Online Learning: Trends, Potential and Challenges

doi:10.4236/ce.2012.38195

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2012. Vol.3, No.8, 1332-1335

Published Online December 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.38195

1332

Online Learning: Trends, Potential and Challenges

Rose Liang, Der-Thanq Victor Chen

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore City, Singapore

Email: rose.lian [email protected]

Received September 27th, 2012; revised October 28th, 2012; accepted November 13th, 2012

This paper examines trends, potential and challenges in online learning. We consider 6 online learning

trends and the issues associated with the trends. These include a one sided emphasis on the technology;

physical versus online presences; formal face-to-face versus distance/workplace education; mono-versus

multi-lingual online learning; open source versus proprietary software; and the open standard oxymoron.

The potential of online learning include 4 factors of accessibility, flexibility, interactivity, and collabora-

tion of online learning afforded by the technology. In terms of the challenges to online learning, 6 are

identified: defining online learning; proposing a new legacy of epistemology-social constructivism for all;

quality assurance and standards; commitment versus innovation; copyright and intellectual property; and

personal learning in social constructivism. The authors contend the necessity of developing new ways of

thinking to face the challenges relating to the development of online learning.

Keywords: Online Learning; Trends; Issues; Potential; Challenges

Introduction

Online learning has become an important consideration par-

ticularly in higher (Kim & Bonk, 2006; Al-Adwan & Smedley,

2012), adult education (Olesen-Tracey, 2010; Cercone, 2008)

and also in schools (Cavanaugh, Barbour, & Clark, 2009;

Nicholas & Ng, 2009). These institutions are engaged in efforts

to make online learning engaging and effective to learners. In

order to do this, it would be apropos to consider the trends or

tendencies of online learning as well as the potential. These

trends bring forth new opportunities in light of the potential yet

simultaneously pose challenges such as requiring more research

and experimentation.

We contend that it is necessary to develop new ways of

thinking in face of the trends and challenges presented. In sup-

port of our contention, we explore trends in online learning in

terms of 6 issues and 4 potentials of online learning and 4 chal-

lenges for practitioners to keep in mind when designing online

activities and course.

Trends

Chasing the Technology

Unfortunately, the most visible issue of online learning is

still the focus on technological considerations. Historically, it

has always been the case that when a new type of technology

arrives, people will try to think of ways to use it in education.

This was how slide projectors, overhead projectors, televisions,

and computers came onto the school scene. More recently,

multimedia and the Internet have dominated the field of educa-

tion technology. Many research projects have been devoted to

finding the effectiveness of these new technologies. The latest

development of mobile devices such as the hand phones and

PDAs has again aroused interest in so-called mobile learning or

m-learning. Continued from the conventional “wisdom” of

chasing the development of technologies, it is common to ex-

plore how these mobile devices can foster a more flexible ap-

proach to learning. Note that we are not suggesting that these

technical considerations are unimportant. Rather, we are rec-

ommending a more thoughtful approach; we strongly believe

with many writers (Smith, 2008) that sound educational foun-

dations, not cutting edge technologies alone, should underpin

the development of new approaches to learning.

Physical versus Online Presences

The predominance of online learning is breaking down tradi-

tional physical boundaries and creating a online culture, unique

in its own right. We are in a situation where an online presence

over the Internet could be more communicative and engaging

than a physical presence. In other words, the relative advan-

tages of these two worlds—the physical and the online—are

fast converging. According to research, online presence can so-

metimes be felt by the participants as much more intimate than

physical presence. For example, attending a face-to-face lecture

may only involve one-way communication whereas an in-depth

discourse using a text-based discussion forum can be very in-

teractive. However, we note that richness of media and its tech-

nological affordances does not necessitate or guarantee the qua-

lity of online learning. This trend in the convergence of physi-

cal and online presences is likely to change the way we interact

with people.

