Critical Analysis of Academic Papers in e-Learning - Coursework Example

Critical Analysis of Academic Papers in e-Learning Paper 1: Developing an e-learning strategy in higher education This is a paper by Jan Tucker and Garry Gentry, whose purpose was to clarify the challenges faced by higher learning institutions and offer a solution in the form of development of an e-learning strategy. This paper’s approach or methodology is evidence that this paper continues and reviews the works of others. Their methodology involved exploring “recent research on higher education and e-learning strategies” (Tucker and Gentry, 2009). This paper reviews the works of other researchers and comes up with information and statistics on the challenges various institutions of higher learning face. To meet the purpose of this study, the researchers reviewed findings from other studies in order to ascertain that there are challenges which need to be dealt with. This paper does not come up with a definition of e-learning; it highlights several definitions from other researchers. Even when it narrows to the point of focus, it uses another researcher’s view that instead of concentrating on defining e-learning, efforts should be geared towards implementing e-learning strategies. The paper does not answer questions on how Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) could improve the learning process in virtual learning environments or the impact of CSCL on learners. Rather, the paper concentrates on how implementation of an e-learning strategy should be thought out before a decision can be made. However, the insights the researchers give on the five stages of developing and e-learning strategy puts to light some factors affecting the adoption of CSCL in virtual learning environments. They identify “the appeal offering anytime, anywhere access to learning, the ability to adapt learning to individual needs, the ability to increase collaboration, the opportunity to offer flexibility to meet student schedules and cost saving” as some of the factors that influence adoption of CSCL in virtual learning environments (Tucker and Gentry, 2009. P. 45). The strength of this paper is manifested on how well Tucker and Gentry calls for thorough considerations for any institution that would want to adopt an e-learning strategy. They take one through the processes of planning, choosing the right technology, development, implementation and control of an e-learning strategy. However, the paper offers just an approach in the initial points of developing and e-learning strategy. In addition, it leans on cost-effectiveness rather than showing how an e-learning strategy would affect the quality of education that higher learning institutions offer. It just points out the need for institutions to study the implications of technology on learning, which means one may not be able to determine the bearing an e-learning strategy has on the learning process. Paper 2: Measuring Success in e-Learning – A Multi – Dimensional Approach This paper is by Malcom Bell and Stephen Farrier of Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, in the United Kingdom. Bell and Farrier explored several approaches to provide a measurement of the success of Northumbria University’s eLearning Platform (eLP). The paper continues and reviews a publication by Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) on e-learning strategy. The 2005 publication established that, the measures Northumbria University used to measure its eLP was not helpful in measuring how the University met the objectives of its e-learning program or even its success. In doing this, the researchers used what they call ‘Pick & Mix’ methodology developed in 2005 by Paul Bacsich – a bench marking consultant. Apart from reviewing the work of others, Bell and Farrier support and update existing findings. This study built on three studies they carried earlier; ‘Its installed... now get on with it: looking beyond the software of the cultural change’ in 2005, ‘Measuring progress in e-learning at Northumbria’ in 2006 and ‘Northumbria University expression of interest in e-learning bench marking exercise phase 2’ in 2007. They fill in the information that is missing in other sources in coming up with a concrete way of measuring success in e-learning. The qualitative data collected in this study adds to the quantitative data already established through other ways. The paper shows that this study set out to fulfil the HEFCE strategy for e-learning laid out in 2005. However, the researchers do not fill up information from sources other than the studies they carried earlier and those established by Northumbria University. Nevertheless, the methodology they used is borrowed heavily on other studies in the area of e-learning benchmarking. Through the information the research gathered from a myriad of resources, the paper can answer questions on how CSCL can improve the learning process. The collected from the students can show the impact CSCL has on learners. This paper evokes interest in any reader to want to know the kind of e-learning eLP is. Northumbria University is accredited as UK’s most IT-enabled organization (Bell and Farrier, 2008). This implies that they have implemented high level of IT infrastructure in their e-learning system. Other than studying the University’s e-learning system, the paper cannot be said to have conclusively answered questions on use of CSCL on Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) The thoroughness of carrying out the measuring process is the main strength of the paper. It uses authentic ways of collecting data required. The data is drawn from a myriad of resources. However, apart from helping other institutions adopt benchmarking strategies, it cannot help institutions come up with their own strategy. This is because the paper concentrates on methods of benchmarking and not on coming up with an e-learning strategy. Nevertheless, a deeper examination of the studies carried out before and the “Towards the web-enabled University” strategy by Northumbria University would be vital in adopting an e-learning system. Paper 3: Engaging the YouTube Google-Eyed Generation: Strategies for Using Web 2.0 in Teaching and Learning In this paper, Peter Duffy of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University contend that using online learning and teaching technology for delivery of content to students is not efficient. He asserts that there is a new learning ecology where Web 2.0 should be examined for “collaborative and co-creative purposes as well as for the critical assessment, evaluation and personalization of information” (Duffy, 2008, p. 119). The paper reviews and borrows from the study by John Seely Brown especially to describe what it refers to as ‘a new