An E-Learning Walkthrough

To embark on a critique of eLearning it is

necessary to define it. Research into this area
shows that eLearning can mean different things
to different people. For instance: “elearning - this
word has been and continues to be used to
represent teaching and learning that takes place
over the Internet or at a computer. In the initial
stages of its development it was unclear as to
whether it represented teaching or learning or
both.”(Anon 2007). Alternatively, “It is used to
describe any type of learning environment that is
computer enhanced. There are multiple
technologies that can be employed in eLearning.
It has become one of those types of words that
are so general as to have lost some of its
meaning. Distance learning is something that has
evolved from Elearning. It is used to describe a
learning environment that takes place away from
the actual traditional classroom and campus.

Elearning began at just about the same time that

a computer was developed that was practical for
personal use. In fact, the concept and practice of
distance learning predates the computer area by
almost 100 years. In England, in 1840, shorthand
classes were being offered by correspondence
courses through the mail. The improvements to
the postal service made this method of distance
learning popular in the early part of the last
century. This led to a large number of “through
the mail” type of educational programs. The
computer only made distance learning easy and
better. Television, video recorders, and even radio
have all made a contribution to distance
learning.” (Aranda 2007). “E-learning or
Electronic Learning is the delivery of educational
content via any electronic media, including the
internet, intranets, extranets, satellite broadcast,
audio/video tape, interactive TV, CD-Rom,
interactive CDs, and computer-based training
(Tastle 2005, p.241). E-learning is distributed in
many different forms of educational programs
including online courses, web enhanced learning
and Distance Education.” (Strudwick et al. 2005).

There are many other definitions that could be

quoted. From the foregoing we can see that with
one definition elearning only requires the use of
electronic media in the delivery of educational
content. By this definition we could say that if an
instructor uses Microsoft PowerPoint to deliver
educational content, this constitutes elearning.
This definition is too broad for the purposes of
this paper. Why? The use of Presentation software
as a means of delivery doesn’t change the
classroom dynamic of Tutor and Class. The use of
PowerPoint etc. is simply an enhancement to the
tried and tested formula colloquially described as
“Chalk and Talk”, whereby the Tutor imparts
information to the class orally and with the aid of
the traditional blackboard.
Changing the Dynamic
For the purposes of this paper elearning is the
use of technology that changes the dynamic to
such an extent that neither the pupil nor the tutor
need attend a prescribed venue to either learn or
teach. Therefore, television, CD-ROM, DVD,
Internet, Intranet, mp3 player etc are all valid
means of delivering elearning.

Jay Cross’s (the man who coined the phrase “E-

learning”) paper “An Informal History of E-
learning” (Cross 2004) concentrates primarily on
corporate learning. This document is still useful,
however, because the reasons and motivations
for a business to invest in elearning technologies
could be mirrored at collegiate level. There are
key differences, however, “Executives don’t care
about learning; they care about execution. I may
talk about “learning” with you, but when I’m in
the boardroom, I’ll substitute “improving
performance.” “(Cross 2004)

“Learning is social we learn with and from other

people” (Cross 2004). This is an important point
to pick up on – does someone left to learn in
isolation from a CD-ROM based set of tutorials
have the same level of motivation as a group of
students in a laboratory environment? Most likely
not!
First Attempt at Elearning
CBT Systems was founded in 1984 and was the
first innovator in the area of computer based
training. The popularity and low cost of CD-ROM
allowed the company to produce a catalogue of
over a thousand titles. During the 1990’s
business was brisk as corporations snapped titles
by the dozens because the cost was so low in
comparison to hiring a tutor. “You could visit the
IT shop of a company that had licensed the entire
CBT Systems library and find no one who had
taken a course! Dropout rates were incredibly
high. Most people simply weren’t interested in
learning alone, sitting by themselves in front of a
box that was a cheap substitute for an instructor
in a class. If they got stuck or made a mistake,
there was no one to turn to. They missed fellow
learners to coax them on.” (Cross 2004). By the
end of the 1990’s CBT realising the CD-ROM
delivery method would not be the way forward
they helped to form the UNISYS University where
content would be delivered online. As CBT
changed its business model it became
SmartForce – the leader in corporate elearning.

At the turn of the millennium the latest trend was

towards Learning Management Systems (LMS). A
learning management system (LMS) is a software
application or Web-based technology used to
plan, implement, and assess a specific learning
process. Typically, a learning management
system provides an instructor with a way to
create and deliver content, monitor student
participation, and assess student performance.
(Anon 2003). LMSs could provide the
infrastructure to deliver elearning. However, the
cost of the LMS could blow the entire budget
leaving nothing left for course content.

