Training

1. REVIEW PAPERS
A Critical Literature Review on e-Learning
Limitations
Dominic Wong
School of Management & Information Technology, UCSI
dominicwong@ucsi.edu.my
Abstract
E-learning is becoming more and more popular. People tend to emphasize on its benefits. Does this mean that e-learning is without its
limitations? In this paper, the author discusses some limitations of e-learning, in particular related with technologies, personal issues,
comparison with traditional campus learning, design issues, and other issues. A cross-reference is done with referring to some
existing research works about the limitations of e-learning. From existing research works, it would seem that e-learning is not
suitable for individuals without the self-discipline required to complete all tasks independently. Besides, it would seem that e-learners
should receive some type of e-learning training prior to enrolment to avoid any difficulties, especially for individuals without much
ICT background.
Keywords: E-learning, limitations
1. INTRODUCTION 2. BASIC CONCEPTS OF E-LEARNING
E-learning has evolved from its predecessor, namely distance From the overview, we know that e-learning is getting popular
REVIEW PAPERS
learning. Distance learning attracted many learners from all over all over the world. What do we understand about e-learning and
the globe, mainly because of its flexibility. It is not surprising to why has it become so popular? This section explains e-learning
see more and more companies venturing into the e-learning concepts in detail.
businesses, when the global market for e-learning in 2002
reached US$90 billion (Yong, 2003). Another case cited by E-learning definition: Schank (2002), Roffe (2002), Sambrook
Morgan (2001) refers to Fortune Magazine’s estimation in May (2003) and Tsai & Machado (2002) refer to e-learning as
2000 that the online learning market will reach US$22 billion by “communication and learning activities through computers and
2003. These figures seem to suggest a bright market for e- networks (or via electronic means)”. To be more specific, Fry
learning. (2000) defines e-learning as “delivery of training and education
via networked interactivity and a range of other knowledge
The popularity of e-learning is not only limited to working adults collection and distribution technologies.” Wild, Griggs &
who are seeking higher qualifications without leaving their jobs Downing (2002) also had the same definition as Fry’s - they
and losing their earning power (Lau, 2003). This trend seems defined e-learning as the creation and delivery of knowledge via
ever increasing as the Internet and computer technology become online services in the form of information, communication,
widespread as a daily necessity of the younger generation. education and training. Bleimann (2004) stated that e-learning is
According to Lau (2003), research revealed that 16 to 18 year- a self-directed learning that is based on technology, especially
old teenagers are really keen towards on-line learning or e- web-based technology. He also stressed that e-learning is
learning. collaborative learning.
Despite e-learning’s current popularity, does it have any Internet and web technology is important in e-learning; Horton
limitations? Evan & Hasse (2001) found out that learners are (2001) defines e-learning as “the use of Internet and digital
moderately lacking in computer proficiency and, since e-learning technologies to create experience that educate fellow human
is centered around computer technologies, it is a barrier to those beings.” Apart from web-based technology, e-learning seemed to
learners without good computer skills. In addition, studies of require multimedia based courseware (Evans & Fan, 2002;Lahn,
Evan & Hasse (2001), O’Regan (2003) and Rovai & Jordan 2004). Therefore, it is clear that e-learning is centered on
(2004) found out that learners face limited physical interactions Information and Communication Technology (ICT). It is not
among themselves in e-learning. surprising that Hamid (2002) and Lytras, Pouloudi &
Poulymenakou (2002) mentioned that e-learning evolved around
The main purpose of this paper that is to explore some Information Technology to enhance the learning performance
limitations in this learning method. This is done by extensive and efficiency. Furthermore, Evans & Hasse (2001) pointed out
literature review from major e-learning journals from all over the that technology is indeed needed in e-learning to educate the
world. At the end of the paper, the author will discuss some well- learner through the usage of two-way video, two-way computer
researched limitations of e-learning. interaction, cable, satellite downlinks and Internet. Honey (2001)
provided many good examples of learning activities that involved
ICT. These examples include learning from e-mail, online
JASA 2 | January 2007 55

2. REVIEW PAPERS
research, online discussion and coaching by e-mail. From these video frames transmitted via the Internet could freeze up and the
definitions and examples, we can therefore define e-learning as audio could be interrupted at times (Collins, 2002; Lee and Al-
learning activities that involve computers, networks and Hawamdeh, 2001). Pachnowski (2003) further mentioned the
multimedia technologies. problems of video conferencing as listed above caused delay in
class start time and some other additional complications like loss
of audio. Baker (2003) even mentioned that video conferencing
3. LIMITATIONS OF E-LEARNING might not be feasible for learners who rely on the slow dial-up
connection from their homes. Even though broadband service is
Arising from extensive literature review, e-learning limitations available in the Klang Valley of Malaysia now, this service is
can be categorized as technological limitations, limitations limited to certain locations with higher population density. For
compared to traditional campus, and personal issues. Limitations example, even in a township like Kajang and Serdang (both in
that do not fit into these categories are considered as other Klang Valley) broadband service is only provided to certain
limitations. households with certain telephone numbers and the wireless
broadband services is provided to even lesser locations such as
3.1 Technological limitations cafes and shopping malls (Streamyx Service Area, 2004; Hotspot
Service Area, 2004). As a result, it is not surprising that many e-
Students need necessary hardware for e-learning such as desktop learning courses are still text-based as the Internet bandwidth
or notebook computers and printers (Kathawala, Abdou, Elmulti, may still be limited.
