M-LEARNING: A NEW PARADIGM OF LEARNING

M-Learning is a new learning paradigm of the new social structure with mobile and wireless technologies. 

M-learning introduces a new learning environment due to the emergence of mobile and wireless technologies. It offers a new way to deliver learning objects into our daily life. This could be done by developing learning materials in small and consumable byte of format to its delivery medium. Liang Ting [1] stated that there are various mobile communication mechanisms that support m-Learning such as voice communication, access of learning portal on the internet and learning through SMS. This clearly shows that m-Learning could be interactive with the convergence of audio, web and mobile technologies in one package.

Researchers had agreed that M-learning is a new trend of learning paradigm with the emergence of mobile and wireless technologies usage among the learners. Even though some of the countries, especially the developing countries are still in the first phase or perhaps in the research and development phase in implementing this type of learning environment, Kyun Baek and Uk Cheong and Barker, Krull and Mallinson had proved that developing countries as well will soon catch up with this new learning paradigm. This shows that this new learning paradigm will evolve mobile devices with the rapid usage and ownership among the users. The usage of those devices, as an example, the hand phones could be extended to create the new learning environment to the owner instead of using it for the sake of making or receiving a call and SMS (Short Massaging System).

M-learning will be a successful trend currently and in the future because currently, PDA and tablet PCs are more popular among users because of several factors . One of the factor is that the mobile devices are inexpensive compared to PC. Besides that, the devices are mobile, durable and convenient for the worker on the go and lastly, the familiarity among younger users makes them an attractive mechanism for incorporating M-learning into the curricular. The evolution of learning paradigm from traditional classroom based learning and electronic learning had brought out the new learning paradigm based on mobile devices which is known as m- Learning .

A mobile technology have become pervasive, many researchers have questioned whether they can enhance learning experiences. Arguably, it could be thought that m-Learning is an utilization of mobile devices in e-Learning environment that picture a different skill on learning. This is because e-Learning and m-Learning are totally different in terms of its mobility and interaction among the students, as well as the teachers.

The development of e-Learning is not intended to replace the classroom or PC based (e- Learning) learning content, but to strengthen and harmonize overall learning strategy. Meanwhile, m-Learning offers another way to deliver content and to embed learning into daily life by developing learning materials in small and consumable byte of format which can be delivered through wireless network .

According to Barker, Krull and Mallinson , the challenges of implementing m-Learning are device limitations, issues on instructional, training, safety, security, and maintenance, and the implementation cost. In term of limitations of the devices, the devices being used in implementing this type of learning environment might not give the same layout or interface of the content as the emulator. This had been agreed by Black and Hawkes where they had stated that the different output or layout of the content might be differed to the one that is appear in the emulator. This problem should be considered as technical problem since several adjustment to the codes or settings of the devices should be made in order to ensure the same outcome appear to the devices as well as the emulators. The example of limitations of the devices also includes the mobile device capability in executing the program used in m-Learning, whether it manages to give response on time or not. Besides, the mobile phone technologies nowadays are also being proprietary products of its developer. Variety of screen size and functionalities make difficult for the developer to design for all.

Pedagogical is a learning model that focuses on teachers who control the learning process. According to Keough [10], a new learning philosophy which is called mobigogy that integrates pedagogy (teacher centered learning) and andragogy (learner oriented) should be adapted to MLearning environment. This is because; m-Learning is no longer being controlled by teachers fully in the classroom, but also makes it possible for learners to learn anything that they want to learn, at any time and at any places even though outside the school area.

The hand held devices owned by school are prone to damage, lost, misuse and other problems were strengthening many school from allowing learner to bring home the devices. This safety and security issues will eventually made the learners who are from low-income family have the difficulty in owning the devices to facilitate them in M-Learning environment. In terms of safety, the usage of the wireless internet without any supervision might lead to the learners to join negative group, which might threaten the learners’ safety. In every new technology, training and support are very important and m-Learning implementers need to take extra consideration about it. Learners and teachers, as well as the parents should be taught a lesson on devices function to fully utilize the m-Learning environment. Any problems such as troubleshooting services should be ready anywhere and at anytime if the stakeholders, in this case the learners, teachers and parents, faced any problems in using the technologies. Even though these are quite a dawn tasks, it should be taken extra considerations to ensure the stakeholders’ could benefits fully from this new learning environment.

The cost of the technologies and infrastructures in implementing m-Learning environment without any doubt will be very high. The cost of the mobile devices itself still being considered as expensive since there are prove that the devices price is reducing. The term technologies refers to the programs or systems used to develop mobile based system while the term infrastructure refers to the wireless network hardware and devices used to create the framework of mobile communication.

According to Liang Ting , the challenges of implementing m-Learning are in terms of location oriented learning content, cognitive effectiveness of information and the effect of instant interaction upon learning interaction. In implementing M-Learning, learning content should be designed to adapt to learners profile and personal needs such as location. The architecture of the mobile devices itself is small and this eventually limiting the text display in supporting the learning process. Instant communication in mobile network is very important in making the learning process more exciting and this is based on the location and the response time. Slow response time will demoralize the learners’ learning process. Kyun Baek and Uk Cheong  agreed that the requirements for future mobile learning implementations are m-Learning can only be accepted only based on acceptance of the beliefs that learning can happen everywhere and at any time when there is a need for it, the adaptive learning strategies implies that learning should be flexible and specific to the learner’s style, the establishment of infrastructure and the standardization of the contents.

Another important issue to be considered is the different specifications and attributes of mobile devices. For example if a mobile device that only supports GIF format will incorrectly display any learning object that created using other format. Therefore, Zhao and Okamato conclude that learning content should be matched with or adaptable to the varying capabilities of mobile devices. Black and Hawkes  stated the challenges of implementing m-Learning using J2ME technology are the lack of documentation on J2ME itself, different interface from emulator and the actual device, slow file retrieval from server to client and because of security and reliability issues. Their statement refers to the technical challenges in employing M-Learning with the inclusion of the technologies and infrastructures such as Java 2 Micro Edition (J2ME) and the wireless communication infrastructure.

Based from the research arguments, we can divide the challenges in implementing m-Learning environment into two aspects which are the management aspects, which includes the pedagogical, training and support issues and the technologies and infrastructures aspects, which includes the cost, compatibility and limitation of the elements.

