1

Chapter I
E-Learning Classifications:
Differences and Similarities

Solomon Negash
Kennesaw State University, USA

Marlene V. Wilcox
Bradley University, USA

ABSTRACT

This chapter identifies six e-learning classifications to understand the different forms of e-learning and
demonstrates the differences and similarities of the classifications with classroom examples, including a
pilot empirical study from the authors’ experience. It argues that understanding the different e-learning
classifications is a prerequisite to understanding the effectiveness of specific e-learning formats. How
does the reader distinguish e-learning success and/or failure if the format used is not understood? For
example, a learning format with a Web site link to download lecture notes is different from one that uses
interactive communication between learner and instructor and the latter is different from one that uses
“live” audio and video. In order to understand effectiveness, or lack thereof of an e-learning environ-
ment, more precise terminology which describes the format of delivery is needed. To address this issue,
this chapter provides the following six e-learning classifications: e-learning with physical presence and
without e-communication (face-to-face), e-learning without presence and without e-communication
(self-learning), e-learning without presence and with e-communication (asynchronous), e-learning with
virtual presence and with e-communication (synchronous), e-learning with occasional presence and
with e-communication (blended/hybrid-asynchronous), and e-learning with presence and with e-com-
munication (blended/hybrid-synchronous). E-learning classifications can aid researchers in identifying
learning effectiveness for specific formats and how it alters the student learning experience.

Copyright © 2008, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

INTRODUCTION
Technology is transforming the delivery of edu-
cation in unthinkable ways (DeNeui & Dodge,
2006). The impact and influence of technology
can be seen rippling through academe and in-
dustry as more and more institutions of higher
education and corporations offer, or plan to offer,
Web-based courses (Alavi, Marakasand, & Yoo,
2002; Dagada & Jakovljevic, 2004).
There is a call for studies that enable research-
ers to gain a deeper understanding into the effec-
tiveness of the use of technologies for e-learning
(Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Alavi et al., 2002). Such
studies need to be qualified by differentiating
among e-learning formats.
Brown and Liedholm (2002) compared the
outcomes of three different formats for a course
in the principles of microeconomics (face-to-face,
hybrid, and virtual) and found that the students
in the virtual course did not perform as well as
the students in the face-to-face classroom set-
tings and that differences between students in
the face-to-face and hybrid sections vs. those in
the virtual section were shown to increase with
the complexity of the subject matter. Piccoli,
Ahmadand, and Ives (2001) found that the level
of student satisfaction in e-learning environments
for difficult (or unfamiliar) topics like Microsoft
Access dropped when compared to familiar topics
like Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. Brown
and Liedholm (2002) found that students in virtual
classes performed worse on exams than those in
face-to-face classes where the exam questions
required more complex applications of basic
concepts. Brown and Liedholm (2002) conclude
that ultimately there is some form of penalty for
selecting a course that is completely online. These
studies, while important, do not distinguish among
the different e-learning formats used to conduct
the courses; they are based on the premise that
the e-learning formats are the same.
2
E-Learning Classifications
Studies on success and failure of e-learning
presuppose that all online learning deliveries are
the same, but there are differences. Those who cite
the failure of e-learning formats often cite lack of
support for students, lack of instructor availability,
lack of content richness, and lack of performance
assessment. Of course, it all depends on the course
content being offered; but it also depends on the
course delivery format. For example, an online
class where the learner is provided only a Web
site link to download the lecture notes is different
from one where the learner has interactive com-
munication with the instructor. The latter is also
different from an e-learning class that provides
the learner with “live” audio and video vs. one
that does not.
In order to understand the effectiveness, or
lack thereof, of an e-learning environment, more
precise terminology which describes the format
of delivery is needed, since all online instruction
delivery formats are not equal; different content
require different delivery formats. Technology
advances have provided many tools for e-learning
but without a clear understanding of the format of
delivery it is difficult to assess the overall effec-
tiveness of the environment. The question arises
as to what classification can be used to understand
the different e-learning formats. To help address
this issue, this chapter provides an e-learning
classification and demonstrates with a classroom
example from the authors’ experience.
There are seven sections in this chapter. First,
we identify six classifications and describe them
briefly. We then describe learning management
systems (LMS) and give some examples. In the
third section, we discuss e-learning environments
and six dimensions that distinguish e-learning
environments from face-to-face classrooms.
The fourth section provides an example of each
classification, followed by a pilot empirical study
and a framework for e-learning environment ef-
fectiveness in section five. Sections six and seven
provide a discussion and the conclusion.
E-Learning Classifications
E-LEARNING CLASSIFICATIONS
Falch (2004) proposes four types of e-learning
classifications: e-learning without presence and
without communication, e-learning without pres-
ence but with communication, e-learning com-
bined with occasional presence, and e-learning
used as a tool in classroom teaching.
Following Falch’s (2004) presence/communi-
cation classification, we have redefined the terms
“presence” and “communication” and expanded
the classifications to six in order to make a dis-
tinction between physical presence and virtual
presence. The six classifications are outlined in
Table 1.
In order to understand the differences between
classifications it is important to differentiate be-
tween content delivery and content access. In this
classification we consider presence available as
“Yes” only if the instructor and learner are simul-
taneously available during content delivery, either
physically or virtually. We classify e-communica-
tion available as “Yes” only if e-communication
exists between instructor and learner at the time
of instruction delivery or e-communication is the
primary communication medium for completing
the course.
Table 1. E-Learning classifications
Classification Presence*
Type I Yes
Type II No
Type III No
Type IV Yes
Type V Occasional
Type VI Yes
* Presence is defined as real-time presence where both instructor and learner are
present at the time of content delivery; it includes physical and virtual presence
** E-communication refers to whether the content delivery includes electronic com-
munication or not.
Brief descriptions of the six e-learning clas-
sifications are provided in this section; more
details and examples are given in later sections.
The descriptions are as follows:
Type I: E-Learning with Physical
Presence and Without
E-Communication (Face-to-Face)
This is the traditional face-to-face classroom
setting. The traditional face-to-face classroom is
classified as e-learning because of the prevalence
of e-learning tools used to support instruction
delivery in classrooms today. In this format both
the instructor and learner are physically present
in the classroom at the time of content delivery,
therefore presence is available. An example of
Type I e-learning is a traditional class that utilizes
PowerPoint slides, video clips, and multimedia to
deliver content. Many face-to-face classrooms
also take advantage of e-learning technologies
outside the classroom, for example, when there is
interaction between the learner and instructor and
among learners using discussion boards and also
e-mail. In addition, lecture notes and PowerPoint
slides may be posted online for students to access
and assignment schedules may be set up online. It
eCommunication** Alias
No Face-to-Face
No Self-Learning
Yes Asynchronous
Yes Synchronous
Blended/Hybrid-
Yes
asynchronous
Blended/Hybrid-
Yes
synchronous
3

