Talk:E-learning/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Old comments

It is stated in the Online Learning section that according to a Sloan Consortium there will be 3 million students taking online courses this year, which year is this?

I'm splitting the entries for Claroline and Dokeos. The situation is unclear now, but it appears there will be a code split:Dokeos from the original creator, and Claroline from the university where it was first developed. The user community has yet to make a choice about what to support. roan 08:23, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Comments on Collaboration

I'd like to either see some citations or alterations to the last paragraph in Advantages and Disadvantages suggesting that eLearning isn't so great with collaborative projects. I've been involved in many online collaborative eLearning projects for nearly 10 years and this has never been the case, the opposite in fact. This is more an issue of moderation and teaching than eLearning in itself. I'm happy to edit, but interested in comments too. --Apolaine 09:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions regarding E-learning

One concern about e-learning is it seems often to be mainly about delivery and distribution, some drill and practice style testing, with occasional emphasis on explanation. There is little about learning, and attempting to get students motivated.

CD-ROM resources are also very good, though may be limited. But having a CD-ROM is not the same as using it. When did you last use your CD of Encarta, or Britannica, or the OED etc?

It is great to have on-line resources for people who are motivated, but very many people are not in that category. It is also useful to have resources for people who are in remote areas. A great deal of money and effort may be wasted in so-called e-learning initiatives, since multimedia etc and use of video, are possibly considerably more expensive to produce than simply delivering conventional notes and lectures.

You can bring water to the people, but you can't make them drink. Discuss!

David Martland 08:23 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

As an educator and Online Administrator I would never associate "E-Learning" with "Online Education". In practice, E-Learning tends to be more focused on learning aspects of computer-based technologies (as Mr. Martland hinted at). Whereas Online Education is more popular amoung the Liberal Arts, like history, religion, social studies, etc.

A bit of a semantic issue is also the difference between the operative verbs. "Learning" suggests the aquiring of certain specific knowledge. One might take an E-Learning class to learn to use Microsoft Word, or PHP. But "Education" implies a program with a specific order of courses with specific goals for achieving a certain degree. This difference highlights not just an understanding of the two terms but that each is a different philosophy of Education in itself.

It would not be advisable to incorporate the term "Online Education" into "E-Learning".

The definition, not surprisingly for a sort of 10th generation buzz word, is confusing. How can elearning be about use of technology in support of learning but start with the letter "e"? That would be tlearning. I suggest that elearning is about using electronic (i.e., digital computer) technology to support learning. The term applies almost exclusively to the delivery of learning resources via the Internet. It should also be made clear that this support has and does have many other names. It also might be helpful to indicate that the term elearning originated in corporate training and thus is used more in that context than in academic contexts. [rlj] —Precedingunsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathetos 16:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Having taught science online for five years in high school and community college settings, I am convinced that the content portion can be delivered as efficiently and effectively as in a traditional setting. My concern, and at times, frustration, has been the lack of rigor in laboratory exercises. My experience as a science student has been that "being there" in the lab (for lack of a better expression) is a critical part of the lesson, certainly along with manipulating devices, taking measurements and managing data. I have yet to find a meaningful, rigorous online lab delivery that does more than replace the traditional experience with pushing a button or dragging and dropping virtual liquid into a virtual beaker.

Perhaps the philosophical question underpinning my concern is just how valuable is the physical manipulation of laboratory equipment as part of a scientific education?

Captainscience (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Captainscience, do you have a question or comment about the contents of the article? Talk pages should be used to discuss how to improve the article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

E-learning

The Article posted on E-learning is perfect.But what i feel missing are some sample examples. Like when you hyperlink "metadata" we should show examples of metadata and keywords.

Great work man...

I think that discussions on e learning and online learning may not be merged as e learning has a wider connotation. But we may assert, generally speaking that the two expressions are largely synonymous.

A.S.Guha Shillong,INDIA. 12.2.06

The assertion that Open Source LMSes lack technical support is simply not true. Take Moodle for example. There, you have two alternatives;

1. www.moodle.org - A forum where questions are quickly answered (there are about 30 posts per day to the forum)

2. www.moodle.com where a person can hire someone for the purpose of support.