Elearning beginning to Falter

Initially online learning was delivering any better
results than CD-ROM delivery. Much of the
content was deemed boring and dropout rates
were high. By 2002 a new term “blended
learning” meant some type of mix between
computer based learning and traditional learning.

In 2002 – 2003 the US economy was stagnant

and investment and corporate interest in
elearning was low. By late 2003 things started to
pick up again, and fresh thinking from a
corporate perspective. Measure investment in
elearning by higher customer satisfaction, fewer
errors, and quicker time to market.

Elearning Framework
Tony Karrer attempts to give the history of
elearning a bit of structure breaking its
development into several phases: elearning 1.0;
elearning 1.3; and elearning 2.0. Overall his
structure is to be seen as an evolution where
elements of 1.0 could be used in 1.3 and so on –
each phase is not mutually exclusive. Karrer
chooses to use 1.3 as opposed to 1.5 because he
believes the evolution from 1.0 to the next level
was a smaller leap than from 1.3 to 2.0. He has
provided a table differentiating each phase:

E-Learning E-Learning E-Learning 2.0

1.0 1.3
Main Courseware Reference Wikis
Componen LMSs hybrids Social
ts Authoring LCMSs networking
tools Rapid and
authoring bookmarking
tools tools
Blogs
Add-ins
Mash-ups
Ownership Top-down, Top-down, Bottom-up,
one-way collaborative learner-driven,
peer learning
Developme Long Rapid None
nt Time
Content 60 minutes 15 minutes 1 minute
Size
Access Prior to work In between During work
Time work
Virtual Class Intro, Office Peers, Experts
Meetings hours
Delivery At one time In many When you
pieces need it
Content LMS Email, Search, RSS
Access Intranet feed
Driver ID Learner Worker
Content ID SME User
creator
Table 1.1(Karrer 2006)
There are several points to make regarding this
table; firstly the labelling fits approximately with
the development of Web applications. Therefore,
elearning 2.0 (phrase coined by Stephen Downes
(Downes 2005)) equates to Web 2.0 (phrase
coined by Tim O’Reilly (O'Reilly 2005)). As Web
2.0 has enabled greater user interaction,
elearning is the most flexible. At the opposite end
of the scale there are LMSs which provide a much
more formal framework in which to deliver course
content. The second point to make is that each
subsequent phase supplements the preceding
phase and doesn’t supersede it in the same way
that on the internet you can have basic html
content alongside web apps such as Hotmail.

Learning Management Systems (LMS) is a

centralised piece of software delivering the
course content and tracking student progress.
Businesses invest in less of these types of
systems, opting for the more flexible distributed
software instead.
What is driving the evolution in elearning? From a
corporate point of view it is “The changes in e-
learning are being driven by two primary forces.
The first force is a steady increase in the pace of
business and information creation, which has led
to a shift in work, especially knowledge work, and
an evolution in information needs. In turn, this
has led to the following expectations for
corporate learning:
• Fast transfer of knowledge is a must.
 • Learning should transpire in short burst
within the context of the actual workflow.
• Learning professionals need to develop
learning experiences quickly—and at a
lower cost to the organization.

If you consider your own environment, you can

probably identify with several of those trends, as
they’ve become almost universal in corporate
learning environments.
The second driver affecting workplace learning is
the advent of Web 2.0.”(Karrer 2005).

Karrer’s model only refers to course content

delivered via a web interface; it is primarily
focused on corporate training of employees.
(Tony Karrer is CEO of TechEmpower, a software
company that specializes in innovative uses of
technology that aid human performance).

Is Elearning 2.0 is a first Cousin of

Web 2.0?
Stephen Downes puts E-learning into context: “E-
learning as we know it has been around for ten
years or so. During that time, it has emerged
from being a radical idea—the effectiveness of
which was yet to be proven—to something that is
widely regarded as mainstream. It's the core to
numerous business plans and a service offered by
most colleges and universities.
And now, e-learning is evolving with the World
Wide Web as a whole and it's changing to a
degree significant enough to warrant a new
name: E-learning 2.0.” (Downes 2005). Downes is
confirming that up to 2005 elearning has not
lived up to the hype.