2002;Hiltz, 1997). Therefore, one of the major technological
limitations of e-learning is the necessity of computer hardware 3.2 Personal issues
and relevant resources. Sambrook (2003) mentioned that the lack
of hardware to support e-learning in organizations is one of the Kember et al.(2001) mentioned that preparation is indeed needed
factors why Small and Medium Enterprises are not willing to for newcomers as they may think that nontraditional learning
engage in e-learning to educate its employees. Hardware and such as e-learning is the same as a traditional learning
other ICT resources are necessary for e-learning implementation environment. Besides, Dearnley (2003) stated that newcomers to
in institutions. The Vietnam government spent large sums of nontraditional learning may get lost because they do not know
money in buying ICT hardware for a college that implemented e- what to do as there is no detailed guidance from the teacher.
REVIEW PAPERS
learning (Materi & Fahy, 2004). Kearsley (2000) explained that, Kember et al. (2001) stated that these newcomers need some
in order to participate in online learning, both learners and staff orientation courses in order for them to get used to a
need to have access to networked computers. From all the points nontraditional learning environment like e-learning. Therefore, it
listed, it is not surprising that Broadbent (2003) indicated that is not surprising to see newcomers needing to be psychologically
learners may need to buy or rent new computer equipment in prepared for the e-learning environment.
order to learn. According to World Bank data, there were only
about 3 million computers in Malaysia in 2003, for a total Carr (1999) mentioned that the lack of ICT skills is one of the
population of about 24 million (ICT at a glance Malaysia, 2003). barriers in e-learning training. As e-learning is the product of the
As a result, e-learning may not be widespread in Malaysia yet. advanced technology, e-learners will have to learn new skills and
responsibilities related to the technology (Angelina, 2002a, p.12).
Although, e-learning comes with benefits such as unlimited E-learners should be Information & Communication Technology
access 24 hours, 7 days a week, this privilege does not seem to (ICT) savvy. Hamid (2002) stated that technical skills could
be feasible for some people in rural areas due to the inability to cause frustration to e-learning students due to the unconventional
access Internet services (Kearsley, 2000;Rumble,2000). The e-learning environment and isolation from others. Consequently,
Internet penetration rate in Malaysia is only 31.8 % (Phang, having to learn new technologies may be a barrier or
2004). Bose (2003) mentioned that, while it is feasible to access disadvantage in e-learning for ICT novices.
to high-speed bandwidth within the university campus, it
becomes a problem outside the campus, where Internet facilities E-learning is not an easy task for many as it requires a lot of self-
are less sophisticated. Uys (2003) stated that limited discipline. As Kearsley (2000) stated, e-learning provides
telecommunication infrastructure and facilities are hindering the autonomy or freedom to learn, but the learners should have
e-learning process. “initiative and self-discipline to study and complete
assignments”. Schott et al. (2003) asserted that the e-learning
In addition to the limited Internet coverage, technological success rate was very dependent on students’ abilities to be self-
barriers, such as limited bandwidth, are issues in e-learning directed and internally motivated. It is therefore reasonable for
today, even with fast DSL connections introduced to replace Rivera and Rice (2002) to comment that learners who are not
outdated 14.4 Kbps bandwidth (Chadha & Kumail, 2002, p.28). self-motivated will find web-based learning an unsatisfactory
Roy (1996, p.9) provided another example of a slow connection experience. Naturally, e-learning students have a higher dropout
when students in Rhode Island and Green Island could not rate than their conventional counterparts (Abouchedid & Eid,
provide answers for their instructor during an online discussion 2004). E-learners need additional encouragement and support, to
session. While e-learning is supposed to be a multimedia-rich compensate for the isolation; motivation is the key for them to
learning environment, the limited bandwidth may hinder the successfully complete the course (Lessons from the e-learning,
learning process as the downloading of multimedia materials 2002).
may take a longer time. Good examples of poor transfer rate that
hinders the video streaming happened in Northern Arizona Laws, Howell and Lindsay (2003) stated that students in an open
University and the National University of Singapore, where learning environment like e-learning can start or stop the course
56 JASA 2 | January 2007

3. REVIEW PAPERS
at their convenience. Although this may seem like an advantage, omission of observation of student emotions may prevent
this means that learners can stop even if their tuition fees have professors or instructors from responding to student’s needs.
been fully paid. This may be a significant disadvantage for
learners who are lacking self-discipline and motivation. Thus, it Apart from this lack of physical interaction, e-learning is also
is common to see e-learning students leaving postsecondary criticized for not having facilities like traditional campuses:
education without a degree (Choy, 2002). Data has shown that internship, volunteer opportunities, access to physical library,
more than 50 per cent of highly nontraditional students leave book stores, career and development counselling (McCraken,
their postsecondary education without associate or bachelor 2004). Some learning institutions tried to provide these facilities
degrees (Choy, 2002). but they were too limited (McCraken, 2004). McCraken further
pointed out problems such as budget, compatibility of software,
In addition, Yum, Kember and Siaw (2001) mentioned that part- and college policies, that hindered the development of integrated
time students like e-learning students often find it hard to find supporting systems.