It's a common misconception, perhaps deliberatly propigated by vendors of proprietary systems, that open source systems are unsupported. Having created eLearning and worked with Moodle, I can tell you that the opposite is true. With closed source systems you can very easily get tied to a single vendor. If they can't solve your problem on your timeline, you're stuck. The most popular open source systems typically have multiple sources of support both for free and for a price, with errors being patched and posted by the most proficient users for others to benefit from.

I'd make the change to the wiki page myself, but I'm very new to this and I don't want to mess anything up.

I fail to see how Second Life is an example of E-Learning 2.0. The use of Second Life seeks to simulate real life, and provide virtual classrooms in an education context. —Preceding unsigned comment added byDavezap (talk • contribs) 09:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Link lists

The article contains a wealth of useful information. However the lists of links are now very long. What about opening an article with List_of_e-learning-expert. Hirzel 15:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As there was no answer so far, what about moving the list of experts to its own article? Same for the list of LMS?Hirzel 28 June 2005 06:06 (UTC)

It seems that 198.133.100.133 and 129.132.1.4 took it upon themselves to begin culling the list. Is that permissible Wiki-etiquette? Steven McCrary 01:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

As anonymous contributors may add links they may as well delete them. To take the list culling further I replaced two subcategories of the link lists with references to http://www.dmoz.org . I would suggest that the contributors wishing to specialise in link list maintenance put their efforts in the list kept there. The lists there may have any length whereas here we should somewhat strive for creating real original content. For example it would be nice to read which of the many proposed standards are really used now. Hirzel 10:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Rob Moore writes, that there is "room for all of us" in the link section for e-learning experts. As far as I understand the wikipedia policy the goal is to write encyclopedic articles and not to collect all kinds of links. The article already has way to many already. http://www.dmoz.org is an open source effort for collecting links. We do not want link spam here. The links provided here should be quality links which give the visitors a real value (e.g. free tutorials, free downloads etc)Hirzel 10:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed some apparent linkspam in the text. Three or four weblinked mentions of the same programme? That saysspam as loudly as can be. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

CBT and e-Learning

I redirected the CBT page to e-Learning. It seems to me that the two are nearly synonomous. I wikified and updated the definitions in E-learning glossary, but some of these definitions conflict with those contained herein. I think the definition of e-learning provided here needs to change to match the E-learning glossary. Steven McCrary 19:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree: CBT typically refers to instruction or assessment that is delviered via a computer interface. E-leanring is a far braoder term that encompasses theuse of electornic media and material to supplement classroom instruction, distance learning (video based presentations broadcast), use of portals and commuity space sand environments to facilitate teacher-teacher, teacher-student, student-student, teacher-parent, and student-parent communication- particualrly in the pk-12 environment.

I would sepreate the two definitions and keep them distinct. I may not do this right (adding my sig- I tried the add user name and timestamp button and it did not work) )Alex Jackl

I also think it is a mistake to consider CBTs and e-learning synonomous; they are distinctly different. I'm going to try and update several of the pages with all the buzzwords (videobooks, online training, CBTs, e-learning, etc) with some definitions and how they're different from the other internet-based learning technologies. Scott Whigham, Content Manager of LearnItFirst.com 11:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Supposed differences in the labels CBT and elearning are an illusion. The use of computers (networked or not) for training, education, learning, etc. has gone under many names from CAI, to CBT (or CBI or CBL) to "multimedia" to the current vogue--elearning (but I am starting to hear "technology enhanced learning" a lot). The fact that elearning involves the Internet (a really big network) with lots of potential resources does not change the concept of learning with computers enough to warrant the view that it is something new or different. New names help marketing but are not helpful from a scholarly view. Nothing about today's elearning is different in essence from what was implemented on internet mainframes (e.g., PLATO) or smaller LANs. The differnence is in degree--more information (and users) is (potentially) available on the Internet. One could attempt to claim that elearning includes distance learning, but making the term "elearning" so inclusive tends to make it meaningless. Trying to claim a narrow scope for CBT (e.g. that is is the use of a single computer or a single purpose database) is not how I remember it but rather reflects the popularity of that platform (stand alone or LANed personal computers) when "CBT" was in vogue. ---- rlj

The CBT citation is COPIED from http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/CBT.html ... is it a copyviol?--Vaccaricarlo 19:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