should be noted that in a traditional face-to-face
classroom, e-learning tools do not have to be
used for instruction; however, it is common today
for many e-learning tools to be used for content
delivery. The primary communication between
learner and instructor takes place in the classroom
or is handled through office visits or phone calls;
e-communication is therefore classified as “No,”
or not available.
Type II: E-Learning without Presence
and Without E-Communication
(Self-Learning)
This type of e-learning is a self-learning approach.
Learners receive the content media and learn on
their own. There is no presence, neither physical
nor virtual in this format. There is also no commu-
nication, e-communication, or otherwise between
the learner and the instructor. With this e-learning
format, the learner typically receives prerecorded
content or accesses archived recordings. Com-
munication between the learner and instructor (or
the group that distributes the content) is limited to
support or to other noncontent issues like replac-
ing damaged media or receiving supplemental
material. Type II e-learning is content delivered
on a specific subject or application using recorded
media like a CD ROM or DVD.
Type III: E-Learning without
Presence and with E-Communication
(Asynchronous)
In this format the instructor and learner do not
meet during content delivery and there is no
presence, neither physical nor virtual; presence is
therefore classified as “No” or not available. With
this format, the instructor prerecords the content
(content delivery) and the learner accesses content
(content access) at a later time (i.e., content deliv-
ery and content access happen independently so
there is a time delay between content delivery and
4
E-Learning Classifications
access). In this environment, the instructor and
learner communicate frequently using a number
of e-learning technologies. A Type III e-learning
format is the typical format most people think of
when they think about “online learning.” Even
though the instructor and learner do not meet at
the time of content delivery, there is, however,
rich interaction using e-learning technologies like
threaded discussion boards and e-mail and instruc-
tors may post lecture notes for online access and
schedule assignments online. E-communication
is not available at the time of content delivery,
however, e-communication is the primary mode
of communication for the asynchronous format;
e-communication is therefore categorized as
“Yes,” or available.
Type IV: E-Learning with Virtual
Presence and with
E-Communication (Synchronous)
This is synchronous e-learning, also referred to as
“real-time.” In synchronous e-learning the instruc-
tor and learner do not meet physically, however,
they always meet virtually during content delivery,
therefore, presence is classified as available, or
“Yes.” In this format e-communication is used
extensively and the virtual class is mediated by
e-learning technologies; e-communication is
therefore classified as available, or “Yes.” The
technologies used in a Type IV e-learning envi-
ronment include all of the technologies used in
asynchronous e-learning in addition to synchro-
nous technologies such as “live” audio, “live”
video, chat, and instant messaging.
Type V: E-Learning with Occasional
Presence and With
E-Communication
(Blended/Hybrid-Asynchronous)
This is a blended or hybrid e-learning format
with occasional presence. In this format content
E-Learning Classifications
is delivered through occasional physical meet-
ings (face-to-face classroom, possibly once a
month) between the instructor and learner and
via e-learning technologies for the remainder of
the time. This arrangement is a combination of
face-to-face and asynchronous e-learning. In this
format e-communication is used extensively just
like the asynchronous format; therefore e-com-
munication is classified as available, or “Yes.”
Presence, on the other hand, is occasional; there
is physical presence during the face-to-face por-
tion and no physical or virtual presence during
the asynchronous portion, therefore presence is
categorized as “occasional.”
Type VI: E-Learning with Presence
and with E-Communication
(Blended/Hybrid-Synchronous)
This is a blended or hybrid e-learning format with
presence at all times. In this format e-commu-
nication is used extensively just like with a syn-
chronous format; e-communication is therefore
classified as available, or “Yes.” In this environ-
ment, presence alternates between physical and
virtual. Some class sessions are conducted with
physical presence (i.e., in a traditional face-to-
face classroom setting) and the remaining class
sessions are conducted with virtual presence
(i.e., synchronously). With this format the learner
and instructor meet at the same time, sometimes
physically and other times virtually; nevertheless,
presence exists at all times. In this format, pres-
ence is therefore classified as “Yes,” or available.
An example of Type VI e-learning is where the
instructor and learner use the classroom for part
of the time and for the other part they use live
audio/video for their virtual meetings. In both
cases, meetings take place with both participants
available at the same time, which is a combination
of face-to-face and synchronous e-learning.
LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
(LMS)
Learning management systems (LMS) facilitate
the planning, management, and delivery of con-
tent for e-learning; it is therefore important to
mention them here briefly. LMSs can maintain
a list of student enrollment in a course, manage
course access with logins, lecture files and lecture
notes, support quizzes and assessments, schedule
assignments, support e-mail communication,
manage discussion forums, facilitate project
teams, and support chat. These systems support
many-to-many communication among learners
and between learners and instructors.
A search for “learning management system”
on Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) results in a
listing of 35 commercial and 12 open source LMS
products. See Table 2 for a partial listing.
Some LMSs include technologies for creating
content, such as assignments and quizzes, and
provide support for instant messaging, “live”
audio, “live” video, and white boards. These types
of LMSs can host asynchronous e-learning and
some are even capable of hosting synchronous
e-learning.
E-Learning System: An Example
There are many e-learning systems capable of sup-
porting all six e-learning classifications. Cogburn
and Hurup (2006) conducted a lab performance
test at Syracuse University to compare nine
types of Web conferencing software capable of
supporting postsecondary teaching. A summary
of their study, listed alphabetically by product, is
provided in Table 3. We encourage the reader to
look at their study for further details.
In order to help illustrate the six e-learning
classifications, we describe our experience with
one of the nine e-learning systems, Marratech1
(http://www.marratech.com), along with one
LMS system, WebCT-Vista2 (http://webct.com).
While we have experience with other e-learning
5
 E-Learning Classifications