time for their studies due to their existing commitments to work,
family and other social activities. Tresman (2002) cited a E-learning may not be suitable for certain groups of learners,
research finding from the Open University of United Kingdom, especially science students who need extensive physical science
where dropout students were lacking the necessary time to juggle laboratory experiments (Vernon, 2002;Bourne, Harris &
between work and family obligations. Full time e-learning Mayadas, 2005). UCLA’s School of Dentistry spent around
students may face similar problems due to a lack of necessary US$750,000 to develop their online courseware but later found
discipline for the e-learning environment. Both working adults out that the prospective customers would rather spend more for
and fulltime students may find it hard to manage their study time. traditional classroom-based lectures (Kypreos, 2003). This may
Kearsley (2000) mentioned that e-learning provides autonomy to be due to the fact that these students need to carry out a lot of
learn, but the learners should have “initiatives and self-discipline laboratory experiments in order to deepen their skills and
to study and complete assignments.” knowledge, and this may be hard to achieve through e-learning
laboratory simulations.
Self-paced learning seems to be a good idea. However, based on
the literature, learners tend to postpone or delay their coursework Difficulty in teaching in an e-learning environment is another
as it is learner-centered, whereby the success or failure depends issue, as instructors may not be able to teach well. Moving into e-
REVIEW PAPERS
on the learner (Hiltz, 1994;Young-Ju, Bong & Choi, learning is difficult for instructors who are already familiar with
2000;Olugbemiro et al. , 1999;Carrier et al. ,1986;Bourne et al. , the traditional teaching environment (Angelina, 2002a, p.12;
1997). In an e-learning environment, learners need to manage Strauss, 2003; Kearsley, 2000;Wang, 2003). This is because the
their learning and schedule their assignments (Grant & Spencer, e-learning teaching environment is new and the e-learning
2003). This is rather different from the traditional learning technologies are developing and changing rapidly (Calvert,
environment where learners need to attend some courses in 2001). Strauss (2003) said that transition into e-learning is rather
physical classrooms, and they need to do their assignments or difficult as it involves conversion of physical teaching materials
take examinations within a certain time frame (Miller & Corley, into e-learning materials and this takes time to complete. Many
2001). As a result, e-learning learners may take a longer time to instructors are not exposed to the necessary software, and do not
graduate, as compared to traditional students who need to want to change their teaching styles (Levy, 2003). Instructors
complete their studies within a time frame (Choy, 2002). need to have interpersonal skills to communicate effectively in
an electronic classroom (White & Weight, 2000). As a result,
Learners with poor writing skills may be at a disadvantage in an instructors need e-learning training before transitioning (Levy,
e-learning environment (Smith & Rupp, 2004). This is because 2003;Strauss, 2003;Pachnowski, 2003). All these points seem to
learners need to communicate in a text-based environment. support Rogers’ (2000, p.23) argument that a good classroom
Therefore, the inability to write well may inhibit the learning instructor may not be a good online instructor. Palloff and Pratt
process and lead to misunderstandings. (1999, p.349) also mentioned that some instructors might even
underestimate e-learning, as they think that it is similar to face-
3.3 Limitations compared to Traditional Campus to-face instruction. All these complicates instructors’ transition
towards e-learning.
Lacking physical interaction is another limitation in e-learning.
Schott et al. (2003) expressed that the lack of physical 3.4 Design Limitations
interactions made e-learning students feel isolated and
apprehensive. Lacking physical interaction may also affect the Poor design of the e-learning courseware is a major issue for
completion rate (Haigh, 2004). McAleavy and McCystral (1996) learners and e-learning providers, as pointed out by Ivergard &
found out that half of the students for an Advance Diploma in Hunt (2005). A poor design “gave users a feeling of being
Education from the University of Ulster commented that it was stressed and badly treated by the system”. They further said this
rather hard to seek advice, as compared to face-to-face causes users to feel frustrated and eventually stop learning.
instruction. Physical classrooms however will enable learners to Courseware design should be tailored to the needs of the
learn faster, as they can always refer to the instructors or peers learners: it should be easy to use and students should have easy
for guidance. Body language is absent in e-learning. An example access to guidance and information (Howell, Williams &
is when a student stated that he missed “facial and hand Lindsay 2003; James-Gordon, Young & Bal, 2003). Svensson
gestures”, from which important cues can be derived (Meyer, (2004) said that it is not easy to design the e-learning courseware,
2003). The lack of physical interactions shown above will hinder as it should not be limited to just content and should include
the learning process as pointed out by McKnight (2000), that the other components to enhance learning. In a nutshell, the poor
JASA 2 | January 2007 57

4. REVIEW PAPERS
usability of the online course will inhibit the learner’s ability to problem for students (Collins, Buhalis & Peters, 2003). It is not
acquire knowledge (Smulders, 2003). unusual to see that there are some online “universities” even
selling degrees for a certain amount of “tuition fees” and without
Since e-learning is designed basically for the ICT savvy, it may any form of assessment (Khoo & Azizan, 2004). As a result,
be too technical for ICT novices (James-Gordon, Young & Bal, Kearsley (2000) stated that because of the nature and quality of
2003). Angelina (2002b, p.12) also stressed the importance of e-learning, it must be subjected to further scrutiny for
ensuring equality of access to learners from all backgrounds and accreditation and recognition. Similarly, Eaton pointed out that
walks of society. In short, the courseware should be easy to use accreditation is difficult for distance learning institutions, as
and come with detailed guidance and ultimately be suitable for there are issues in the evaluation of education quality and the
all learners. assessment of the effectiveness of the distance learning
framework (Baker, 2003).