E-learning platform

Is there a WP article about e-learning platforms. If there is one this article should link to it. If not we probably need one. At least we can then move the links on e-learning platforms to that article. 194.230.201.213 10:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you search WP for it? Google is your friend! Why ask us when you can ask Big Brother! Scott Whigham, Content Manager of LearnItFirst.com 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Need for critical analysis of elearning

Just about everything written in the article sets elearning in a positive light. But, not everything about elearning is positive, and it's essential that this issue is allowed to be addressed. I say this because a few weeks ago I added in the comment ("others are critical of elearning...") and a link to my website called 'Elearning Critic' which I see has been removed. Who did this, and why? --Ceeceef 08:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Ceeceef

Why don't you just open a paragraph in the article with a critical analysis of elearning? I think the article would surely benefit from it. As web links for a critical analysis of e-learning I prefer a link to a more comprehensive discussion of the issue not just a link to some thoughts written in a casual way. Hirzel 09:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I will do! Thanks for the encouragement. I'll work on something then put it up.--Ceeceef 01:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen several critical articles about e-learning. In fact, a majority of the articles that I've read about e-learning that aren't written by the vendors themselves tend to be more real-world instead of the rosy, "E-Learning is the greatest!"Scott Whigham, Content Manager of LearnItFirst.com 11:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above that there needs to be a section address the concerns and issues with electronic learning. I added an example on the article Networked learning on its effectiveness on learning. Do you think that it would be a good article to use as a critique for eLearning? 300user (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

eLearning terms and concepts

I would like to invite some discussion on a draft list of eLearning terms:

• Educational Web Video Conferencing (WVC) -
• eLearning Pedagogical Activity Templates -
• Generic VLE Model -
• Global Rich Pictures (GRIP) -
• Panagogy -
• Profile Research Methodology -
• Spiral-web Learning Model -
• Telepistemology -
• Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM) -
• Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM) Principles -
• Virtual Autonomy Value -
• Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Case-Law -
• Virtual Learning Environment Denouement (VLED) Profile -
• Virtual Research Environment -
• VLED Apothem / eLearning Transactional Distance -
• Web-constructivism -
• Web Metamorphosis Model -
• Web-based Video Conferencing (WVC) Communication Protocols -

Please visit my research page at http://www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/ or contact me to follow-up.158.94.254.20 11:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Anthony 'Skip Basiel pros@mdx.ac.uk

Sounds interesting - I'll add one term to your list: videobook. It's a new term that describes a subscription-based website that offers training videos recorded by an expert instructor; similar to a how-to book.What is a videobook?

I'm confused by what elearning should encompass - this wikipedia article seems to focus more on distance learning, but I've understood elearning to be wider than that - embracing all sorts of computer based instructional technology for education, and student centered learning. Perhaps there's a cultural linguistic tension at work here? After all elearning is a new term, so perhaps what is and isn't e-learning is still in flux. Cecilie Murray is a prominent Australian elearning consultant, and her work also covers m-learning; using mobile devices, learning management systems in the classroom, broad IT pedagogical transformation....

Merge with Online learning

This article eLearning should be merged with Online learning . Arbustoo 07:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is an option to merge the two articles. You are missing the big picture! E-Learning means Electronic Learning and that is something different than Online learning . Online learning takes place on the internet and withE-Learning that hasn't have to be the case! 10:38, 14 February 2006 (GMT+1)

Wouldn't Online learning be a sub-category of the broader Electronic learning? Like...a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square...? So, they could possibly be merged, as long as online remained intact in its own section. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk13:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree online learning should be merged into this article. This is the broader article, and distinctions can be better seen when they're discussed together. The other article looks more like a section the way it's written now and should be put into the broader perspacitve here. Rfrisbie^talk 22:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Online learning was merged with and redirected to E-learning.Rfrisbie^talk 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

eLearning vs Online learning

I can't really see what the difference is? It's only really a matter of definition of the "words". You could take a survey and some would be completely agree about their relationship, while others would disagree. "Online" vs "Electronic"... It's pretty close!

My memory was that e-learning emerged WITH the web, concurrent with terms like e-commerce and e-business and all the other E's. Webster's etymology puts its first use in the year 1997. It is most definitely a child of the DOT COM period. E-learning is synonymous with online learning, rather than being the broader term. I do not recall e-learning ever being used in conjunction with DVDs, CDROMs or stand alone apps. Acronyms like CBT and CML were used to describe these multimedia applications in the pre-internet days. I may be quite wrong, but the suggestion that e-learning encompasses ALL forms of electronic learning is nonsense in the same way that online learning and m-learning might encompass all forms of online and mobile learning (respectively). Do we say that a book is an m-learning technology, given its mobility? Is Morse code an online learning technology, given that the term 'online' was first used in conjunction with the telegraph? Is watching an educational DVD an example of e-learning, given it delivered electronically? In practice, e-learning is synonymous with (internet-based) online learning.