E-learning has evolved from a well defined set of

standards (e.g. IEEE) delivered in a prescribed
form via CBT or text book to now, where entire
courses are delivered online. The LMS is the
primary means of delivering this content today.
Critically, elearning techniques haven’t evolved –
purely the delivery mechanism has. However,
things are changing: “the nature of the Internet,
and just as importantly, the people using the
Internet, has begun to change. These changes
are sweeping across entire industries as a whole
and are not unique to education; indeed, in many
ways education has lagged behind some of these
trends and is just beginning to feel their wake.

One trend that has captured the attention of

numerous pundits is the changing nature of
Internet users themselves. Sometimes called
"digital natives" and sometimes called "n-gen,"
these new users approach work, learning and
play in new ways” (Downes 2005).

So not only is the medium evolving, but crucially,

so is the user “the Digital Native”, a phrase
coined by Marc Prensky, referring to the new
younger user who is completely at ease with the
technology but is also used to having content
delivered in an instant, bite-sized and non-linear
fashion. “They absorb information quickly, in
images and video as well as text, from multiple
sources simultaneously. They operate at "twitch
speed," expecting instant responses and
feedback. They prefer random "on-demand"
access to media, expect to be in constant
communication with their friends (who may be
next door or around the world).” (Downes 2005).

Downes identifies the breaking down of barriers

on the Internet as heralding a new less structured
real world. There is some merit in this.
Companies have tried to control file sharing with
Digital Rights Management (DRM), the closing
down of illegal sites (Napster, AllofMP3).
Everyone can set up their own site free of
editorial constraint (Blogs, Bebo etc). However, in
2008 the large corporations haven’t slipped away
or suddenly become free an open organisations.
News Corporation bought MySpace, Google
purchased YouTube, and Microsoft is attempting
to buy Yahoo! And in the elearning space
Blackboard has purchased WebCT and is
protecting it market share aggressively with
patents and litigation. Therefore, the Internet
hasn’t become a completely free domain
controlled by no one in particular. It is another
market place and the big corporations are still
vying for as much control (and market share) as
possible.
In 2005 Downes saw the role of the intermediary
as becoming redundant. This isn’t necessarily the
case as the intermediary has reinvented
themselves as someone who adds value.

These observations aside, the main thrust of

changes through Web 2.0 are still valid as
Downes puts it himself Web 1.0 was Read-only,
Web 2.0 was the “Read-Write Web”.

Although the emergence of Web 2.0 has seen

popular growth in Wikis, Social-networking,
blogging, and podcasts, for Downes it isn’t a
technological revolution – it is a social one. Not
only is it technologically open but crucially it is
socially open too.

So how does Web 2.0 influence Elearning 2.0? For

Downes, the structure is a lot less rigid than
before. With Wikis and Blogs students tend to
discuss issues other than the course content. This
isn’t a bad thing for Downes, in fact it is the
opposite because it encouraged the discussion of
a wide variety of topics. Blogging is useful
because it is informal, it is from the author’s
perspective, and in an educational context can
become linked into a community of bloggers or a
“community of practice”.

Podcasts also reflect current Web 2.0 trends,

whereby course content can be “downloaded”
and consumed at the listener’s discretion. “The
model of e-learning as being a type of content,
produced by publishers, organized and structured
into courses, and consumed by students, is
turned on its head. Insofar as there is content, it
is used rather than read— and is, in any case,
more likely to be produced by students than
courseware authors. And insofar as there is
structure, it is more likely to resemble a language
or a conversation rather than a book or a
manual.” (Downes 2005).

So Downes is providing us with his vision of

elearning where there is a shift from enterprise
learning-management systems to an interlocking
set of (open-source?) applications that provide an
overall platform for elearning rather than a single
application. “In the future it will be more widely
recognized that the learning comes not from the
design of learning content but in how it is used.
Most e-learning theorists are already there, and
are exploring how learning content-whether
professionally authored or created by students—
can be used as the basis for learning activities
rather than the conduit for learning content.”
(Downes 2005).