As there are many coursewares available in the market,
Sambrook (2003) mentioned that it is not easy for learners to Difference in time zones is another problem in online e-learning,
choose a suitable courseware that comes with relevant content as it is accessible for learners from all over the world. It is rather
and adequate levels. Trainers also find it hard to judge the quality hard to schedule an online class to accommodate different
of the training materials (Carr, 1999). Kearsley (2000) also students from different time zones. Rourke and Anderson (2002)
mentioned there that there are many software applications that provided a good example where students in an online program
the providers and instructors have to consider before offering an find it hard to find a time slot for discussion because of the
online course. The appropriateness of the courseware may different time zones in North America itself.
increase the learner’s satisfaction (Grooms, 2003). Therefore,
selecting an appropriate courseware to suit learners seems to be a
difficult task. 4. PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
3.5 Other limitations Perhaps one of the most researched variables is the difficulty in
finding time to study. Most of the literature indicates that
Although e-learning provides 24 hours and 7 days of unlimited working adults are busy individuals who have many
access, this may not be advantageous to some individuals. commitments, especially towards their family or work (Willging
REVIEW PAPERS
Dringus (2003) said “being 24/7 is a good marketing scheme, but & Johnson, 2004; Vergidis & Panagiotakopoulus, 2002; and
online learners and professors burn-out easily”. She explained Vaughan & MacVicar, 2004). Other studies indicate that learners
that learners can post any questions in the forum or send e-mails have family commitments (Bird & Morgan, 2003; and Pierrakeas
whenever they are free (even during weekends). This never- et al., 2004). Since these learners are busy, they may find it
ending learning and teaching process will easily stress both the difficult to find time for their studies and may eventually stop
learners and especially the instructors (Newton, 2003). It is also studying as we can see from the findings of Hiltz (1997) and
more time-consuming to guide online students, as academicians Pierrakeas et al. (2004). These suggest that e-learners don’t have
need to respond to each student’s queries individually in writing much time to study.
(Kathawala, Abdou & Elmulti, 2002). Schifter (2004) mentioned
that academicians are not well compensated for their e-learning Another limitation that is related to time is self-discipline.
involvement. These e-learning instructors have heavy workloads Working adults are learners who might lack the self-discipline
and this may undermine their performance and even reduce their needed to learn while handling work and family commitments, as
chances to grow with the environment (Dringus, 2003). This will discovered by Willging & Johnson (2004), Vergidis &
affect their performance in teaching or facilitating students, thus Panagiotakopoulus (2002) and Vaughan & MacVicar (2004).
learners may only receive sub-standard services. Other studies indicated that learners felt lost in cyberspace
(Dearnley, 2003; O’Regan, 2003). Since all these learners have
Angelina (2002b, p.12) and Lau (2002) pointed out that it is many commitments and they are lost in cyberspace, they need
rather hard to ensure academic honesty in terms of on-line extra self-discipline in order to be successful in e-learning.
assessment. It is possible for the e-learner to share the password
and identity number with others during unsupervised online Preparatory training is necessary for new learners; Abouchedid &
assessments. Patalong (2003) provided another good example of Eid (2004) found out that students are lacking in e-learning
cheating when students shared or “cooperated” during an online skills. Therefore, they may need a preparation course for distance
examination in Coventry University, United Kingdom. learning or even e-learning (Bird & Morgan, 2003). While not
Submission of the online assignments can also be fraudulent as directly related, one finding from O’Malley & McGraw (1999)
the actual e-learners may ask a third party to do the assignment stated that learners need significant changes in order to adapt to
for them. Schott et al. (2003) referred to all these problems as an online environment. Collins (2002) also found out that
“digital cheating”, when learners “utilized” computer technology learners drop out because of not being knowledgeable enough.
for cheating or plagiarism. All these suggest that preparatory training is indeed required for
new learners.
Recognition of e-learning courses is currently a limitation.
According to a survey, many companies did not recognize online In order to be successful in e-learning one has to learn new skills
MBA graduates (Kathawala, Abdou, Elmulti, 2002). This may be and technologies. Evan & Hasse (2001) found out that learners
due to the fact that there are many unaccredited schools or degree are moderately lacking in computer proficiency. Willging &
mills (Kathawala, Abdou, Elmulti, 2002). Therefore, attaining a Johnson (2004) found out that students dropout because they
qualification with accreditation status from e-learning is usually a were lacking in technological skills. Therefore, we can conclude
58 JASA 2 | January 2007

5. REVIEW PAPERS
that learners need to acquire technological skills in order to recognition of e-learning courses and etc. These facts show that
succeed in e-learning. e-learning is not prefect at the moment and the e-learning
providers can consider these limitations to improve e-learning
Technological limitations are major barriers to e-learning too. services.
