4. Introduction
Technology is transforming the delivery of edu-cation in unthinkable ways (DeNeui& Dodge,
2006). The impact and influence of technology can be seen rippling through academe and in-dustry as
more and more institutions of higher education and corporations offer, or plan to offer, Web-based
courses (Alavi, Marakasand, &Yoo, 2002; Dagada&Jakovljevic, 2004).
There is a call for studies that enable research-ers to gain a deeper understanding into the effec-
tiveness of the use of technologies for e-learning (Alavi&Leidner, 2001; Alavi et al., 2002). Such
studies need to be qualified by differentiating among e-learning formats.
Brown and Liedholm (2002) compared the outcomes of three different formats for a course in the
principles of microeconomics (face -to-face, hybrid, and virtual) and found that the students in the
virtual course did not perform as well as the students in the face-to-face classroom set-tings and that
differences between students in the face-to -face and hybrid sections vs. those in the virtual section
were shown to increase with the complexity of the subject matter. Piccoli, Ahmadand, and Ives (2001)
found that the level of student satisfaction in e-learning environments for difficult (or unfamiliar)
topics like Microsoft
Access dropped when compared to familiar topics like Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. Brown
and Liedholm (2002) found that students in virtual classes performed worse on exams than those in
face-to-face classes where the exam questions required more complex applications of basic concepts.
Brown and Liedholm (2002) conclude that ultimately there is some form of penalty for selecting a
course that is completely online. These studies, while important, do not distinguish among the
different e-learning formats used to conduct the courses; they are based on the premise that the e-
learning formats are the same.
5. E-Learning Classifications
Studies on success and failure of e-learning presuppose that all online learning deliveries are the
same, but there are differences. Those who cite the failure of e-learning formats often cite lack of
support for students, lack of instructor availability, lack of content richness, and lack of performance
assessment. Of course, it all depends on the course content being offered; but it also depends on the
course delivery format. For example, an online class where the learner is provided only a Web site
link to download the lecture notes is different from one where the learner has interactive com-
munication with the instructor. The latter is also different from an e-learning class that provides the
learner with “live” audio and video vs. one that does not.
In order to understand the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of an e-learning environment, more
precise terminology which describes the format of delivery is needed, since all online instruction
delivery formats are not equal; different content require different delivery formats. Technology
advances have provided many tools for e -learning but without a clear understanding of the format of
delivery it is difficult to assess the overall effec-tiveness of the environment. The question arises as to
what classification can be used to understand the different e-learning formats. To help address this
issue, this chapter provides an e-learning classification and demonstrates with a classroom example
from the authors’ experience.
There are seven sections in this chapter. First, we identify six classifications and describe them
briefly. We then describe learning management systems (LMS) and give some examples. In the third
section, we discuss e -learning environments and six dimensions that distinguish e-learning
environments from face-to-face classrooms. The fourth section provides an example of each
classification, followed by a pilot empirical study and a framework for e-learning environment ef-
fectiveness in section five. Sections six and seven provide a discussion and the conclusion.
_
6. E-Learning Classifications
E-Learning Classifications
Falch (2004) proposes four types of e-learning classifications: e-learning without presence and
without communication, e-learning without pres-ence but with communication, e -learning com-
bined with occasional presence, and e-learning used as a tool in classroom teaching.
Following Falch’s (2004) presence/communi-cation classification, we have redefined the terms
“presence” and “communication” and expanded the classifications to six in order to make a dis-
tinction between physical presence and virtual presence. The six classifications are outlined in
Table 1.
In order to understand the differences between classifications it is important to differentiate be-
tween content delivery and content access. In this classification we consider presence available as
“Yes” only if the instructor and learner are simul-taneously available during content delivery,
either physically or virtually. We classify e-communica-tion available as “Yes” only if e-
communication exists between instructor and learner at the time of instruction delivery or e-
communication is the primary communication medium for completing the course.
Table 1. E-Learning classifications
7. Brief descriptions of the six e-learning clas-sifications are provided in this section; more details
and examples are given in later sections. The descriptions are as follows:
type i: e-learning with Physical Presence and without e-communication (face-to-face)
This is the traditional face-to-face classroom setting. The traditional face-to-face classroom is
classified as e -learning because of the prevalence of e-learning tools used to support instruction
delivery in classrooms today. In this format both the instructor and learner are physically present
in the classroom at the time of content delivery, therefore presence is available. An example of
Type I e-learning is a traditional class that utilizes PowerPoint slides, video clips, and multimedia
to deliver content. Many face-to-face classrooms also take advantage of e -learning technologies
outside the classroom, for example, when there is interaction between the learner and instructor
and among learners using discussion boards and also e-mail. In addition, lecture notes and
PowerPoint slides may be posted online for students to access and assignment schedules may be
set up online. It
Classification Presence* eCommunication** Alias
Type I Yes No Face-to-Face
Type II No No Self-Learning
Type III No Yes Asynchronous
Type IV Yes Yes Synchronous
Type V Occasional Yes
Blended/Hybrid-
asynchronous
8. Type VI Yes Yes
Blended/Hybrid-
synchronous
* Presence is defined as real-time presence where both instructor and learner are
present at the time of content delivery; it includes physical and virtual presence
** E-communication refers to whether the content delivery includes electronic
communication or not.
