the same note owing to the free interactivity and lack of restriction in the use of Web 2.0 sites, learners have diverted their usage to social interaction rather than utilizing the same for educative interaction (Sclater, 2008). With regard to the students’ engagement to their studies through their own social networking, the students are hesitant. Further, the students perceive the online and offline experience as one and are not able to differentiate. This clearly presents the aspect of students not having the whole idea of what the essence of Web 2.0 VLE is to their learning. Having looked at the instances outlining the purpose behind VLEs not being met, it is critical to note the importance of VLE utilization. The key benefit offered by VLE is the use of feedback. Timely feedback from teachers is extremely pertinent to enable the students learn from their own mistakes. When using VLEs, Wessa, DeRycker and Holliday (2011) say that, feedback coming from the teachers is necessary to ensure that the students are able to maximize their learning experience from their pre-assigned problem-based assignments. The essence of the feedback method is the introduction of an online two-way communication process (Wells et al., 2008). The student is expected after getting feedback from the teacher to also get back to the teacher seeking for more clarification or even for guidance. This is highly crucial in the availing the teacher services even when he or she is far from the reach of the learners. The essence of using online feedback is that it saves time and avails the feedback promptly. 3.0. Ways on How the Provision of “Walled Garden” could protect the Online Learners from Outside Forces and How It can impede the Students’ Learning VLEs have numerous potentials for use with regard to an educational context. According to Vonderwell (2003), in the institutions of higher learning, there is a greater need for protecting and safeguarding the learners regarding the critical selection of information. This protection aimed at by institutions utilises the use of restricted access to resources. The students can be guided on how effective and efficiently to utilise the resources uploaded in their institutions VLEs (Wells et al., 2008; Wang, 2003). This gives them the insight to search for the required information without having the notion of being in a restricted browsing environment. Further, with regard to reducing the level of restriction therein, the VLEs can incorporate doorways that aid in the learners going beyond the vicinity of the walled garden but, to relevant and allowed social world by the institution (Sclater, 2008). The doorways utilise the use of links, for example, the students can be taken out of the walled garden to social networks where they can share resources more easily, upload photos and videos for comment and discussion and go back to the VLE to post a conclusion of final analysis for their field trip. According to Sclater (2008) and Vonderwell (2003), institutions of higher learning find it necessary to come up with ‘walled gardened’ VLEs for purposes of providing information with regard to distant and e-learning. This was in line with protecting their online learners from collecting unnecessary information. To realise this, according to Nian-Shing and Yi-Hung (2005) states that the institutions upload educative information and/or guidelines for the extra information needed. This is in regards to the searching and mode of getting it; thus, protecting the students from searching the wrong information. The advantage behind the utilization of a walled garden of the VLE is that the student prefers being within the walled garden and are hesitant to leave the VLE owing to the confusion they find themselves whenever they venture out of it (Michie, 2011). The fact about walled gardens is that the walled gardened VLEs contain links guiding the learners to the relevant sources where they can get useful and relevant information. According to Attwell (2007), the system of VLEs is usually developed as a “walled garden” in order to isolate VLEs from outside virtual community. It means that VLEs that are developed for teaching and learning purposes are isolated from Internet users from outside the institution who do not access to their VLE. Through the use of “walled garden”, the school administrator can protect their teachers and students from an outside predator (Mason and Rennie, 2008). This option makes VLEs totally different from a social networking site. There are advantages to the use of “walled garden” in VLEs. First of all, a “walled garden” can protect the welfare of the teachers and students from the outside virtual environment (Sclater, 2008; Nekrotafaeio, 2012). Even though “walled garden” can protect the teachers and students from the external virtual environment, the presence of “walled garden” in VLEs could also limit the progress in students’ learning experience. First of all, students who are able to access a home-school VLE are most likely to download reading materials and online course curriculum requirements, and this has already existed for several years (Nekrotafaeio, 2012). De Leng et al. (2006) argue that the process of interfering with the students’ ability to conduct their own research work can negatively affect their overall problem-based learning. By continuously controlling the students’ learning process, the presence of “walled garden” in VLEs can prevent students from further improving their ability to detect a reliable and valid reading material from those that are less credible ones (Nekrotafaeio, 2012). With regards to the “walled