COVER STORY
Taking the next Step
A REPORT FROM E-LEARNING EXPERTS ROBERT ZEMSKY AND WILLIAM F. MASSY SHEDS NEW LIGHT ON THE CHALLENGES – AND THE FUTURE – OF E-LEARNING.

Summer 2005
By Larry Tuck

Just a few years ago, the convergence of information technology with training and
education – dubbed “e-learning” – promised to revolutionize both academic education
and corporate training.

While progress has been made, the reality of e-learning has fallen far short of the multibillion dollar market that was so optimistically projected just five years ago.What happened to e-learning – and what will it take to get it back on track?

E-learning experts Ronald Zemsky and William F.Massy examine these questions in a
new report, “Thwarted Innovation:What Happened to E-learning and Why”. Based on a
multi-year study of academic and corporate e-learning, the report was published by The Learning Alliance at the University Pennsylvania.

E-LEARNING’S PROMISE

E-learning offered a truly student-centered approach to education, according to its early proponents.With technology, learning would be customized, self-paced, and problembased. Designers and facilitators would replace course instructors.

On the corporate front, new skills-based learning sequences would be developed, covering everything from introductory accounting to advanced router maintenance and repair, along with
accompanying assessment and certification mechanisms. Just-in-time learning would become the norm, with employee-learners becoming more responsible for amassing their own portfolio of skills.

Learners would be able to access lessons anytime and anywhere a computer and connection to the Internet was available. Analysts projected a surge in the demand for adult education, as more people sought to start and finish baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate programs, as well as to acquire the new kinds of skills on which an information economy depended. E-learning and distance education would become synonymous terms, as state agencies and private providers brought new programs to market.

Naturally, this vast potential would result in a huge market for e-learning products
and services. A frequently quoted projection, made in 2000 by Michael Moe in the Merrill Lynch white paper, “The Knowledge Web” proclaimed: “Our estimates for the U.S. online market opportunity for knowledge enterprises will grow from $9.4 billion in 1999 to $53.3 billion in 2003, representing a CAGR of 54 percent.”

Not surprisingly, the reality never matched the promise.While there has been a noticeable shift in corporate training — spurred in part by the economic downturn that once again reduced training budgets and training staff — there has been no wholesale pedagogical revolution.

DEFINITION NEEDED

Part of the problem, Zemsky and Massy say, is that e-learning remains “a concept in search of consistent definition.” The term means many things to many people.

E-learning as Distance Education.
Most people associate e-learning with distance education or education delivered on
the Web. The most successful forms of elearning are the courses delivered on the
Internet, Zemsky and Massy say, but for the most part, however, what the Web provides are merely correspondence courses distributed electronically.

E-learning as Facilitated Transactions Software.
E-learning’s second big triumph has been in the development and expansion of course management systems like BlackBoard and WebCT, which organize courses and present materials online. Principally used in higher education, course management systems at many institutions link teachers with students, students with each other, and students to sources.

E-learning as Electronically Mediated Learning.
The third category of e-learning centered on the learning materials themselves rather than their distribution. This category includes computerized courses that prepare students to take the SAT, GRE, or other standardized tests; integrated learning packages such as Maple or Mathematica that teach elementary calculus; course objects that simulate everything from chemical reactions to social interactions; and tools like Macromedia’s Dreamweaver and Flash that help students build their own Web sites and multimedia presentations.

Despite their seemingly diffuse nature, what all these products and resources have in common is that they involve electronically mediated learning in a digital format that is interactive but not necessarily remote.

E-LEARNING MARKET: THE REALITY

To gauge the corporate market for elearning, Zemsky and Massy identified and analyzed 262 providers of e-learning products and services. After tracking those providers for 15 months, they came to several conclusions:

The e-learning provider market is dominated, and likely will continue to be dominated, by providers who offer products to businesses, rather than education.

Successful suppliers offer not just packaged software products but also services, including consulting and customized learning products. Over the next several years, the services business will probably be more profitable than supplying content.

A smaller but profitable niche consists of companies that sell products directly to consumers.

Another viable niche is made up of firms offering computerized assessments – tests, exams for licensing agencies, testprep, and remote access to standardized
tests like the SAT, GRE and others.

The researchers also looked closely at the growth of e-learning in higher education,
tracking use of the technology at six representative institutions across the country.
Faculty respondents were asked whether they had developed an e-learning course object or a comprehensive elearning course. Seventy percent reported they had developed a course object, while 44 percent reported they had developed a comprehensive e-learning course. Admittedly, most faculty respondents were early adopters of e-learning, but Zemsky and Massy argue that they provide a valid bellwether of broader future trends.

Given the pace at which faculty ordinarily change their teaching patterns, it is not surprising that most changes in use of elearning were small, but the study did find
reported growth of 8 percent in the use of course management systems and the even
larger growth of 11 percent in the number of faculty who reported using computerized
assessments.

Still, based on their survey of e-learning providers, the researchers concluded that
the market for e-learning in higher education – once expected to lead the market –
has actually declined.

GETTING REAL

“It could be said that the revolution—though slow in gaining momentum—has been launched,” the researchers conclude. “The challenge at hand involves the acceleration
of e-learning’s adoption.” They suggest three practical steps that are required for e-learning and electronically mediated instruction to achieve their full potential.

STEP1 Develop a catalog of lessons learned. “First and foremost, the industry needs a catalog of lessons learned. Our hope is that this report represents a start in that direction.”

STEP2 Map the obstacles still to be overcome.
See the sidebar,“Program For Change,” for the researcher’s list of some of those obstacles.

STEP3 Move ahead in developing dominant designs and global networks.
“In many ways the underlying message of our report is that it is high time for elearning to get real—in a dual sense,” write Zemsky and Massy.

“Those who promote, fund, and ultimately depend on e-learning need to talk less and succeed more. And those early adopters need to understand that their success depends as much as the context in which they operate as on the power of the technologies they employ.”

back to current magazine page

Subscribe Now—to secure your own personal editions