Table 2. Sample* learning management systems

Product URL Availability
ANGEL Learning http://angellearning.com/ Commercial
Apex Learning http://www.apexlearning.com/ Commercial
Blackboard http://www.blackboard.com/us/index.Bb Commercial
Bodington http://bodington.org/ Open source
Claroline http://www.claroline.net/ Open source
Desire2Learn http://www.desire2learn.com/ Commercial
eCollege http://www.ecollege.com/indexflash.learn Commercial
iCohere http://www.icohere.com Commercial
.LRN http://dotlrn.org/users/ Open source
Moodle http://moodle.org/ Open source
OLAT http://www.olat.org/public/index.html Open source
Open Campus http://campus.dokeos.com/index.php Open source
Reliant http://reliantlive.com/index.htm Commercial
Sakai http://www.sakaiproject.org/ Open source
SimplyDigi http://www.simplydigi.com/Welcome.aspx Commercial
Scholar360 http://www.scholar360.com/ Commercial
WebCT http://www.webct.com/ Commercial
*Selected based on their Web site’s indication of higher education solutions for
clients

Table 3. Synchronous e-learning systems

Report
Product Installation** Cross Platform***
Card*
Adobe Breeze B+ In-house Yes
Elluminate Live A- In-house Yes
e/pop Web Conferencing B- In-house No
Genesys Meeting Center C+ Hosted No
Marratech B In-house Yes
Microsoft Office Live Meeting C+ Hosted No
Raindance Meeting Edition C+ Hosted No
Saba Centra Live B+ In-house No
WebEx Meeting Center A- Hosted No

* Overall grade assigned by the reviewers

** Installation indicates whether the application was installed at the lab or hosted
by the vendor
*** Cross platform is defined as running on all three major operating systems: Win-
dows, Macintosh, and Linux

6
E-Learning Classifications
systems including Elluminate Live, Horizon
Wimba, eCollege, e/pop, and Blackboard, our
experience with Marratech includes nine semester
courses conducted over a 1 year period. We have
also used WebCT-Vista since its debut in 2006,
and WebCT for several years prior to that. In this
section we used a combination of Marratech and
WebCT-Vista to illustrate our experience in the
six e-learning classifications.
Type I: E-Learning with Physical
Presence and without
E-Communication (Face-to-Face)
A traditional classroom supported by WebCT-
Vista. We have taught many traditional face-to-
face classes augmented by WebCT-Vista’s LMS.
We posted lecture notes (PowerPoint slides) and
assignments on WebCT-Vista and enforced as-
signment due dates through WebCT-Vista. Discus-
sion board and e-mail communication between
students and instructor and among students was
facilitated using WebCT-Vista. Student access to
the course Web site (hosted within WebCT-Vista)
was managed through a login in WebCT-Vista.
The student roster was populated by the registrar
and only students who registered for the course
had access to the course content. As instructors
we added teaching assistants and guest speakers
as needed. During the course instruction, we
were physically present in the classroom and
although our primary communication took place
in the classroom, e-communications were used
to augment the course.
Type II: E-Learning without Presence
and without E-Communication
(Self-Learning)
For a data warehousing and business intelligence
class we posted a prerecording of a SQL server
installation for our students; students downloaded
the archived instructions and learned the applica-
tion on their own. We also provided instruction on
downloading, installing, and using the Marratech
system. Students once again learned the process
on their own. In both instances, with the excep-
tion of a couple of students, the students learned
the content on their own without presence, of
the instructor, that is, with “No” e-communica-
tion. Other examples occurred where the learner
purchases instructional CD to learn different
application software independently.
Type III: E-Learning without Presence
and with E-Communication
(Asynchronous)
Prerecorded Marratech sessions with WebCT-
Vista support. While some of our colleagues used
this format for an entire semester, our experience
is limited to a few sessions. We recorded lectures
in advance with full video and audio. The recorded
sessions were placed within WebCT-Vista where
students were able to download and access the
instruction material at their own pace. All WebCT-
Vista features described in Type I above were ap-
plied here. We found the asynchronous approach
very convenient during instructor absence (i.e.,
during travel to conferences or emergencies).
We did not meet with the students during the
asynchronous sessions but we had extensive e-
communication through WebCT-Vista.
Type IV: E-Learning with Virtual
Presence and with E-Communication
(Synchronous)
“Live” Marratech sessions supplemented with
WebCT-Vista. We conducted several classes in this
format. One course was conducted entirely with a
synchronous format without any physical contact
with students. In a typical session as instructors,
we entered a virtual room, uploaded the Power-
Point slides, and turned on audio and video. In
the virtual room, we appeared as a talking-head,
7