This can be seen from the study of Homan & Macpherson (2005)
and Litto (2002) whereby companies have problems in acquiring
and maintaining hardware or other ICT resources. A more 6. REFERENCES:
appropriate finding is by Hiltz (1997) - the author found out the
personal computer is a barrier for e-learners. Therefore computer 1. Abouchedid, K. & Eid, G.M., (2004), ‘E-learning challenges
hardware and other resources are a necessity for companies that in the Arab World: revelations from a case study profile’,
wish to implement e-learning. This re-emphasizes the necessity Quality Assurance in Educational, vol.12, no.1, pp.15-27.
for computer hardware for all e-learners at home or in the office. 2. Akar, E., Ozturk, E., Tuncer, B. & Wiethoff, M., (2004),
‘Evaluation of a collaborative virtual learning environment’,
Another technological limitation is bandwidth (Homan & Education + Training, vol.46, no. 6/7, pp. 343-352.
Macpherson, 2005). Some problems related to bandwidth are 3. Angelina, P., (2002a), ‘Local initiatives in e-learning’, The
Internet connectivity, busy Internet lines and Internet traffic Star Tech Plus, 29 Aug., p.11.
problems (Akar et al., 2004; Hiltz 1997; Rourke & Anderson, 4. Angelina, P., (2002b), ‘E-learning: The alternative leaning
2002). process’, The Star Tech Plus, 29 Aug., pp.9-12.
5. Baker, R. K., (2003), ‘A Framework for Design and
Besides technological and preparatory limitations, learners may Evaluation of Internet-Based Distance Learning Courses
face problem, in term, of lacking physical interaction. Studies of Phase One – Framework Justification, Design and
Evan & Hasse (2001), O’Regan (2003) and Rovai & Jordan Evaluation’, Online Journal of Distance Learning
(2004) found out that learners face limited physical interactions Administration, vol.6, no.2.
among themselves in e-learning. Some consequences from 6. Bird, J. & Morgan, C., (2003), ‘Adults Contemplating
lacking physical interactions are the feeling of loneliness University Study at a Distance: Issues, themes and
(Grooms, 2003), the lack of verbal communications (Meyer, concerns’, International Review of Research in Open and
2003), and difficulties working with others (Willging & Johnson, Distance Learning, vol.4. no.1.
REVIEW PAPERS
2004). 7. Bleimann, U., (2004), ‘Atlantis University: a new
pedagogical approach beyond e-learning’, Campus-wide
As indicated by Homan & Macpherson (2005), it is not easy to Information Systems, vol.21, no.5, pp.191-195.
design a courseware to suit the needs of all learners, and the 8. Bose, K., (2003), ‘An E-learning Experience: An written
design of courseware may be hard to understand (Akar et al., analysis based on my experience with primary school
2004). teachers in an e-learning pilot project’, International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol.4, no.2.
Apart from technological limitations, poor writing skills may 9. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F., (2005), ‘Online
hinder communications. Akar et al. (2004) found out that Engineering Education: Learning anywhere, anytime’,
learners have difficulties in understanding others when they Journal of Engineering Education, vol.94, no.1, pp.131-146.
communicate in an online environment. Other limitations in e- 10. Broadbent, B., (2003), ‘Championing e-learning’,[online
learning are: assessed 23 April 2004]. URL:http://www.e-
• Difficulty in ensuring academic honesty in an online learninghub.com/articles/chamioning.htm#Pro%20and%20c
environment (Kelly & Bonner, 2005). ons%20of%20%20e-learning
• “Unlimited learning” stresses both learners and tutors, 11. Calvert, J., (2001), ‘Deakin University: Going online at a
as there are too many online sources (Grooms, 2003; dual mode university’, International Review of Research in
Willging & Johnson, 2004). Open and Distance Learning, vol.1, no.2.
• Difficulty in conducting synchronous learning due to 12. Carr, J., (1999), ‘The role of higher education in the
different time zones (Rourke & Anderson, 2002) effective delivery of multimedia management training to
• Concern about the reputation and accreditation status of small and medium enterprises’, Educational Technology &
an e-learning institution (Evans & Haase, 2001) Society, vol.2, no.2.
• Learners may still have a negative perception of e- 13. Carrier, C.A., Davidson, G.V., Williams, M.D., & Kalweit,
learning (Homan & Macpherson, 2005). C.M., (1986), ‘Instructional options and encouragement
effects in a microcomputer-delivered concept lesson’,
Journal of Educational Research, vol.79, pp.222-229.
5. CONCLUSION 14. Chadha, G. & Kumail S.M.N, (2002), e-Learning : An
Expression of the Knowledge Economy, Tata McGraw-Hill
E-learning seems unsuitable for those individuals without self- Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.
discipline. It requires a lot of self-discipline, mostly because e- 15. Choy, S., (2002), ‘Nontraditional Undergraduates’, NCES
learners are busy working adults as explained earlier. Besides, e- 2002-012, U.S. Department of Education, National Center
learners also seemed to need preparatory training especially in for Education Statistics, Washington D.C.