The future of M-Learning seems bright since new types of wireless communications services such as wireless collaboration will be widely available soon with wireless and wired Internet services are popularized. The development of mobile semiconductors such as flash memory will even make the mobile devices smaller and this will give impact on the usage group of wireless services where students use wireless internet more than graduates .

It is human nature to be attracted to any appealing things and same goes to school students as well. Students at any age are attracted to fun and new activities using new devices. With the technology new learning concept could be applied and it is practical to implement this learning environment for that age group using the ever appealing mobile devices. They could be tempted to involve in the learning process dynamically if the medium is appealing to them in term of the devices’ weight itself which is multiple times lighter than their mathematics textbook.

Besides, everybody likes to stay connected with their devices at any time and at any place in order to ease their work. The confusion that happened by using the unnecessary functions on the current E-learning system can be solve by implementing learning processes using mobile devices. The limited amount of memory in the mobile devices had urged the mobile content developers to include minimum amount and easy to use functions in their product. The nature of m-Learning which includes only necessary functions could make the students feel easy to use the system to its maximum to enhance their learning processes.

The hectic schedule faced by both students and the teachers could demoralize them to participate in the learning processes dynamically. The implementation of m-Learning with automated progress tracking function using graph could solve the problem of time constraints faced by both students and teachers. The students, as well as the teachers can easily monitor the progress after they had attempted the quizzes using the mobile devices. The progress could easily be monitored without any intervention and use of paper. The students and the teachers can take necessary actions to improve the students’ performance after analyzing the automated graph displayed on the mobile devices. Mobile devices enable student to explore and experiment the concepts that been learnt while teacher are able to control the difficulty levels which appropriate to their student capabilites .

Personal m-devices are used instead of public desktops, that need to be funded by the schools themselves, had make M-Learning more appealing in terms of cost issue. The implementation of M-Learning using Open Source Software (OSS) indirectly will reduce the implementation cost. PHP and MySQL, which are the examples of Open Source technologies, are the main technologies could be used in the development of such system.

The benefits of mobile learning, as stated by Kyun Baek and Uk Cheong are the possibility of implementing ubiquitous learning environment, the possibility of lifelong learning and the possibility of education through entertainment ‘edutainment’. Ubiquitous, according to Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary means seeming to be everywhere or in several places at the same time. With the development of M-learning environment, one will be possible to learn everywhere at any time. A student who is on a holiday could still read the lecture notes and doing the exercises using his or her mobile devices. Collaborative learning could be possible even if the learner is not in the classroom.

Games had always been the favorite activity of the youngsters. Even mobile technology companies such as Nokia and Motorola had equipped their products, which is the hand phones with various mobile games. If learning materials could be integrated with that type of entertainment, the youngsters will be more eager to learn and understand the contents of their learning. The technicality and increasing functionality of mobile devices such as hand phones and PDA’s could attract learners in learning efficiently.

According to Stead , Learning through mobile application could remove the barrier in Information Technology (IT). It means that the users of M-learning will be more confident in dealing and working with IT technology such as mobile phones and PDA’s. Currently, there are lots of people, particularly with socially disadvantaged groups had no confidence in IT at all. Thus, with the implementation of M-learning at young age could overcome this problem which faced mostly by developing countries.

There are several issues of implementing the MobileMath application such as were mobility in a learning environment and the impact of progress monitoring in learning environment. The mobility allow users, particularly the students a freedom to learn anywhere and at anytime at their own pace by using their personal mobile devices. This proposed framework enables mobility in learning by implementing learning content through mobile devices. This eventually had solved the problem of the students that are not interested to do academic exercises regularly because of the heaviness of the materials, especially the books.

Besides the issue of mobility, learning processes could be enhanced with the implementation of progress monitoring in the learning system itself. Progress monitoring can be depicted using graphs. Analyzing progress will be much easier if the data could be represented in a graphical manner. This project clearly champions the usage of progress monitoring functions in the mlearning system. The students could view their performance on the quizzes that they had attempted which is generated by a graph. The students can know their strengths and weaknesses on the subject and make necessary actions about it. The burdens of the teachers in analyzing their students’ performance manually are reduced with the help of the computer generated graph instead of using any papers.

The advancement in the field of Computer and Information Technology had broadened the horizon in the environment of education. From traditional based learning environment to electronic learning (e-learning) environment, then, the new way of learning, known as mobile learning (m-Learning) had been implemented in developed countries such as the USA, UK and Japan. The content of m-Learning could be more appealing to the students since it is the new concept and a new way of learning. M-Learning could be implemented in developing part of world to increase footprint of literacy. With the good framework being designed and the support of various organizations, the m- Learning environment could be realized successfully. The result of the survey shows that the mobile phones can be useful in learning mathematics as most of primary school students already use them through many communication activities. Teachers should start implementing the M-Learning to allow students to independently explore the lesson taught with flexible access to the content and construct the effective teaching environment.

STEAM- STEM with A can be basis of HCD (human centered design) approach

“STEM skills are critical for every student, but the creativity portion must also be adopted to produce an innovative workforce… STEAM teaches students by way of reality-based authentic units to synthesize, how to inter-relate, build systems, process acquired facts, and question information by manipulating & observing data in more complex situations. … Teachers can work together to provide in-depth coverage of their areas of expertise while reinforcing what students are learning in other specific fields… The current curriculum does not have to change. Educators can control STEAM and build on it as needed. STEAM provides a common thread throughout all subjects. By teaching across all fields, the transference of knowledge is directly supported and blended unilaterally. There are no special labs needed. STEAM was created with special education and gifted students in mind. STEAM correlates with Common Core Standards of Mathematics by making conjectures about meaning, ability to probe, construct viable arguments, utilize hands-on modeling, and express ideas verbally and in written form. STEAM is gifted education throughout the curriculum and all classes.”

“STEAM is enhancing our school culture. We are seeing innovative engagement on both the part of our teachers and students. Georgette provides a highly engaging training where teachers are encouraged and supported to reflect and collaborate. Georgette is to staff development what The Beatles are to music."

Science and Technology are understood as the basis of what the world has to go forward with, to be analyzed and developed through Engineering and the Arts, with the knowledge that everything is based in elements of Mathematics. It is a contextual curriculum where the subjects are coordinated to co-support each other under a formal educational structure of how science, technology, engineering, mathematics and the broad spectrum of the arts, all relate to one another in reality. This framework, not only includes the art of aesthetics and design, but also the art divisions of the liberal, language, musical, physical and manual. The STEAM structure explains how all the divisions of education and life work together, therefore it offers a formal place in the STEM structure for the Language Arts, Social Studies, and the purposeful integration of the exploratory subjects including; the Arts, Music, CTE and Physical Education divisions of public education. Shifting to a STEAM perspective means understanding learning contextually; not only in terms of having a framework that illustrates where the subjects overlap, but also in providing a living and adaptable learning structure for ever-changing personal and unpredictable global development.

