Implementation of e-learning curriculum in higher education

Abstract

As some researchers predicted, online education is taking precedence over higher education worldwide. This work deals with this situation using three frameworks appropriate for the three concepts involved (i.e. technology, teacher and students). The literature was reviewed in the context of good-quality education and its relation to three distance-education frameworks. Some approaches and strategies indicate improvement in achieving electronic media-based learning (e-Learning) recognition for better outreach. This manuscript also shows that the most critical aspect of this outreach is thinking about the learning benefits that learners might gain from it and how they might assess those benefits using various tools, not only by direct comparison with old pedagogies or methods.

Introduction

Assuming that the ‘temporary’ circumstances caused by the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic were to last longer than expected and the return to ‘normal’ classes were hypothetical, what would it take to build (research, develop and refine) beneficial (effective and equitable) online courses in higher education (HE)? Though concerns (e.g. misuse of technology, missed opportunities and money wasted on boring, ineffective electronic media-based learning [e-Learning]) were raised (Allen, 2016), is it thoughtless or reckless to prepare for such circumstances where electronic media, usually the Internet, positively affect teaching and learning (e-Learning)?

The digital world and its adoption prospects in education have dramatically changed as technological advances have been made (Radianti et al., 2020). Digital technology has and will continue to have an impact on everyday education. Based on new findings from research laboratories, which can inform the design and development of e-Learning, the latter has kept on experiencing a surge in popularity and has been seen as an alternative or adjunct to in-class format to the point that it has become a priority for researchers in education (Clark & Mayer, 2016).

It seems possible that the future of HE lies in embracing e-Learning. Moreover, shortly, most higher education institutions (HEIs) offering in-person courses will have difficulties delivering the current curriculum and training programmes due to the inadaptability of half of the subject knowledge leading to a 4-year technical degree. This situation has raised questions about the survival of traditional 4-year degree programmes and whether students can get jobs once they graduate (Nash, 2015; Palvia et al., 2018; Pandya, 2019; Zhang et al., 2004). As if that was not enough, in Spring 2020, in just a few days, universities transformed course schedules on campus into virtual emergency formats due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with an essential lesson for the future: the imperativeness of digital transformation and automation nowadays (Balderas & Caballero-Hernández, 2020; Foo et al., 2021; Núñez-Canal et al., 2022; Qiu & Attebery, 2020; Smith & Traxler, 2022).

Beyond what this pandemic has revealed about HE, the change could open the door to significant digital education benefits, i.e. flexibility, retention (e.g. social learning, gamification and personalisation environments), academic achievement (e.g. augmented reality environments) and cost savings (e.g. virtual reality environments). However, managing change’s drawbacks could be the price to pay, i.e. the digital divide in education, the Internet’s limited access, lack of physical interaction with instructors and peer students (lack of immediate feedback), lack of motivation and students’ remote assessment issues (e.g. poor quality, cheating problems) (McCain, 2021; Pregowska et al., 2021).

Method

This article is an integrative review of relevant theories and experiences (i.e. peer review articles, books, newspapers and websites presenting news and information about HE) underpinning the implementation of e-Learning in HE and analysing the main arguments through three frameworks to generate social, cognitive and teaching insights facilitating transitions to online education. Scholarly literature was researched through Google Scholar.

Theoretical framework

The e-Learning analysis is done through an Instructional Systems Designer’s lens to think about instructional design’s role in a primarily online HE environment, i.e. through the three main components ensuring the effectiveness of learning, namely (1) learning objectives, (2) learning activities and (3) assessments. Researchers have emphasised the need for further studies to determine whether the online environment is a practicable surrogate for the in-person teaching environment or not before permanent adoption is validated since the impact may not be the same (Arias et al., 2018; Foo et al., 2021; Hong et al., 2020; Redding & Rotzien, 2001). In line with this argument, Kituyi and Tusubira’s (2013) validated framework to improve e-Learning integration in HEIs in developing countries suggests further research on the e-Learning approaches available and their benefit to HEIs. Assuming the existence of a ‘good learning design,’ engaging and effective ‘learning experiences’ as well as ‘intentional design and high-quality planned interactive experiences’ (p. 6) are a requirement (Hodges et al., 2020, as cited in Cowden et al., 2020).