ICT skills in order for them to get used to e-learning 16. Collins, C., Buhalis, D. & Peters, M., A., (2003), ‘Enhancing
environment. On top of these problems, e-learners also face some SMTEs’ Business performance through the Internet and E-
problems for instance necessity of computer resources, learning platforms ’, Education + Training, vol.45, no.8/9,
bandwidth problems, lacking physical interactions and limited pp.483-494.
JASA 2 | January 2007 59

6. REVIEW PAPERS
17. Collins, G.R., (2002), ‘Case Study: A Satellite-based 34. Ivergard, T. & Hunt, B., (2005), ‘Towards a learning
Internet Learning System for the Hospitality Industry’, networked organization: human capital, compatibility and
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, vol.5 usability in e-learning systems’, Applied Ergonomics,
no.4. vol.2005, no.36, pp.157-167.
18. Dearnley, C., (2003), ‘Student Support in Open Learning: 35. James-Gordon, Y., Young, A. & Bal, J., (2003), ‘External
Sustaining the process’, International Review of Research in environment forces affecting e-learning provider’,
Open and Distance Learning, vol.4, no.1. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol.21, no.3, pp.168-
19. Dringus, L.P., (2003), ‘From both sides now : On being an 172.
Online Learner and Online Instructor’, E-Learn Magazine, 36. Kathawala, Y., Abdou, K. & Elmulti, D.S., (2003), ‘The
Association of Computing Machinery, [online assessed 25 global MBA: a comparative assessment for its future’,
April 2003]. Journal of European Industrial Training, vol.26, no.1,
URL:http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage/sub_page.cfm?sect pp.14-23.
ion=3&list_item=1&page=1 37. Kearsley, G., (2000), ‘Teaching & Learning in Cyberspace’,
20. Evans, C. & Fan, J.P., (2002), ‘Lifelong Learning through [online assessed 23 April 2003].
the Virtual University’, Campus-Wide Information Systems, URL:http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/chapts.htm
vol.19, no.4, pp.127-134. 38. Kelly, K.B. & Bonner, K., (2005), ‘Digital Text, Distance
21. Evans, J.R. & Haase, I.M., (2001), ‘Online business Education and Academic Dishonesty: Faculty and
education in the twenty-first century: an analysis of potential Administrator Perceptions and Responses’, Journal of
target markets’, Internet Research: Networking Applications Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol.9. no.1, pp. 43-52.
and Policy, vol.11, no.3, pp.246-260. 39. Kember, D., Armour, R., Jenkins, W., Lee, K., Leung,
22. Fry, K., (2000), ‘Forum focus and Overview’, The business D.Y.P., Li, N., Ng, K.C., Siaw, I., & Yum, J.C.K., (2001),
of E-learning: Bringing your organization in the knowledge ‘Orientation to enrollment of part-time students: A
Economy, Telcam Group, University of Technology, classification system based upon their perceived lifelong
Sydney. learning needs’, Higher Education Research and
23. Grant, L.K. & Spencer, R.E., (2003), ‘The Personalized Development, vol.20, no.3, pp.265-280.
System of Instruction: Review and Applications to Distance 40. Khoo, J., & Azizan, H, (2004), ‘Pitfalls of Paper chase’, Star
Education”, International Review of Research in Open and Education,9th May, pp.2-4.
REVIEW PAPERS
Distance Learning, vol.4, no.2. 41. Kypreos, T., (2003), ‘Building a Business Case for E-
24. Grooms, L.D., (2003), ‘Computer-Mediated learning’, E-Learn Magazine, Association of Computing
Communication: A Vehicle for Learning’, International Machinery,[online assessed 24 April 2003].
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol.4, URL:http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage/sub_page.cfm?sect
no.2. ion=3&list_item=13&page=1
25. Haigh, J., (2004), ‘Information technology in health 42. Lahn, L.L., (2004), ‘Dilemmas in the development of e-
professional education: why IT matters’, Nurse Education learning at work’, Journal of Workplace Learning,
Today, vol.2004, no.24, pp.547-552. vol.16, no.8, pp.466-478.
26. Hamid, A.A., (2002), ‘e-Learning-Is it the “e” or the 43. Lau, M.P., (2002), ‘Online Teaching & Learning’, Nanyang
learning that matters’, Internet and Higher Education, SiangPau’s New Century, 12 July.
vol.4, pp.311-316. 44. Laws, R.D., Howell, S.L. & Lindsay, N.K., (2003),
27. Hiltz, S.R. (1997), ‘Impacts of college level courses via ‘Scalability in Distance Education: “Can we Have Our Cake
Asynchronous Learning Networks: Some Preliminary and Eat it Too?”’, Online Journal of Distance Learning
Results’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Administration, vol.6, no.4.
vol.1, no.2, pp.1-18. 45. Lee, C. S. & Al-Hawamdeh, S., (2001), ‘New Mode of
28. Homan, G. & Macpherson, A., (2005), ‘E-learning in course delivery for Virtual Classroom’, Aslib Proceedings,
corporate universities’, Journal of European Industrial vol.53, no.6, pp.238-242.
Training, vol.29, no.1, pp.75-90. 46. ‘Lessons from the e-learning experience’,(2002), Training
29. Honey, P., (2001), ‘E-learning: a performance appraisal and Strategies for Tomorrow, vol.16, no.1, pp.19-21.
some suggestions for improvement’, The Learning 47. Levy, S., (2003),‘Six factors to Consider when planning
Organization , vol.8, no.5, pp.200-202. Online Distance Learning Programs in Higher Education’,
30. Horton, W., (2001), ‘Leading e-Learning’, American Society Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, vol.6,
for Training and Development, [online accessed 25 April no.1.