S-T-E-M with the A includes;

• sharing knowledge with communication and language arts, ‘voice’ – impact, power, legacy

• a working knowledge of manual and physical arts, including how-to and fitness,

• better understanding the past and present cultures and aesthetics through the fine arts,

• rhythmic and emotional use of math with the musical arts,

• understanding sociological developments, human nature and ethics with the liberal arts…

STEAM is proving successful in schools all around the world to better teach academic and life skills in a standards-backed, realistic-based, personally relevant exploratory learning environment. It is adaptable, strong, benchmarked, measurable, and reinforces state standards and integrates with the Common Core in unique and engaging ways. It is backed with the major educational philosophies, classroom management and assessment strategies. It promotes deeper understanding and transference of knowledge across the subjects. It is used for developing model educational programs to create functionally literate people by increasing the depth and breadth of proficiency in all students and educators and the communities they influence. It works by expanding a program’s current lesson plans into STEAM plans for more realistic discovery and innovation for all types of learners.

STEAM can help make good education better. The STEAM framework, like steam itself, can fit anywhere and take innumerable shapes, and if used purposely can be a very powerful and enjoyable tool for teaching and learning any level of any topic. It delivers high quality team-based education to all students. Preparing children for a growing variety of careers is important to advance the global society and economies. Careers, past, current and potential are organized to be taught with STEAM. Students are taught to evaluate needs, wants and opportunities in order to be informed users, responders & innovators. It prepares students to be life-long learners in pursuit of college, skilled trade programs, potentially yet unknown career paths and well-balanced lives.

STEAM is a whole-learner, community-involved and influenced learning environment. It has living-curriculum structure that is representative of the surrounding culture and aware and tolerant of all types of diversity, perspectives and changes.

Classrooms: Embedded in the framework is a system to establish well-balanced teams among educators and students based on a variety of characteristics. All participants have ways they are advanced and are challenged. With this system, their skills are used for leading in some areas while other areas are strengthened through observing and assisting. Educators instruct within their specialty with a co-planned thematic units that everyone contributes to in projects related to the required benchmark concepts and skills.. There are times when various groups of educators co-teach overlapping subject areas and assignments. Special times are designated for working on projects, so that as new concepts are learned they can be applied and built upon. The classrooms and common areas become a network of specialty topics in a living and growing discovery place.

Students: All learners further investigate and coordinate topics and tangents, learn and teach others for more perspectives in discussions and on projects. This results in an impressive variety of viable solutions and extensions to authentic problems. They soon start using knowledge and skills from across the subjects to back up their discussions and have deeper understanding and recall of concepts when reminded of related activities. Students develop an ability to recognize and respect their own and other’s varying skill sets and intelligences. They learn how to best fit into teams based on roles that they have a predisposition to do well at, and how they and others create society. They more naturally know how to use team dynamics help solve conflicts and side conversations are reported as being more on-topic. Students look forward to these activities and take more measures to prepare for missing work during these times.

Educators: STEAM Educators report feeling rejuvenated by richer living work environments. They have the ability to use more diversification of teaching methods and be more of a facilitator to learners. It empowers educators to meet the guidelines in a variety of unique and engaging ways and meaningfully cross-reference concepts and vocabulary. They have the opportunity to teach collaboratively, exchange ideas, have easier preparations for substitutes and have more productive common planning times. The teachers report feeling the positive shift from ME to WE. They report more personal and student engagement with student self-direction for project-based, discovery learning. They state that through the structure of rubric-based portfolios and process work, they have a better (broader and deeper) understanding of what their students prove they know in different ways including what they can tangibly accomplish. Educators can better match their learning objectives and goals to the variety of learners they encounter.

Communities: STEAM promotes a structure of community and business partnerships with schools and has a record of higher engagement among educators, all levels and types of students and families for both program and ecological sustainability. STEAM programs rotate displays in the common areas of the schools and have community meetings and program information nights. Educators report parent engagement and donations are increasing.

Themes: STEAM Education is how ALL subjects and peoples are recognized, can contribute and all effort is encouraged. It is hoped to be a factor in diminishing the drop-out, unemployment and poverty rates, having to teach to the test instead of the individual and the disproportionate percentage of women and minorities in leadership positions.

Many programs choose to revolve their STEAM curriculum framework around themes, such as;

• Power & Energy

• Elements & Processes

• Life & Movement

• Transportation

• Communication

• Music

• Inventions

It is necessary to have many varied experiences for students to be successful in this rapidly developing technological world, but it can still be done inexpensively.

The 20th century was based on local linear engineering of complicated systems. We made cars, airplanes and chemical plants for example. The 21st century has opened a new basis for holistic non-linear design of complex systems, such as the Internet and air traffic management. Interconnectivity, communication and interaction are major attributes of our evolving society. But, more interestingly, we have started to understand that chaos theory may be more important than reductionism, to better understand and thrive on Earth. Systems need to be investigated and tested as wholes, which requires a cross-disciplinary approach and new conceptual principles and tools. Consequently, schools cannot continue to only teach isolated disciplines based on simple reductionism. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) should also be integrated together with the Arts to promote creativity together with rationalization, and move (back) to STEAM (with an “A” for Arts). This concept shift emphasizes the possibility of longer-term socio-technical futures instead of short-term financial predictions that currently lead to uncontrolled economies. Human-centered design (HCD) can contribute to not only improving education technologies, systems and practices, but also as a discipline offering an integrated approach to learning by doing, expressing and critiquing, exploring possible futures, and understanding complex systems: HCD supports learning thinking.

Learning thinking is taken as a conceptual analog to design thinking (Plattner, Meinel & Leifer, 2011) and more specifically learning by doing. In particular, the shift from the unidirectional show society to a virtual freely connected society requires new models where creativity (Arts) and STEM disciplines can be integrated. It appears that in many countries worldwide, young people are less interested in science and engineering careers, i.e., what is now commonly called STEM . This seems to be a question of motivation (i.e., it is nowadays less rewarding to be an engineer mainly because it is less valued as before) and leadership. Standardization took the lead and individual technical engagement is not here anymore; conversely, business careers are more appealing because they appear to have a much better return on investment.