---

E-learning as a buzzword that grew up with the WWW in what seems to me as an attempt to make web delivery of online learning as something "new and improved". This article seems to want to stress the use of communication capabilities in the definition of e-learning, but even that is not new as WANs, internets, and computer communication existed well before the rise in popularity of the Web.

"Multimedia" was a term used for computer-delivered instruction in the 90s. when PCs required that online learning to be distributed or delivered via LANs. The fact that networks were small and slow in the 80s and 90s meant that computers used in learning were more isolated and self-contained. Multimedia was stressed because audio and video could be reasonably delivered from a hard drive or CD-ROM. Communication was deemphasized because fast networks were expensive and neworking via telephone modems was slow. The ability to network, however, did exist and was used in a limited way. Older mainframe computers, using expensive networking, had all the communication features of the Web except for audio/video capabilities which required compression techniques we now have.

The capabilites of e-learning in terms of multimedia (and application sophistication and functionality) is LESS THAN what was available from stand-alone computers because the Internet is much slower than a hard drive and relies on a primitaive HTML/JAVA infrastructure. What the Internet has brought is a quantum leap in interconnectivity and access. Much so-called "e-learning" does not use this improved access to information and people but simply mimics older multimedia. Web-based learning applications that do not use the improved access to people and information are often inferior to what was done under the rubric "CBT" or "Multimedia".

This article makes the usual mistake of claiming that e-learning includes just about all uses of the comptuer for teaching and learning. What the heck does e-learning have to do with CD-ROMs? E-learning is the use of the Web for learning, if it is anything. "Online learning" once meant any use of a computer for learning, today "online learning" has come to mean using the Internet for learning, which seems to be the same meaning as "e-learning".-- rlj

---

There is a definite difference between e-Learning and Online Learning. For example, e-Learning has been available onboard U.S. Submarines since the early 80's. My program for the Tektronix 4052A was adopted by the navy for all U.S. Submarines in 1985, to train and assess techs onboard. Yet the users certainly could not accomplish "online learning". In the copyright, I descibed it as "e-Learning" as did the commendation. When I worked at Submarine Development Squadron 12 in the late 80's e-learning was a very common term. With the success of the web it began to be used in a broader sense. Online learning is only one form of e-Learning.Odestiny 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

eLearning and flexible learning

Google has 2,480,000 hits for the search term "Flexible learning". There is not yet a WP article on it. It is surely related to e-learning, but how? 82.206.234.4 09:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The definition from the Australian Flexible Learning Framework:

The Flexible Learning Advisory Group has always argued that flexible learning is a broad term, as reflected in this definition: Flexible learning expands choice on what, when, where and how people learn. It supports different styles of learning, including e-learning. (AFLF 2004:para. 1)

Across the VET sector there are many examples of flexible learning including distance learning, flexible learning access centres and workplace learning. The evaluation of the

web/online learning/training

Having merged Online learning with this one, should we not also merge Web-based training and Online training?. Can anyone see a good reason why these should stay separate articles? Cormaggio ^@ 09:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Training insinuates a specific professional goal. Learning is a more wide open concept. Although i suppose you could argue that training is a subset of learning --Davecormier 13:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

Would it be best to start the article with a paragraph discussing the different terminology e.g. e-learning, online learning, learning technology, educational technology etc. and the variation in how they are used?

I think it might also be useful to have separate sections on Multimedia, Simulations, Computer Based Assessment, Computer Mediated Communication, Virtual Learning Environments, Wikis in education, Blogging in education and Mobile Learning. At the moment the article doesn't really give any feel for the diversity of stuff going on and gives the impression that e-learning is pretty much about instructional design and nothing else which isn't true!