garden” in VLEs, the administrators of colleges and universities should be aware of its advantages and disadvantages. Although “walled garden” is effective in protecting the teachers and students from the external virtual environment, by strictly controlling access to learning materials of the online learners could negatively affect the learning outcomes of these students (Michie, 2011; Sclater, 2008). Institutions have the role of educating learners and train them to face the challenges of online learning. The learners ought to be taught effective ways of facing the challenges and how to confront them. Even if the institutions are offering restricted and safe learning environments, the students can still access and explore the sites and pages that they could not access from the school network (Wessa, DeRycker and Holliday, 2011). Therefore, for effective safety of the students and the e-security, training of the students to use critical thinking skills, as well as their ability to safeguard themselves from online threats is imperative. In most cases, colleges and universities that provide distant learners with access to VLEs are extremely in control of the online learning environment. Knowing that most of the available VLEs are strictly moderated by the school teachers and administrators means that the use of VLEs in fact, impedes the students’ right and freedom to gain access to a wide-range of information (Franklin and Harmelen, 2007). To strengthen the students’ critical thinking, Chou and Liu (2005) mentioned that students should be given the chance and freedom to investigate and test the information that they gathered from the online learning environment. The concept of a “walled garden” which is a protected area only accessible to users of the VLE enables school administrators to limit the available learning resources for students. Since the majority of VLEs are strictly moderated by the school teachers and administrators, the creativity and resourcefulness of the students suffer most (Britain and Liber, 2004). 4.0. Conclusion and Recommendations Online learning has already become a significant part of the modern educational system. In most cases, VLEs that offer tracking tools, discussion forums, blogs, and chats can allow teachers to communicate easily with their students, assess research works and monitor the learning progress of each student, return the students’ submitted papers, and provide immediate feedback to students who are enrolled on online courses (Weller 2007). With regard to the walled gardened VLEs, institutions are able to offer their students protected and guided sites where the students get the required information with regard to the relevancy of the studies being undertaken. Even though VLE’s offer a wide-range of on-line books, news reports, and journals to students, there are some cases where students may have difficulty navigating online resources when using VLEs. Further, the protection and the safeguard concept upheld by the walled gardened VLE do not provide the learner with the learner with the real world situation. The major, significant educational aims regard the development of the learners’ creativity and critical thinking. With the process of restricting or limiting resources to be accessed by the students, the availed environment fail to offer them with the chance to use their critical thinking to opt for the appropriate resource. To create a more student-cantered learning environment, this study highly recommends the need to consider the teaching and learning advantages of PLEs. Basically, this strategy can effectively bridge the teaching and learning gap that the “walled garden” has created in VLEs. 5.0. References Attwell, G., 2007. The Personal Learning Environments - The Future of E-Learning? E- Learning Papers. Vol. 2(1). [Online] Available at: [Accessed 16 April 2012]. Britain, S. and Liber, O., 2004. A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of eLearning Environments. Bangor: University of Wales. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta), 2004. What Research Says About Virtual Learning Environments in Teaching and Learning, Coventry, BECTA. Capuano, N., Gaeta, M., Orciuoli, F. and Ritrovato, P., 2009. On-Demand Construction of Personalized Learning Experiences Using Semantic Web and Web 2.0 Techniques. Fisciano (SA), Italy: University of Salerno. Chang, S. and Tung, F., 2008. An Empirical Investigation of Students‘Behavioural Intentions to Use the Online Learning Course Websites. British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 39(1), pp. 71–83. Chiu, C., Sun, S., Hsu, M., Lin, T. and Sun, P., 2005. Usability, Quality, Value and E- Learning Continuance Decisions. Computers & Education. Chou, S. and Liu, C., 2005. Learning Effectiveness in a Web-Based Virtual Learning Environment: A Learner Control Perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Vol. 21, pp. 65-76. Comas-Quinn, A., delosArcos, B. and Mardomingo, R., 2012. Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) For Distance Language Learning: Shifting Tutor Roles in a Contested Space for Interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Vol. 25(2), pp. 129-143. De Leng, B. et al., 2006. Student Perceptions of A Virtual Learning Environment for A Problem-Based Learning Undergraduate Medical Curriculum. Medical Education. Vol. 40, 568-575. Ewing-Taylor, J. and Overall, T., 2003. ‘Collaborating to Make Difference: Taking the PT3 Collaborative Exchange Program into the Future’ Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology in Teacher-Education (SITE) 14th International Conference. 