Human-centered design (HCD) is about cognitive engineering, life-critical systems, advanced interaction media, modeling and simulation, organization design and management, complexity analysis and assessment, creativity and design thinking, functional analysis, and user experience (Boy, 2013). HCD not only provides us with tools and techniques to build useful and usable things, it also provides an integrated approach to learning by doing, exploring possible futures, and understanding complex systems. This is what learning thinking is about. Consequently, HCD is a very appropriate approach that would enable the re-design of education systems taking into account learning thinking.

More specifically, the HCD Orchestra framework is a thought-provoking metaphor that enables us to describe the possible evolution of organizations, and educational systems in particular. Of course, it will need to be tailored, modified and reshuffled to be really useful and usable for the design and development of future educational systems. In particular, the issue of orchestrating autonomy and competence requires more investigation. In addition, technology tremendously modifies our old ways of learning and teaching. People need to learn and master critical thinking because the Internet allows us to access “knowledge-by-proxy”. 

Knowledge is available but understanding is not guaranteed without specific training. Students can be more autonomous but they need to properly assess their consumption and understanding of concepts. They will need to identify the central questions or problems raised by what you’ve read on the Internet. They need to be able to answer a wide range of questions that would engage them in critical thinking. Who sponsored the publishing of the information and do respected institutions support the concepts? What are the core concepts you’ve learned and how can you articulate them? What will it require to put these concepts into practice? How might individuals in other circumstances interpret the concepts or put them into practice?

It is time to come back to long-term thinking. There are needs for building possible futures where sustainable

energy must be further investigated together with the shift from the Military model to the Orchestra framework. We must cooperate and coordinate more, and new information technologies promise a great deal. Such goals will tremendously motivate young people whether at school or at home. Education can certainly be a great contributor to the evolution toward human-centered longer-term sociotechnical possible futures, which should replace our current short-term financial predictions that inevitably lead to chaotic economies. Let’s conclude with Alan Kay’s 1971 famous quote, “the best way to predict the future is to

invent it.”

Mathematical Proficiency

The mathematics curriculum during elementary school in Sweden has many components, but there is a strong emphasis on concepts of numbers and operations with numbers. From an international perspective, mathematics knowledge is defined as something more complex than concept of numbers and operations with numbers. Kilpatrick et al. (2001) argue for five strands which together build students’ mathematical proficiency. The five strands provide a framework for discussing the knowledge, skills, abilities, and beliefs that constitute mathematical proficiency. In their report they discuss,

1. Conceptual understanding is about comprehension of mathematical concepts, operations, and relationships. Students with conceptual understanding know more than isolated facts and methods. Items measuring conceptual understanding are for instance: “Your number is 123.45. Change the hundreds and the tenths. What is your new number?

2. Procedural fluency refers to skills in carrying out procedures flexibly, accurately, efficiently, and appropriately. Students need to be efficient in performing basic computations with whole numbers (e.g., 6+7, 17–9, 8×4) without always having to refer to tables or other aids.

3. Strategic competence is the ability to formulate, represent, and solve mathematical problems. Kilpatrick et al. (2001, p.126) give the following example of item testing strategic competence: “A cycle shop has a total of 36 bicycles and tricycles in stock. Collectively there are 80 wheels. How many bikes and how many tricycles are there?”

4. Adaptive reasoning refers to the capacity for logical thought, reflection, explanation, and justification. Kilpatrick et al. (2001) gives the following example where students can use their adaptive reasoning. “Through a carefully constructed sequence of activities about adding and removing marbles from a bag containing many marbles, second graders can reason that 5+(–6)=–1. In the context of cutting short bows from a 12-meter package of ribbon and using physical models to calculate that 12 divided by 1/3 is 36, fifth graders can reason that 12 divided by 2/3 cannot be 72 because that would mean getting more bows from a package when the individual bow is larger, which does not make sense” (p.130).

5. “Productive disposition is the habitual inclination to see mathematics as sensible, useful, and worthwhile, coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy” (Kilpatrick et al., 2001, p.5). Items measuring productive disposition are for instance: “How confident are you in the following situations? When you count 8-1=___+3 (completely confident, confident, fairly confident, not at al confident).”

Teaching Approaches Affecting Student Learning

The influence of the learning environment upon knowledge development has received relatively little attention in the field of mathematics teaching and learning (Boaler, 1999; Samuelsson, 2008). Even so, teachers often expect researchers to provide that kind of knowledge in mathematics didactics.

What happens in the classroom has an impact on students’ opportunity to learn. The activities in the classroom, the repeated actions in which students and teachers engage as they learn are important because they constitute the knowledge that is produced (Cobb, 1998). There is some evidence that different teaching styles can have different impacts on student achievement (Aitkin & Zukovsky, 1994) and that the choice of teaching approaches can make an important difference in a student’s learning (Wentzel, 2002). The synthesis of meta-analysis and reviews of Teddlie and Reynolds (2000) gives evidence for positive relationships between achievement and varied classroom settings. Case (1996) argues that a variation of teaching methods is important because different teaching methods draw attention to different competencies in mathematics (e.g. Boaler, 2002; Samuelsson, 2008). Thus, the mode of teaching method in mathematics seems to be important for students’ development of mathematical proficiency.

There are very few studies focusing on how different teaching methods affect students’ calculation and conceptual understanding as well as self-regulated learning skills, but there are several studies that focus on closely related areas.

For learning in general, Granström (2006) shows that different teaching approaches in classrooms influence the outcomes for students in different ways. Settings where students are allowed and encouraged to cooperate with classmates and teachers give the students more opportunities to understand and succeed. Similarly, Oppendekker and Van Damme (2006) stress that good teaching involves communication and building relationships with students. Boaler (1999, 2002) reports that practices such as working through textbook exercises or discussing and using mathematical ideas were important vehicles for the development of flexible mathematical knowledge. One outcome of Boaler’s research was that students who had worked in textbooks performed well in similar textbook situations. However, these students found it difficult to use mathematics in open, applied or discussion-based situations. The students who had learned mathematics through group-based projects were more able to apply their knowledge in a range of situations. Boaler’s research gives evidence for the theory that context constructs the knowledge that is produced.