Formal Face-to-Face versus Distance/Workplace

Education

As a consequence of the trend just noted, the distinction be-

tween formal and informal education is fast diminishing. Tradi-

tionally, distance education had been perceived as a secondary

choice to formal face-to-face education. It was believed that the

latter provided more opportunities for students to interact with

the teacher and peers (other students) and could, therefore, be

more beneficial for learning. However, this conventional ad-

vantage no longer holds. The decrease in formal education/tra-

R. LIANG, D.-T. V. CHEN

ining settings resonates with and is congruent with the recent

emphasis on authentic workplace learning because of the con-

textual nature of cognition (Brown & Duguid, 2000). In most

instances, learning can take place in the workplace and in on-

line learning activities that can be more engaging as pointed out

earlier. The trend is now towards the mixed-mode approach

where opportunities are provided for learners to meet face-to-

face at certain milestones or points in the course (for an exam-

ple of this mixed mode approach, see Smith, Reed, & Jones,

2008).

Mono- versus Multi-Lingual Online Learning

The English language has dominated the Internet. This domi-

nance provides a common platform for communication but it

has also created a divide between those who understand the

language and those who do not, that is, those who know Eng-

lish are likely to enjoy the benefits of online learning. Due to

recent developments in multi-lingual technology, it is now pos-

sible to access the Internet using one’s native language. Con-

sequently, the dominance of English is gradually fading in light

of this trend. Those who do not speak English can increasingly

access resources and online learning in their native languages.

Currently, there are intelligent Web pages which are able to

detect the preferred language of the user and to present infor-

mation in that particular language. These systems are in their

infancy (the accuracy of interpretation is still the main devel-

opmental bottleneck) and the implications of these develop-

ments are still largely uncertain. Ideally, these interpreting sys-

tems would diminish English language dominance and grant

access to more people. However, the tradeoff is that the com-

mon communication platform is gradually disappearing. It is

still debatable whether or not we should maintain the develop-

ment of both of these two seemingly opposing trends.

Open Source versus Proprietary Software

The open source movement aims to tackle the long-term sus-

tainability issue of any major development project. Open source

invites people to use the developed system and grants people

access to the source codes free of charge. People are free to

develop the system further based on their needs in their respect-

tive local contexts. To prevent there being too many versions of

the same system (with minor differences), a consortium will

usually be set up to host the “authoritarian” version of the sys-

tem. Only approved additions will become part of this “autho-

ritarian” version. Long-term sustainability is therefore secured

by the many participants from all over the world. The risks and

development costs are also shared by the consortium partici-

pants.

However, there is a proviso. Even though development costs

and risks are shared, maintenance may cost more (due to the

programming bugs, etc.), and there is no guaranteed long term

development once individual institutions may run out of money

and decide to withdraw from the consortium. In contrast, the

proprietary products have characteristics of lower maintenance,

higher upfront capital commitment and are less easily custom-

ised applications in local contexts. The debate between open

source and proprietary software is likely to continue for some

time.

The Open Standard Oxymoron

Among all the online learning initiatives, the Open Standard

movement is the underlying theme. There is a trend to great

emphasis on developing learning objects, which conform to an

open standard so that they can be shared within education sec-

tors. One problem in regard to this issue of “standard” is whose

“open standard” do programmers of online learning follow? For

example, IMS or IEEE for learning objects? HTML or XML

for web pages? How do we prevent history from repeating itself?

The infamous war between beta and VHS video tapes is a clas-

sic example of how “standards” can divide. The term “open

standard” itself is an oxymoron. How can a standard be open

since one must follow a particular standard? One is either in or

out. Paradoxically, standards are always closed, are they not?

The issue of standard is not likely to go away. History has

taught us not to keep standards closed, because once we are

stuck in a fixed standard, innovations are stifled. However,

keeping a standard open is prone to much additional adminis-

trative and coordination efforts. Probably a radically different

approach is needed.

In the above sections, we have articulated online trends and

some of the implicit issues which underpin these trends. With

regard to decisions made and any direction taken, there are

usually pros and cons to any implementation. We hope the rea-

der will be able to recognise the assumptions which accompany

each direction. However, we also wish to highlight the unex-

plored potential in the development of online learning.