in a 20 inch x 18 inch (50 cm x 45 cm) window. A
thumbnail with a picture and username was also
shown in the display window. In this setting, we
also had synchronous chat with our students; the
system time stamped the messages and included
the sender username. All WebCT-Vista features
described in Type I above were applied here. We
used the whiteboard area to display PowerPoint
slides and to present the lecture to students who
were present via audio/video connection from
their home. Students who had full-duplex audio
were able to ask questions or make comments at
any time. Students were given “presenter” privi-
leges when they lead discussions or presented a
project. The “live” audio/video link allowed us
to be virtually present at all times. We also used
e-communication during content delivery and
content access.
Type V: E-Learning with Occasional
Presence and with E-Communication
(Blended/Hybrid-Asynchronous)
Face-to-face classroom combined with prerecord-
ed Marratech sessions supplemented by WebCT-
Vista. When conference travels or emergencies
arose, we prerecorded the class lecture using the
Marratech system and uploaded the recorded
session to WebCT-Vista. We have also used this
option when we wanted to target the face-to-face
classroom for discussion and collaborations; in
these cases we posted the prerecorded content in
advance. Students were able to learn the mate-
rial at their own pace and come to class for the
discussion and collaboration. All WebCT-Vista
features described in Type I above were applied
here. We met with students during the face-to-
face sessions but not during the asynchronous
sessions; presence was therefore occasional.
We used WebCT-Vista for communication with
students and to enable students to interact with
each other. E-communication in these instances
was therefore “Yes.”
8
E-Learning Classifications
Type VI: E-Learning with Presence and
with E-Communication
(Blended/Hybrid-Synchronous)
We combined physical presence (face-to-face)
and virtual synchronous presence (Marratech)
along with e-communication support from We-
bCT-Vista. Some of our classes were scheduled
with the options to attend classes online. The
face-to-face sessions were always in progress in
these classes but students were given the option
to attend 50% of the classes online. In these class
sessions, when students joined the online session
they joined the “live” class in progress with the
instructor and those students who had chosen to
attend in the face-to-face format. The majority of
the students who did not utilize the online option
and instead attended all class session in the face-
to-face format indicated that they did not make
use of the online option because they were already
on campus, had scheduled classes back-to-back,
and did not have time to go home to participate
in the online class. Students who choose to take
advantage of the online option had the opportu-
nity to ask questions and participate in the class
discussion during the “live” session. Unlike in
the asynchronous mode, the synchronous hybrid/
blended mode had participants’ presence inside
and outside of the classroom during instruction.
The WebCT-Vista features described in Type I
above were applied here and e-communication
was supported by WebCT-Vista.
A summary of the examples of e-learning
systems is outlined in Table 4.
The Marratech interface used in the courses dis-
cussed in the examples is depicted in Figure 1.
The Marratech user interface shows a large
whiteboard on the left; this is where we displayed
the PowerPoint slides. On the right hand side there
are three stacked panes with a talking head, a list
of participants, and a chat window.
E-Learning Classifications
Table 4. Summary of e-learning systems
Classification
Type I: face-to-face
Type II: self-learner
Type III: asynchronous
Type IV: synchronous
Type V: blended/hybrid-
asynchronous
Type VI: blended/hybrid-
synchronous
Figure 1. Marratech user interface
User Interface
How Leaves Work
Whiteboard
Present &
Collaborate
Voice over IP
Highest quality
available
E-LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
E-learning is the general term used for com-
puter-enhanced learning. It differs from distance
learning because in e-learning, a computer is a
prerequisite. Distance learning, however, may
use computers but is not required. Advances in
information technology (IT) continually expand
the capabilities of e-learning (Seng & Al-Hawam-
Presence E-communication
Physical post lecture notes
schedule assignments
discussion and e-mail outside classroom
None None
None includes all listed for Type I
audio/video lecture recordings
Virtual includes all listed for Type III
“live” audio
“live” video
synchronous chat
Physical
includes all listed for Type III
Physical and
includes all listed for Type IV
Virtual
TM
Video:
see who is talking to
enhance the lesson
Participants:
See who is in the
meeting
Group and Private
Instant Message / Chat
deh, 2001). Cogburn and Hurup (2006) identi-
fied 15 must-haves for Web conferencing: VoIP,
video, participant roles, interactive capabilities
for participants, diverse session content options,
live application sharing, recording and archiving
capabilities, break-out rooms, bandwidth manage-
ment, accessibility, security, integration, session
management, customization and support, cross-
platform functionality, and compliance with the
9

