E-learning within Higher Education in Saudi Arabia - Literature review Example

2.3. Elearning within Higher Education in the KSA 2.3.1. What is Elearning? The elearning concept is hard to define because it is continuously changing and developing (Littlejohn & Pegler, 2014). Some people define as technology-based learning, online learning, distance learning, computer-based learning or web-based learning. Moore, Dickson-Deane and Galyen (2011) note that while some authors provide specific definitions to the elearning concept, others imply a definition without being specific. Itmazi (2007) provides a specific definition, where he defines elearning as the “use of new multimedia technologies and the Internet to improve the quality of learning by facilitating access to resources and services as well as remote exchanges and collaboration” (p. 1). Nichols (2003) defines elearning as a method of receiving instruction through technological tools, which can be web-based, distributed or web-capable. Ellis (2004) however disagrees with Nichols (2003) by indicating that in addition to web-based tools, other technology methods, which include interactive TV, audio or video tape and satellite broadcast are also ways through which elearning takes place. In this paper however, HEFCE’s (2005, cited by Andrews & Haythornwaite, 2007) definition of elearning, which indicates that elearning is “the use of technologies in learning opportunities encompassing flexible learning as well as distance learning; and the use of information and communication technology as a communications and delivery tool, between individuals and groups, to support students and improve the management of learning” (p. 2), will be used. As Andrews and Haythornwaite (2007) note, elearning is made of two words; e (denoting the electronic part of learning) and learning. The electronic component of elearning basically relates to the computer-mediated mode of teaching and learning where the hardware and software components of the computer need to be present. Haythornwaite and Andrews (2011) indicate that the networking infrastructure needs to be present both at the tutors’ side and on the learners’ side. Networking infrastructure makes it possible for tutors to collect and distribute information, knowledge and data to learners, and also makes it possible for the learners to receive whatever has been provided by the tutors and where necessary, they (learners) provide feedback. The second component of elearning is learning. Andrews and Haythornwaite (2007) define learning as the “personal and social/political transformative act in which new knowledge is gained by the learner” (p. 17). The core components of learning include content, services and technology (Henry, 2001). Notably, for effective elearning to take place, management of the learning initiatives needs to have the same commitment as the traditional forms of learning. Henry (2001) specifically argues that elearning needs to appeal to the learners that it targets, must offer valuable resources, and must be able to help learners attain their educational goals and aspirations. Elearning should offer a “holistic approach to training, education and knowledge...” (Henry, 2001, p. 250). Holistic training brings together learning content, technology and the learners. According to Henry (2001), content is the main thing in learning because it adds knowledge, creates skills, and enhances the capabilities of learners. In the end, the human capital is better off through learning because of the content that has been imparted to them. To have the desirable effect on human capital, learning content is delivered through technology and services. Henry describes technologies as such things as virtual classroom sessions, online meetings, web seminars, expert-led discussions and chat forums among others. Services on the other hand are described as the manner in which the tutor designs and strategizes the elearning programme (e.g. through booking systems and classroom sourcing) (Henry, 2001). In the end, elearning (just like traditional modes of learning) is about bringing transformation to the learner through knowledge (Andrews & Haythornwaite, 2007). One of the major differences between traditional forms of learning and elearning is in the nature of learning, whereby the latter allows learners from different physical locations to learn synchronously and asynchronously (Andrews & Haythornwaite, 2007). There is physical distance not only between learners, but also between learners and their tutors/lecturers. The physical distance is however mediated by different technological tools that could include weblogs, emails, chat rooms and other modes of group communications. For elearning to fully serve its purpose, people have to be involved. They need to teach, learn, talk, write and share with each other the different components of learning. As Andrews and Haythornwaite (2007) observe, the suite of software tools through which elearning is implemented on is only the surface. The real substance of elearning is found in the lectures prepared by the instructor, the course management systems and the communication that takes place among the participants. Andrews and Haythornwaite (2007) have also argued that “elearning is a leaky system”. Explaining their argument, the two authors indicate that elearning spreads fast, and is able to take advantage of opportunities that enable learners to learn, communicate and seek resources which would have been out of their reach had they chosen to follow the traditional method of learning. Elearning in KSA is still in its infancy stage (Al Alhareth, 2013). Like other places in the world, elearning in KSA is not meant to replace the traditional learning methods; rather, it is meant to provide learners and their instructors an augmented learning environment of giving and receiving learning-related information (Al Alhareth, 2013). With elearning, the individual learner benefits from an improved learning environment that uses new technologies. Overall, elearning appears to be a tool for communicating and delivering knowledge to learners, which also improves the management of learning and supports learners. Elearning not only makes use of the multi-party contribution to knowledge and learning, but also introduces asynchrony and flexibility in learning. It is however worth noting that new possibilities in the use of electronic learning make elearning a continuously emergent field. In other words, what is known about elearning today may completely change in a few more years in the future. As Andrews and Haythornwaite (2007) suggest, this changing nature of elearning is to a great extent the result of the “social and emergent nature” through which people interact, communicate and use information communication technologies (ICT). The role of the teacher or tutor or lecturer will still remain an important part of elearning because they (teachers/tutors/lecturers) direct learning in a purposeful manner that is meant to create knowledge, understanding, practice and/or skills. 