Potential

In our mind, the potential of online learning lies in four fac-

tors: accessibility, flexibility, interactivity and collaboration.

Accessibility

The very first step to online learning is access (Salman,

2002). No matter how well the instruction is designed, if the

learner cannot gain access to the course learning materials via

the technology due to physical or financial constraints, the in-

structional design is rendered useless and non-existent. This is

especially true for continuing education or staff training. In the

past, training has been predominately conducted outside of the

workplace context such as in training schools and centers—

commonly referred to as formal training settings. Increasingly,

this ready access to learning materials and to Internet has the

potential to blur the distinctions between formal and informal

training. Today’s emphasis on “on-the-job” training with avail-

able resources via the Internet is diminishing this virtuality di-

vide between formal and informal training.

Flexibility

A second potential of online learning is flexibility. For ex-

ample, traditional distance education relies heavily on paper-

based materials. Interactions are supplementary to content and

are commonly achieved via telephone conferencing. Video con-

ferencing came onto the scene in recent years. However, this

technology is expensive and seldom interactive and therefore

never very popular. There are at least two problems: the set-up

of videoconferences is expensive and it only makes the place

flexible, but not in terms of time or timings. That is, people

must be together at the same time for the interaction to take

place. With the use of the Internet, interaction with people can

now achieved with a very cheap set-up. Nowadays, anyone

with access to the Internet can participate in e-tivities (Salmon,

R. LIANG, D.-T. V. CHEN

2002). In addition, because these e-tivities are asynchronous in

nature, they give learners the flexibility of when to participate

and now they have more time to process the materials before

they respond.

It should be noted, however, that flexibility always comes at

a price (Chen, 2003). Highlighting one aspect of flexibility will

inevitably make other aspects inflexible. For example, in order

to create a sense of learning community, all students will need a

fixed timeframe to interact with one another. This inevitably

imposes inflexibility on the time. If we want flexible time and

space, we will have to compromise on the flexible content. If

we want a flexible pace, we will have to forgo the ease of flexi-

ble access to resources and experts (for they are not always

available).

Interactivity

Interactivity and online learning are separate issues although

online learning environments can be interactive—that is, the

learning environment allows learners and users to interact ac-

tively with the objects in the online environment. Interactivity

is not just an issue with the user-interface but also involves the

design of the learning environment. If the design is learner-

centered, it caters for learner-involvement such as learner-navi-

gation and exploration—aligned to constructivist notions of

learning. The proliferation of applications that makes it easy for

programmers to design for interactive environments facilitates

such active forms of learning environments. Interactivity also

involves people interacting with people via the Internet in the

context of online learning. The various communication tools af-

forded by online learning management systems foster instruc-

tor-to-student as well as student-to-student interactions.

Collaboration

While interactivity deals primarily with inter-actions with the

learning environment, collaboration is a construct that encour-

ages learners to work with other learners on a common project

or activity that an individual alone would find difficult to com-

plete. Social collaboration between individuals is now recog-

nized by many educators and researchers as an integral process

in online learning rather than just as an instructional strategy. In

this process, humans are viewed as social beings not just as

individual beings. Because they have access to resources and

experts and learners from different backgrounds and places,

students are presented with more opportunities for collabora-

tion.

Challenges

Having reviewed the trends and potential of online learning,

we articulate challenges which we recognize as important to

online learning and its proliferation. We describe possible chal-

lenges which currently confront our quest for quality online

learning.

Whose Definition of Online Learning?

Increasingly, we are witnessing a host of different online

learning definitions: from those that include CD-ROMS to

web-based applications, etc. It seems that the medium of deliv-

ery often drives the definition. One reason for this is the strong

push from commercial companies to sell their products and

services. Online learning is an evolving phenomenon, and as

companies and academics in universities attempt to make sense

of this trend, we need to construct definitions on a common

platform. We believe that the definition of online learning must

seriously consider issues such as what learning is, how learning

occurs through e-means and the implications that online learn-

ing pose for flexibility, accessibility, interactivity, and collabo-

ration.