In a review of successful teaching of mathematics, Reynolds and Muijs (1999) discuss American as well as British research. A result of their review is that effective teaching is signified by a high number of opportunities to learn. Opportunity to learn is related to factors such as length of school day and year, and the amount of hours of mathematics classes. It is also related to the quality of classroom management, especially time-on-task. According to research in the area, achievement is improved when teachers create classrooms that include (a) substantial emphasis on academic instruction and students’ engagement in academic tasks (Brophy & Good, 1986; Griffin & Barnes, 1986; Lampert, 1988; Cooney, 1994), (b) whole-class instruction (Reynolds & Muijs, 1999), (c) effective question-answer and individual practices (Brophy, 1986; Brophy & Good, 1986; Borich, 1996), (d) minimal disruptive behaviour (Evertsson et al., 1980; Brophy & Good, 1986; Lampert, 1988; Secada, 1992), (e) high teacher expectations (Borich, 1996; Clarke, 1997), and (f) substantial feedback to students (Brophy, 1986; Brophy & Good, 1986; Borich, 1996). Aspects of successful teaching are found in a traditional classroom (lecturing and drill) with one big exception- in successful teaching, teachers are actively asking a lot of questions and students are involved in a class discussion. With the addition of active discussion, students are kept involved in the lesson and the teacher has a chance to continually monitor students’ understanding of the concept being taught.

On the other hand, negative relationships have also been found between teachers who spend a high proportion of time communicating with pupils individually and students’ achievement (Mortimer et al., 1988; OfSTED, 1996). Students’ mathematics performances were low when they practiced too much repetitive number work individually (OfSTED, 1996). A traditional direct-instruction/active teaching model seems to be more effective than a teaching model that focuses on independent work.

Another teaching model discussed in the literature is the one dependent on cooperative, small-group work. The advantage of problem-solving in small groups lies in the scaffolding process whereby students help each other advance in the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1934/1986). Giving and receiving help and explanations may widen students’ thinking skills, and verbalising can help students structure their thoughts (Leiken & Zaslavsky, 1997). The exchange of ideas may encourage students to engage in higher-order thinking (Becker & Selter, 1996). Students who work in small groups are developing an understanding of themselves and learning that others have both strengths and weaknesses. Programmes that have attempted problem-solving in small groups as a teaching method report good results, such as improved conceptual understanding and higher scores on problem-solving tasks (Goods & Gailbraith, 1996; Leiken & Zaslavsky, 1997).

Samuelsson (2008) used a split-plot factorial design with group (i.e., traditional, independent work, and problem-solving) as a between-subject factor and time (i.e., before and after a 10 week intervention) as a within-subject factor. In that design, traditional approach means that teacher explained methods and procedures from the chalk board at the start of the lessons, and the students then practice with textbook questions. Independent work means that students work individually on problems from a textbook without a teacher’s introduction to the lesson; teachers just helped students who asked for it. Problem solving means that students were introduced to different ideas and problems that could be investigated and solved using a range of mathematical methods. Students worked in groups of four, and they discussed and negotiated arithmetic issues with each other and with the teacher, both in groups and in whole-class discussions. There were a total of seven dependent variables in the study. There were three measures of mathematics abilities; that is, a total score of mathematics ability, calculation, and conceptual understanding. Measures related to self-regulated learning skills such as internal and instrumental motivation, self-concept, and anxiety were also used as dependent variables. The results showed that there are no significant interaction effects between group and time according to total arithmetic ability and calculation. However, differences in students’ progress in conceptual understanding may be explained by the teaching method. Traditional work as well as problem-solving seems to have more positive effects on students’ development of conceptual understanding than independent work does.

To develop aspects of self-regulated learning skills, teachers, according to Samuelsson (2008), would be advised to use traditional work or problem-solving. Problem solving appears to be more effective in developing students’ interest and enjoyment of mathematics than does traditional work or independent work. Also traditional work and problem-solving are more effective than independent work for students’ self-concept.

Thus, different teaching methods also seem to influence students’ self-regulated learning skills (interest, view of the subject’s importance, self-perception, and attribution) (Boaler, 2002). Students who were expected to cram for examinations describe their attitudes in passive and negative terms. Those who were invited to contribute with ideas and methods describe their attitudes in active and positive terms that were inconsistent with the identities they had previously developed in mathematics (Boaler, 2002). A negative attitude towards mathematics can be influenced, for instance, by too much individual practice (Tobias, 1987) as well as by teachers who reveal students’ inabilities. Students who do well in school (Chapman & Tunmer, 1997) demonstrate appropriate task-focused behaviour (Onatsu-Arvillomi & Nurmi, 2002), and they have positive learning strategies. If the students are reluctant in learning situations and avoid challenges, they normally show low achievement (Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Zuckerman, Kieffer, & Knee, 1998).

As a result, the choice of teaching method not only affects mathematics achievement but also students’ self-regulated learning skills.

Why develop e-learning?

Many organizations and institutions are using e-learning because it can be as effective as traditional training at a lower cost.

Developing e-learning is more expensive than preparing classroom materials and training the trainers, especially if multimedia or highly interactive methods are used. However, delivery costs for e-learning (including costs of web servers and technical support) are considerably lower than those for classroom facilities, instructor time, participants’ travel and job time lost to attend classroom sessions.

Moreover, e-learning reaches a wider target audience by engaging learners who have difficulty attending conventional classroom training because they are:

>> geographically dispersed with limited time and/or resources to travel;

>> busy with work or family commitments which do not allow them to attend courses on specific dates with a fixed schedule;

>> located in conflict and post-conflict areas and restricted in their mobility because of security reasons;

>> limited from participating in classroom sessions because of cultural or religious beliefs;

>> facing difficulties with real-time communication (e.g. foreign language learners or very shy learners).

E-learning can offer effective instructional methods, such as practising with associated feedback, combining collaboration activities with self-paced study, personalizing learning paths based on learnersf needs and using simulation and games. Further, all learners receive the same quality of instruction because there is no dependence on a specific instructor. Some questions to ask when choosing among e- learning, face-to-face instruction or other types of informal or on-the-job learning include:

>> What is the relative cost of each type of training?

>> Is learning best delivered in one unit or spread out over time?

>> Does it address a short-term or a long-term learning need?

>> Do participants have access to needed computer and communications equipment?

>> Are participants sufficiently self-motivated for e-learning or self-study modes of learning?

>> Do target participantsf time schedules and geographic locations enable classroom.based learning or other types of synchronous learning?

Can e-learning be used to develop any type of skill?