Moreover, while some studies (Paul & Cochran, 2013; Volery & Lord, 2000) admit the unchanged central role of an instructor, whether in online or traditional settings, other works, such as by Guri-Rosenblit (2018), do not, due to the slow adaptation of technologies in HE. Paul and Cochran (2013) also believe that the instructor is more like a learning catalyst and knowledge navigator in the online setting. They also identify three critical success factors in online delivery: technology with the Internet as a significant technological advancement for its success, the instructor, and students’ prior technology use. However, the current education system is resistant to adopting e-Learning (Askar & Halici, 2008). Hence, designing and developing a successful e-Learning programme (with an interactive, engaging and effective learning experience) lies in understanding the use of the tools at hand (Allen, 2016). For these reasons mentioned, by resorting to the Community of Inquiry (COI), three frameworks guide this analysis; (1) the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory that Buc and Divjak (2015) applied to HE, (2) the Teacher– Curriculum Materials Participatory Relationship Theory of Brown (2009, as cited in Beyer & Davis, 2012) and Remillard (2005, as cited in Beyer & Davis, 2012) and (3) Moore’s Transactional Distance Theory (TDT) will help to explain and quantify the learning relationships among instructor, student and technology. The COI is a framework featuring three core interdependent elements (i.e. social, cognitive and teaching presence) to thoughtfully design an effective online educational experience (Garrison et al., 2000; Swan et al., 2009). While the COI has helped analyse and understand interaction in an online educational environment, the three theoretical frameworks were selected based on the three concepts involved (i.e. technology, teacher and students) related to effective e-Learning design, development and implementation in HE.

The DOI Theory applied to HE

Because of their very substance, e-Learning and all educational technologies belong to innovations, which the DOI Theory considers in education (Bates, 2011; Buc & Divjak, 2015). Moreover, Rogers (2003, as cited in Buc & Divjak, 2015) describes two processes for an innovation, which encompasses the initiation (‘information gathering, conceptualisation and planning for the adoption of innovation, the decision to adopt’) and the implementation (‘all the events, actions and decisions involved in putting innovation into use’).

How to identify the processes mentioned in Figure 1? The initiation process starts with the ‘Awareness of the need for e-Learning adoption’ and ends with the ‘Adoption decision.’ Therefore, it is with good reason that Furuta et al. (2020) point out awareness about students’ performance assessment and teachers’ disposition/ aptitude for technology as the most influential in technology integration into the classroom. Furthermore, everything beyond these steps is the implementation process. i.e. realising the need to adopt an innovation (e-Learning) is essential in getting stakeholders to accept it. Frequently, previous related knowledge, which is favourable to innovation design, can influence social environment factors to create this awareness.

Figure 1. Diffusion of innovation in higher education.

Source: Buc & Divjak (2015).

In a nutshell, once education officials have built awareness, examining the feasibility of the innovation design would allow them to decide on its appropriateness. Once the decision on its adoption has been taken, all possible means, financial or political, for its implementation would then be made available. An excellent example of this is Mishra et al.’s (2020) conceptual model of the implementation process of online teaching–learning. A shared vision at the supra-system (or system, sub-system) of education and shared power and responsibilities at individual and organisational levels provide valuable guidelines for implementing an action plan for e-Learning in HE (Mishra et al., 2020).

Despite the current resistance to change in the education system, stakeholders’ attitudes, needs and expectations towards e-Learning are process game changers. Additionally, this change needs to be client-based rather than technology-based (Askar & Halici, 2008). Moreover, they argue that the e-Learning process should be simple to move from knowledge transfer approaches to systems based on dynamic construction and user-friendly knowledge exchange among learners, teachers and learning communities. One of the stakeholders, the educational organisation, is responsible for observing and testing the e-Learning systems.

