Page 1 of 10

E-Learning: Developments and Directions for

Organizational Sustainability
Dr. Jamil Ahmad1a, Dr. Ijaz A. Qureshi2b, Shakeel Iqbal3c
a
Dean, Iqra University Islamabad Campus, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan Email: jamil@iqraisb.edu.pk
b
Head of Business School, Iqra University Islamabad Campus, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan Email:
ijaz@iqraisb.edu.pk
c
Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Management Sciences, Iqra University Islamabad Campus, Islamabad, 44000,
Pakistan Email: siqbal@iqraisb.edu.pk

*Dr. Donna Schaeffer

Professor of Information Systems, Argosy University, San Francisco, California, 94194, USA
E-mail: donna_schaeffer@hotmail.com

Abstract
Developments in the field of IT and telecommunications paved the way for use of technology in
education. Near the end of last millennium, the ability of e-learning to reach distant users who want
to learn at their own pace attracted the attention of many engaged in education and training. An
increasing number of colleges and universities started offering online degrees and courses. There
was an increase in the number of organizations using this new medium to provide training to their
employees. This paper discusses some of the perceived benefits of e-learning as well as major
hurdles hampering the growth and development of this medium. Some of the current trends as well
as future directions of e-learning are also discussed in this paper.

Keywords: E-learning, m-learning, benefits, hurdles, current trends, future directions.

1. Introduction
The term e-learning may be defined as instructions delivered electronically via the Internet,
intranets or multimedia platforms such as DVD or CD-ROM (Cappel and Hayen, 2004). There are
different terms used in existing literature to describe learning and teaching via some electronic
medium: web-based learning, computer mediated instruction, virtual classrooms, online education,
e-learning, e-education, computer-driven interactive communication, open and distance learning,
I-Campus, borderless education, cyberspace learning environments, distributed learning, flexible
learning, blended learning, mobile-learning (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005).
E-learning can take place in any one of the following three forms: Asynchronous, Synchronous
or Blended learning (Welsh et al., 2003). Asynchronous learning is where pre-recorded
information is available to the intended audience 24/7 (Rosenberg, 2001). Synchronous learning is
live where instructor and learners interact with each other simultaneously. Blended learning is
where a combination of technology and classroom based learning is used to deliver information. It
is this third form of e-learning which is the focus of attention of most of the researchers in recent

Proceedings of Joint Conference on eServices and Business Intelligence, Chengdu, China, 2010
 Page 2 of 10

era (Elliott, 2002).

Near the end of last millennium, the agenda of e-learning was pushed forward so aggressively
that it caught attention of almost everyone. In the words of John Chambers, CEO of Cisco: The
next big killer application for the Internet is going to be education. Education over the Internet is
going to be so big it is going to make email usage look like a rounding error (Chamber, 1999).
The following intriguing developments have been noted in the e-learning environment:

1.1 E-Learning as an alternative to Classroom Learning

E-learning became a preferred mode of teaching for colleges and universities as it offered
enormous potential of growth. It was quoted to be ideal for those students who could not join any
college or university due to time and location constraints (Maldonado, 2010). Many advantages
were claimed for this medium of learning. In the words of Robertson (2003, pp. 284285):
Information technology promises to deliver more (and more important) learning for every student
accomplished in less time; to ensure individualization no matter how large and diverse the class; to
obliterate the differences and disadvantages associated with race, gender, and class; to vary and yet
standardize the curriculum; to remove subjectivity from student evaluation; to make reporting and
record keeping a snap; to keep discipline problems to a minimum; to enhance professional learning
and discourse; and to transform the discredited teacher-centered classroom into that paean of
pedagogy: the constructivist, student-centered classroom.
Nowadays a large number of colleges and universities are offering online courses and degrees.
Organizational investment in e-learning keeps growing because of the convenience and cost
effectiveness (Moore, 2003). Continuous usage of e-learning, however, has proven that besides
many advantages claimed for this technology-based mode of learning, it has many shortcomings as
well. In a study participants mentioned that class learning has been difficult for them due to either
too much theory with no pause or the group discussion was too lengthy and didnt contribute as
much as they would have thought (Pearson and Trinidad, 2005). The table given below gives a
comparison between e-learning and classroom based teaching:

Comparison of traditional classroom learning Vs. E-learning

Traditional Classroom E-Learning Blended
Learning Learning
Immediate Feedback Learner centered Flexibility of
Being familiar to both and self-paced. learning with
instructors and students Time and location the
Motivating students flexibility opportunity
Advantages Cultivation of a social Cost-effective for to interact
community learners with the
Personal touch Potentially instructors
Interaction available to global and trainers
audience

Proceedings of Joint Conference on eServices and Business Intelligence, Chengdu, China, 2010
 Page 3 of 10

Unlimited access
to knowledge
Archival
capability for
knowledge reuse
and sharing
Slow learners get
accommodates
without any
inconvenience to
others in class
Instructor-centered Lack of Cost saving
Time and location immediate may not be
constraints feedback in there
More expensive to deliver asynchronous anymore
Timing constraint e-learning
If missed something in the Increased
class difficult to grasp as preparation time
Disadvantages
white board may be washed for the instructor
off in next minutes Not comfortable
for some people
Potentially more
frustration,
anxiety and
confusion
Table 1: (adapted from Zhang et. al, 2004)

1.2 E-Learning as a medium of training

E-learning became a preferred mode of training for many organizations. The advantages
perceived for this mode of training are: lower cost, increased learners convenience, reduced
delivery cycle time, improved tracking, reduced information overload and consistent world-wide
training (Welsh et al., 2003). Zhang (2003) in his study reported the following advantages of
e-learning: Time and location flexibility, cost and time savings, self paced and just for me learning,
collaborative learning environment, better access to the instructors and unlimited use of learning
materials.
Another popular usage of this technology is online certifications offered by many professional
organizations. In these online certifications all activities are carried through Internet i.e., registration,
delivery of reading material, submission of assignments, exams and feedback.

Proceedings of Joint Conference on eServices and Business Intelligence, Chengdu, China, 2010
 Page 4 of 10

1.3 M-Learning
M-learning is the latest trend in e-learning. In the words of Quin (2001) m-learning is
e-learning through mobile computational devices: Palms, windows CE machine, even your digital
cell phone. Mobile communication is already gaining significant popularity as compared to online
communication in many developed countries of the world. Rapid advancements in mobile
technologies offers tremendous potential for this form of learning and it can be said that m-learning
will have a greater impact on learning than e-learning (Bates, 2002). Anytime, anywhere learning
and learning while doing are the two main advantages claimed for m-learning (Lehner et al.,
2003). M-learning provides more convenience, flexibility and mobility than online learning. Mobile
phones make synchronous learning possible at a lower cost and provide access to those who are
without a high speed bandwidth. Currently, work is in progress on the development of m-LMS
(Learning Management Systems for m-learning). It can be said about m-learning in the words of
Keegan (2003): The mixing of distance learning with mobile technology to produce m-learning
will provide the future of learning.

2. Hurdles in E-Learning Implementation

2.1 Inappropriate Design

Although E-learning is claimed to be very convenient and interesting mode of education but
some of the previous studies shows that inappropriately designed e-learning program can result in
frustration, confusion and decrease in interest of the learners (Hara and Kling, 2000; Maki et al.,
2000). Dissemination of information by static and non-interactive means cannot be termed as
training. Besides pushing information at the trainees, training should include the components of
guidance, practice and feedback as well. In the words of Dobbs (2002): Quit pretending that
reading is training.

2.2 High Dropout Rate

Another proclaimed advantage for e-learning is that it is an effective way of reducing
absenteeism and dropouts. But it has been proved by some of studies conducted on this topic that
there are more dropouts in online education as compared to distance education and traditional
face-to-face education (Diaz, 2002). Some of the reasons for high dropout rates in E-learning are
lack of commitment, lack of student support, poorly designed course, substandard and inexperience
instructors (Frankola, 2001).

2.3 Effectiveness and Disruptive Technologies

Another problem in the implementation of e-learning is to keep pace with the advancement
of technology (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005; Robertson, 2003; Watson 2001). Rapid innovations in
e-learning provide very little time to provide thoughtful appraisal and critique of the issues related
to its adoption and use (Kompf, 2005). The pace of educational research and change in technology

Proceedings of Joint Conference on eServices and Business Intelligence, Chengdu, China, 2010
 Page 5 of 10

can be compared to the pace of turtle and a hare. This mismatch gives rise to a very pertinent
question: whether in e-learning the focus is on the e or on the learning (Njenga and Fourie, 2010).
The contribution of e in e-learning needs very careful evaluation in terms of opportunities and
threats. In the words of Gandolfo (1998): the effective use of technology has the potential to
improve and enhance learning. Just as assuredly there is the danger that the wrong headed
adoption of various technologies apart from a sound grounding in educational research and
practice will result, and indeed in some instances has already resulted, in costly additions to an
already expensive enterprise without any value added. That is, technology applications must be
consonant with what is known about the nature of learning and must be assessed to ensure that they
are indeed enhancing learners experiences.