Merging Online degrees to here

It was proposed back in April to merge Online degrees to here, but there has never been any discussion, probably because no notice was posted here. I'll go ahead and do that, and also note that Online degrees really, really needs something done to it. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't really see that making sense. It insinuates that learning is somehow about getting 'degrees' for something. There's a great deal of Elearning going on that is more part of 'life long learning. --Davecormier 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Online Degrees or Online Learning should be split off into a separate article.Patrick Berry 14:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Online Learning and Online Degrees should be a separate category from E-learning. While e-learning is the process used to achieve Online Learning, there are specific goals that are associated with Online learning such as Degree Completion.

You use e-learning to participate in Online Learning. But all those participating in E-learning aren't necessarily participating in Online Learning which is why it deserves a distinction. --Sproinky 16:46, 19 Dec 2006

Pedagogical approaches

The material just added to this section needs some major work. While it may contain some useful information, the lists of books are a problem. If the books are references for material in the article, they should be formatted as references. If something can be said in the article about how a specific book has influenced the developement of E-learning, that should be discussed in the article. Otherwise, the lists of books should be removed. -- Donald Albury 10:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Major work is an understatement. As an instructional designer of elearning for nearly 25 years, I had no idea where the definition of instructional design in this article came from. ID is hardly the traditional approach to creating instruction. As for focusing on the curriculum, that probably has Robert Gagne (father of instructional design) spinning in his grave. Granted. there are those who call themselves instructional designers and have little understanding of the discipline beyond ADDIE. It is frustrating to have spent years studying and honing my craft and have someone who has taken a 3-day workshop say he knows everything there is to know about instructional design. Mkwagner (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up advert

I took out some mateiral that was about one e-learning company in Australia. I am sure it is a good company but there are hundreds of companies in e-learning right now and this an encyclopedia and Wikipedia's policie son this are quite clear- no adverts in articles. Happy to discuss this! Alex Jackl 15:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Again cleaned up advert

You would think these companies wouldn't be so blatant or stupid. I just took out the blatant vandalism and left the rest. Looks like they left the meat of the article unharmed. Alex Jackl 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I removed an ad in the links. "A rose by any other name".Odestiny 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How many tags does one article need?

I've replaced the various tags with one cleanup tag. The category section was basically rendered useless by all the tags piled on to this article. Chill Factor Five 23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted those changes back- let me explain why. The tags are each different. It isn't a general cleanup request -each tag addresses the section it is in. I agree with you that it totally clutters up the category section HOWEVER, this article is a mess. It is written in many voices and is more of a hodgepodge of different articles than a single one. I may be able to carve out some time to work on it but not right now. Hopefully people can do the work on this article- even if it is one tag at a time. By rolling them all up into one tag we lose the thinking and the specificity of the editors who put those tags in. No problem with what you did- I just think the article needs the tags per section given its current state. Anyone else thoughts on this? Thanks man! Alex Jackl 14:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

REDIRECT

WAS THIS DISCUSSED AT ALL..? I am reverting to maintain discussion. I am not against- just why the sudden page change and what else changed? Please explain! Alex Jackl 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not against a merger but there seems to have been a lot of content lost and little discussion on the lost content. Can someone open a discussion on that? I cannot do a full analysis myself but it seemed like an extreme change. I am willing to bow to the changes if there is consensus that it should go and how.Alex Jackl 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am having a conversation with myself here but I just spoke with the person who did the redirect (HiJonathan) and he said he copied over the material from the site. I just realized he copied it over after it had been gutted so I am still concerned that that material will be lost.

I will look at it tomorrow and then restore the redirect that Jonathan did! Alex Jackl04:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Took me longer than I thought. I did a reverse redirect and redirected e-learning to this page to maintain the coherence of the discussion page. I also moved much of the content on the e-Learning page over and replaced the old content with it. What I didn't do is trim down the article as Jonathan did. I was to attached to some of that content. The pedagogical stuff needs its own page - it takes up too much space on this page I think but I didn't have the time to do a fair job with it. Alex Jackl 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pedagogical Approaches

I think the extensive pedagogical approaches sections needs to be removed. I think it is worthy of a new article but I am not the one to write it. I hate to just delete such potentially worthwhile content so I think we should create an e-earning pedagogy stub and let it grow... Thoughts? Alex Jackl 04:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has commented I am going to remove the lengthy list of citations - this is not a link or a citation farm. I am wide open to anyone objecting or explaining why it belongs in the encyclopedia article! Alex Jackl 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