Table 5. E-learning technologies and features
Accessibility for disabled
Application sharing
Archiving
Audio
Bandwidth management
Blogs
Break-out rooms
Computer aided assessment Learning management systems
Content access options
Cross-platform functionality
Customization and support
Discussion board
Americans with Disabilities Act. We have used
a number of these features in our classrooms and
they have enhanced the students learning experi-
ence. Table 5 provides a partial listing of technolo-
gies that can be employed in e-learning.
Content delivery in e-learning utilizes many
of these technologies. The extent to which these
technologies are used varies from instructor to
instructor as well as from learner to learner.
Piccoli et al. (2001) use the term virtual learn-
ing environments (VLEs) to describe e-learning
environments and they defined them as “com-
puter-based environments that are relatively open
systems which allow interactions and encounters
with other participants and providing access to a
wide range of resources” (Piccoli et al., 2001, p.
402; Wilson, 1996).
E-learning environments can be characterized
by six dimensions which distinguish them from
traditional classrooms and computer aided instruc-
tion. These dimensions are time, place, space,
technology, interaction, and control (Piccoli et
al., 2001). We adopted the basic definitions from
Piccoli et al. (2001) and expanded them to differ-
entiate between synchronous and asynchronous
communication. The six dimensions are further
discussed below:
10
E-Learning Classifications
E-mail Screen casts
Educational animation Security
Electronic voting Session management
Games Simulations
Hypermedia Text chat
Instant messaging VoIP
Interactive participants Video
Webinars
MP3 players White board
Palm pilots Wikis
Assigned Participant roles
Podcasts
Time is defined as “the timing of instruction”
(Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404). In an asynchronous
e-learning environment the learner decides the
timing of instruction access. “When instruction
is delivered asynchronously in [an e-Learning en-
vironment], participants retain control over when
they engage in the learning experience. Learners
determine the time and pace of instruction” (Pic-
coli et al., 2001, p. 404), the time constraints for
learners in asynchronous e-learning environments
are therefore removed (Piccoli et al., 2001). In
synchronous e-learning environments two time
modalities exist: time of instruction delivery and
time of accessing archived sessions. At the time of
instruction delivery the learner has to be present,
albeit virtually. In a synchronous format learners
do not have control over when they can engage
in the learning experience and time constraints
for the learner are the same as in a face-to-face
delivery, where learners have to meet with the in-
structor and other learners at a specified class time.
When accessing archived sessions, the learner
decides when to access instruction; in this case
the time constraint is removed. This is similar to
an asynchronous e-learning environment.
Time flexibility and learner control are found
to be benefits of e-learning environments (Piccoli
E-Learning Classifications
et al., 2001), however, synchronous e-learning
environments fix the delivery time, eliminat-
ing this advantage. In asynchronous e-learning
environments, the learner has a greater degree
of control during the time of instruction access.
Learner control in synchronous e-learning en-
vironments, however, takes on a different form.
In synchronous e-learning environments, the
responsibility for learner control is retained by
the instructor and the burden of time management
is removed from the learner. In synchronous e-
learning environments the familiar face-to-face
classroom environment is maintained.
Place is defined as “the physical location of
instruction” (Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404). In an
asynchronous e-learning environment there is
no formal class meeting and learners can access
instruction from “anywhere” (e.g., home or work).
In synchronous e-learning environments learn-
ers can also access instruction from “anywhere.”
However, because synchronous e-learning envi-
ronments have a formal class meeting, learners
must coordinate their time with the scheduled
class session.
Space is defined as “the collection of material
and resources available to the learner” (Piccoli et
al., 2001, p. 404). “While it is possible to expand
the traditional model of classroom-based instruc-
tion to include the variety of resources available
in [e-Learning environments], generally these
materials remain only a secondary resource in
instructor-led classroom education” (Piccoli et
al., 2001, p. 404). In asynchronous e-learning
environments timing for instruction access is
independent of instruction delivery; therefore
the learner controls the pace of learning. Because
learners control the pace of learning they can ac-
cess a wide array of resources as often as desired.
The same is true when accessing archived sessions
for synchronous environments. In a synchronous
classroom, however, because learners have to be
present at the time of content delivery the array
of resources available to the learner is limited by
the instructor’s presence. Instructor control of
content in the synchronous mode is managed by
the instructor despite the fact that the student is
in a different location. In the Marratech e-learn-
ing system, described earlier, as the instructor
changed to a new page the learner was redirected
to the same page as the instructor.
Technology is defined as “the collection of
tools used to deliver learning material and to
facilitate many-to-many communication among
participants” (Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404). “In
[asynchronous e-Learning environment] technol-
ogy is used to deliver learning material and to
facilitate many-to-many communication among
distributed participants” (Piccoli et al., 2001, p.
404). Many technologies including text, hypertext,
graphics, streaming audio, streaming video, com-
puter animation and simulation, embedded tests,
dynamic content, e-mail, and online threaded
discussion boards are used in asynchronous e-
learning environments. Synchronous e-learning
environments use live audio, live video, synchro-
nous chat, and desktop videoconferencing in ad-
dition to the technologies used in asynchronous
e-learning environments.
Interaction is defined as “the degree of contact
and educational content exchange among learners
and between learners and instructors” (Piccoli et
al., 2001, p. 404). “[Asynchronous e-Learning envi-
ronments] rely on information and communication
technologies to create the venue for knowledge
transfer and to monitor the progress of learning.
[E-Learning environments] are open systems that
allow for communication and interaction among
participants” (Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404). In an
asynchronous format, interaction with the instruc-
tor and among learners can take place at the time
of content access; however, content delivery is a
one-way communication from instructor to learner.
In synchronous e-learning environments, on the
other hand, learners can interact with the instruc-
tor and among learners at the time of instruction
delivery. Interaction in synchronous e-learning
environments for access to instruction material
(archived sessions) is the same as in asynchronous
11