There are examples, particularly in the gaming

world where “modding” allows the gamer to play
and design the game almost simultaneously –
effectively learning and doing at the same time.
The key seems to be getting the right information
delivered in the right context at just the right
time.
In B.J. Schone’s Blog “eLearning Weekly” he also
attempts to define eLearning 2.0. “With
eLearning 1.0, information was prepared and
delivered to the user, as if we were filling an
empty glass. Communication was one-way. The
idea of eLearning 2.0 is to harness and utilize
each learner’s knowledge and experience so that
everybody can benefit from it. To achieve this
next level of learning, you can tools such as wikis,
blogs, and social bookmarking. These tools allow
each learner to contribute their knowledge on a
specific theme, design problem, or subject area,
depending on how the learning experience is
structured.” (Schone 2007)

Digital Native and the Digital

Immigrant
For an understanding of the nature of Elearning
(2.0) it is worth delving a little deeper into the
concept introduced earlier the “Digital Native”.
“On the most rudimentary level there is simply
terror of feeling like an immigrant in a
place where your children are natives…because
they can develop the technology faster than you
can learn it.”(Rushkoff 1994). This is a quote from
John Barlow (lyricist for the Grateful Dead and
cofounder of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation).
Marc Prensky hooked onto this idea and
developed it to where he describes the children
(and now young adults) who grew up surrounded
by technology. “They have spent their entire
lives surrounded by and using computers,
videogames, digital music players, video cams,
cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of
the digital age. Today’s average college grads
have spent less than 5,000 hours of their lives
reading, but over 10,000 hours playing video
games (not to mention 20,000 hours watching
TV). Computer games, email, the Internet, cell
phones and instant messaging are integral parts
of their lives.” (Prensky 2001).

For Prensky this is not a natural evolution of

“youth culture”, but a seismic shift in lifestyle in
the last few decades of the 20th Century. “…
today’s students think and process information
fundamentally differently from their
predecessors. These differences go far further
and deeper than most educators suspect or
realize…Digital Natives. Our students today are
all “native speakers” of the digital language of
computers, video games and the Internet.”
(Prensky 2001).

“So what does that make the rest of us? Those of

us who were not born into the digital world but
have, at some later point in our lives, become
fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects
of the new technology are, and always will be
compared to them, Digital Immigrants.” (Prensky
2001). A few characteristics of a Digital
Immigrant:
• Use the Internet as a secondary or tertiary
source of information.
 • Read the manual before using the
program.
• Printing out (or your PA printing out) your
email before reading it.
• Print out a document to edit it rather than
edit on screen.
• Phoning someone to enquire if they got
your email.

Digital Natives on the other hand “…are used to

receiving information really fast. They like to
parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their
graphics before their text rather than the
opposite. They prefer random access (like
hypertext). They function best when networked.
They thrive on instant gratification and frequent
rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work.“
(Prensky 2001).

So in summary Digital Immigrants are used to

disseminating information in an entirely different
way from Digital Natives, however, at present the
Digital Immigrant is the primary source of
information in our education system to the Digital
Native. One is broadcasting on Medium Wave and
the other is trying to receive via FM! Does
Elearning have a role to play in solving this
problem?

To meet this challenge, Prensky states that it is

the Immigrants who must adapt their teaching
“methodology” in order for the Natives to
understand – less linear step by step teaching,
bite-size chunks of information, parallel running
of information and so on. The “content” also
needs to change. There is still a requirement for
“legacy content” – reading, writing, arithmetic
and so on. Additionally there is a need for “future
content” which is fundamentally technology
based but also encompasses the humanities.

From Push to Pull

Corporate E-Learning vendors are also adapting.
They are starting to learn from the mistakes of
Courseware of the 1990s. “…a global consulting
firm modified its approach to delivering e-
learning by migrating from a “push” mindset to a
“pull” mindset. The training department focused
on teaching its employees how to get access
easily to a learning nugget when they need it,
rather than force-feeding them hundreds of
courses with completion deadlines. Empowering
its learners and teaching them “how to fish” has
been a highly rewarding experience for the
firm.”(Buttan 2008)

Malcom Brown argues that Course Management

Systems (CMS) should be enhanced to
incorporate Web 2.0 features such as social
bookmarking etc. But will this actually improve
learning? “In a nutshell, this theory [constructivist
learning] holds that learning is strengthened,
deepened, and made more effective when it is
social, is engaged, provides formative
assessment (as opposed to just summative), is
relevant (tying content to students' concerns),
and offers learners multiple paths. But perhaps
the single most important component of
constructivist learning theory is that learning
happens best when students are active—not
merely taking notes in lecture halls but writing,
thinking, experimenting, creating, and devising.”
(Brown 2007).