Jebeile and Reeve (2003) argue that adopting innovation variables relating to relative advantage, compatibility, visibility, etc., are essential points that should be considered when seeking to accelerate e-Learning’s innovation approval rate within organisations. However, Fullan (1991, as cited in Askar & Halici, 2008) defines another essential point that needs to be considered; he defines complexity instead of difficulty. The first and foremost complexity is the fear of cheating in online examinations (Kasprzak and Nixon, 2004; Nash, 2015; Rogers, 2006), and real-time Internet communication is another massive challenge (Sarker et al., 2019). In line with the last challenge, assuming real-time Internet is available, one also needs to improve learning quality via learner-centred practice, according to Oh (2003). For their part, Ferdig et al. (2020) note that there are also global success stories of innovation in preparing current and future teachers beyond challenges.

In line with Jebeile and Reeve (2003), for HEIs to increasingly offer e-Learning and adapt to online assessments (including examinations) due to the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, an example that could improve e-Learning’s image within organisations for its approval would be the adoption of pretask warnings and emerging technologies such as biometrics, surveillance systems (e.g. proctors) and predictive analytics. These are adopted for both prevention and enforcement approaches to adequately address the ability to maintain the integrity of outcomes due to cheating issues (Balderas & Caballero-Hernández, 2020; Bedford et al., 2011; Corrigan-Gibbs et al., 2015; Harmon & Lambrinos, 2008; Lee-Post & Hapke, 2017; Trenholm, 2007). Another example would be to combine emerging visual technologies such as augmented reality, virtual reality, mixed reality and/or Zoom, Ally and artificial intelligence technologies to improve HE quality in supporting humanising user experience, students’ engagement and retention (Fisher & Baird, 2020; Hirankerd & Kittisunthonphisarn, 2020; Vemula, 2021).

The Teacher–Curriculum Materials Participatory Relationship Theory

According to Brown (2009, as cited in Beyer & Davis, 2012) and Remillard (2005, as cited in Beyer & Davis, 2012), the Teacher–Curriculum Materials Participatory Relationship Theory states that ‘teachers and curriculum materials participate together in a collaborative relationship’ (p. 131). This relationship demonstrates that teachers actively work with the teaching material to develop the planned programme and build the adopted agenda, even in e-Learning. This perspective is contrary to others in that it does not limit teachers’ role to just transmitting the curriculum materials as proposed by Welch (1979, as cited in Beyer & Davis, 2012).

There is an agreement that online education’s definitive characteristic is the separation between teacher and learner. Moreover, in the COI, teaching presence is preferred over teacher presence because teachers often collaborate to achieve this role. According to Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005), facilitators or other students may supply such a function to transition from social to cognitive presence (practical inquiry). Teaching presence provides the structure (design) and leadership (facilitation/direction) to establish a social and cognitive presence. Note, however, that structure and leadership components’ elements constitute the three categories of teacher presence (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Whatever the course format, whether online or in-person, the teachers’ role will not change as they will always have an active role in preparing all lesson plans, which students will subsequently download online.

Kituyi and Tusubira (2013) argue that achieving the positive effect of HEIs e-Learning in developing countries requires adequate infrastructure and technology skills for teachers and students. Teachers’ involvement in planning is required for the technology to meet instructional needs. Furthermore, teachers need time to hone facilitation skills and assessment practices if the instruction is offered online (Australian Council for Educational Research [ACER], 2020; Interagency Network for Education in Emergencies [INEE], 2020, as cited in Cowden et al., 2020). Likewise, what students learn depends on their teachers’ experiences and activities. Their teachers select and create learning experiences that inevitably positively or negatively affect student learning’s nature and quality (Wong & Fong, 2014). Quality education conveys the idea of effective and purposeful educational programmes, which are designed by teachers trained in their use and which engage the students. Furthermore, their effectiveness is not linked to technology use but to a deliberate and planned learning design.

For participants of online course, learner–content interaction is critical ‘because it can contribute to successful learning outcomes and course completion’ (p. 152), provided that the content is appropriate. Various studies consider learner–content interaction the most decisive or essential form of interaction since this is where learning takes place or ‘the fundamental form of interaction on which all education’ (p. 2) relies (Vrasida, 2000, as cited in Zimmerman, 2012). This type of interaction occurs whenever learners interact directly with information found in learning materials, whether ‘they interact with the text or are deeply’ absorbed in the content (Gutierrez, 2013). According to Revianti (2014), ‘once learners access learning materials such as multimedia, lectures and handouts’ (p. 43), they should be able to go through them, progress, revise and ponder over the course to get a better understanding; they should be able to use it as they want.