I hate to sound like a broken record but I htink we should add citations before we make comments like "the largest and most experienced e-learning company in the global market." WAY to POV and advertising unless you can find a source- a reliable source at that- that claims that. I have tried to keep as much of the cotnent in place but curb the advert nature of it. Please add citations.Alex Jackl 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Following the various discussions regarding what is and what is not to be considered e-Learning, I find the term becomes less and less useful. I am a consultant on e-Learning within corporations and I find that if I've spoken to three clients, I tend to get four or five different understandings or sets of expectations of what "e-Learning" is. This tends to de-rail discussions and cause confusion. It may be a bit destructionist, but I speak of "digital teaching / education / learning", referring broadly to the respective processes, where they are supported by digital technology in some form. I find this helps clients, especially if they come from the traditional (non-higher) educational establishment stop feeling threatened by this new "thingumajig that's going to replace me". It helps pitch the medium as a way to enhance the teaching and learning process with new channels and maybe even free up the teacher's time a little to spend working individually with kids who need additional help while the rest of the class are working on a digital assignment.

I invite discussion on how useful the term "e-Learning" is today. In view of the semantic dilution it has undergone recently and the huge variety of (sometimes conflicting) defintions "out there", would it not be better to simply consider it a natural part of the teaching / education / learning process? I suggest that sticking doggedly to the term creates a barrier towards established channels, carving it out as if it were "something different", self-enclosed in some way. Which it shouldn't be.

Dani Schwarz Carigiet, Zurich, Switzerland --194.230.154.7 08:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

e-learning software platforms

What is this list suppose to represent? Title does not clearly indicate what it contains It is currently a mix of various products and/or Companies that provide products in the e-learning environment. Or is it simply a embeded disambiguation page? Regardless, it needs some sort of definition at the beginning of the list. Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Technology: Is learning via MP3 really e-Learning ?

I disagree with the Technology chapter and that it lists MP3 as e-Learning. Of course it is "electronic learning" in a way, but what is the difference between listening to an MP3 lecture and a lecture on CD or tape ? Audio-based learning has been around for decades and I would omit it from this list.

Middle-High School?

Does internet junior high or high exist? I've skimmed through this article and even though I've seen articles of child actors and actresses (e.g. Miranda Cosgrove) say something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.92.82 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet learning for high schoolers does exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added byDrakonis (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted s-learning platform

Old text:

Open Source

Open-source Virtual Learning Environments (VLE)

• ATutor
• Claroline
• Dokeos
• KEWL
• Moodle
• Sakai Project

Open-source Multi-User Virtual Environments (Muve)

• Sloodle

A Muve as learning platform does exist and is describedhere.

Please revert this undo.

Thanks,

Fair use rationale for Image:Webct-screenshot.png

Image:Webct-screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationaleas to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Service Section

How has services evolved since computers were introduced? What is/are causing the trend towards blended learning? This section would benefit from some resources to verify the statements made. I am considering removing this section if this section isn't expanded upon. Any thoughts? 300user (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links as SPAM

I've re-removed a link to an external website that was obviously created to sell advertising to distance learning sites. The website does not provide any unique/original information that is not already covered in other Wikipedia articles already referenced in the article. This is not the type of external links that Wikipedia should reference. Thanks,TallMagic (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Online Courses

How do online courses provide laboratory work? Do the students have to go to an actual college or is the "laboratory work" really a series of simulations?75.60.207.161 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

The copyrighted content I removed is from an article in the journalMedical Education. I'm recording it here for future reference in case it's needed. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OLPC

I added a small reference to the OLPC project, though doubtless a paragraph or two could be written about its take on (and contributions to) Electronic Learning and constructionist pedagogy. I didn't want to create a new section because this page is already a horrible mess of sections. The term E-learning naturally refers to many different technologies and approaches which people (often unfortunately) group together since they all use computers-- besides this, people constantly come up with new terms for it and try to give the terms different connotations to differentiate themselves; and the whole area has the connotation of only including the new electronic learning techniques, when what's new is naturally less well-defined and is constantly changing. There must be other wikipedia articles which have managed to be well-organized, readable, & informative despite similar obstacles. How did they approach such problems? Dranorter (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Goals and benefits of e-learning