A New Legacy of Episte mo lo g y —S o c ia l

Constructivism for All?

Underpinning many of the online learning developments, a

similar orientation towards implicit or explicit notions of active

learning and social constructivism is evident, for example in

Computer-Mediated Communication (Romiszowski & Mason,

1996) and in the Santally, Rajabalee, and Cooshna-Naik (2012)

study to design and implement a social-constructivist environ-

ment for distance e-learning. Constructivism and social con-

structivism seem most popular and relevant as the emerging

theoretical underpinnings of these online learning developments.

Our concern is that we may be creating yet another legacy of

learning that seems to be value-laden in terms of its benefits

rather than its limitations. The tension between the newer ap-

proaches (e.g., constructivism and active learning) and the tra-

ditional (e.g., didactic) is increasing because of distinctive

learning paradigms. We would like to maintain that there is a

place for differing paradigms of learning, including the cogni-

tivist or even behaviorist approaches (Hung & Chen, 2000).

Quality Assurance and Standards

The number of online learning courses is increasing rapidly.

However, due to the ill-defined nature of online learning, the

quality of online learning courses vary. There is a well-estab-

lished (though not perfect) structure to safeguard quality of

transitional face-to-face courses. The workload for both the tea-

cher and the student, and how the course is charged can be de-

fined (with limitations). In online learning, activities can hap-

pen at any time of the day. Reporting to the classroom or for

work becomes irrelevant. The so-call standards of practice and

quality will need to be reconsidered and perhaps require a para-

digm shift in our thinking.

Commitment versus Innovation

Online learning is still a developing field. Tools involved in

the learning process such as learning management systems are

constantly changing. Before an institution can comfortably

settle on a decision to commit to a system, a better product ap-

pears on the market. It is always a difficult decision to commit

to a system. This is exacerbated by financial considerations,

since most often the financial commitment to such a system is

not insubstantial. Once many online learning courses use the

chosen system, the institution will face the obligation to stick

with it, or the investment in the design and development of the

courses may be wasted. This poses a problem. On the one hand,

the institution needs to commit to the same product to ensure its

longer-term development in online learning. On the other hand,

the institution should also be constantly looking for better solu-

tions. Perhaps, the latest innovation will meet their needs better.

How much can one single institution afford to try and experi-

ment with ne w system s?

1334

R. LIANG, D.-T. V. CHEN

Another key challenge of online learning is copyright. The

very ethos of the Internet, that is to share, is almost the opposite

philosophy to that of copyright and intellectual property. In

education, we constantly need access to existing work, be it

papers, artworks, etc. It becomes a logistical nightmare to ask

for permission to use every single material used in a course.

However, if we simply make copies for students or upload it on

a password-protected web site, existing copyright law may still

be infringed. We need a new set of rules to govern these copy-

right and intellectual property issues.

In addition, due to the collaborative nature of online learning,

most courses are now no longer developed by just one instruc-

tor. Usually, a team consisting of the instructor, the instruc-

tional designer, the programmer and the graphic artists is in-

volved. Most of them are being paid to develop the courses. So,

whose intellectual property is it, the institution, the key mem-

bers of the team, or everybody who was involved? There does

not seem to be an easy answer.

Personal Learning in Social Constructivism

Finally, from a learning psychology perspective, individual

or personalized learning (Polanyi, 1964), in our opinion, needs

to be balanced with the social dimensions of learning. Currently,

there is a swing towards social levels of learning because of the

trend towards social-cultural dimensions. However, it is neces-

sary to balance this with the Piagetian notion that learning is

ultimately a change in behaviour individually (Chen & Hung,

2002; Hung & Nichani, 2001). How do we know that online

learning environments designed for social collaborations will

ultimately lead to a change of thinking, understanding, and be-

haviour of the individual as noted by Redecke (2009). Clearly,

more research is needed. For example, studies such as Jou and

Shiau’s (2012) which designed web-based learning systems for

self-directed learning and another one (Jou & Wu, 2012) for

self-reflection is a move in this direction of bringing back the

individual within the social-cultural dimension in learning.