A training program may aim at developing different types of skills:

>> cognitive skills, which can involve knowledge and comprehension (e.g. understanding scientific concepts ), following instructions (procedural skills), as well as applying methods in new situations to solve problems (thinking or mental skills);

>> interpersonal skills (e.g. skills involved in active listening, presenting, negotiating, etc.); as well as

>> psychomotor skills, involving the acquisition of physical perceptions and movements (e.g. making sports or driving a car).

How can e-learning address these diverse domains?

Most e-learning courses are developed to build cognitive skills; the cognitive domain is the most suitable for e-learning. Within the cognitive domain, thinking skills may require more interactive e-learning activities because those skills are learned better “by doing”. Learning in the interpersonal domain can also be addressed in e-learning by using specific methods. For example, interactive role playing with appropriate feedback can be used to change attitudes and behaviours.

E-learning is a good option when…

>> there is a significant amount of content to be delivered to a large number of learners;

>> learners come from geographically dispersed locations;

>> learners have limited mobility;

>> learners have limited daily time to devote to learning;

>> learners do not have effective listening and reading skills;

>> learners have at least basic computer and Internet skills;

>> learners are required to develop homogeneous background knowledge on the topic;

>> learners are highly motivated to learn and appreciate proceeding at their own pace;

>> content must be reused for different learners’ groups in the future;

>> training aims to build cognitive skills rather than psychomotor skills;

>> the course addresses long-term rather than short-term training needs;

>> there is a need to collect and track data.

Since e-learning is ideal help for all purposes, that it will enhance the facet of classroom training completely in an organization. The most cost-effective application of e-learning may be to complement conventional training in order to reach as many learners as possible.

E-LEARNING : DEFINITION, SCOPE, TRENDS, ATTRIBUTES

E-learning is commonly referred to the intentional use of networked information and communications technology in teaching and learning. A number of other terms are also used to describe this mode of teaching and learning. They include online learning, virtual learning, distributed learning, network and webbased learning. Fundamentally, they all refer to educational processes that utilize information and communications technology to mediate asynchronous as well as synchronous learning and teaching activities. On closer scrutiny, however, it will be clear that these labels refer to slightly different educational processes and as such they cannot be used synonymously with the term e-learning. The term e-learning comprises a lot more than online learning, virtual learning, distributed learning, networked or web-based learning. As the letter “e” in e-learning stands for the word “electronic”, e-learning would incorporate all educational activities that are carried out by individuals or groups working online or offline, and synchronously or asynchronously via networked or standalone computers and other electronic devices.

Individualized self-paced e-learning online refers to situations where an individual learner is accessing learning resources such as a database or course content online via an Intranet or the Internet. A typical example of this is a learner studying alone or conducting some research on the Internet or a local network.

Individualized self-paced e-learning offline refers to situations where an individual learner is using learning resources such as a database or a computer-assisted learning package offline (i.e., while not connected to an Intranet or the Internet). An example of this is a learner working alone off a hard drive, a CD or DVD. 

Group-based e-learning synchronously refers to situations where groups of learners are working together in real time via an Intranet or the Internet. It may include text-based conferencing, and one or two-way audio and videoconferencing. Examples of this include learners engaged in a real-time chat or an audio-videoconference. Group-based e-learning asynchronously refers to situations where groups of learners are working over an Intranet or the Internet where exchanges among participants occur with a time delay (i.e., not in real time). Typical examples of this kind of activity include on-line discussions via electronic mailing lists and text-based conferencing within learning managements systems.

The growing interest in e-learning seems to be coming from several directions. These include organizations that have traditionally offered distance education programs either in a single, dual or mixed mode setting. They see the incorporation of online learning in their repertoire as a logical extension of their distance education activities. The corporate sector, on the other hand, is interested in e-learning as a way of rationalizing the costs of their in-house staff training activities. E-learning is of interest to residential campus-based educational organizations as well.

They see e-learning as a way of improving access to their programs and also as a way of tapping into growing niche markets. The growth of e-learning is directly related to the increasing access to information and communications technology, as well its decreasing cost. The capacity of information and communications

technology to support multimedia resource-based learning and teaching is also relevant to the growing interest in e-learning. Growing numbers of teachers are increasingly using information and communications technology to support their teaching. The contemporary student population (often called the “Net Generation”, or “Millennials”) who have grown up using information and communications technology also expect to see it being used in their educational experiences (Brown, 2000; Oblinger, 2003; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005). Educational organizations too see advantages in making their programs accessible via a range of distributed locations, including oncampus, home and other community learning or resource centers.

Despite this level of interest in e-learning, it is not without constraints and limitations. The fundamental obstacle to the growth of e-learning is lack of access to the necessary technology infrastructure, for without it there can be no e-learning. Poor or insufficient technology infrastructure is just as bad, as it can lead to unsavory experiences that can cause more damage than good to teachers, students and the learning experience. While the costs of the hardware and software are falling, often there are other costs that have often not been factored into the deployment of e-learning ventures. The most important of these include the costs of infrastructure support and its maintenance, and appropriate training of staff to enable them to make the most of the technology.

A key attribute of information and communications technology is its ability to enable flexible access to information and resources. Flexible access refers to access and use of information and resources at a time, place and pace that is suitable and convenient to individual learners rather than the teacher and/or the educational organization. The concept of distance education was founded on the principles of flexible access (Willems, 2005). It aimed to allow distance learners, who were generally adult learners in full or part-time employment to be able to study at a time, place, and pace that suited their convenience. The goal of distance education was to free these learners from the constraints of conventional residential educational settings. They would not be required to live or attend lectures in locations away from where they may be living and working. The printed distance study materials, which each distance learner received, would carry the core subject matter content they would need including all their learning activities and assessment tasks. Students would be required to complete these tasks, submit their assignments and take their examinations within a set time frame. While these printed study materials allowed distance learners a great deal of freedom from time, place and pace of study, it had its limitations. For one thing, non-printed subject matter content and simulations etc. could not be easily represented in print form. 