classrooms. Synchronous e-learning environments
such as Marratech provide private interaction be-
tween learner and instructor and among learners
during content delivery.
Control is defined as “the extent to which the
learner can control the instructional presentation”
(Piccoli et al., 2001, p. 404). “A certain degree of
learner control can be built into traditional class-
room instruction, but [asynchronous e-Learning
environments] have the potential to provide far
greater personalization of instruction and a much
higher degree of learner control than traditional
classroom education. Traditional learning envi-
ronments do allow students, when outside of the
classroom, to control the pace and sequence of
material, and the time and place of their study.
Asynchronous e-Learning environments], how-
ever, provide this flexibility during instruction
as well.” In an asynchronous e-learning environ-
ment a learner can control the pace and sequence
of content access (Piccoli et al., 2001), however,
asynchronous learners do not have control over
the delivery of content. Archived sessions of
synchronous classrooms provide the same level
of control as asynchronous environments. Learner
control in a synchronous e-learning environment
is limited during instruction delivery since it is
controlled by the instructor. For example, when
using Marratech, learners are able to move around
the instruction material presented to them during
an online class session at a pace and sequence they
chose, but they are redirected to the instructor-led
page each time the instructor changes the page.
In an archived session however, participants have
control over the pace and sequence just like in the
asynchronous classrooms.
PILOT STUDY-TYPE VI:
HYBRID/BLENDED SYNCHRONOUS
E-LEARNING
Piccoli et al. (2001) propose a framework to test the
effectiveness of e-learning environments. Their
12
E-Learning Classifications
framework, shown in Figure 2, depict dimensions
and antecedents of e-learning environments.
The design dimensions in the framework in-
clude learning models, technology, learner control,
content, and interaction. The human dimensions
include learners (students) and instructors. Ef-
fectiveness is measured by performance, self-ef-
ficacy, and satisfaction.
A pilot study using the constructs in this
framework was conducted to compare a Type
VI: blended/hybrid-synchronous e-learning
environment to a Type I: traditional face-to-face
classroom.
Examples of blended/hybrid-synchronous
e-learning are not easily attainable, therefore
we included an empirical pilot study comparing
a blended/hybrid-synchronous e-learning to a
traditional face-to-face classroom.
In synchronous e-learning environments
learners use networked resources and a computer
based interface to access the learning material and
to communicate with classmates and instructors
(Piccoli et al., 2001). We therefore hypothesize:
H1: Students in synchronous hybrid e-Learning
environments will report higher levels of computer
self-efficacy than their counterparts in traditional
learning environments.
The general student population is used to the
traditional learning environment (face-to-face
classroom instruction) (Simon, Grover, Teng,
& Whitcomb, 1996). Some studies have found
satisfaction in traditional environments to be
higher than e-learning environments (Maki,
Maki, Patterson, & Whittaker, 2000). Therefore
we hypothesize:
H2: Students in traditional learning environments
will report higher levels of satisfaction than stu-
dents in virtual learning environments.
The university setting, course description,
learning environment, and results of the pilot
study are discussed below.
E-Learning Classifications

Figure 2. Dimensions and antecedents of e-learning environment effectiveness (adopted from Piccoli
et al., 2001)

Design Dimension
Learning Model
Objectivist
Constructivist

Technology
Quality
Reliability
Availability

Learner Control
Pace
Sequence
Content

Content
Factual knowledge
Procedural knowledge
Conceptual knowledge

Interaction
Timing
Frequency
Quantity

The University Setting and the
Courses
The setting for the study was a large, public 4-year
AACSB-accredited University with an enrollment
of over 20,000 students. Three courses were ex-
amined in the study: a systems analysis and design
(undergraduate) course, a project management
(graduate) course, and an IT resource manage-
ment (undergraduate) course.
The systems analysis and design course is a
required course for all information systems and
computer science students, and a prerequisite for
all upper division core courses. A term project was
used to practice the course content and students
had to work in groups to complete the project.
As part of the project, students were required to
select an organization for their project, identify
requirements, and develop a proposed information
system. The modeling language used was unified
modeling language (UML). Four major outputs
were expected from the term projects: an activity
diagram, class diagram, sequence diagram, and
method specifications. A take-home midterm and
final exam were administered for the course. The
exams consisted of a case study which required
the students to create the four major outputs
specified above.
The IT resource management course is a
capstone course for undergraduate information
systems (IS) majors. This course is taken after
students have completed 90 semester credit hours
and is typically taken by senior students. The aim
of the course is to bring together the concepts
from the core course requirements in the IS
program. Students were evaluated through their
case study analyses, oral presentations, and term
research papers.
The project management course is a core
requirement of the Masters degree in the IS
program. In this course, students are assigned
individual projects. No exams are administered
for the course. Instead student performance is as-
sessed based on six assignments and a simulation