He elaborates further: “If we "mash up"

constructivist learning theory and the Web 2.0,
we can harvest some helpful insights concerning
the future of the CMS. The Web 1.0 models the
traditional, unilateral publication formats. It
assumes a more passive consumer of
information, one who receives or buys content
(such as songs, books, and weather reports)
much in the way that one receives goods from a
store. The Web 2.0, by contrast, with its
folksonomies, bookmarking, multilateral
contribution of content, and mashups, is a far
more active environment. Opportunities abound
for content generation, content sharing, content
markup, and content repurposing. In short, the
Web 2.0 models the very active engagement that
is central to the learning paradigm.” (Brown
2007).

John Seely Brown draws parallels between

changes in the online world and how people
learn. “The latest evolution of the Internet, the
so-called Web 2.0, has blurred the line between
producers and consumers of content and has
shifted attention from access to information
toward access to other people. New kinds of
online resources—such as social networking sites,
blogs, wikis, and virtual communities—have
allowed people with common interests to meet,
share ideas, and collaborate in innovative ways.
Indeed, the Web 2.0 is creating a new kind of
participatory medium that is ideal for supporting
multiple modes of learning.” (Seely Brown &
Adler 2008).

Social Learning
Expanding further he introduces the concept of
“Social Learning”. “Perhaps the simplest way to
explain this concept is to note that social learning
is based on the premise that our understanding
of content is socially constructed through
conversations about that content and through
grounded interactions, especially with others,
around problems or actions. The focus is not so
much on what we are learning but on how we are
learning.” (Seely Brown & Adler 2008)

These are compelling arguments, from personal

experience I have often found that I really learn
something when I have to teach / explain it to a
peer, even if that means I only discover I didn’t
know the subject matter as well as I thought in
the first place.

So has the classical model of learning

fundamentally changed the way learn from the
Cartesian Model of “I think therefore I am” where
knowledge is a substance that can be transferred
via the teacher – student relationship to a Social
Learning model of “We participate therefore we
are” where understanding is socially constructed.
The model goes further where not only do the
participants learn about the also learn to be –
putting what you’ve learned into practice.
Compelling examples of this are the Open Source
movement where Linux, Apache, MySQL have
become viable alternatives to commercial
solutions. (Seely Brown & Adler 2008).

The counter-argument to this is that group

participation doesn’t mean that you will arrive at
the correct answer. Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy
Wales, concluded that it would be impossible to
correct all the inaccuracies in the online
encyclopaedia and went so far as to warn
students from taking its word as gospel.

Seely Brown draws an interesting parallel with

ecommerce versus bricks and mortar businesses
– the Long Tail. In a nutshell, Waterstones must
stock the most popular titles in its store to
generate sales. Amazon does much the same.
However, Amazon can add much less popular
esoteric titles at virtually no extra cost. These
other titles in combination generate more sales
for Amazon than the sales from the best sellers
list. These are the sales from the “long tail”.
Similarly, online course content can potentially
offer any course and course content, whereas the
traditional colleges will be confined to offering
the more “in-demand” subjects.

(Seely Brown & Adler 2008)

Are we really on the cusp of change with regard

to traditional teaching / learning models?

“In the twentieth century, the dominant approach

to education focused on helping students to build
stocks of knowledge and cognitive skills that
could be deployed later in appropriate situations.
This approach to education worked well in a
relatively stable, slowly changing world in which
careers typically lasted a lifetime. But the twenty-
first century is quite different. The world is
evolving at an increasing pace. When jobs
change, as they are likely to do, we can no longer
expect to send someone back to school to be
retrained. By the time that happens, the domain
of inquiry is likely to have morphed yet
again.”(Seely Brown & Adler 2008).

Ultimately, as Seely Brown puts it in education

the emphasis must change from Supply Push
(where knowledge is loaded into the student’s
head) to Demand Push whereby the Student
utilises the tools available to get the specific
piece of information needed at that particular
moment.

As Karrer puts it “I think eLearning 2.0 is an

example of where technology has snuck up on us
and there’s something very interesting going on
that we are only beginning to recognize.” (Karrer
2006).