2003(1), pp. 3516-3518. Fisher, M., Cox, A. and Gray, M., 2008. Gender, Intrasexual Competition, and Online Learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 15 April 2012]. Franklin, T., & van Harmelen, M., 2007, May 28. Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 16 April 2012]. Heirdsfield, A., Walker, S., Tambyah, M. and Beutel, D., 2011. Blackboard As An Online Learning Environment: What Do Teacher Education Students And Staff Think? Australian Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 36(7), pp. 1-16. Hussein, D., Alaa, G. and Hamad, A., 2011. Towards Usage-Centered Design Patterns for Social Networking Systems. In Park, JJ; Yang, LT; Lee, C (Eds) "FutureTech 2011, Part II" CCIS 185, pp. 80-89. Johnson, S., Aragon, S., Shaik, N. and Palma-Rivas, N., 2000. Comparative Analysis of Learner Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in Online and Face-To Face Learning Environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. Vol. 11(1), pp. 29-49. Karasavvidis, J. M. et al., 2003. ‘Exploring the Mechanisms through which Computers Contribute to Learning’. Blackwell Publishing. Kroski, E. (2007). The social tools of Web 2.0: opportunities for academic libraries. Choice. Vol. 44(12), pp. 11-21. Martinez-Torres, M., Toral Marin, S., Barrero Garcia, F., Gallardo Vaquez, S., Arias Oliva, M. and Torres, T., 2008. A Technological Acceptance of E-Learning Tools Used in Practical and Laboratory Teaching. European Higher Education Area, Behaviour & Information Technology. Vol. 27(6), pp. 495-505. Mason, R. (1998, October). Models of Online Courses, ALN. Magazine, Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University. Vol. 2 (2) [Online] Available at: [Accessed 15 April 2012]. Mason, R. and Rennie, F., 2008. E-Learning and Social Networking Handbook: Resources for Higher Education. OX: Routledge. Mayer, R., 2002. Multimedia learning. In Ross, BH (Ed) "Psychology of Learning and Motivation" Academic Press. Vol. 41, pp. 85-139. McGill, T. and Hobbs, V., 2008. How Students and Instructors Using A Virtual Learning Environment Perceive The Fit Between Technology and Task. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24, pp. 191-202. McHarg, J., Goding, L., Caldarone, E. and deBere, S. M., 2006. Availability of A Virtual Learning Environment Does Not Compensate For The Lack of A Physical Facility. Medical Teacher. Vol. 28(3), pp. 258-263. Michie, J. (2011). Beware of Walled Gardens- Part One. [Online] Available at: Accessed May 12, 2012 Nagi, K., 2011. Interdisciplinary Research in eLearning- Exploring New Knowledge Domains. Special Issue of the Int. J. of the Computer, the Internet and Management. Vol. 19(SP1), pp. 14.1-14.6. Nekrotafaeio (2012). VLE as a Walled Garden. [Online] Available at: Accessed May 12, 2012 Nian-Shing, C. and Yi-Hung W., 2005. ‘Cyber Schooling Framework: Improving Mobility and Situated Learning’ Advanced Learning Technologies’. 2005. ICALT 2005. Fifth IEEE International Conference on July 5 – 8, 2005, pp. 290-292. Nisbet, D. (2004). Measuring the Quantity and Quality of Online Discussion Group Interaction. Journal of eLiteracy. Vol. 1, pp. 122-139. O'Leary, R. (n.d.). Association for Learning Technology. Virtual Learning Environments. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 15 April 2012]. Oreilly, T., 2007, November. Communications & Strategies. What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models For The Next Generation Of Software? MPRA Paper No. 4580 posted 07. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 15 April 2012]. Pituch, K. and Lee, Y., 2006. The Influence of System Characteristics on E-Learning Use. Computers & Education. Vol. 47, pp. 222-244. Roca, J., Chiu, C.-M. and Martinez, F., 2006. Understanding E-Learning Continuance Intention: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Vol. 64, pp. 683-696. Schiano, D., 1999. Lessons from LambdaMOO: A Social, Text-Based Virtual Environment. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. Vol. 8(2), pp. 127-139. Sclater, N. (2008). Web 2.0, Personal Learning Environments, and the Future of Learning Management Systems. EDUCASE: Centre for Applied Research. Research Bulletin. Vol. 2008(13). U.S. Department of Education, 2008. Evaluating Online Challenges and Strategies for Success. Innovations in Education. [Online] Available at: Accessed May 12, 2012. Vonderwell, S., 2003. An Examination Of Asynchronous Communication Experiences And Perspectives Of Students In An Online Course: A Case Study. The Internet and Higher Education. Vol. 6(1), pp. 77-90. Wang, Y., 2003. Assessment of Learner Satisfaction with Asynchronous Electronic Learning Systems. Information & Management. Vol. 41, pp. 75-86. Weller, M., 2007. Virtual Learning Environments: Using, Choosing and Developing Your VLE. OX: Routledge. Wells, P., Fieger, P. and De Lange, P., 2008. Integrating a Virtual Learning Environment into a Second-Year Accounting Course: Determinants of Overall Student Perception. Accounting & Finance. Vol. 48(3), pp. 503-518. Wessa, P., DeRycker, A. and Holliday, I., 2011. Content-Based Virtual Learning Environment Designs Improve Learning Efficiency in Constructivist Stats. Educ. PLoS ONE, Vol. 6(10), p. e25363. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025363. Whatis, 2012. The leading IT encyclopedia and learning center. Virtual learning environment (VLE) or managed learning. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 15 April 2012]. Zhu, M. and Bu, J., 2009. Chinese EFL Students’ Perspectives on the Integration of Technology. English Language Teaching. Vol. 2(3), pp. 153-162. Read More