2.4 High Implementation Cost

E-learning is not as cost effective as is usually considered. There is an initial investment
required in the form of computer hardware and software, but the story doesnt end here.
Organizations need to spend more money on maintenance, technical support and training, internet
access, electricity, cost of adaptation and localization of learning material produced for different
cultures and contexts (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005; Mac Keogh, 2001).

2.5 Privacy and Security of User Information

Security of information available on worldwide web is another big concern both for users
and providers of online education and training. E-learning offers information virtually to anyone,
anywhere and anytime which makes this system exposed to the risks of unauthorized usage and
copying issues. Different encryption techniques and digital signatures should be used to protect the
system from unauthorized usage and malicious access. Illegal usage can be discouraged by means
of using copyright and license agreements. Knowledge is an intellectual property and owners of
intellectual property should be compensated properly. An E-learning system need to have a
well-designed system to track users accounts, maintain their usage and billing record and receive
online payments through secured modes by ensuring the privacy and security of user information
(El-Khatib et al., 2003).

2.6 High Bandwidth Requirement

In order to make training lively and interactive a lot of multimedia stuff is used in e-learning
systems which give rise to the requirement of high bandwidth network (Zhang et al., 2004). Non
availability of high bandwidth network is also a hurdle in the development of e-learning.

3. Recent Trends in E-Learning

Review of more recent literature on E-learning shows the following trends in developing
e-learning solutions (Rogerson-Revell, 2007):

Proceedings of Joint Conference on eServices and Business Intelligence, Chengdu, China, 2010
 Page 6 of 10

3.1 Integration
In order to increase the effectiveness of e-learning different applications and utilities are
being bundled together to improve functionality and ease of production.

3.2 Modularity and Re-usability

More recent idea in developing e-learning contents is to use small modules or learningware
instead of traditional courses or courseware (Alt-I-Lab, 2004). There is a lot of duplication and
wastage involved in the creation of new contents. This problem can be solved by adopting an object
oriented approach. This approach is currently being used by some educational institutions (e.g.,
UKs Open University) and commercial organizations (e.g., Macromedia).

3.3 Standardization
Need for standardization is strongly felt in the field of e-learning but the progress towards
this objective is very slow. Standardization will enhance flexibility and exchange of material from
one e-learning system to another (Godwin-Jones, 2002) but too much emphasis on standardization
can seriously limit the creativity of designers (Arneil and Holmes, 2003).

3.4 Interactivity
To make e-learning lively there is a great need to engage online learners in interactive tasks
and to help them socialize with other online learners (Skehan, 2003). Interactive learning can be of
two types: Material interaction and social interaction (Laurillard, 2004). Material interaction can be
created in e-learning by the use of new web tools for sound (e.g., Wimba, online), text (e.g.
Dreamweaver) and graphics (e.g. flash). Social interaction can be created by means of voice emails
and voice and video broadcasting.

4. Designing E-Learning Systems

The problem with majority of the earlier e-learning products was that they used a spray and
pray approach rather than helping organizations to collect, organize, manage, maintain and reuse
the learning material. Most of the e-learning programs are launched without any clear and
measurable objectives and cohesive strategies. E-learning strategies should at least provide a
common language and vision, governing principles and organization-wide support policies, creative
and compelling e-learning content and a standard driven technical architecture (McGraw, 2001).
The designers of e-learning system need to understand the e-learning ecosystem. The first
thing that should be developed is e-learning systems framework which will help in selection and
development of each component in line with the objectives defined in the organizational e-learning
strategy. This framework will enable organizations to systematically envision and develop their
e-learning system, maintaining interoperability with third party products at the same time.
There can be three critical components of this learning system framework (Ismail, 2002):
Learning Design System (LDS), Learning Content Management System (LCMS) and Learning
Support System (LSS). LDS purpose is to assist in designing instructionally sound learning

Proceedings of Joint Conference on eServices and Business Intelligence, Chengdu, China, 2010
 Page 7 of 10

programs by combining clear learning goals with pedagogical models. LCMS is helpful in bridging
the gap between authoring tools and LMS (Singh, 2001). It assists organizations in capturing
knowledge within their organization and structure knowledge into focused learning programs. It
provides help in incorporating third party content and providing timely updates and dissemination
of knowledge throughout the organizations. LSS offers a web-based environment to assist the
teachers and learners. The teachers can manage and provide support to a group of learners whereas
learners can access learning material, communicate with other learners and share their knowledge
with the help of LSS.