2003] http://www.elearninggurus.com/articles.html 48. Litto, F.M., (2002), ‘The Hybridization of Distance Learning
31. ‘Hotspot Service Area’, (2004), Telekom Malaysia, in Brazil – An Approach Imposed by Culture’, International
[online accessed 5 February 2004] Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol.2,
http://isp.tm.net.my/hotspot/service-klangv.shtml no.2.
32. Howell, S.L., Williams, P.B. & Lindsay, N.K., (2003), 49. Lytras, M.D., Pouloudi, A. & Poulymenakou, A., (2002),
‘Thirty-two Trends Affecting Distance Education: An ‘Knowledge management convergence – expanding learning
Informed Foundation for Strategic Planning’, Online Journal frontiers’, Journal of Knowledge Management, vol.6, no.1,
of Distance Learning Administration, vol.6, no.3. pp.40-51.
33. ‘ICT at a glance Malaysia’,(2003),Development Data Group, 50. Materi, R.R. & Fahy, P.J., (2004), ‘Interim Report: A case
World Bank, [online, accessed 8 May. 2004]. URL study of Internet-based Distance Education Program
:http://www.worldbank.org/cgi-bin/ Development in Vietnam’, International Review of Research
in Open and Distance Learning, vol.5, no.1.
60 JASA 2 | January 2007

7. REVIEW PAPERS
51. McAleavy G., & McCrystral P., (1996), ‘Virtual 68. Rogers, D., (2000), ‘A Paradigm Shift: Technology
conferencing as a tool for the development of pedagogical Integration for Higher Education in the New Millennium’,
competence for vocational educators’, International Journal Educational Technology Review, vol.6,no.3,pp.19-27.
of Education Management, vol.10, no.3, pp.30-35. 69. Rourke, L.& Anderson, T., (2002), ‘Using Web-based,
52. McCraken, H., (2004), ‘Extending Virtual Access: Group Communication Systems to Support Case Study
Promoting Engagement and Retention through Integrated Learning at a Distance’, International Review of Research in
Support Systems’, Online Journal of Distance Learning Open and Distance Learning, vol.3, no.2.
Administration, vol.6, no.1. 70. Rovai, A.P. & Jordan, H.M., (2004), ‘Blended Learning And
53. McKnight, M., (2000), ‘Distance Education: Expressing Sense Of Community: A Comparative Analysis With
emotions in video-based classes.’ In Conference on College Traditional And Fully Online Graduate Courses’,
Composition And Communication, Minneapolis, Minnesota, International Review of Research in Open and Distance
USA. Learning, vol. 5, no.2.
54. Meyer, K.A., (2003), ‘Face-To-Face Versus Threaded 71. Roy, M.H., (1996), ‘Collaborating across campuses: the
Discussions: The Role of Time and Higher-Order virtual university experience’, Campus Wide Information
Thinking’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Systems, vol.13, no.4, pp.6-10.
vol.7, no.3, pp.55-65. 72. Rumble, G., (2000), ‘The Globalisation of Open and
55. Miller, M.D., & Corley, K., (2001), ‘The Effect of E-Mail Flexible Learning : Considerations for Planners and
Messages on student Participation in the Asynchronous On- Managers’, Online Journal of Distance Learning
Line Course : A Research Note’,Online Journal of Distance Administration, vol.3, no.3, pp. 1-15.
Learning Administration, vol.4, no.3. 73. Sambrook, S., (2003), ‘E-learning in Small Organizations’,
56. Morgan, G., (2001), ‘Thirteen “must ask” questions about e- Education + Training, vol.45, no.8/9, pp. 506-516.
learning products and services’, The Learning Organization, 74. Schank, R.C., (2002), Designing World Class E-Learning,
vol.8, no.5, pp.203-210. 1st edn., McGraw Hill, USA.
57. Newton, R., (2003), ‘Staff attitudes to the development and 75. Schifter., C.C., (2004), ‘Compensation Models in Distance
delivery of e-learning’,New Library World, vol.104, Education: National Survey Questionnaire Revisited’,
no.1193, pp.412-425. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, vol.7,
58. Olugbemiro J., Taplin, M., Fan, R., Chan, M., & Yum, J., no.1
REVIEW PAPERS
(1999), ‘Differences between low and high achieving 76. Schott, M., Chernish, W., Dooley, K.E., & Linder, J.R.,
distance learners in locus of control and metacognition’, (2003), ‘Innovations in Distance Learning Program
Distance Education, vol.20, no.2, pp.255-269. Development and Delivery’, Online Journal of Distance
59. O’Malley, J. & McGraw, H., (1999), ‘Students perceptions Learning Administration, vol.6, no.2.
of distance learning, online learning and the traditional 77. Smith, A.D. & Rupp, W.T., (2004), ‘Managerial
classroom’, Online Journal of Distance Learning Implications of computer-based online/face-to-face business
Administration, vol.2, no.4. education: a case study’, Online Information Review, vol.28,
60. O’Regan, K., (2003), ‘Emotion and e-learning’, Journals of no.2, pp.100-109.
Asynchronous Learning Networks, vo.7. no.3, pp.78-92. 78. Smulders, D., (2003), ‘Designing for Learners, Designing
61. Pachnowski, L.M & Jurczyk, J.P., (2003), ‘Perceptions of for Users’, E-Learn Magazine, Association of Computing
Faculty on the Effect of Distance Learning Technology on Machinery, [online accessed 25 April 2003].