Moore’s TDT

Using interaction in a standard-setting programme differs from using it in an online learning programme. The differences in interaction are mainly due to the online learning programme’s instructional media. According to Zimmerman (2012), interaction in online learning programmes was not defined until 1989, when Moore, in his editorial in The American Journal of Distance Education, determined the three prominent types of interaction, namely (1) learner to content, (2) learner to instructor and (3) learner to learner. He does not consider, in this editorial, the fourth type of interaction, which is defined as ‘learner to the interface.’

The TDT positively affects online learning by explaining and quantifying the learning relationship between instructor and student. According to Moore, this relationship is a characteristic of a significant physical or temporal distance between these actors, i.e. instructor and student. However, according to Moore (1993), transactional distance should not be confused with physical or temporal space. This distance that separates the instructor from the learner in the transaction between them is immaterial, i.e. it is pedagogical instead of geographic. Furthermore, three qualitative variables (dialogue or positive teacher–learner interaction; structure, namely an education programme that can be adapted or can meet each learner’s individual needs; and the learner’s autonomy or self-directedness) are controlled by their extent. Additionally, this takes place in either a structured or planned learning situation.

Murphy and Rodriguez (2008) show how TDT is also possible for levels other than the post-secondary, though Moor conceptualises it at the post-secondary level. As shown in Bornt’s (2011) graph (Figure 2), Moore (1993) specifies some hypotheses related to TDT so that a change in one of the variables, namely structure or dialogue, will immediately lead to a change in the transactional distance, i.e. transactional distance can be significantly affected by the learner’s nature. The same goes for technology.

Figure 2. Autonomy and transactional distance. Source: Bornt (2011).

Consequently, according to Moore (1989), a unique medium can weaken much of online learning. Why? Because only one kind of interaction could occur, and, by extension, it would be hard or impossible to reduce the transactional distance due to the interaction between learners and their teachers, which would be reduced or non-existent. This situation would also be similar to a highly structured programme. Thus, for targeted learners with a propensity for autonomy, their instructors should design courses with fewer structures and minimal interactions to increase transactional distance.

Researchers base the rationale for this reasoning on the fact that e-Learning relies on the separation of the instructor and learners. A learning institution organises online learning, and failure to do so would result in a person engaged in personal or independent education. Researchers also believe that appropriate technology helps create communication between learners and instructors. Face-to-face meetings for e-Learning programmes should not be frequent (≤25% of the course schedule). Then, no expert sees a hybrid or blended (virtual classroom) course format as authentic e-Learning. Technology is only the medium, and researchers must research this to find the most appropriate educational technology to help achieve the best outcomes possible.

Theories on interaction are one thing, and their application is another. In line with this, many online learning programmes make the terrible mistake of concentrating on only one type of interaction and ignoring the remaining ones (Gutierrez, 2013). The preceding situation should be avoided by learning more about online learning interaction. According to Gutierrez (2013), many may have probably once attended, virtually or face-to-face, a long but not exciting course session where the learners were practically passive observers and did not get more opportunities to get involved. This type of instruction rarely affects the audience. Since interaction is not enough to maintain a cognitive presence, students need interaction (interactive techniques) for efficient learning and retention, which plays a pivotal role in learning (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Zimmerman, 2012).

Comparative analysis of the frameworks

While the above three core frameworks shared the learning relationships among instructor, student and technology, the above sections also provided excellent context and information on each COI’s three types of presence (i.e. social, cognitive and teaching), thus laying the foundations for an exemplary e-Learning implementation in HE. The three categories of teacher presence provide valuable guidelines for creating and maintaining cognitive presence in an online educational environment (Garrison, 2007; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Therefore, the preceding discussion shows how, despite the many challenges encountered in e-Learning in HE, it would still be possible to design and facilitate online learning experiences that create a cognitive presence compatible with good-quality education (Wang et al., 2021).