2.3.2. Elearning within Higher Education (A Global Focus) Higher education was traditionally provided in gated institutions in different countries (Haythonwaite & Andrew, 2011). A global focus on elearning adoption reveals that a high number of institutions of higher learning have hopped on to the elearning bandwagon, some because they need to solve authentic learning problems, while some simply do it because it is trendy (Mapuva & Muyengwa, 2009). Regardless of the reasons for adoption, elearning has transformed education in different parts of the word in that learners can now engage in networked learning, online learning and distance learning among others modes of elearning (Mapuva & Muyengwa, 2009). A report by Sawahel (2013) reveals that the Asian continent leads in the uptake of elearning. Asia is followed by North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the Middle East in that order. The report further rates the African continent as the most dynamic elearning market in the whole world. Elearning in Africa is partially driven by the fibre-optic cable, which has made Internet-based processes much faster in Africa. According to Sawahel (2013), elearning is one of the areas that has benefited greatly from the fibre-optic cable. Arguably, the fibre-optic cable is just a reflection of the critical role that having all resources necessary to make elearning possible plays. One of the driving factors cited by Mapuva and Muyengwa (2009) as being behind the increased adoption of elearning is globalisation. According to the two writers, universities that do not adopt elearning stand the risk of lagging behind in globalisation. However, institutions of higher learning stand the risk of failing miserably at implementing elearning. According to Mapuva and Muyengwa (2009), there are three prerequisites to elearning adoption in higher learning. They are: institutional leadership, organisational structure of higher education institutions, and training the teaching staff on elearning methods and the need to adopt elearning. The importance of institutional leadership has been underscored by Mapuva and Muyengwa (2009), who argue that institutions of higher learning need to consider how learning takes place through electronic devices and the underlying pedagogy of electronic learning. Mapuva and Muyengwa (2009) have also noted that the absence of proper leadership in institutions of higher learning is a potential barrier to the effective implementation of elearning throughout the world. Mapuva and Muyengwa (2009) specifically note that the leaders in every institution that adopts elearning need to understand what elearning is, the resources required, and the strategies, funds and plans necessary to make elearning a success. Ideally, institutional leaders authorise the adoption of elearning in their different institutions. They are therefore in a position to facilitate or impede its implementation depending on how well they understand it, its benefits and the resources needed to make elearning a success. Elearning has been successful where the organisational structures of higher education institutions are flexible. This has been investigated in literature by authors such as Mason and Weller (2000) and Moore et al. (2011). Mason and Weller (2000) indicate that on the global scale, it has been proven that flexibility is an important component for any organisation that intends to adopt elearning. The authors specifically state that institutions need to be flexible in order to accommodate elearning courses. The foregoing argument means that all aspects of a brick-and-mortar institution – i.e. managerial, financial and organisational – have to be changeable enough to accommodate electronic learning and the changes that come with it. Training the teaching staff is also an important determinant of effective adoption of elearning throughout the world. Mapuva and Muyengwa (2009) indicate that the teaching staff “forms the policy-implementation arm of any HEI through acceptable pedagogic dispatches to students” (p. 223). The initials HEI as used in the foregoing quotation refer to higher education institutions, which include colleges and universities. The teaching staff members transmit educational materials to learners and if they are not competent enough in transmitting such material through electronic means, then the attempt by an institution may not be very successful. Copeland (2001) backs this argument by stating that whereas technology is an important component in elearning, lecturers still play a pivotal role in learning since it is them who facilitate learning. In elearning, it has been found that the lecturer’s ability to use and control the electronic technology, their attitudes towards the electronic technology devices and their teaching styles all affect how well they will teach in an elearning environment. Throughout the world, a blend between traditional methods of learning and elearning is increasingly gaining precedence. This is widely being referred to as blended learning. According to O’Donoghue, Singh, and Dorward (2001), blended learning is an “important building block of the new schoolhouse that offers students both flexibility and convenience” most especially the working adults who have to juggle work and school (p. 518). From the learner’s perspective, elearning has been received with mixed reactions in different places in the world. Describing the feedback attained from different learners, Mason and Weller (2000) liken the feedback to the “apocryphal spaghetti junction” where cars go different ways, because “some students call for more group work; others want none at all. Some are disappointed in the course content; others find it the perfect marriage of both vocation and academic skills” (p. 197). Time management is also a great concern among elearners as Sharpe and Benfield (2005) found out. To some students, elearning was an overwhelming experience especially in relation to time management. Irrespective of the flexibility that came with elearning, Sharpe and Benfield (2005) found out that learners the world over had challenges with time issues such as time lag, time to write, time to participate in discussions, time to reflect on what they had learnt, and time to fit elearning in their busy schedules. It has been found that elearning has ‘woken’ students who in the past were passive about learning (O’Neill, Singh & O’Donoghue, 2004). This argument is supported by Hawkes and Cambre (2000), who argue that elearning passes most of the learning responsibility on learners, and as a result, learners are forced to take responsibility over how and when they learn. According to O’Neill et al. (2004), however, learners do not automatically become conscientious and self-motivated as soon as they take up elearning. Rather, it takes realisation on a personal level that most of the effort in elearning has to come from the learner. This leads to the conclusion that elearning is most suited for some students, while others do not respond too well to it. Copeland (2001) indicates that attaining high education qualifications through elearning takes more motivation, commitment and hand work when compared to traditional methods of learning since the learner works in a flexible environment, where all the hard decisions about learning participation are made by him or her. It has also been found out that students’ interactions with the lecturer and with other students are necessary to stimulate good learning outcomes (O’Neill et al., 2004). O’Neill et al. (2004) also note that prior experience in technology use is a predictor of successful elearning adoption by students and tutors/lecturers alike. Quality concerns have also been raised in regard to elearning. The debate started back in the 1990s and continues to date. Writing about quality issues in the early 2000s, Copeland (2001) notes that not all elearning programmes can pass the quality test; however, the author perceives this as a marketing opportunity for institutions whose elearning programmes provide quality education to learners. Copeland (2001) argues that such institutions need to fight harder in order to attain the recognition that will not only attract more students to the programmes, but also to be recognised by the employers (hence creating a market for their graduates) and the larger society. Since different parts of the world have different challenges, the adoption and implementation of elearning may vary from one region to the other. In developed countries, elearning has penetrated the society more because of the different dynamics in such societies. For example, developed countries register more penetration of electronic devices in their population and they are also more likely to work and learn at the same time. In developing countries in Africa and Asia, the societal dynamics may be completely different. For example, the penetration of electronic devices in a specific population may be very low compared to a similar population size in the developed countries. Additionally, the high unemployment rates in most developed countries do not create the demand for a flexible kind of learning since learners (especially in their first years of higher learning) can rarely get jobs. As such, they dedicate their years in tertiary institutions to learning alone. Despite the differences in different regions of the world, institutions of higher learning are still adopting elearning. Such adoption is driven by different needs in the markets that they (institutions) target. Arguably, what makes elearning successful in Europe is not very much different from what makes elearning successful in the KSA, the larger Middle East, Africa, Asia and other continents. This argument therefore raises the need for knowledge sharing and identifying ways through which elearning can be improved. References Al Alhareth, Y. (2013). Elearning contribution to the enhancement of higher education opportunities for women in Saudi Arabia (pilot study). US-China Education Review, 3(9), 637-648. Andrews, R & Haythornwaite, C. (Eds.) (2007). The SAGE handbook of elearning research. London: SAGE. Copeland, R. (2001). The usual rules apply online. Times Higher Education Supplement. Ellis, R. (2004). Down with boring elearning! Interview with elearning guru Dr. Michael W. Allen. Learning Circuits. Haythornwaite, C., & Andrews, R. (2011). Elearning theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Henry, P. (2001). Elearning technology, content and services. Education + Training 43(4), 249-255. Itmazi, J. (2007). Elearning. 1-4, retrieved from, http://elearning.ppu.edu/file.php/1/eLearning/elearning.pdf Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended elearning. Connecting with elearning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Mapuva, J., & Muyengwa, L. (2009). Conquering the barriers to learning in higher education through e-learning. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 221-227. Mason, R., & Weller, M. (2000). Factors affecting student satisfaction on a web course: Education at a distance. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2), p. 173-200. Moore, J., Dickson-Diane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). Elearning, online learning, and distance learning environments: are they the same? Internet and Higher Education, 14, 129-135. Nichols, M. (2003). A theory of elearning. Educational Technology & Society, 6(2), 1-10. O’Donoghue, J., Singh, G., & Dorward, L. (2001). Virtual education in universities: A technological imperative. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 517-530. O’Neill, K., Singh, G., & O’Donoghue, J. (2004). Implementing elearning programmes for higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology Education, 3, 313-323. Sawahel, W. (2013). Africa is most dynamic elearning market on the planet. University World News, retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130125105755921 Sharpe, R., & Benfield, G. (2005). The student experience of elearning in higher education: a Review of the Literature. Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching, 1(3), retrieved from http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/paper/the-student-experience-of-e-learning-in-higher-education-a-review-of-the-literature/ Read More