13
 E-Learning Classifications

project. Students are required to submit a write-
up of their assignments in addition to making
class presentations. The simulation project ran
for six weeks.
The Learning Environment
The Marratech and WebCT-Vista technologies
described above were used for the project man-
agement and systems analysis and design classes.
For the third course, IT resources management,
WebCT-Vista and Camtasia Studio3 were the
technologies used.
The recordings for the systems analysis and
design and project management classes were com-
pleted in the classroom; sessions were recorded
at the same time the face-to-face lectures were
delivered. Students in these classes were given the
e-learning option for half of the scheduled classes.
With the e-learning option, students connected
to the “live” classroom from locations other than
the classroom, that is, from home. Some students
selected the e-learning option—attending half
of the classes outside of the classroom—while
others attended all classes in a face-to-face en-
vironment.
Results
Students from all three courses participated in the
survey online. A total of 63 students completed
Table 6. Subject participation by age
the survey with 30% (19) graduate and 70% (44)
undergraduate. The distribution of the participant
age ranges is shown in Table 6.
The gender mix of survey participants was
70% (44) male and 21% (13) female, 10% (6) did
not provide a response to this question. All the
graduate students were enrolled in the Masters
of IS program. Graduate students accounted for
30% (19) of the total survey participants. Under-
graduate students accounted for 62% (39). Over
two-thirds (70%) of the undergraduate students
were IS majors and the balance were computer
science (CS) majors. They were comprised of
43% (27) seniors, 30% (19) juniors, 16% (10)
sophomores. Eight percent (5) of the participants
did not respond to this question.
All respondents indicated that they had com-
puter and Internet access from home. Computer
experience for participants was reported as 73%
professional users, 17% frequent users, and 2%
reported being somewhat experienced; 3 respon-
dents did not answer this question. Eighty-nine
percent of respondents said they enjoyed working
with computers while only 2% indicated that they
felt threatened by computers.
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, a
large number of respondents rated themselves high
for self-efficacy (over 70% of the participants).
Satisfaction with the class experience was
measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 5 being
very satisfying. Over 90% of the respondents from
each of the courses reported their satisfaction as
either a 4 or 5.

Age Range (Years) No. of Students Percentage

DISCUSSION
19-23 4 6
24-29 22 35
In this section we discuss the pilot study results,
30-35 16 25
differences in asynchronous and synchronous
36-40 8 13
e-learning environment, hybrid-learning, limita-
41-45 0 0
tions and future study.
46-49 5 8
>50 3 5
No Response 5 8

14
E-Learning Classifications

Pilot Study Results e-learning format and 44 respondents (70%)

For the purpose of this study students were
classified as traditional classroom learners or
hybrid/blended-synchronous e-learning learners.
The traditional classroom students were those
students that attended all classes in a face-to-face
format. Hybrid/blended-synchronous e-learning
students were those students who attended some of
the classes in the synchronous hybrid e-learning
format. In the pilot study 18 respondents (29%)
indicated that they used the synchronous hybrid
reported using the traditional classroom format.
One student did not respond to the question.
Each respondent was asked a set of 10 ques-
tions on self-efficacy. The questions are listed
in Table 7.
A T-test was used to determine if significant
differences exist between e-learners and tradi-
tional classroom learners. The results are shown
in Table 8.
Self-efficacy Questions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10
resulted in slightly higher means for those in the

Table 7. Self-efficacy questions

I could complete the job using the software package…
1 …if there was no one around to tell me what to do as I go.
2 …if I had never used a package like it before.
3 …if I had only the software manuals for reference.
4 …if I had seen someone else using it before trying it myself.
5 …if I could call someone for help if I got stuck.
6 …if someone else had helped me get started.
7 …if I had a lot of time to complete the job for which the software was provided.
8 …if I had just the built-in help facility for assistance.
9 …if someone showed me how to do it first.
10 …if I had used similar packages before this one to do the same job.

Table 8. Self-efficacy responses for research groups (Traditional Class format = 39 cases; e-Learning
= 18 cases)
Mean T-Test
Self-Efficacy
Mean e-Learning Traditional
Question t Sig.
classroom
1 7.22 7.23 .013 .990
2 6.44 6.59 .218 .828
3 8.28 7.31 -1.488 .142
4 8.39 7.82 -1.092 .280
5 8.72 7.69 -1.548 .127
6 8.89 8.33 -1.032 .307
7 7.56 8.51 1.375 .175
8 7.83 7.38 -.668 .507
9 8.44 8.92 .805 .424
10 8.67 8.56 -.147 .883