First, even though technology awareness was the most influential game changer and the system was resistant, the forced migration to e-Learning due to the current pandemic has changed the mindset to some extent (Askar & Halici, 2008; Furuta et al., 2020; Schroeder, 2021). Moreover, in agreement with Jebeile and Reeve (2003), it has also been shown that relying on the advantages offered by so-called emerging technologies could still improve the image of e-Learning, thus accelerating its approval rate. While some of these emerging technologies, such as visual ones, may help improve students’ engagement and interaction, analytics or proctors, in a certain way, may virtually supplement the role of teacher presence, establishing a social and cognitive presence. These prevent and enforce the integrity of the outcomes due to cheating issues in remote assessments or when artificial intelligence technologies provide immediate (or at the end) feedback for good-quality education.

Second, quality interaction results from the presence of the three types of COIs—i.e. interaction among ideas, students and teachers. Though online interaction looks different from in-class ones due to the learning programme’s instructional media, TDT helps explain and quantify the instructional relationship between instructor and student, even in HE (Murphy & Rodriguez, 2008). For instance, since transactional distance and technologies can be significantly affected by the learner’s nature, combining multiple appropriate educational technologies would improve the interaction between learners without a propensity for autonomy on the one hand and their teachers on the other by helping to reduce the transactional distance and increasing, then, cognitive and teaching presence (Grigoryan, 2017; Moore, 1989).

Finally, although Paul and Cochran (2013), Kituyi and Tusubira (2013), Volery and Lord (2000) and Guri-Rosenblit (2018) come to different conclusions about the instructor’s central role in the online setting, they admit, however, that adaptation of technologies in HE was crucial for a successful e-Learning implementation. i.e. according to some studies (Allen, 2016; ACER, 2020; INEE, 2020, as cited in Cowden et al., 2020), instructors need time for skill acquisition and assessment practice preparation as teacher presence precedes teaching presence (Whitesel, 2009). The instructor’s image that Paul and Cochran (2013) convey in the online context is somewhat similar to that of the Teacher–Curriculum Materials Participatory Relationship Theory’s perspective of a collaborative relationship between instructors and the teaching material. The latter theory does not limit instructors’ role to just passing on the curriculum materials, as in Welch (1979, as cited in Beyer & Davis, 2012).

Implication for theory and/or practice

Providing adequately combined technologies helps create quality interaction, feedback and practical inquiry among non-independent learners and their digitally competent instructors for increased teaching presence and improved e-Learning implementation.

Findings

The reviewed literature focusses on quality education and its relation to online learning, particularly distance-education frameworks. The role of technology as a catalyst for online learning is also considered, however, without digging deep into considering the benefits of online education over in-class education, even if ways to improve the quality of online education to reach that of in-class education, as suggested by Palvia et al. (2018), have been shown.

This pandemic has not offered other choices than transitioning into online teaching (Chick et al., 2020; Hilburg et al., 2020; Hong et al., 2020; Keswani et al., 2020; Smith & Traxler, 2022; Toquero, 2020; Yilmaz Ince et al., 2020). Despite student engagement concerns when working online, a vibrant learning community can still be fostered and supported through technology for learner–learner and instructor–learner interactions with great opportunities for feedback and new ways of assessment. Unfortunately, technology can only facilitate these outcomes and not determine them (Smith & Traxler, 2022).

Not having high-quality online curricula in HE assessments should no longer be considered a big issue. Besides, evidence from Arnold (2016) suggests that while cheating in online assessments is possible, it is unrelated to academic progress. Some of the pioneers in digital education have already moved to full-distance assessments with excellent student retention results (coupled with class attendance and participation) and flexibility for both courses and examinations. Pioneers in digital education include, among others, London-based Open University, Rome-based International Telematic University Uninettuno and Queensland’s Canterbury College (Dionisi, 2018).

Not all relevant stakeholders, i.e. ‘students, teachers, principals, learners and the community’ (p. 1099), are aware of the benefits of e-Learning. Policymakers must give people the correct information about innovation to change their negative attitudes or beliefs. Awareness about its implementation and results could likely accelerate the pace of its adoption (Askar & Halici, 2008).

In comparison to in-person learning, evidence shows that when students and teachers have the proper training and preparation, older students perform very well in online learning (ACER, 2020; Li & Lalani, 2020, as cited in Cowden et al., 2020).