ecology in learning’. It uses Brown’s metaphor on ecology to illustrate the combination of traditional online learning and teaching technology with the New Web 2.0 technologies and websites. The paper does not only support the works of other it also argues with findings from other researchers. It also updates findings from other sources. The paper’s main focus is to explore Web 2.0 tools and how they can be incorporated in e-learning. It borrows heavily on O’Reilly Media’s study ‘What Is Web 2.0, Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software’. However, it applies the Web 2.0 to e-learning. In doing this, it updates developments that have since been realized since 2003 when O’Reilly study was done. As opposed to other previous papers analysed, this paper employs a general view of how any institution of learning can employ the Web 2.0 tools in e-learning. Therefore, it provides answers on how computer supported collaborative learning can improve the learning process in VLEs and what impact CSCL has on learners. It comprehensively details how Web 2.0 tools can support collaborations and interactions in e-learning system, in higher education. In doing so, it shows the factors that affect the adoption of CSCL and how such a program can be implemented effectively. The major strength of this paper is its universality. It concentrates on what if refers to as ‘YouTube Google-Eyed Generation’ which is a generation that can be found in any institution of learning in the world. Therefore, the strategies the paper offers can be adopted by anyone. Its weakness it that if explores a forum of teaching and learning (Web 2.0 tools) which is widely used for leisure and entertainment rather than academia. Paper 4: Impact of Communication Patterns, Network Positions and Social Dynamics Factors on Learning among Students in a CSCL Environment This research set out to assess the impact communication patterns, network positions and social dynamic factors have on the self-perception of students learning in a CSCL environment. The paper is by Binod Sundararajan of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia. Using two studies, Picciano, 2002 and Reffay & Chanier 2002, Sundararajan establishes that the nature and extent of interactions that affect student performance in a CSCL environment. It is on this finding that he sets out the specific aim for his study; identify key actors that are central to learning and are sought by others in the learning process. Other than that, this paper includes a literature review on the topic under investigation; a clear indication that the paper does not only review works by other researchers, but it also support and update existing findings. The literature review arms the researcher with a basis to do the social network analysis and come up with his research hypothesis. The study fills in information that is missing from other sources. Sundararajan says that “While the literature recommends the study of all the technologies used in the CSCL environment, in my study I have limited it to the students’ use of IM (instant messenger) and Email and Bulletin Boards (BB) (2009, p. 75) This paper concentrates on CSCL learning environments with an emphasis on the effects of Communication Patterns, Network Positions and Social Dynamics on the learning process. Therefore, it shows how CSCL improves the learning process, the impact of CSCL on learners and how CSCL can be implemented successfully in e-learning environments. The topic and scope of this paper identifies factors affecting the adoption of CSCL in VLEs. This study draws its strength in the methodology used to determine and collect the data needed. The literature review gives a background and helps form a rationale for carrying out the study. Although the survey was carried out in one institution, the students picked were taking a variety of courses. The paper’s weakness is that it explored only a few communication patterns. Paper 5: The logic of wikis: The possibilities of the Web 2.0 classroom In this paper, Michael Glassman and Min Ju Kang, argue that Web 2.0 tools have the potential to dramatically change how we conceptualize and operationalize education processes and strategies. The paper builds on research by others. It contends that, “The promise of the Web 2.0 is similar to ideas proposed by Pragmatists such as Charles Peirce and John Dewey” (Glassman and Kang 2011, p. 1). The peculiarity of this study is that it has its foundation on findings established over a century ago; Peirce 1923 and Dewey, 1916. The researchers support the ideas by the Pragmatists on human thinking, learning, creating and educating. They also fill up information that have been missing from other sources including their earlier studies. This paper concentrates on the use of the Web and the New Web 2.0 tools rather than the other models of CDCL. Therefore, neither shows how CSCL can improve the learning process nor does it tell what factors affect the adoption of CSCL in VLEs. However, it shows how the web 2.0 tools support collaborations and interactions in higher learning institutions. The paper concludes that the internet qualitatively change the way we think about information, goal-driven activity and the teaching and learning processes. The weakness of this paper is that it relies too much on what was established so long ago. Rampant changes have been experienced in the education system since then. Consequently the researchers keep on comparing what the pragmatists said (which is based on logic), and this does not satisfy their assertion that the internet and the Web help promote creative thinking. However, drawing from a pool of many resources they have in a convinient way shown the internet does not change the fundamental way of gaining knowledge. References Bell, M. and Farrier, S. Measuring Success in e-Learning – a Multi-Dimensional Approach. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 6 Issue 2, pp 99 - 110, available online at www.ejel.org Duffy, P 2008, Engaging the YouTube Google-Eyed Generation: Strategies for Using Web 2.0 in Teaching and Learning. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, Volume 6 Issue 2, pp 119 - 130, available online at www.ejel.org Glassman, M & Kang M. J 2011, The Logic of Wikis: The Possibilities of the Web 2.0 Classroom, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. DOI 10.1007/s11412-011-9107-y Sundararajan, B. 2009, Impact of Communication Patterns, Network Positions and Social Dynamics Factors on Learning among Students in a CSCL Environment. Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 7 Issue 1 (pp71 -84), available online at www.ejel.org Tucker, J. and Gentry G, 2009, Developing an e-learning strategy in higher education, foresight, Vol. 11 Iss: 2 pp. 43 - 49 Read More