Someone added an {{advertisement}} tag to the "Goals and benefits of e-learning" section. I have to agree with the tag. I also observe that this section is not supported by any sources. My opinion is that it doesn't seem to add much to the article and should be deleted. Please share your thoughts. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me some time to pull together some good references and perhaps soften/revise some of the claims. I think I've seen all of those claims made elsewhere, so they are hardly unique to this article. Something on goals and benefits should be included, but perhaps those aren't the right claims to be making. When you have things like theUS Department of Education meta-analysisshowing that online learning is more effective than face-to-face learning, that seems to be a more important benefit to discuss than the environmental impact. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank you much. I'm glad that I asked. :-) TallMagic (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a first stab at it. I removed the section on carbon footprints & the environment impact.This site makes that claim and even has a calculator so you can figure out the impact, but they don't seem to have any citations showing where their numbers come from. Similar claims are made other places too, but nobody seems to have a good citation for it, so I think it's better to leave it out. I also took out the part about low-cost degrees in third world countries. I found one article in Wired magazine about that, but it's from 1999 and I don't think things have really worked out the way people once hoped. The MIT OpenCourseWare example seems more relevant as increasing accessibility of knowledge even if it isn't an actual degree. Do you think the statements about convenience and flexibility need a citation? That feels like common sense to me, but I'm pretty immersed in this myself and may not be the best judge or the average reader's familiarity.

I also wonder if the "goals" part of this section doesn't really fit with the "benefits." They don't really seem to relate to each other. Could the goals part be cut, the section renamed, and maybe moved later in the article to avoid undue weight? Or would jumping right into the market share and growth be worse than what we already have?WeisheitSuchen (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that this may be the time for wp:BOLD. I suspect it will be great. Although, if you get any push back then try wp:BRD. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The E-Learning Bubble

I added a section about the e-learning Bubble. More references, and input would be welcome.

--Nabeth (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what you added didn't make any sense. Please consider working on a draft here in Talk or elsewhere. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If I added it, it is because it make sense to me, and I believe to other. I do not mind removing this part if there is a consensus of people that share your opinion. But please, let the others give the oportunity to comment. Concerning the size, I agree it needs some more input, but there is nothing in Wikipedia rule that prevents to start small. Thanks.--Nabeth (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My objection is not to the size of the content but its meaning. I simply can't understand what you're trying to say. I suspect that English is not your first language and the meaning is being lost in translation but I can't even make enough sense of what you've written to help correct it. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"I simply can't understand what you're trying to say". Ok. This I can understand that. English is not my first language. I will try to correct this and add more content (I am indeed currently working on a paper trying to collect more reference, such as when it really started, or the advent of Learning 2.0). Concerning the relevance of the subject, I am convinced because I have been working on this domain long enough to see this bubble to grow and burst. I also believe that this period is over, and therefore it in important to record it. Please, wait a little bit additional input and other reactions and input, and my apologize for my english. --Nabeth (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment is not relevant but I agree with ElKevbo since I can't decipher the meaning either. It also doesn't make sense to me to have a single subsection inside a higher level section that has nothing in it except for the one subsection. TallMagic (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

to answer to TallMagic, the reason of this subsection is that I wanted to make place for some history of e-learning (when it started, and the different phases), and I expected that we would rapidly have an history for e-learning. Just having a top section about the Bubble would probably not be appropriate, because too much emphasising this aspect. It seems that this has created some confusion. --Nabeth (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A reference to add later: Paul Nicholson (2007). A History of E-Learning. Echoes of the pioneers. Springer Netherlands --Nabeth (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Other reference is to be found in Business game --Nabeth (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the section is trying to say that e-learning was affected by the dot-com bubble and burst. Neither of the sources cited support that though. The Paulsen article never uses the word "promise," so using it to support the phrase "promised a lot and delivered little" is misleading at best. The Romiszowski article does talk about some failures, but doesn't mention the dot-com bubble it all. It looks like this is original research misattributed to these sources. I think the whole section should be cut unless references can be provided that actually support the claims made.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Although I would not definitively not call this original research. I have added another reference " Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to elearning and Why", and yet another one that review this reference. Better references should howver be found (such as a reduction of the e-learning market). Note: an extract of this document (p57): "There were many after-effects to e-learning’s inevitable crash,". Well, this article is very clear about a crash having happened. I have tried to indicate this in the article with citation, but it looks too much as trying to do some justification. But again, an article exactly about the crash would be better (I am looking for it). --Nabeth(talk) 19:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

