Capítulo II Justicia Vecinal
1. Análisis histórico y comparado
Most dictionaries would consider defining a word as giving the exact meaning, yet when attempting to define e-learning it becomes apparent that the term was often implicitly shaped by underlying educational culture, educational philosophy, and pedagogy (Alzaghoul, 2012; Martínez, Miláns del Bosch, Henar Pérez Herrero, & Sampedro Nuño, 2007; Nagunwa & Lwoga, 2012). These often implicit assumptions of teaching and learning intrinsically affect the educational expectations of students, educators and educational researchers, (Kirkwood & Price, 2013). Definitions of e- learning have developed over the last decade as shown below, from a focus on the medium used for the technical transmission of information such as:1)
“the process of extending learning or delivering instructional materials to remote sites via the Internet, intranet/extranet, audio, video, satellite broadcast, interactive TV, and CD-ROM”
(Holsapple & Lee-Post 2006, p 68)
2) Consideration of the differing processes involved in authoring and delivery such as:
“e-learning is the continuous assimilation of knowledge and skills stimulated by real-time and interactive learning events – and sometimes knowledge management outputs – which are authored, delivered, engaged with, supported and managed using Internet technologies”
(Dark & Perrett , 2007, p. 90)
3) A progressively more constructivist, student centred interpretation of e-learning as UK digital communications networks have continued to improve:
“Technology enhanced learning are learning activities that are mediated, supported or facilitated by information and communications technologies (ICTs)”
(Plesch, Kaendler, Rummel, Wiedmann, & Spada 2013, p. 92)
4) Taking account of increasing use of mobile technologies:
“E-learning is an approach that facilitates and enhances learning through the use of computer and communication technology, such as personal computers, digital televisions, mobile phones, internet, email, and
collaborative software. It can be synchronous, asynchronous, instructor-led or computer-based or a combination. Facilitation of learning in such environments is enhanced and made possible through the use of computer technology and communication technology that can include learning management systems and virtual classrooms”
(Keengwe, Onchwari, & Agamba 2014, p.887).
If this later view of e-learning as predominantly constructivist rather than instructivist is accepted, so the importance of online communication now appears a central tenet of what e-learning is; however terminology remains problematic, with the name ‘e- learning’ being interchangeably used with the term ‘online learning’ when defining constructivist underpinned social construction of learning mediated through information technology. This is evidenced by writers including Sword, (2012); Grosso, Smith and Grosso, (2012), and Gallagheret al. (2009) using the term online learning when writing on constructivist pedagogy and communication issues, whilst authors such as Bowles, (2004); Dailey-Hebert & Donnelli, (2010), and Keengwe et al., (2014) writing on the same subject, but using the term ‘e-learning’.
This distinction is important as simply being ‘online’ does not always mean the underlying e-pedagogy draws on constructivist theory and social interaction. Many researchers of e-learning in HE note online instructional design based on instructivism, with little or no use of communication or social interaction (Abdelaziz, Samer, Karam, Abdelrahman, 2011; Lambropoulos, Faulkner, & Culwin, 2012; Moule et al., 2011; Porcaro, 2011; Stewart, Schifter, & Selverian, 2010 to list but a few). It appears from the findings of such researchers that established and effective ‘e-learning’ models exist that utilise instructionist paradigms and knowledge management of pedagogically neutral learning objects (Asgarkhani, 2004, 2012; Dalsgaard, 2005; McVeigh, 2009). These approaches to e-learning focus on the distribution and presentation of educational content for the student to engage with, often independently of an educator (Brown, 2006; Ritchie, 2011). Students are therefore facilitated to search for, identify, manipulate and critique information and knowledge without the requirement to engage in ‘online’ discussion, (Race, 2010). Over a decade ago, Mehdi Asgarkhani (2004) highlighted the importance of establishing the difference between e-learning and knowledge management borne of the organisational theories of Davenport (1994). If
e-learning is considered to have a constructivist foundation, knowledge management can according to Asgarkhani, be considered pedagogically neutral, and harnessed as a method of acquiring, retaining, storing, distributing and generally using knowledge. According to proponents of knowledge management, computer aided learning should not have to rely on pedagogy and guided instruction, but can rely on clearly structured information to help people learn through their own processing of the information provided (Asgarkhani, 2004; Holsapple & Lee-Post, 2006). These educationalists would argue for example, that they do not need to teach students the stages involved in decontaminating a piece of equipment, but only where to find the stages. Knowledge management forms of e-learning do not reject the use of online communication or sharing of knowledge through communities of learning, but unlike constructivist views of e-learning, neither does it require such engagement.
Having identified and clarified definitions of constructivist driven e-learning as opposed to e-learning facilitated through pedagogically neutral forms of online information management, a third term worthy of consideration is ‘blended learning’. The term blended learning has been criticised as being considered by many HE lecturers as no more than the mixing of computer facing e-learning directed activities with face-to-face student /teacher contact sessions (Adams, 2003; Al-Huneidi & Schreurs, 2012; Jonas & Burns, 2010); whereas Alonso, López, Manrique, and Viñes (2005), Allen (2007) and Owens (2012) advocate that the ‘blend’ could contain several different event-based activities, including self-paced learning, student controlled learning, educator directed learning, bridging exercises, synchronous and asynchronous interactive collaboration, and face-to face classroom discussion. This is an important distinction, as Aczel et al. (2006) note that in their review of 25 HEIs, blended learning was overwhelmingly the preferred teaching method (n=23) over purely online (distance) delivery. Almost a decade later, researchers are still noting strong preferences for blended learning approaches by educators and students, over purely e-learning engagement or fully class based education (Owens, 2012; Petty, 2013; Yen & Abdous, 2011).