5. Critical Success Factors for E-Learning Development

McPherson and Nunes (2008) identified four critical success factors (CSF) for e-learning
delivery: Staffing issues, delivery models, training issues and leadership issues. Staffing issues
define the availability of suitable staff with adequate experience on the delivering side and well
prepared students on the receiving side of the system. Delivery models outline the adoption of an
appropriate pedagogical model developed by faculty and creation of an interactive online
environment. It requires that an appropriate evaluation approach be adopted. Training issues
requires essential training of staff at all levels, provide student support, pay attention to technical
issues and ensure adoptability, customizability and re-usability of e-learning systems. Leadership
issues require the selection of appropriate strategy, appreciate motivation of workers, ensure
sufficient resources and guarantee sufficient funds. These CSFs ensure that e-learning system
operates in an effective manner without any hiccups and provide a suitable theoretical foundation to
underpin the successful delivery of e-learning.

6. Conclusion
E-learning is much more than simply transferring some offline data to an online medium
(Cornford and Pollock, 2002). An online learning environment calls more in terms of pedagogy than
simply putting professors lectures on the net. Adoption of these new pedagogical models requires a
whole set of new teaching and learning skills for which many teachers and learner may not be
adequately prepared (Mcpherson & Nunes, 2004). But one thing is certain that e-learning will
continue to evolve in the years to come because of the convenience factors. The hype created by
this technology-centered form of learning has declined to some extent but it still has more to offer
than realized at this point in time. Those engaged in offering e-learning solutions need to focus
more on learning rather than on e. Organizations must clarify the objectives and devise cohesive
strategies to achieve these objectives. Additional research need to be conducted to discover where
e-learning can be applied more effectively, to design suitable, reusable and extendible LMS and
retain learning interest of users of this technology.
Based on the current developments in the e-learning, the future of learning seems to be in the
blended learning because of alignment in the learning and development (Keith, 2006).

Proceedings of Joint Conference on eServices and Business Intelligence, Chengdu, China, 2010
 Page 8 of 10

References
Alt-I-Lab (2004). Trends and issues in e-learning infrastructure development. White Paper for
Alt-I-Lab prepared on behalf of DEST (Australia) and JISC-CETIS (UK). Retrieved March
12, 2010 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Altilab04-infrastructureV2.pdf
Arneil, S. & Holmes, M.(2003). Servers, clients, testing and teaching. U. Felix (Ed.) Language
learning online: towards best practice (Lisse, Swets & Zeitlinger), 5981.
Bates, P. J.(2002). Making e-learning mobile A brief overview of developments in m-learning.
Paper delivered at the 2002 Online Educa Conference, November 2002, Berlin, Germany.
Cappel, J.J. and Hayen, R.L. (2004). Evaluating e-learning: a case study. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, summer 2004, 49-56.
Chambers, J. (1999). Net knowledge: the coming revolution in higher education. Comdex keynote
address in M. Irvine (Ed.), 2001. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from:
http://gnovisjournal.org/journal/net-knowledge-coming-revolution-higher-education
Cornford J. & Pollock N. (2002). Putting the University Online: Information, Technology and
Organisational Change. SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Diaz, D. P. (2002). Online drop rates revisited. May/June. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from
Technology Source: http://technologysource.org/article/online_drop_rates_revisited/
Dobbs, K. (2002). The state of online learning what the online world needs now: Quality. In A.
Rossett (ed.), The ASTD E-learning Handbook (pp. 35772). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Elliott, M. (2002). Blended learning: The magic is in the mix. In A. Rossett (ed.), The ASTD
E-learning Handbook (pp. 5863). New York: McGraw-Hill.
El-Khatib, K., Korba, L., Xu, Y., Yee, G. (2003). Privacy and Security in E-Learning. International
Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 1(4), 1-19.
Frankola, K. (2001).Why online learners drop out. Workforce, 80, October, 5360.
Gandolfo, A.(1998).Brave new world? The challenge of technology to time-honored pedagogies
and traditional structures. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 76, 2338.
Godwin-Jones, B. (2001). Emerging technologies: accessibility and web design. Why does it matter?
Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 1119.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of eLearning in higher
education. Higher Education Policy, 18(1), 529.
Hara, N. and Kling, R.(2000). Students distress with a Web-based distance education course: an
ethnographic study of participants experiences. Information, Communication and Society
3(4), 557-579.
Ismail, J. (2002). The design of an e-learning system beyond the hype. The internet and higher
education, 4(2002), 329-336
Keith, A. (2006). A new world of learning. E-learning Age, Jul/Aug, 6, 18-20,
Keegan, D. (2003).The future of learning: From e-learning to m-learning. Hagen:
Fernstudienforchung, Germany, E-published version retrieved March 22, 2010 from
http://learning.ericsson.net/mlearning2/project_one/book.html
Kompf, M. (2005). Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and the Seduction of

