Review by: Schönwald, Ingrid (2006-11-29)

The author of this article critically scrutinizes the values behind the prevalent rhetoric of e-learning practitioners in North America. The article is written based on a literature review of North American workplace learning and technology industry publications and web sites.

The first line of argument addresses the e-learning terminology used by practitioners. The author notes that many e-learning definitions are either vague or reveal problematically nar-row and commodified conceptions of knowledge and learning neglecting the social dimension of e-learning. Most e-learning classifications are based on functional definitions but lack con-cepts about the ways these tools are used, valued, and ascribed meanings, both by individual users and the organizations they work for. Due to this lack of a clear e-learning “nomencla-ture”, the e-learning practice field is fragmented: “The instructors, the technicians, the psy-chologists and the human resource managers cannot communicate or establish common direc-tion because, like the scattered citizens of Babel, each speaks a different language and work under a different assumption.” The author stresses the need for a framework that incorporates various e-learning experiences and the ways in which these are made meaningful in an organ-izational context. Moreover this framework must be articulated in a way that bridges the cul-ture gap between educators and executives.

A second line of argumentation addresses the economic dimension of e-learning. The author notes that in the prevailing e-learning rhetoric knowledge is simply a “product” and learners are deemed “consumers”. As a consequence of this “industrial production metaphor” corpo-rate executives ask for a clear indication that e-learning can “deliver the goods” in terms of cost-savings and efficiencies. Meanwhile numerous approaches on educational controlling have been developed and are offered to meet this demand for justification. However the au-thor doubts the premises of these tools to precisely measure learning investments and impacts: “Test scores, and completion rates – those variables easiest to measure in an e-learning initia-tive, do not capture learner satisfaction, impact on corporate culture, or effects – either short- or long-term – on productivity.” The implementation of a performance tracking tool can even aggravate existing hostility and suspicion among workers.

A third line of argument addresses the prevailing assumption that “anytime anywhere” access is always appropriate and valued. The proposed flexibility of e-learning to adapt to different learning styles is easily claimed, but often ill-defined and rarely realised. Prevailing ap-proaches consist of parlour-game style online self-assessment tools which are insufficient to determine individual learning styles. Moreover it neglects other variables, such as the high relevance of relationships with colleagues in increasingly interactive online “communities”, comfort level with technology, and organizational culture. “E-learning’s high-tech media may provide the illusory sense that knowledge can be produced, packaged, consumed and ex-changed online, but an abundance of literature in constructivism and adult learning makes a strong case that it is in fluid, dynamic and highly social contexts that meaningful learning and creative problem solving are most likely to occur”.

The author concludes that a broader understanding of workers’ learning and affective needs is required if e-learning is to be applied effectively toward developing creative, productive, sat-isfying and sustainable learning organizations: “Organizations investing significantly in the infrastructure required to implement e-learning can benefit from a more holistic understanding of the ways workers interact and learn in online environments.”