Caveat Emptor
Not everyone is so enamoured with the latest
trends in eLearning. For David Jennings, he sees
eLearning 2.0 as a simple rebranding exercise in
an attempt for the industry to distance itself from
past failures. There is some merit in this. “It is
remarkable how many people who presumably
make money in the e-learning sector spend time
dismissing the shortcomings of the domain…I
think it's a combination of the fallout from the
stack-'em-high-sell-'em-cheap era of e-learning
modules, combined with a lingering obsession
with novelty.” (Jennings 2005).
Using the example of Wikipedia: “The underlying
belief about wikis is that "all of us are smarter
than a few of us." This is comforting illusion in
theory, but is just plain wrong in practice. The
mediocre don't always understand enough to
judge an expert's pronouncements. Groups of
people often tend toward groupthink or mob
psychosis.” (Thalheimer 2005). Outside the realm
of the Internet and Social Networking “group-
think” has negative connotations. A real world
example was during the investigation into the
Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters
groupthink within NASA was noted as a
contributory problem in the culture of that
organisation.

Research into Podcasting as a means of

enhancing the learning experience has been less
than impressive – appearing to be reliant on the
“educational context”. "Podcasting does not
contain any inherent value. It is only valuable
inasmuch as it helps the instructor and students
reach their educational goals, by facilitating
thoughtful, engaging learning activities that are
designed to work in support of those goals."
(McCloskey 2007).

David Boggs cites Wall Street Journal article on

the problems corporate have relying on wikis.
“The big potential problems stated are the quality
and quantity concerns. Quality from the
perspective that it’s not regularly monitored to be
sure the information is correct.” (Boggs 2007).
What Boggs fails to state is that really is a
problem of content management – which has
been an issue for elearning in the past, but is not
necessarily a reason for organisations to abandon
the use of wikis altogether.

The type of content may also have a bearing on

the delivery mechanism. For example, in the
corporate realm it may be mandatory for all are a
group of employees to be fully trained in a
particular discipline. “However, just because you
tick a box to say you've completed a course, and
a learning management system records that you
have, doesn't mean that you can actually apply
the learning.” (Weekes 2007).

“I think the eLearning 2.0 movement has great

intentions, but I can’t see a mass exodus from
existing eLearning strategies. I think these tools
and ideas will be a great supplement to existing
eLearning courses and curriculums, but I
personally don’t see enough structure and
organization for them to stand alone. Let’s take a
simple scenario: learning a new software
package. While a wiki may be helpful for learners
to compare notes and share their experiences
regarding the software, we’ll still need a basic
introductory course on how to use the software,
right? We shall see.” (Schone 2007).
What is eLearning?
As I write this I’m still unsure how to label it…is it
lower case “e” upper case “L” or visa versa, is the
“e” hyphenated etc. If I read an article on
elearning is the author referring to distance
learning, learning from courseware, learning by
networking or is (s)he referring the N-gen
learners. Does the term describe a change in the
discipline of teaching / learning or is it a category
of technology? There are terms out there but they
are not used in a consistent and meaningful way.
What does the “e” in eLearning really tell us?
Karrer expands on Donald Taylor’s interpretation
that it (the “e”) is about delivery “the "e" is about
delivery. Of course, the terms "email" and
"ecommerce" seem to be fine. And these
certainly are delivery based terms.” (Karrer
2007). People also seem to associate it with cost-
cutting measures “eLearning is associated with
cost cutting measures. I would agree that we
need to move people beyond that. Especially with
the potential value offered with the network
effects in eLearning 2.0. Just as email and
ecommerce open new possibilities, so does
eLearning.” (Karrer 2007).

What has this walkthrough achieved? ELearning

means different things to different people. For
some it is about the learning process, for others it
is the technology. ELearning 2.0 describes an
evolutionary process that follows a parallel
course of the development of web technologies.
These technologies appear to have social roots as
opposed to being only about the technology.
There are different drivers for corporate learning
and academic education – lightning fast delivery,
vertical learning curve, and a traditional learning
environment populated by “Digital Natives”.
There seems to be a schism within the eLearning
camp, those supporting the traditional LMSs and
the exponents of Web 2.0 technologies as a
conduit of educational content.

eLearning 1.0 vs. 2.0 - Help Needed : eLearning

Technology. Available at:
http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/09/
elearning-10-vs-20-help-needed_07.html
[Accessed February 5, 2008].

Anon, 2007. eLearning | Co-operation Ireland

Blogs. Cooperation Ireland Blogs. Available
at:
http://blogs.cooperationireland.org/?q=taxo
nomy/term/4 [Accessed February 3, 2008].

Anon, 2003. What is learning management

system? - a definition from Whatis.com -
see also: LMS. Available at:
http://searchcio.techtarget.com/sDefinition/
0,,sid182_gci798202,00.html [Accessed
February 3, 2008].