Summary

In this paper we have introduced the current trends of devel-

opment in online learning. They are:

 Chasing the technology.

 Convergence of face-to-face and distance education.

 The joggling between monolingual and multilingual online

learning.

 The war between open source software and proprietary soft-

ware.

 Open source vs proprietary software.

 The open standard oxymoron.

We also briefly discussed four factors of the potential of on-

line learning, namely, accessibility, flexibility, interactivity and

collaboration.

Based on our analysis of the trends and the potential, we high-

light challenges that currently confront online learning. They

are:

 Whose definition of online learning?

 A new legacy of epistemology—social constructivism for

all?

 Quality assurance and standards.

 Commitment versus innovation.

 Copyright and intellectual property.

 Personal learning in social constructivism.

REFERENCES

Al-adwan, A., & Smedley, J. (2012). Implementing e-learning in the

Jordanian higher education system: Factors affecting impact. Inter-

national Journal of Education and Development Using Information

and Communication Technology, 8, 125-135.

Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston:

Harvard University Press.

Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice

in K-12 online learning: A review of open access literature. The In-

ternational Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10 .

Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications

for online learning design. AACE Journal, 16, 137-159.

Chen, D. (2003). Uncovering the provisions behind flexible learning.

Educational Technology & Socie ty, 6, 25-30.

Chen, D., & Hung, W. L. (2003). Is dialogue the method of choice in

collective communication? A response to Banathy. Educational Te-

chnology, 43, 61-62.

Chen, D., & Hung, W. L. (2002). Personalised knowledge representa-

tions: The missing half of online discussions. British Journal of Edu-

cational Technology, 33, 291-299. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00263

Hung, W. L., & Chen, D. (2003). Online learning and information

technology in the Asia-Pacific region: Perspectives, issues & divides.

Educational Technology, 43, 5-9.

Hung, D., & Nichani, M. (2001). Constructivism and e-learning: Bal-

ancing between the individual and social levels of cognition. Educa-

tional Technology, 41, 40-44.

Jou, M., & Shiau, J.-K. (2012). The development of a web-based self-

reflective learning system for technological education. The Turkish

Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1 1 , 165-171.

Jou, M., & Wu, Y.-S. (2012). Development of a web-based system to

support self-directed learning of micro-fabrication, technologies. Edu-

cational Technology & Society, 15, 205-213.

Kim, K., & Bonk, C. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning

in higher education: The survey say. Educase Quarterly, 29, 22-30.

Nicholas, H., & Ng, W. (2009). Engaging secondary students in ex-

tended and open learning supported by online technologies. Journal

of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 305-328.

Olesen-Tracey, K. (2010). Leading online learning initiatives in adult

education. Journal of Adult Education, 39 , 36-39.

Polanyi, M. (1964). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical phi-

losophy. New York: Harper & Row.

Redecker, C. (2009). Review of learning 2.0 practices: Study on the

impact of web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe.

European Commission, EUR23664, 1-122, URL (last checked 18

December 2012).

http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2059

Romiszowski, A. J., & Mason, R. (1996). Computer-mediated commu-

nication. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational

communications and technology (pp. 438-456). New York: Simon &

Schuster Macmillan.

Smith, B., Jones, C., & Reed, P. (2008). Mode neutral pedagogy. Euro-

pean Journal of Open, Dist an c e a n d E-learning, 2, 1-6.

Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London:

Kogan Page Ltd.

Santally, M. I., Rajabalee, R., & Cooshna-Naik, D. (2012). Learning

design implementation for distance e-learning: blending rapid e-lear-

ning techniques with activity-based pedagogies to design and imple-

ment a socio-constructivist environment. European Journal of Open,

Distance and E- Le ar nin g, 2, 1-6.