Access to information and communications technology changed all that as it offered a range of possibilities for capturing and delivering all types of subject matter content to learners and teachers in distributed educational settings. This meant access to subject matter content and learning resources via networked information and communications technologies across a range of settings such as conventional classrooms, workplaces, homes, and various forms of community centers (Dede, 2000; 1996). Contemporary educational institutions, including conventional distance education providers, often pride themselves in being able to meet the learning needs of their students and staff at a time, place and pace that is most convenient to them. They have been able to do this with the help of information and communications technologies which afford learners access to upto- date information as and when they need them, and also the opportunity to discuss this information with their peers and teachers at their convenience. This is becoming increasingly affordable and palatable with a wide range of software applications and computer conferencing technologies for collaborative inquiry among students and asynchronous discussion (see Edelson, Gordin, & Pea, 1999; Edelson & O'Neill, 1994). These applications enable learners and teachers to engage in synchronous as well as asynchronous interaction across space, time, and pace (Gomez, Gordin & Carlson, 1995; Gordin, Polman & Pea, 1994; Pea, 1994).

Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the web and e-Learning

Although the training and development and higher education environments lead K-12 schools in embracing

distance learning technologies there is modest growth in distance education efforts in the K-12 environment,

and the steady rate at which distance learners are enrolling emphasizes the importance of this population (Saba, 2005). In many ways, this uncharted territory offers some of the most exciting challenges to be found in distance education today.

While online learning in K-12 schools is addressing previously unmet needs, it is also making headlines. Policy issues include funding of online learning programs and general resistance to distance learning. Online

learning is often not understood by policymakers resulting in the application of policies developed for physical schools to online programs (Rice, 2006). State governments typically establish virtual K-12 schools directly or provide funding to traditional schools to create online programs. Equivalent funding of online and face-to-face courses implies the instruction delivered is equally effective—an invalid comparison and potentially dangerous assumption as rapid changes in the field of online learning may not result in high quality programs (Conceição & Drummond, 2005). Quality indicators used to measure the success of online programs are similar to those used with traditional K-12 programs including academic performance, retention, academic achievement, and satisfaction (Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). However, Rice (2006) suggested that the effectiveness of distance education has more to do with who is teaching, who is learning, and how that learning is accomplished and less to do with the medium. Distance education in the K-12 arena

is often referred to as “virtual schooling” and learning through virtual schooling is one of the fastest growing areas for K-12 schools (Roblyer, 2006). Virtual schools offer distance education courses in basically two formats: site-based—part of a traditional brick and mortar school—and virtual high school/charter schools—typically non-site based.

Some states, school districts, and local administrators see site-based distance education as a viable option for choice. Mupinga (2005) identified current teacher shortages and overcrowded schools as two motivational factors for the rise in sitebased distance education. Rather than hire new teachers, some rural schools offer online courses, allowing highly qualified teachers to instruct students in locations where teaching shortages exist. With student populations increasing faster than new facilities can be built, distance education classes are one option states are using to serve students without the capital expenses required to build new schools (Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). In addition to teacher shortages, O’Dwyer, Carey, and Kleiman (2007) suggested the need to broaden the variety of courses offered by schools as a reason schools implement online courses. Expanding curricular offerings through online courses may include advanced, remedial, elective, or credit-recovery courses. Ideally, by offering online courses, a small school can provide rich and varied options normally available only at larger schools (Pape, 2005).

There are other benefits to sitebased distance education. Benefits for administrators include the option of ensuring course content is aligned to standards and providing resources to high-risk students. Teachers benefit by having potentially greater contact with students who are not normally communicative in a face-to-face classroom. Benefits for parents include being able to see assignments, resources, and readings available to their child. Learners benefit by having access to all the tools for success available in one setting, being able to review and practice as needed, and going at their own pace (Abram, 2005).  

Most of the emphasis on virtual schooling is at the high school level (Mupinga, 2005). Online high schools are often state-centered initiatives established to expand course offerings and meet the needs of certain student populations. Some online high schools allow students to take courses from home while others require students to take courses in monitored computer labs supervised by teachers or facilitators. A more controversial example of K- 12 online learning is virtual charter schools, which offer distance education to public school students while operating independently of local school districts. Huerta, d’Entremont, and González (2006) identify two forms of virtual charter schools that have developed: home-school and cyber-charter. Home-school charter schools require parents to serve as the primary educator while cyber-charter schools offer computer-based learning either synchronously or asynchronously with teachers filling the role of educational facilitator. In some instances, online programs are now enabling home-schooled students to receive a publicly-funded education in the home environment. Both forms have attracted large numbers of students, impacting the budgets of local districts.

The trends discussed above have at least four potentially profound impacts on the field of ID. These effects concern the student or learner population, research-based approaches, lack of trained professionals, and organizational change. Perhaps the biggest concern is the student. Distance education initiatives may serve the least homogenous group of learners of any other modality or learning environment. We fear that distance education may become little more than a “dumping ground” for credit recovery as well as a repository for those unable or unwilling to function in the more traditional classroom environment (Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). This represents a vast underutilization of an incredibly promising educational medium; it is also the exact opposite population the research says tends to thrive in the distance environment (Kachel, Henry, & Keller, 2005; Sharp & Huett, 2006). K-12 distance education learners include students who have social commitments, are being home-schooled, live in rural areas, are hospitalized, are homebound, who require flexible hours for employment, are incarcerated, who want to enrich their education, are traveling, have difficulty in regular classrooms, or are in need of courses not offered during the regular school day (Mupinga, 2005; Rice, 2006; Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). This brings with it a host of issues that have to be taken into account when considering instructional design parameters for this audience.

Although K-12 students can benefit from the independence offered by virtual schooling, this same independence has the potential for negative impact. While synchronous courses offer real-time interaction with the teacher and, potentially, with peers, a course taught predominantly through asynchronous instruction may offer few opportunities for personal interaction. Like classroom schooling, virtual schooling must address student-related issues including a feeling of isolation and concerns about social development that may exceed classroombased instruction (Cavanaugh, Gillian, Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004). In addition, virtual learning potentially has some specific audience issues. Personal and psychological characteristics of successful online learners include autonomy, metacognition, self-regulatory skills, positive self-efficacy, motivation, and internal locus of control (Cavanaugh et al., 2004; Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). The development of many of these characteristics is age-dependent, raising the possibility that younger students may be less successful online learners. Cavanaugh et al. (2004) stated that younger students require more supervision, simpler instructions, and a more extensive reinforcement system than older students. The question of how effective distance learning can be with younger students has yet to be addressed. The amount of independence given to younger students, the use of synchronous versus asynchronous instruction, the characteristics required of a successful young distance learner, and the technology best used to deliver materials to younger learners are all areas that need further research. Instructional designers bring a much needed and research based perspective on how learners learn to this diverse audience. Ideally, ID professionals would play a key role in researching and designing K-12 distance education environments to carefully accommodate diverse learners with varying degrees of maturity.