Though students in in-class courses can be prone to cheating, there is still room to organise online examinations without too much fear of cheating, i.e. a well-designed online examination can help handle examination cheating issues (Supiano, 2020). The question would be how many online course instructors would sufficiently invest enough time to design a well-structured test for an online course. Open University selectively uses technology to enhance the learning experience in an online teaching format, with in-person teaching format features such as in-person examinations’ timed environment under teachers’ supervision. Oxford University does the same during its admission process. These universities conduct examinations, which students take outside of a selected academic setting, even beyond their home cities or countries (Mendez, 2021).

Referring to Jebeile and Reeve’s (2003) claim, an innovation variable that instructional designers need to consider is adopting Learning Management Systems (LMSs) worldwide for acceleration of the e-Learning innovation’s approval rate. Even in developing countries, many universities worldwide are already organising digital university programmes through LMSs (Coates et al., 2005; Mtebe, 2015; Mtebe & Kissaka, 2015; Paulsen, 2003; Unwin et al., 2010; Wakim & Mershad, 2018). As stated by Watson and Watson (2007), this era may seem like the ‘Information Age paradigm of instruction’ (p. 32) they referred to. Furthermore, as they argued, ‘the full and centralized implementation of LMSs is necessary’ now than ever and ‘the attention to maximizing their potential is naturally being realized.’ Likewise, the use of Internet of Things (IoT), or connected real-world objects, to communicate with each other over the Internet, also plays a vital role in education (AjazMoharkan et al., 2017; Banica et al., 2017; Wakim & Mershad, 2018). Moreover, Wakim and Mershad (2018) show how the integration process between LMS and IoT (‘an example of IoT in Education is Blackboard’) is essential in education (Thomas, 2021).

It has been mentioned earlier that education’s future compels people to embrace the e-Learning curriculum. However, neither ‘Embrace’ nor ‘Acquiescence’ might be appropriate terms; however, whatever word is used, a survey shows that, increasingly, American faculty members are participating in some form of online education and accepting its validity (Lederman, 2019). However, their European counterparts seem hesitant and wary of digitising HE due to the challenge they face in transferring and integrating their prior (or traditional) pedagogic strategies into these new online spaces (Smith & Traxler, 2022). Another challenge relates to maintaining quality and inclusiveness in this context (Stracke et al., 2022).

As a result, people have painted a depressing picture of European online learning and the pandemic; however, these sweeping, unsubstantiated claims are dangerous generalisations. Though it might have been far worse for schools, many reports on the pandemic, both from national and international perspectives, paint a more-nuanced picture (Stracke et al., 2022). The recent Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report (Staring et al., 2022) also paints a more balanced view. This new paradigm has created new opportunities, reinforcing all the changes brought about by introduction of technological means in the teaching and learning process as an essential pedagogical element for more practical and effective results (Núñez-Canal et al., 2022).

Training for faculty goes on in several European countries. To many educators, the United States, especially Canada, looks behind the curve in such matters. The United Kingdom and Sweden are perhaps in the lead in Europe, but the Netherlands, Austria and Germany are now coming up in this faculty training area. Other countries outside Europe are active, especially Saudi Arabia recently (Mann et al., 2020; O’Keefe et al., 2020). About the shift to online learning and its ramifications, Smith and Traxler (2022) argue that not all professors are untrained, but it is mainly a matter of personal confidence and competence rather than a deliberate strategy of upskilling staff to work digitally.

In this situation, the consequences are that forced adoption of online-delivered instruction will, to some extent, replace in-person instruction in the HE system. Fortunately, according to Beyer and Davis (2012), ‘curriculum materials describing innovative pedagogical approaches may promote changes in teachers’ knowledge about how to teach the subject and ultimately result in changes in their practice’ (pp. 131–32). Moreover, Smith and Traxler’s (2022) work encourages giving prominence to what pedagogical values are and what they look like online (i.e. how these values are enacted, online constructivism beliefs, etc.). For example, far from the previous unimodal, teacher-centred approach, there has been a rapid adaptation to new forms of teacher–learner interaction due to this evolution. Though technological advances and educators’ progress in terms of skills and capabilities must go together, adequate training in digital competencies and digital teaching is still a challenge in HE (Núñez-Canal et al., 2022).