9. should be noted that in a traditional face-to-face classroom, e-learning tools do not have to be used for
instruction; however, it is common today for many e-learning tools to be used for content delivery.
The primary communication between learner and instructor takes place in the classroom or is handled
through office visits or phone calls; e-communication is therefore classified as “No,” or not available.
Type ii: e-learning without Presence and without e-communication (self-learning)
This type of e-learning is a self-learning approach. Learners receive the content media and learn on
their own. There is no presence, neither physical nor virtual in this format. There is also no commu-
nication, e- communication, or otherwise between the learner and the instructor. With this e-learning
format, the learner typically receives prerecorded content or accesses archived recordings. Com-
munication between the learner and instructor (or the group that distributes the content) is limited to
support or to other noncontent issues like replac-ing damaged media or receiving supplemental
material. Type II e-learning is content delivered on a specific subject or application using recorded
media like a CD ROM or DVD.
Type iii: e-learning without Presence and with e-communication (asynchronous)
In this format the instructor and learner do not meet during content delivery and there is no presence,
neither physical nor virtual; presence is therefore classified as “No” or not available. With this format,
the instructor prerecords the content (content delivery) and the learner accesses content (content
access) at a later time (i.e., content deliv-ery and content access happen independently so there is a
time delay between content delivery and
10. E-Learning Classifications
access). In this environment, the instructor and learner communicate frequently using a number of e-
learning technologies. A Type III e-learning format is the typical format most people think of when
they think about “online learning.” Even though the instructor and learner do not meet at the time of
content delivery, there is, however, rich interaction using e-learning technologies like threaded
discussion boards and e-mail and instruc-tors may post lecture notes for online access and schedule
assignments online. E-communication is not available at the time of content delivery, however, e-
communication is the primary mode of communication for the asynchronous format; e-
communication is therefore categorized as
“Yes,” or available.
Type iv: e-learning with virtual Presence and with e-communication (synchronous)
This is synchronous e-learning, also referred to as
“real-time.” In synchronous e-learning the instruc-tor and learner do not meet physically, however,
they always meet virtually during content delivery, therefore, presence is classified as available, or
“Yes.” In this format e-communication is used extensively and the virtual class is mediated by e-
learning technologies; e-communication is therefore classified as available, or “Yes.” The
technologies used in a Type IV e-learning envi-ronment include all of the technologies used in
asynchronous e-learning in addition to synchro-nous technologies such as “live” audio, “live” video,
chat, and instant messaging.
Type v: e-learning with occasional Presence and with e-communication (blended/hybrid-
asynchronous)
This is a blended or hybrid e-learning format with occasional presence. In this format content
11. E-Learning Classifications
is delivered through occasional physical meet-ings (face-to-face classroom, possibly once a
month) between the instructor and learner and via e-learning technologies for the remainder of the
time. This arrangement is a combination of face-to -face and asynchronous e-learning. In this
format e-communication is used extensively just like the asynchronous format; therefore e-com-
munication is classified as available, or “Yes.”
Presence, on the other hand, is occasional; there is physical presence during the face-to-face por-
tion and no physical or virtual presence during the asynchronous portion, therefore presence is
categorized as “occasional.”
type vi: e-learning with Presence and with e-communication (blended/hybrid-
synchronous)
This is a blended or hybrid e-learning format with presence at all times. In this format e-commu-
nication is used extensively just like with a syn-chronous format; e-communication is therefore
classified as available, or “Yes.” In this environ-ment, presence alternates between physical and
virtual. Some class sessions are conducted with physical presence (i.e., in a traditional face-to-face
classroom setting) and the remaining class sessions are conducted with virtual presence (i.e.,
synchronously). With this format the learner and instructor meet at the same time, sometimes
physically and other times virtually; nevertheless, presence exists at all times. In this format, pres-
ence is therefore classified as “Yes,” or available.
An example of Type VI e -learning is where the instructor and learner use the classroom for part
of the time and for the other part they use live audio/video for their virtual meetings. In both cases,
meetings take place with both participants available at the same time, which is a combination of
face-to-face and synchronous e-learning.