Proceedings of Joint Conference on eServices and Business Intelligence, Chengdu, China, 2010
 Page 9 of 10

Knowledge, Teaching, and Learning: What Lies Ahead for Education. Curriculum Inquiry,
35(2), 213234.
Laurillard, D. (2004). Realizing the vision for e-learning. Paper presented at the SCHOLAR
Conference, Heriot Watt University. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from
http://www.interactiveuniversity.net/scholarconf2004/keynote.htm
Lehner, F., Nosekabel, H. and Lehmann, H. (2003).Wireless E-learning and communication
environment. e-Service Journal, 2003, 23-41
Mac Keogh, K. (2001). National strategies for the promotion of on-line learning in higher education.
European Journal of Education, 36(2), 223236.
Maldonado, N. (2010). Career World, Apr/May, 38(6), 4-4, 1/2p
Maki, R.H., Maki, W.S., Patterson, M. and Whittaker, P.D.(2000). Evaluation of a Web-based
introductory psychology course: learning and satisfaction in online versus lecture courses.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 32(2), 230-239.
McGraw, K.L. (2001). E-learning strategy equals infrastructure. Retrieved March 22, 2010 from
http://www.astd.org/LC/2001/0601_mcgraw.htm
McPherson M.A. and Nunes J.M.(2004).Developing Innovation in Online Learning: An Action
Research Framework. Routledge Falmer, London.
Moore, C. (2001). E-learning leaps into the limelight. InfoWorld, 23(5), 32.
Njenga, J.K. and Fourie, L.C.H.(2010).The myths about e-learning in higher education. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 199-212.
Pearson, J. & Trinidad,S.(2005).OLES: an instrument for refining the design of e-learning
environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 396-404,
Quin, C (2001). M-Learning: Mobile, Wireless, In-Your-Pocket Learning. LiNE Zine, Fall 2000
retrieved March 22, 2010 from http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007).Directions in e-learning tools and technologies and their relevance to
online distance language education. Open Learning, 22(1), 57-74.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Robertson, H.J. (2003).Toward a theory of negativity teacher education and information and
communications technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 280296.
Singh, H. (2001). Learning content management systems: new technologies for new learning
approaches. Retrieved March 6, 2010 from
http://www.elearningmag.com/issues/feb01/managementsystems.asp
Skehan, P. (2003).Focus on form, tasks and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
16(5), 391413.
Watson, D. M. (2001).Pedagogy before technology: re-thinking the relationship between ICT and
teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), 251266.
Welsh, E.T., Wanberg, C.R., Brown, K.G. and Simmering, M.J. (2003).E-learning: emerging uses,
empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development,
7(4), 245-258.

Proceedings of Joint Conference on eServices and Business Intelligence, Chengdu, China, 2010
 Page 10 of 10

Wimba, (online) http://www.wimba.com/ (Accessed March 15, 2010)

Zhang, D. (2003).Powering E-learning in the new millennium: an overview of e-learning and
enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 201-212
Zhang, D., Zhao, J.L. and Nunamaker (Jr.), J.F. (2004).Can e-learning replace classroom learning?
Communications of the ACM, vol. 47(5), 75-79.

Proceedings of Joint Conference on eServices and Business Intelligence, Chengdu, China, 2010