While TDT – with its three qualitative variables – has been preferred over other learning style theories, scientific support for the latter approaches is lacking (Antoniuk, 2019; Clark & Mayer, 2016; Kirschner, 2017; Westby, 2019). The aforementioned is corroborated by Huang et al. (2020), who argue that although learning style does not help instruction, it can affect the subjective sense of presence or cognitive load (or both) in students’ learning process. Then, one would argue that instructors should spend more time and energy on ideas that might aid instruction. Nevertheless, even if using the preferred learning style does not increase knowledge retention, there are reasons to believe there is value in accommodating multiple learning styles as learning products are developed. Why this? In statistics, researchers often proceed by inferences. They do not always have perfect samples (given that samples in most articles about TDT or modified TDT are statistically insignificant) that can reproduce absolute reality. Their outcomes do not measure reality; these are just showing variability. These do not say anything about modifiability because students of the same class, even identical twins with different life experiences, may have similar learning styles and respond differently.

Conclusion

When analysing the implementation of the e-Learning curriculum in HE through the three frameworks considered in online education theory, this paper relied upon, wherever possible, the COI’s three types of presence, namely (1) social, (2) cognitive and (3) teaching. This work showed how Moore’s TDT – with its three qualitative variables – and the Teacher– Curriculum Materials Participatory Relationship Theory strengthen the coordination around the interaction among these three big concepts. Thus, for people to readily accept implementation of the e-Learning curriculum, policymakers need to increase its adoption rate by educating people about its learning benefits in innovation’s global success stories. The latter avoid or overcome complexity and only look at innovation variables related to relative advantage, compatibility, visibility, etc.

Now, e-Learning can be thought in terms of opening up new possibilities that enable things that could not be done before—considering that 30 years ago, learning was mainly book learning. Nobody has questioned it too much, probably because it is a practice that dates back centuries. Was it close to the best choice? No, not at all. Now, e-Learning should by no means be seen as an exact analogue of the right way to teach but as something that can make considerable strides in the way students learned 30 years ago. It is essential to consider what kind of learning benefits learners might gain from online teaching and learning and how they might assess those benefits, not only by direct comparison with traditional pedagogies or methods. Many traditional evaluation techniques can be adapted to cover e-Learning. So, this paper suggests considering the nature of services without necessarily assuming that e-Learning replicates the best in-person teaching practice.

It is advisable to note that some areas – such as medicine (Hong et al., 2020), engineering, piloting, etc. – will still require practical lessons in the curriculum. For example, in medical therapy, people will always have to treat living patients, take their temperature, check their blood tests, etc. Similarly, operating machinery’s live experience in mechanical engineering and piloting may not be entirely online (maybe a part of it only!).

Based on the above, it is neither thoughtless nor reckless to prepare for circumstances where electronic technologies play a more significant role in teaching and learning beyond the situation that prevailed following the COVID-19 pandemic. It is very possible that the next decade could see a significant shift, i.e. e-Learning could take over HE in other different scenarios, namely (1) Schlosser and Simonson’s (2019) institution-based or formal education, (2) Means et al.’s (2014) online learning delivered through LMSs and (3) Ray’s (2020) remote education (as cited in Cowden et al., 2020).

References

AjazMoharkan, Z., Choudhury, T., Gupta, S. C., & Raj, G. (2017, February). Internet of things and its applications in e-learning. In 2017 3rd International Conference on Computational Intelligence & Communication Technology (CICT) (pp. 1–5). IEEE.

Allen, M. W. (2016). Michael Allen’s guide to e-learning: Building interactive, fun, and effective learning programs for any company. John Wiley & Sons.

Antoniuk, A. (2019). Learning styles: Moving forward from the myth. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education/Revue canadienne des jeunes chercheures et chercheurs en éducation, 10 (2).

Arias, J. J., Swinton, J., & Anderson, K. (2018). Online vs. face-to-face: A comparison of student outcomes with random assignment. E-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 12 (2), 1–23.

Arnold, I. J. (2016). cheating at online formative tests: Does it pay off? The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 98–106.

Askar, P., & Halici, U. (2008). Diffusion of e-learning as an educational innovation. In Online and distance learning: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 2234–2244). IGI Global.

