This study builds on the results of a prior study where the aim was to determine how learning management systems (e.g., WebCT, Moodle, FirstClass) change higher education learning experiences. Findings from the prior study provided good data in regard to the categories of where learning management systems (referred to as simply e-learning) is impacting learning experiences (Laflamme & Kanuka, 2006). However, in the prior study there was a lack of consensus on whether these changes were positively or negatively affecting the higher education learning experience. The purpose of this study was to build on these results and determine if consensus could be established through a deliberative inquiry with experts in the field of e-learning. Gathering data that establishes consensus and divergence of opinion can provide important information which can, in turn, influence not only the implementation of e-learning practices, but also policy development.

The results of this study did not gain consensus on identified aspects of e-learning technologies; rather, the participants took a critical realist perspective and established consensus on the pervasive myths about e-learning technologies. Based on the data from this study, we conclude that (1) we currently mythologize many aspects of both on-campus and off-campus learning, and (2) consensus tends to be reached on non-consequential and/or low impact issues. The findings of this study, which reveals pervasive myths about e-learning, can help public policymakers, higher education administrators, leaders, and teacher-practitioners make more informed decisions on the use of e-learning technologies in higher education, especially in regard to effective e-learning policy implementation and practice.

Background and Purpose of the Study

Higher education exists within an environment characterized by change, perhaps with the most notable change being the ongoing rise of information society and new technologies. This study builds on the results of a prior study where the aim was to determine how learning management systems (e.g., WebCT, BlackBoard, Lotus Notes, Moodle, FirstClass, VirtualU, Desire2Learn, etc.) change higher education learning experiences. Findings from the prior study provided good data in regard to the categories of where learning management systems (referred to as simply e-learning) is impacting learning experiences (Kanuka, 2006). However, in the prior study there was a lack of consensus on whether these changes were positively or negatively affecting the higher education learning experience. The purpose of this study was to build on these results and determine if consensus could be established through a deliberative inquiry with experts in the field of e-learning. Gathering data that establishes consensus and divergence of opinion can provide important information which can, in turn, influence not only the implementation of e-learning practices, but also policy development.

 Theoretical Framework

Given the history of techno-utopianism, techno-cynicism, techno-zealotry and techno-structuralism in education (Boshier & Onn, 2000) approaching educational explorations using technology in philosophy as a guiding framework can be quite instructive, since the philosophy of technology goes to the core when investigating the effects of educational innovation.  In this respect, Idhe’s (1979) philosophical theorem on techne argues that technologies are non-neutral and biases can arise from a technology’s selectivity and intentionality causing changes in our experiences. The central position underpinning a technology’s selectivity is that the use of technology both amplifies and reduces certain aspects of human experiences.

Methodology

Because this study sought group consensus on results from prior research, we found mainstream data gathering processes (survey research, individual interviews) too restrictive. Thus, group interviews were combined with the Delphi technique and renamed ‘deliberative inquiry’. The aim was for a group of experts to deliberate about the impact on e-learning experiences as perceived by various stakeholders and provide an opportunity to challenge ideas, reveal misconceptions and establish where mutual understandings exist. The main assumption embedded in group deliberation is that perspectives are socially constructed when individuals compare their opinions with others. We acknowledged the lack of convergent opinions among our group of experts as a potential limitation of this methodology; however, the resulting outcome, irrespective of whether or not an opinion synthesis occurred, may be more valid than other methodologies because of the acknowledgment and accommodation of opposing opinions.

Data collection and Analysis

Theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used to select fourteen experts in the area of Internet-based e-Learning. To ensure a diversity of perspectives, interests, and backgrounds, selection included both internal and external stakeholders (student, university and government stakeholders), eight women and six men. The data were collected using a video tape recorder.

Throughout the analysis process we used Becker and Geer’s (1960) recommendations for determining relative strength and intensity of manifestations. This process involved counting the number of times a topic or theme emerged, how often it occurred relative to the negative case data, and how widely the overall data were distributed. We also participated in peer debriefing meetings with our colleagues and research assistants to avoid researcher privileging and detect potential biases or inconsistent conclusions.

To maintain the trustworthiness of the research process, we kept an audit trail comprised of field notes, memos and observer comments (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).  In addition, we also applied negative case data (Glaser & Straus, 1967) to reduce researcher selection and interpretation bias.

 Findings

The results of this study did not gain consensus with regard to the amplifications and reductions identified in our prior study; rather, participants adopted a critical realist perspective and overwhelmingly agreed that pervasive myths about e-learning need to be dispelled. Based on the data from this study, we conclude that (1) we currently mythologize many aspects of both on-campus (face-to-face) and off-campus (e-learning) learning and (2) consensus tends to be reached on non-consequential and/or low impact issues. Our paper presentation will elaborate the eight myths about e-learning deliberated upon by our experts.

 Significance

As we move beyond a second decade of exploring e-learning in higher education, it is a good time to step back and question how e-learning technologies have impacted learning experiences. The results of this study indicate that understanding the impact of e-learning technology involves a complex combination of the need for new perspectives in pedagogy and technology. Burgeoning research is revealing that the ‘techno-optimism’ brought forward by task forces and advisory committees might be premature. The generally disappointing research results in the area of higher ordered learning coupled with the exaggerated and/or unsupported claims made for e-learning education presents a pressing need for continued exploration.

 References

Becker, H. S., & Geer, B. (1960). Participant observation: The analysis of qualitative field data. In R. N. Adams & J. J. Preiss (Eds.), Human organization research: Field relations and techniques (pp. 267–289). Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boshier, R. & Onn, C. (2000). Discursive constructions of Web learning and education. Journal of Distance Education. 15(2), 1-16

Glaser, B., & Straus, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeResearch. Chicago: Aldine.

Ihde, D. (1979). Technics and Praxis. London: D. Reil.

Laflamme, E., & Kanuka, H. (2006). Understanding the Effects of Non-Neutral Technology in Distance Learning. Proceedings of the International Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET; IEEE). July, 2006, Sydney, Australia.