When you include something based on your own experience that isn't supported by the references provided, that by definition is original research. The "Thwarted Innovation" article is much better at supporting the claims you made, although including a review of that article that discussions "various flaws in the study" is not exactly a straightforward argument. You're also still using the Paulsen article which mentions 26 successes and 10 failures as evidence that lots of e-learning failed, plus you attribute reasons for failure him which contradict the content of the source. You can't use Paulsen to talk about dot com or overpromising; Paulsen doesn't talk about those things. That's from your own experience and it's WP:OR. Why don't you work on a draft here on the talk page, as ElKevbo suggested, and maybe we can all help come up with something that is directly supported by the sources and makes sense to more than just you? Three editors expressing concern about your edits should be a sign that it's time to slow down so we can come to a consensus. WeisheitSuchen(talk) 21:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I mentionned my own experience, but I did not indicate it was a source (I just mentionned this to indicate I know the subject, and not considering this was good enough!). Concerning the Paulsen article, please have a look at where I put the reference since I moved it in another place and put a at the previous place. Concerning original research, I remind you that all academic research is also sourced, and it always anoy me when I read this (and in this case, it may be unproperly sourced, but do not call this research). Concerning rule, there should be some asumption of good fate, which I get the impression it is not the case here. Concerning working on a draft here, I could also suggest the same. Why not to amend the article instead and add the citation needed instead first? This is also a normal practice, and it encourage more other people participation. I am sorry, but it is really becoming a pain so start something that appears to be useful (such as history). I had put on the main article something that I considered all right and announce it on the talk page. Then I looked at the comments and feedbacks and tried to address them. I really get the impression that you have made up your mind and absolutly want to kill this contribution. Of course having said that, if there is a consensus, I will conform to other people. However, give a little bit the time to the thing to improve and receive contribution. Besides, doesn't it bother you not to have a history section, even if it is short innitially?. It does to me, and this is what motivate my contribution. Best regards --Nabeth (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mostly right now I'm concerned that you may be attributing your personal opinions to other sources; certainly there is a major disconnect between what you've written and what your sources say. At a minimum, you're adding anunpublished synthesis of sources, by mixing Paulsen's source in the same sentence as the info about the dot com bubble. The failures Paulsen talks about aren't due to the economy, so why are you implying they are by leaving it in the same sentence? You shouldn't just add a citation in the middle of the sentence; you need to take Paulsen out because he doesn't support the argument you're making. I don't have a problem with the idea of a history section, but right now I think it's more detrimental than helpful. You say you'll conform if there's consensus. Three people have expressed concerns; how many editors do you think are necessary before consensus is reached? We need some time to go through it and look through sources. You've made over two dozen changes in this article in the last week; that's a lot for other editors to process. Let me remind you that we're not asking you to stop, simply to slow down and let us help you work through these major issues here rather than directly in the article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Let me remind you that we're not asking you to stop, simply to slow down and let us help you work through these major issues ...". Ok, I will slow down. Concerning the latest History addition, I edited in other to react to the comments. Paulson reference was a mistake or mine, I acknowledge, and I have no problem with this (I mean making errors and be corrected for this). The last reference I provided however was relevant and supported what was in the article. Concerning working it more on the talk page, I disagree. I am not saying that you are wrong but that we have a different opinion. Having it on the talk page make it much less visible, and less likely for other people to contribute. And what was present was an acceptable start and not crap. Note: concerning this history section (and not only this bubble thing), why it appears to be important? Because the content of this article "e-learning" is somewhat outdated to my opinion (yes, this is an opinion from an expert of the domain), and does not reflect enough the new trends. Therefore some work needs to be done. If you kill new (not necessary perfect at the start) additions too rigorously, this will freeze the article (as I have observed in other article). Concerning improvement, I looked at other parts of this article (such as blog entries as references), and indeed improvement should be done. To finish, I am not planning to start an edit war, since I believe we are better spending our time improving this article than spending effort on coordination. I still believe that working directly on the article (which does not mean not having a minimum level of quality) will be more productive. As long as I know, but I will appreciate information on the subject I would not be aware of, Wikipedia does not specify guidelines that all content has to be perfect before being included in the core of the article. And this is why we have all these warning tags (reference needed, etc.). Best regards.--Nabeth (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3