Introduction

E-learning projects in enterprises, universities and schools have become more widespread but in the retail market, sales figures of courseware have slackened.  Policy makers have freed budgets for more internet connections for all learners and to have them connected in networks. Learners and trainers have widely started to use the internet for their own communication, information, practice and testing but how much of the e-learning supply has found its way in a systematic application? E-learning finds itself at the tipping point of massively taking-up, but there is some hampering. The ICT community itself is convinced of the usefulness of ICT and so is a majority of management and end-users, but the work and study force at large apparently is not. E-learning has not yet delivered the promises made in its earlier years. We argue, though, that e-learning has matured into a next stage, beyond the initial image of silver bullet. We call this evolution a transition from first to second generation. We will first map out this evolution and indicate some pitfalls. From this comparison, we will derive the dimensions that are critical for making e-learning more successful. We will put forward that technology is only one out of six dimensions of the framework we here present, the 6C learning framework.

A dream, not come true?

Five to ten years ago ‘e-learning’ promised learning anytime, anywhere, anything. In 1990, O. Foelsche stated that ‘for several reasons the creation of an integrated environment has proved daunting until now’ (Foelsche , 1990 p. 178). E-learning was a hype; it was technology that would thoroughly and immediately change schooling. EuroCall 1998, the international conference on language learning and information technology was called From classroom teaching to worldwide learning,  with six participants from university language centers all eager to feel the ‘change in the air’ as it was announced at the opening speech by the conference organisor, prof. dr. M. Goethals. Later, (Sweeney, 2005) eyebrows started to frown with students, employees, trainers and managers when a likely statement about ‘e-learning’ is used. At first there were the luddites (Baten, Vanparys, 1995) and although teachers and learners have not been adversarial, they indeed ask ‘how and why’-questions rooted in the needs of the learners. Carol A. Chapelle (2001, p.3) stated that ‘ the question today is how can we best use the emerging technologies (…) that we must better understand our needs in foreign language teaching.’  On the whole, learners do not doubt technology. They realise technology can tackle wide-scale applications as it is available and ready for e-learning. But they do not take for granted that e-learning is the magic key to overall success.

Over the years, e-learning projects have shifted as to their major targets, their approach and objectives as it may be clear from figure 1. First, there is learning itself.  Whereas before, primarily technology was emphasised, nowadays learning process and outcomes are focused. It is not the e in e-learning that is stressed, but rather the learning aspect and even more the learning benefits at a personal level (Felix 2005).  How does e- learning optimize the objectives of a learner or organisation?  Do we need this type of learning? If an organisation wants to conquer a position in the information society, it will have to define its learning strategy and consequently also the scope of its e-learning. So, at present  e-learning projects situate themselves on the right hand on the figure whereas before they were on the left hand.

Secondly, there is cost. Training projects are often the first ones that are cut in a downward economic situation. Before, it was generally expected that e-learning would cut costs. Now, increasing effectiveness throughout the value chain comes first. It may not be overlooked, however, that if e-learning is put forward as a means to create value, it needs to be architectured. Our point is that e-learning can effectively cut through the organisation layers and enhance communication across all learners in the organisation and thus create a collaborative learning environment, on condition it is thereto designed. Users and designers need to interact in more standardised ways. Also, rather than going for big bang approaches, often fraught with risk and hard to sell, we tend to move towards chaining smaller, focused projects where former achievements lay the groundworks for future projects. A phased project approach will focus on acquisition, dissemination and follow-up of new knowledge for a specific training with a clearly identified group of learners who want on the job return on their learning investments, on a shorter term basis than before.  Centralization, integration, standardisation, architecture are definitely gaining importance in 2^nd generation projects, as indicated in figure 1.

Before, prestige projects were set up, now very concrete and pragmatic learning is put forward.  Whereas before, pure e-learning was the magic key, organisations now realise it is ‘blended’ learning that will serve them better. Choices need to be made as to where, for whom, how and which learning technology suits best to guarantee an optimum return (Felix, 2005). In fact we feel that the level of maturity of e-learning in organizations is correlated with who is driving the initiative. Who is the head of e-learning projects in companies:  ICT or HR? And who is the head in schools: is it the didactic cell or the ICT cell? Or both? In a second generation we see joint accountabilities and a tendency towards HR and didactics.

What do we need to achieve an effective and efficient e-learning solution? In what follows, a pragmatic framework is presented to design, implement, reflect on, sustain and evaluate the successfulness of e-learning projects (see figure 2). There are six components, all pertaining to the question how to make e-learning work. All six criteria start with a C to create a comprehensive whole and a tool that is practical. In the end, the framework is meant for helping management  better manage e-learning projects.

Summary

We have been observing e-learning and related projects over the past 5 to 10 years and noticed a shift in their characteristics and goals. We dubbed it the evolution from 1st to 2nd generation projects. (For a more detailed discussion on this evolution, check out the documents on this page. We have formulated the differences between 1st and 2nd generations a bit black and white for illustration purposes.) From this comparison, we derived the six dimensions that are critical for making e-learning more successful. E-learning that works is the result of six dimensions of the framework we here present, the 6C learning framework.

Please check out the framework introduction documents hereunder.