Aranda, N., 2007. A Brief History of E-learning

and Distance Education. A Brief History of
E-learning and Distance Education.
Available at: http://ezinearticles.com/?A-
Brief-History-of-E-learning-and-Distance-
Education&id=496460 [Accessed February
3, 2008].

Boggs, D., 2007. The Boggs e-Learning Chronicle:

Wikis Used At Work....But Behind The
Firewall.... Available at: http://boggse-
learningchronicle.typepad.com/weblog/200
7/06/wikis-used-at-w.html [Accessed
February 23, 2008].
Brown, M., 2007. Mashing up the Once and Future
CMS (EDUCAUSE Review) | EDUCAUSE
CONNECT. Educase Review. Available at:
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCA
USE+Review/MashinguptheOnceandFuture/
40696 [Accessed February 16, 2008].

Buttan, S., 2008. Chief Learning Officer magazine

- E-Learning Is Dead. Long Live E-Learning!
Chief Learning Officer . Available at:
http://www.clomedia.com/features/2008/Jan
uary/2037/index.php [Accessed February
16, 2008].

Cross, J., 2004. An informal history of eLearning.

On the Horizon, 12(3), p.103-110.

Downes, S., 2005. E-Learning 2.0 ~ Stephen's

Web ~ by Stephen Downes. Stephen's Web.
Available at:
http://www.downes.ca/post/31741
[Accessed February 10, 2008].

Jennings, D., 2005. Collaborative Learning. E-

learning 2.0, whatever that is. Available at:
http://teamdemo.collabhost.com/logon.do
[Accessed February 24, 2008].

Karrer, T., 2006. eLearning 1.0 vs. 2.0 - Help

Needed : eLearning Technology. eLearning
1.0 vs. 2.0 - Help Needed : eLearning
Technology. Available at:
http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/09/
elearning-10-vs-20-help-needed_07.html
[Accessed February 5, 2008].

Karrer, T., 2007. eLearning or e-Learning vs.

learning : eLearning Technology. Available
at:
http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2007/07/
elearning-or-e-learning-vs-learning.html
[Accessed February 23, 2008].

Karrer, T., 2005. Undertanding E-Learning 2.0.

Undertanding E-Learning 2.0. Available at:
http://www.learningcircuits.org/2007/0707k
arrer.html [Accessed February 5, 2008].
Karrer, T., 2006. What is eLearning 2.0? :
eLearning Technology. Available at:
http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/02/
what-is-elearning-20.html [Accessed
February 23, 2008].

McCloskey, P., 2007. Consensus: Podcasting Has

No 'Inherent' Pedagogic Value. Available at:
http://campustechnology.com/articles/4901
8 [Accessed February 25, 2008].

O'Reilly, T., 2005. O'Reilly -- What Is Web 2.0.

What Is Web 2.0. Available at:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/
news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
[Accessed February 13, 2008].

Prensky, M., 2001. Digital Natives, Digital

Immigrants. On the Horizon, p.6.

Rushkoff, D., 1994. Douglas Rushkoff - Cyberia.

Voidspace. Available at:
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/cyberpunk/cyb
eria.shtml [Accessed February 16, 2008].

Schone, B., 2007. What is eLearning 2.0? «

eLearning Weekly. eLearning Weekly.
Available at:
http://elearningweekly.wordpress.com/2007
/04/23/what-is-elearning-20/ [Accessed
February 14, 2008].

Seely Brown, J. & Adler, R.P., 2008. Minds on Fire:

Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning
2.0 (EDUCAUSE Review) | EDUCAUSE
CONNECT. Available at:
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCA
USE+Review/MindsonFireOpenEducationt/4
5823?time=1203193885 [Accessed
February 23, 2008].

Strudwick, J. et al., 2005. E-Learning -

M/Cyclopedia of New Media. E-Learning.
Available at: http://wiki.media-
culture.org.au/index.php/E-Learning
[Accessed February 3, 2008].

Thalheimer, W., 2005. Will at Work Learning: Are

Wiki's Inherently Flawed? Available at:
 http://www.willatworklearning.com/2005/12
/are_wikis_inher.html [Accessed February
25, 2008].

Weekes, S., 2007. Training, learning &

development - E-learning is better suited
for delivering compliance training than
mass learning and development -
20/03/2007. Available at:
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/200
7/03/20/39725/e-learning-is-better-suited-
for-delivering-compliance-training-than-
mass-learning-and.html [Accessed February
25, 2008].