15

e-learning group, while Questions 2 and 9 were
slightly higher for the traditional classroom group.
Self-efficacy ratings between the two groups were
not found to be significantly different.
The first hypothesis (H1) stated that students
who tend to choose the e-learning environment
would have a higher level of computer self-efficacy.
This hypothesis was not supported by the data,
which indicates that the two groups had similar
levels of self-efficacy. Further analysis of the
data indicated that factors other than self-efficacy
determined the students desire to participate in
the synchronous hybrid e-learning. In the two
classes where synchronous hybrid e-learning
was offered almost all respondents (94%) stated
they were already on campus for another class
just before/after this one and did not have time
to drive home for the online class and therefore
chose to attend the face-to-face format.
Satisfaction responses for the research groups
are shown in Table 9. The two research groups
of synchronous hybrid e-learning and traditional
face-to-face classroom did not show differences
in satisfaction.
The second hypothesis (H2) stated that stu-
dents in the traditional classroom setting would
report higher levels of satisfaction when the
subject level is complex. This hypothesis was not
supported by the data. The Chi-Square test indi-
cated that the two groups were not significantly
different (χ2=2.714, p=.438).
When asked whether they would take another
e-learning class, 91% of the respondents indicated
Table 9. Satisfaction responses for research groups
Synchronous hybrid
Satisfaction with the class
1=Very Dissatisfying
2=Somewhat Dissatisfying
3=Undecided
4=Somewhat Satisfying
5=Very Satisfying
Total
16
E-Learning Classifications
they would by selecting a 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert
scale. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents
said they did not regret enrolling in this online
class, and 83% said they would recommend this
online class format to their friends.
Asynchronous and Synchronous
Differences
Four of the six classifications (Type III, IV, V, and
VI) involve some form of e-communication. The
key differentiator for e-communication among the
four classifications is the mode of communication
(i.e., asynchronous or synchronous).
Asynchronous communication is commu-
nication that is “time-delayed or time-deferred
computer mediated mode of delivery” (Seng &
Al-Hawamdeh, 2001, p. 238). In an asynchronous
environment, the sender and receiver do not have
to be present at the same time for communica-
tions to occur. Examples of the mode of delivery
in asynchronous communication are e-mail and
threaded discussion boards (Seng & Al-Ha-
wamdeh, 2001). Synchronous (real-time) com-
munication on the other hand is communication
that takes place concurrently. In a synchronous
environment, the sender and receiver have to be
present at the same time in order for communica-
tion to take place (e.g., video-conferencing) (Seng
& Al-Hawamdeh, 2001).
Piccoli et al. (2001) identify five student chal-
lenges when using an asynchronous e-learning
environment:
Traditional
e-Learning classroom
0 0.0% 0 0.0%
0 0.0% 1 2.6%
1 6.0% 1 3.0%
4 22.0% 16 41.0%
13 72.0% 21 53.8%
18 39
E-Learning Classifications
1. Difficulty managing the high degree of
control: In traditional classrooms the in-
structor provides direction and structure.
Asynchronous e-learning environments
avail a high degree of control for participants,
however, participants are challenged when
managing the high degree of control in the
absence of instructor direction and structure.
In a synchronous e-learning environment
on the other hand, students are able to par-
ticipate in a familiar strategy that consists
of instructor direction and structure.
2. Overburdened by the shift of responsibil-
ity and control: In an asynchronous e-learn-
ing environment the instructor is not present
at the time of instruction access. When a
concept is not clear, learners are unable to
ask the instructor questions in real-time.
In a synchronous e-learning environment
however, the instructor is present at the time
of instruction delivery and learners can ask
questions in real-time.
3. Feeling isolated: Asynchronous learners
access instruction material independent of
the instructor and classmates and learners
do not engage in real-time interaction and
therefore may feel isolated. Synchronous
learners, in contrast, can see the instructor
and fellow students at the time of instruc-
tion delivery by connecting via a webcam
to the synchronous e-learning environment,
thereby reducing feelings of isolation. A
participant in our pilot study commented by
saying, “With the live video and audio con-
nections I feel like I am in the [traditional]
classroom.”
4. Experiencing anxiety: Participants who
experience anxiety at the time of instruction
delivery in synchronous e-learning environ-
ments are able to get immediate assistance
through audio and video communication.
This feature, however, is not available to
participants in asynchronous environment
where there would be a time delay in getting
access to help.
5. Difficulty in time management: Asyn-
chronous learners have to manage their
instruction access time, primarily because
there is no fixed-time for instruction access.
The flexible “anytime” access in an asyn-
chronous environment creates time manage-
ment challenges, whereas synchronous (or
face-to-face) environments have fixed-time
where learners sign up with prior knowledge
about the time constraints, thus there are no
new time management challenges.
In our experience with synchronous e-learning
environment courses, there was no indication that
our students encountered these challenges.
Synchronous virtual learning environments
are not without issues, they pose their own learner
challenges too. Some of these challenges are:
1. Technology investment: Learners in both
asynchronous and synchronous e-learning
environments must have access to computers
and all learners in our pilot study indicated
that they had computer access at home. In
our classes learners were required to use a
headset (a basic headset costs about $10.00).
Our department purchased basic headsets
(bulk rate of $6.00 per headset) and provided
them to students who wished to use them
as loaners. In our classes, video from the
instructor was always available, but students
had the option to install a Webcam on their
end (a basic Webcam costs about $40.00)
to view the class in session. Investment
for a university includes individuals with
expertise to support real time communica-
tion and investment in a high speed Internet
connection (Seng & Al-Hawamdeh, 2001).
2. Technology glitches: Instruction delivery,
online real-time, may be interrupted due to
technology glitches including LMS system
errors and system connectivity errors, such
as video frames freezing while being trans-
mitted over the Internet and audio breaking
17