Faculty Preparation Time’, Online Journal of Distance http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage/sub_page.cfm?section=3
Learning Administration, vol.6, no.3. &list_item=11&page=1
62. Palloff, R. & Pratt, K., (1999),‘Making the Transition: 79. Strauss H., (2003), ‘Getting all of our courses online : A
Helping Teachers to Teach Online’, in the 15th Annual Euphoric State Case Study’, E-Learn Magazine, Association
Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, of Computing Machinery, [online accessed 25 April
Wisconsin, USA. 2003].
63. Patalong, S., (2003), ‘Using the virtual learning environment http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage/sub_page.cfm?section=3
WebCT to enhance information skills teaching at Coventry &list_item=4&page=3
University’, Library Review, vol.52, no.3, pp.103-110. 80. ‘Streamyx Service Area’, (2004), [online accessed 5
64. Phang, J.,(2004), ‘Impact of ICT innovations: The Islamic February 2004] http://isp.tm.net.my/streamyx/service-
Context’, The Star In Tech, 8 April., p.18. klangv.shtml
65. Pierrakeas, C., Xenos, M., Panagiotakopoulos, C. & 81. Svensson, L., (2004), ‘Challenges for work-integrated e-
Vergidis, D., (2004), ‘A Comparative Study of Dropout learning: The case of the Swedish Academy of County
Rates and Causes for Two Different Distance Education Administrators’, Journal of Workplace Learning, vol.16,
Courses’, International Review of Research in Open and no.8, pp.492-502.
Distance Learning, vol.5, no.2. 82. Tresman, S., (2002), ‘Towards a strategy for improved
66. Rivera, J.C. & Rice, M.L., (2002), ‘A Comparison of student retention in programmes of Open, Distance
Student Outcomes & Satisfaction Between Traditional & Education: A case study from the Open University UK’,
Web Based Course Offerings’, Online Journal of Distance International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning Administration, vol.5, no.3. Learning, vol.3. no1.
67. Roffe, I., (2002), ‘E-learning: engagement, enhancement and 83. Tsai, S. & Machado, P., (2002),‘E-learning, On-line
execution’, Quality Assurance in Education, vol.10, no.1, Learning, Web-based Learning, or Distance Learning:
pp.40-50. Unveiling the Ambiguity in Current Terminology’, E-Learn
Magazine, Association of Computing Machinery, [online
JASA 2 | January 2007 61

8. REVIEW PAPERS
accessed 25 April 2003].
http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage/sub_page.cfm?section=3
&list_item=6&page=1
84. Uys, P.M, (2003), ‘Critical Succeess Factors in the Infusion
of Instructional Technologies for Open Learning in
Development Settings: The Case of the University of
Botswana’, International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, vol.4, no.2.
85. Vaughan, K. & MacVicar, A., (2004), ‘Employees’ pre-
implementation attitudes and perceptions to e-learning: A
banking case study analysis’, Journal of European Industrial
Training, vol.28, no.5, pp.400-413.
86. Vergidis D. & Panagiotakopoulos, C., (2002), ‘Student
Dropout at the Hellenic Open University: Evaluation of the
Graduate Program, “Studies in Education”’, International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol.3,
no.2.
87. Vernon, M., (2002), ‘Understanding e-learning’, Financial
Times, [online accessed 10 June 2004].
http://specials.ft.com/elearning/FT35PSCM2ZC.html
88. Wang, M.Y., (2003), ‘The strategic role of digital libraries:
issues in e-learning environments’, Library Review, vol.52,
no.3, pp.111-116.
89. White, K.W. & Weight, B.H., (2000), The Online Teaching
Guide, Ally & Bacon, Boston, USA.
90. Wild, R.H., Griggs, K.A. & Downing, T, (2002), ‘A
framework for e-learning as a tool for knowledge
REVIEW PAPERS
management’, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
vol.102, no.7, pp.371-380.
91. Willging, P.A & Johnson, S.D.,(2004), ‘Factors that
influence students decision to drop out of online courses’,
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol.8, no.4,
pp. 105-118.
92. Yong, A., (2003), ‘Success factors in e-learning
implementation’, The Star In.Tech, 22 May, p.19.
93. Young-Ju, J., Bong, M., & Choi, H.,J., (2000), ‘Self-efficacy
for self-regullated learning, academic self-efficacy, and
Internet self-efficacy in Web-based instruction’, Educational
Technology, Research & Development, vol.48, no.2, pp.5-
13.
94. Yum, J.C.K., Kember, D. & Siaw, I., (2001), ‘Study
examines coping methods in part time students.’, The
Newsletter of the National Resource Center for the First
Year Experience and Students in Transition, vol.14, no.1,
pp.4-5.
62 JASA 2 | January 2007