We have become a bit cynical in our view that, K-12 educational personnel who always seem to seek out the “magic elixir” that cures all ills, will embrace distance education as the latest in a long line of perfect solutions. ID professionals, perhaps in partnership with academic researchers, can play a key role in making sure that distance education initiatives truly serve the needs of students. Instructional designers must stay on top of the current research and be able to defend decisions regarding who should and should not enroll in the available distance education offerings and promote designs that have the capability to serve the targeted student population. In this way, instructional designers are protecting students by promoting solid distance learning practices based on research and theory. Unfortunately, little research currently exists to inform decisions about online learning in K-12 schools. Instructional designers are uniquely qualified to help fill this research gap. Few high-quality, evidence-based research studies have examined the effectiveness of online learning at the high school level compared to faceto- face instruction, with even fewer studies examining curriculum-specific interventions (Conceição & Drummond, 2005; O’Dwyer et al., 2007).

The majority of research on student success in online courses has been conducted in higher education settings (O’Dwyer et al., 2007; Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). How this research translates to the K-12 setting is unknown. Cavanaugh et al. (2004) caution against applying the findings of higher education research in distance education to the K-12 setting, adding that K-12 distance education is fundamentally unique. ID professionals are needed to direct research concerning which distance education learning models work best with certain groups of students. Finally, the majority of K-12 distance education research has been conducted in grades 6-12. The effectiveness of online learning for all grade levels is, at best, unclear. K-12 instructional designers for distance education need to be aware of the lack of a clear research agenda and the controversies surrounding this new delivery medium. ID professionals have an exciting opportunity to guide the development of K-12 distance education to make sure that the needs of learners are met.

As with research in adult distance education, studies in the K-12 setting focus primarily on comparisons of student achievement in online versus face-to-face courses. The popularity of studies comparing distance courses with face-to-face instruction stems from the longstanding curiosity about the legitimacy of distance education as an alternative to traditional settings (Bernard et al., 2004). Comparison studies in both higher education and K-12 environments appear to show no significant difference based on the delivery medium. Cavanaugh et al. (2004) completed a meta-analysis reviewing web-delivered K-12 distance education programs and found that student achievement was similar between online courses and classroom based courses.

We agree with the suggestion by Bernard et al. (2004) that the need for studies comparing distance education with traditional classroom instruction is nearing its end. ID professionals should begin to direct a research agenda involving comparisons within distance education environments. A review of existing K-12 distance education literature by Rice (2006) supported this assertion, adding that distance education research should move beyond comparative studies to focus on the factors that ensure successful teaching and learning. In general, the requirements of non-traditional settings, like online learning environments, have received only a small amount of research and are not well understood. The systems thinking of an instructional design researcher could be invaluable in the investigation of these models. There are also issues concerning evaluation. Already, it is clear that issues of quality and assessment are as critical in distance education as in traditional forms of education, but nontraditional programs often must prove their worth in ways not expected of mainstream schools. The instructional design perspective can inform evaluation strategies to ensure that naïve questions about technology and online educational delivery are not the primary ones being asked.

What we are witnessing with the current evolution of distance education and the technologies that support it is nothing less than the single most important reorganization of how we will engage learners since we started to gather students together in school buildings. If schools are going to make a commitment to deliver education in this format, it will require a restructuring of how they do business, necessitating the hiring of distance education instructional designers to work with teachers and the local district. ID professionals would bring a much needed awareness of sound distance education design to the process. Since, in the U.S., K-12 schooling is primarily a state and local enterprise, structures needed to achieve a costeffective scale for online learning are only beginning to emerge (most often in the form of regional and statewide consortia, with some private-sector activity). In those few cases where a curriculum has gained national recognition (such as Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses), we are beginning to see national offerings as well. However, it is unclear if the economies of scale promised by e-learning will ever be substantial in the  K- 12 context beyond a variety of niche applications such as those mentioned above. It may be that countries with national curricula will see these benefits long before the other does.

Is e-learning (and the technologies that support it) truly a breakthrough or is it only the latest “miracle” which

promises solutions to all the problems associated with education and training? Clearly, our society loves simple answers to complex problems—especially if those answers require little or no effort. It is impossible to deny the benefits and ubiquity of the Internet. Yet the history of education is a history of so-called advances and new ideas which fail to hold up to scrutiny over time. Rushing to adopt distance education, or any new technology, to avoid being seen as out of touch or outdated certainly is as ephemeral as most fads. We agree with those who argue that education and training are costly endeavors that are not presently serving our schools, our business organizations, or our society well. We need training and educational solutions, and e-learning holds out promise. Unfortunately, much of real promise is buried under the hyperbole of a quick fix, much like a TV commercial that makes exaggerated claims of losing weight while one sleeps. While some may view this as a cynical opinion, our view for the future is actually quite positive: We just need to choose to view e-learning as the question rather than the answer.

In short, the Internet and e-learning make wonderful things possible if we decide, as educators and trainers, to exploit those possibilities intelligently and systematically. The multitude of possibilities outlined in this three part series illustrate that there are opportunities to evolve and to grow the field of instructional design in many directions. At the same time, however, researchers and practitioners are facing such a demand for their talents that getting the support and the time for disciplined research and theory building is often extremely difficult. This makes for tricky but exciting challenges.

For instructional design and technology, this is “stand and deliver” time. Professionals in the field are finally getting their chance to make good on the visions of learning transformed by technology. However, we have neither unlimited time nor unlimited resources to prove our worth to the current leaders aggressively advocating the use of technology in training and education. If the expectations of the public and policy makers are not realized, it will not matter which learning theory, design methodology, academic program, or software company did or did not succeed. The credibility of technology as a transformative force will be damaged. It is incumbent upon all professionals with a commitment to the potential of technology in education and training, no matter what their theoretical or ideological bent, to think outside the box, to collaborate and to advance the common vision. As much as our understanding of technology in education and training has developed over the past 40 years, we still understand only a small fraction of what is required to transform the craft of instructional technology and design into an engineering or science-style discipline. Given the challenges we face, practitioners in the field have little time for ideological bickering about various theoretical positions. No single  line of research can possibly lay a unique claim to ultimate wisdom and understanding. There is much to be accomplished and little time to accomplish it. Let us proceed then, together, with the hard work of building a cumulative and unified base of knowledge for e-learning and the field of instructional design.