The myths about e-learning in higher education

Proponents have marketed e-learning by focusing on its adoption as the right thing to do while disregarding, among other things, the concerns of the potential users, the adverse effects on users and the existing research on the use of e-learning or related innovations. In this paper, the e-learning-adoption proponents are referred to as the technopositivists. It is argued that most of the technopositivists in the higher education context are driven by a personal agenda, with the aim of propagating a technopositivist ideology to stakeholders. The technopositivist ideology is defined as a ‘compulsive enthusiasm’ about e-learning in higher education that is being created, propagated and channelled repeatedly by the people who are set to gain without giving the educators the time and opportunity to explore the dangers and rewards of e-learning on teaching and learning. Ten myths on e-learning that the technopositivists have used are presented with the aim of initiating effective and constructive dialogue, rather than merely criticising the efforts being made.  The use of technology, and in particular e-learning, in higher education is becoming increasingly popular. However, Guri-Rosenblit (2005) and Robertson (2003) propose that educational institutions should step back and reflect on critical questions regarding the use of technology in teaching and learning. The focus of Guri-Rosenblit’s article is on diverse issues of e-learning implementation in higher education, while Robertson focuses on the teacher. Both papers show that there is a change in the ‘euphoria towards eLearning’ and that a dose of techno-negativity or techno-scepticism is required so that the gap between rhetoric in the literature (with all the promises) and actual implementation can be bridged for an informed stance towards e-learning adoption.  Technology in teaching and learning has been marketed or presented to its intended market with a lot of promises, benefits and opportunities. This technopositivist ideology has denied educators and educational researchers the much needed opportunities to explore the motives, power, rewards and sanctions of information and communication technologies (ICTs), as well as time to study the impacts of the new technologies on learning and teaching. Educational research cannot cope with the speed at which technology is advancing (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005; Robertson, 2003; Van Dusen, 1998;  2001). Indeed there has been no clear distinction between teaching with and teaching about technology and therefore the relevance of such studies has not been brought to the fore. Much of the focus is on the actual educational technology as it advances, rather than its educational functions or the effects it has on the functions of teaching and learning. The teaching profession has been affected by the implementation and use of ICT through these optimistic views, and the ever-changing teaching and learning culture (Kompf, 2005; Robertson, 2003). It is therefore necessary to pause and ask the question to the technopositivist ideologists: whether in e-learning the focus is on the ‘e’ or on the learning. The opportunities and dangers brought about by the ‘e’ in e-learning should be soberly examined. As Gandolfo (1998, p. 24) suggests: [U]ndoubtedly, there is opportunity; 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. Technopositivist ideology is a ‘compulsory enthusiasm’ about technology that is being created, propagated and channelled repeatedly by the people who stand to gain either economically, socially, politically or otherwise in due disregard of the trade-offs associated with the technology to the target audience (Kompf, 2005; Robertson, 2003). In e-learning, the beneficiaries of the technopositivist market are doing so by presenting it with promises that would dismiss the judgement of many. This is aptly illustrated by Robertson (2003,  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, On her part, Guri-Rosenblit (2005, p. 14) argues that the proponents and marketers of e-learning present it as offering multiple uses that do not have a clear relationship with a current or future problem. She asks two ironic, vital and relevant questions: ‘If it ain’t broken, why fix it?’ and ‘Technology is the answer—but what are the questions?’ The enthusiasm to use technology for endless possibilities has led to the belief that providing 200 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 41 No 2 2010  information automatically leads to meaningful knowledge creation; hence blurring and confusing the distinction between information and knowledge. This is one of the many misconceptions that emerged with e-learning. There has been a great deal of confusion both in the marketing of and language used in the advocating of the ICTs in teaching and learning. As an example, Guri-Rosenblit (2005, p. 6) identified a list of 15 words used to describe the environment for teaching and learning with technology from various studies: ‘web-based learning, computermediated 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’. The list could easily be extended with many more words. Presented with this array of words, most educators are not sure of what e-learning is. Could it be synonymous to distance education? Is it just the use of online tools to enhance or enrich the learning experiences? Is it stashing the whole courseware or parts of it online for students to access? Or is it a new form of collaborative or cooperative learning? Clearly, any of these questions could be used to describe an aspect of e-learning and quite often confuse the uninformed educator. These varied words, with as many definitions, show the degree to which e-learning is being used in different cultures and in different organisations. Unfortunately, many of these uses are based on popular assumptions and myths. While the myths that will be discussed in this paper are generic, and hence applicable to e-learning use in most cultures and organisations, the paper’s focus is on higher education, because it forms part of a larger e-learning research project among higher education institutions (HEIs) and also because of the popularity of e-learning use in HEIs. Although there is considerable confusion around the term e-learning, for the purpose of this paper it will be considered as referring to the use of electronic technology and content in teaching and learning. It includes, but is not limited to, the use of the Internet; television; streaming video and video conferencing; online text and multimedia; and mobile technologies. From the nomenclature, also comes the crafting of the language for selling the technologies to the educators. Robertson (2003, p. 280) shows the meticulous choice of words by the marketers where ‘research’ is transformed into a ‘belief system’ and the past tense (used to communicate research findings) is substituted for the present and future tense, for example “Technology ‘can and will’ rather than ‘has and does’ ” in a quote from Apple’s comment: ‘At Apple, we believe the effective integration of technology into classroom instruction can and will result in higher levels of student achievement’. Similar quotes are available in the market and vendors of technology products for teaching and learning. This, however, is not limited to the market; some researchers have used similar quotes: ‘It is now conventional wisdom that those countries which fail to move from the industrial to the Information Society will not be able to compete in the globalised market system made possible by the new technologies’ (Mac Keogh, 2001, p. 223). The role of research should be to question the conventional wisdom or common sense and offer plausible answers, rather than dancing to the fine tunes of popular or mass e-Learning myths 201  It is also interesting to note that Mac Keogh (2001, p. 233) concludes that ‘[w]hen issues other than costs and performance outcomes are considered, the rationale for introducing ICTs in education is more powerful’. Does this mean that irrespective of whether ICTs