The purpose of this study is to explore aspects of learning that are perceived as helping foster successful eLearning for all participants separated by time and distance. The author argues that learner-centered practice is necessary to improve the quality of learning on the Internet. To this end, this study deals with the issues of potential or actual students as they relate to eLearning. In two different surveys, most respondents expected information communication technology to play a key role in shaping the form of future education. The surveys also revealed several real or potential problems facing students taking courses on the Internet. Most important, students’ needs and demands are perceived as being given a lower priority than other aspects of designing courses on the Internet. In short, client orientation is the key mode of operation in the information age, and a user friendly environment is thus critical to ensuring the success of eLearning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barclay, Kathleen H. 2001. Humanizing learning-at-distance. San Francisco: Saybrook Institute.
2.
Biggs, J. B. 1987. Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne, Australia: ACER.
3.
Bothun, G., and S. D. Kevan. 1996. Networked physics in undergraduate instruction. Available from http://zebu.oregon.edu/special/cip.html.
4.
Cardenas, Karen. 1998. Technology in today’s classroom. Academe84 (3): 27-29.
5.
CNN.com. 2000. What technological advances can you expect to see in 2025? Retrieved 14 January 2000 from http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/14/tech.2025.idg/index.html.
6.
Cox, B. 1996. Evolving a distributed learning community. In Wired together: The online K-12 classroom, edited by Z. Berger and M. Collins. New Jersey: Hampton.
7.
Cravener, P. A. 1999. Faculty experiences with providing online courses. Computers and Nursing17:42-47.
8.
Denning, Peter. 1997. Skewer the stereotype. Educom Review33 (3): 30-34.
9.
Eddy, John, John Burnett, Donald Spaulding, and Stan Murphy. 1997. Technology assisted education. Education117 (3): 478-81.
10.
Edelson, D., Roy Pea, and L. Gomez. 1996. Constructivism in the collaboratory. In Constructivists learning environment, edited by B. G. Wilson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
11.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1964. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
Farrington, Gregory C. 1999. The new technology and the future of residential undergraduate education. Educom Review34 (4): 38-44.
13.
Fiske, Edmond, and Bruce Hammond. 1997. Identifying quality in American colleges and universities. Planning for Higher Education26 (1): 8-15.
14.
Frissen, Paul. 1996. The virtual reality of informatization in public administration. Informatization and the Public Sector2 (3/4): 265-94.
15.
———. 1998. Public administration in cyberspace. In Public administration in an information age, edited by I. M. Snellen and W. B. van de Donk, 33-46. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOC Press.
16.
Garson, G. David. 2000. The role of information technology in quality education. In Social dimensions of information technology, edited by David Garson, 177-97. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
17.
G-7 government on-line project. 1996. Retrieved 17 July 1006 from http://www.open.gov.uk/govline/10120_2.html.
18.
Guernsey, Lisa. 1998. Distance education for the not-so-distant. Chronicle of Higher Education44 (29): A29-A30.
19.
Heeks, Richard, ed. 1999. Reinventing government in the information age. New York: Routledge.
20.
Hillesheim, Gwen. 1998. The search for quality standards in distance learning. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, 5-7 August, Madison, WI.
21.
Hiltz, Starr Roxanne. 1994. The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22.
Holmberg, B. 1998. What is new and what is important in distance education. Open Praxis1:31-33.
23.
Johnston, Sally M., and Barbara Krauth. 1996. Balancing equity and access: Some principles of good practice for the virtual university. Change28 (2): 38-41.
24.
Kauver, Gerald. 1998. Electronic government: Concept, visions, and strategies. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Electronic Government, 17 October, Seoul, Korea.
25.
Kearney, Richard, and Evan M. Berman, eds. 1999. Public sector performance: Management, motivation and measurement. Boulder, CO.: Westview.
Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training. 2001. A scheme to promote Web-based education and training for human resource development. Seoul: Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training.
31.
Korean Ministry of Education and Human Resources. 2001. A study of the current state of distance learning and improving strategies. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education and Human Resources.
32.
Kroeker, Brian. 2000. Changing roles in information dissemination and education. In Social dimensions of information technology, edited by David Garson, 141-59. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
33.
Lookatch, R. P. 1995. The strange but true story of multimedia and the Type I error. Technos4 (2): 10-13.
34.
Lucas, Henry. 1998. T-form organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
Merrill Lynch. 2000. Knowledge web. New York: Merrill Lynch.
36.
Mingle, James R., and Larry Gold. 1996. Should distance learning be rationed? Educom Review31 (4): 48-50.
37.
National Council for Open and Distance Education. 2002. Definitions, glossaries and terms. Retrieved 11 March 2002 from http://cedir.uow.edu.au/NCODE/info/definitions/html.
38.
Norman, Donald A., and James C. Spohrer. 1996. Learner-centered education. Communications of the ACM39 (4): 24-27.
39.
Oh, Cheol H. 2001. eGovernment: A critical review. Journal of Public Policy9 (1): 52-86.
40.
———. In press. Knowledge utilization: Retrospect and prospect. In Encyclopedia of public administration and policy, edited by Jack Rabin. New York: Marcel Dekker.
41.
Porter, Lynnette R. 1997. Creating the virtual classroom: Distance learning with the Internet. New York: John Wiley.
42.
Postman, Neil. 1992. Technology: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Knopf.
43.
Rapp, Charles, and John Poertner. 1992. Social administration: A client-centered approach. New York: Longman.
44.
Rosenberg, Marc. 2001. E-learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
45.
Rosenberg, R. 1997. The social impact of computers. 2d ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
46.
Roth, Brenda F., and Denisha Sanders. 1996. Instructional technology to enhance teaching. New Directions for Higher Education94:21-32.
47.
Ruberg, L. F., C. D. Taylor, and D. M. Moore. 1996. Student participation and interaction on-line: A case study of two college classes. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications2 (1): 69-92.
48.
Ryan, Steve, Bernard Scott, Howard Freeman, and Daxa Patel. 2000. The virtual university. London: Kogan Page.
49.
Shields, Mark. 2000. Technological change, virtual learning, and higher education. In Social dimensions of information technology, edited by David Garson, 160-76. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
50.
Slevin, James. 2000. The Internet and society. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
51.
Taylor, Charles Lewis. 2000. Teaching on line and on campus simultaneously. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Political Science Association, 1-5 August, Quebec, Canada.
52.
van Dusen, Gerald C. 1997. The virtual campus: Technology and reform in higher education. ASHE-ERIC higher education report 25, no. 5. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
53.
Wulf, W. A. 1995. Warning: Information technology will transform the university. Issues in Science Technology summer: 46-52.
54.
Young, Kimberly. 1998. Caught in the net. New York: John Wiley.
55.
Zittel, Thomas. 2000. Electronic government: A blue-print for 21st century democracy? Paper presented at the World Congress of the International Political Science Association, 1-5 August, Quebec, Canada.
