ICT International International Contributions to e-Learning Literature from 2000 to 2008 Andy Hung and Ross Perkins

C

olumn editor’s note: This article recognizes the recent work of my friend and colleague, Dr. Jui-long (Andy) Hung, who has agreed to summarize his interesting findings about e-learning. What readers may find intriguing about Hung’s research are the questions it raises about how international scholars respond differently to the same phenomenon. To be sure, the possibilities for research that grow out of Hung’s work abound, and it will be interesting to see what future investigations will reveal. Readers should note that the use of the personal pronoun is singular as the research and reporting was conducted solely by Dr. Hung. ­— R.P. Introduction Lockwood’s (2007) review of elearning literature over six years (2000 to 2006) demonstrates that it has become a broadly adopted activity; market research matches what one sees in the scholarly literature. There has been tremendous growth in e-learning, and it is expected that the industry related to it will soon reach nearly $50 billion (Ambien Insight Research, 2009). For the purpose of my research, I used a two-part definition of e-learning. On

Volume 56, Number 4

one hand, it refers to educational content designed for and delivered via a telecommunications network (Maise, 2008; Rosenberg, 2001). A yet broader definition covers the gamut of electronic instruction even if not delivered via a network (Govindasamy, 2002; Wentling, et al., 2000). The growth of e-learning, of course, is not limited by geography, nor is the scholarship about it. My interest in the evolution of e-learning and my background in the research methodologies of text mining and bibliometrics led me to ask questions about longitudinal trends in e-learning with regard to taxonomies and themes, as well as questions about trends and patterns that might emerge from the literature. Prior investigations on the topic have classified the types of research into four themes: pedagogical, technical, organizational, and socio-cultural (Conole and Oliver, 2007). However, the very broad array of literature warrants a quantitative (bibliometric) approach combined with method of extracting meaningful patterns (text mining). The results I discuss below resulted from the application of these two techniques to a dataset of 689 elearning articles retrieved from 289 journals and proceedings listed in

the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) databases from 1981 to 2008. These were later restricted to the eight year period of 2001 to 2008 as it is during this period that significant changes appear in terms of additions to the literature and diversity of topics. For the purpose this article, I will forgo the specifics of the methodology, but these are of course detailed in the longer article (Hung, 2012).

TechTrends • July/August 2012

9

Abridged Findings During the first five years of the 21st century, publications about elearning literature went from 11 to 101 — more than 150% increase. The bulk of the studies focused on computer science (46.22%) and education (31.22%). Analysis of the data resulted in the formation of two primary domains: [D1] system and content design (327 articles), and [D2] education and training (362 articles). The D1 group is comprised of two groups: [G1] systems, models, and technologies, and [G2] content, designs, and interactions. The D2 groups include [G3] educational studies and projects and [G4] applications in medical education and training. A total of 15 clusters makes up the groups, the

top three of which account for nearly 40% of all articles: [C1] systems and models (95 articles), [C11] teaching and learning strategies (92 articles), and [C10] factors and case studies (88 articles). Of interest to readers of this column may be how scholars from various countries contributed differently to the clusters. The top three countries or regions with the most contributions in each cluster (total number of top three rankings is shown parenthetically), include Australia (1), China (8), England (10), Germany (4), Italy (4), Japan (3), South Korea (2), Spain (4), Taiwan (9), and the United States (7). Interestingly, the analysis showed that certain journals tend to publish more research from one country than others. For example, Training & Development appears only to have published articles from the United States, whereas Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) contains a number of articles from Chinese researchers. One can look at the data and detect certain research strengths based on geographic origination. The academic community in the United States and England tends to contribute articles about e-learning development - focusing more on the pedagogical aspects of the innovation. In China, however, the approach to e-learning over the period under study was technological in nature, examining infrastructure capabilities and the like. Despite the fact that very few post-secondary courses in Taiwan are on fully online

10

(Zhang and Hung, 2006), Taiwanese scholars are contributing research to both the pedagogical and technical aspects of e-learning. Broader contributions from any country could be felt if there were funding models in place that encouraged more scholarship in e-learning. Unfortunately, as more and more ministries cast dispersion on elearning degrees, it may mean a serious reduction in the funds necessary to conduct research on the topic. Next Steps Going forward, it will be interesting to examine the thematic trends of contributions from colleagues in countries where e-learning has been broadly adopted, to those from colleagues in countries still early in the adoption cycle (Rogers, 2003). Yet another interesting direction for investigation will be how national policies, especially those that grow increasing critical of e-learning, impact the type of research faculty are willing or able to explore. Andy Hung ([email protected]) and Ross Perkins (rossperkins@boisestate. edu) are associate professors at Boise State University in the Department of Educational Technology. Perkins is the editor of the TechTrends’ ICT International column.

References Ambient Insight Research (2009). Report of global self-paced e-learning market research. Retrieved from http://ambientinsight.com/Reports/eLearning.aspx

TechTrends • July/August 2012

Conole, G. & Oliver, M. (2007). Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods, and impacts on practice. London: Routledge. Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful implementation of e-learning pedagogical considerations. The internet and higher education, 4(3), 287–299. Hung, J-l. (2012). Trends of e-learning research from 2000 to 2008: Use of text mining and bibliometrics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), pp. 5-16. doi: 10.1111/j.14678535.2010.01144.x Lockwood, F. (2007). Forward. In G. Conole &M. Oliver (Eds), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods, and impacts on practice (pp. xvi–xvii). London: Routledge. Masie, E. (2008). Luminary perspective: what is the meaning of the e in e-learning. In E. Biech (Ed.), ASTD handbook for workplace learning professionals (pp. 377–381). Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Rosenberg, M. (2001). E-Learning: strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wentling, T. L., Waight, C., Gallaher, J., Fleur, J. L., Wang, C. & Kanfer, A. (2000). E-learning: a review of literature. Knowledge and Learning Systems Group, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Retrieved from http://www. docstoc.com/docs/5685780/e-learningA-Review-of-Literature-Prepared-byTim Zhang, K. & Hung, J. L. (2006). E-learning in Taiwan: policies, practices, and problems. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 2(1), 37–52.

Volume 56, Number 4