Balderas, A., & Caballero-Hernández, J. A. (2020, October). Analysis of learning records to detect student cheating on online exams: Case study during COVID-19 pandemic. In Eighth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 752–757).

Banica, L., Burtescu, E., & Enescu, F. (2017). The impact of internet-of-things in higher education. Scientific Bulletin-Economic Sciences, 16 (1), 53–59.

Bates, T. (2011). Understanding Web 2.0 and its implications for e-learning. In Web 2.0-Based E-learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 21-42). IGI Global.

Bedford, D. W., Gregg, J. R., & Clinton, M. S. (2011). Preventing online cheating with technology: A pilot study of remote proctor and an update of its use. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 11 (2), 41–59.

Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96 (1), 130–157.

Bornt, D. (2011, August 22). Instructional design models, theories & methodology: Moore’s theory of transactional distance. https://k3hamilton.com/LTech/transactional.html

Buc, S., & Divjak, B. (2015). Innovation diffusion model in higher education: Case study of e-learning diffusion. International Association for Development of the Information Society.

Chick, R. C., Clifton, G. T., Peace, K. M., Propper, B. W., Hale, D. F., Alseidi, A. A., & Vreeland, T. J. (2020). Using technology to maintain the education of residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Surgical Education, 77 (4), 729–732.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.

Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19–36.

Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Gupta, N., Northcutt, C., Cutrell, E., & Thies, W. (2015). Deterring cheating in online environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 22 (6), 1–23.

Cowden, G., Mitchell. P., & Taylor-Guy, P. (2020). Remote learning. Rapid Literature Review. Association of Independent Schools NSW & Australian Council for Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.37517/978-1-74286-610-9

Dionisi, B. (2018, October 20). A pioneer in the development of education technology. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20181020060525528

Ferdig, R. E., Baumgartner, E., Hartshorne, R., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Mouza, C. (Eds.). (2020). Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from the field. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Fisher, M. M., & Baird, D. E. (2020). Humanizing user experience design strategies with new technologies: AR, VR, MR, ZOOM, ALLY and AI to support student engagement and retention in higher education. In International perspectives on the role of technology in humanizing higher education. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Foo, C. C., Cheung, B., & Chu, K. M. (2021). A comparative study regarding distance learning and the conventional face-to-face approach conducted problem-based learning tutorial during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Medical Education, 21 (1), 1–6.

Furuta, T., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2020, June). Implications of hands-on technological creation experiences and TPACK assessments for preservice teacher education. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 387–390). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11 (1), 61–72.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2–3), 87–105.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19 (3), 133–148.

Grigoryan, A. (2017). Audiovisual commentary as a way to reduce transactional distance and increase teaching presence in online writing instruction: Student perceptions and preferences. Journal of Response to Writing, 3 (1), 5.

Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2018). E-teaching in higher education: An essential prerequisite for e-learning. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 7 (2), 93–97.

Gutierrez, K. (2013, August 07). 3 types of interactions you should be sustaining in e-learning. https://www.shifteLearning.com/blog/bid/308389/3-Types-Of-Interactions-You-Should-Be-Sustaining-in-eLearning

Harmon, O. R., & Lambrinos, J. (2008). Are online exams an invitation to cheat? The Journal of Economic Education, 39 (2), 116–125.

Hilburg, R., Patel, N., Ambruso, S., Biewald, M. A., & Farouk, S. S. (2020). Medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Learning from a distance. Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease, 27 (5), 412–417.

Hirankerd, K., & Kittisunthonphisarn, N. (2020). E-learning management system based on reality technology with AI. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 10 (4), 259–264.

Hong, Y., Li, X., Lin, Y., Xie, J., Yan, X., & Lin, Z. (2020). A comparative study of online education and traditional offline education during COVID-19. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-61593/v1

Huang, C. L., Luo, Y. F., Yang, S. C., Lu, C. M., & Chen, A. S. (2020). Influence of students’ learning style, sense of presence, and cognitive load on learning outcomes in an immersive virtual reality learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58 (3), 596–615.

Jebeile, S., & Reeve, R. (2003). The diffusion of e-learning innovations in an Australian secondary college: Strategies and tactics for educational leaders. The Innovation Journal, 8 (4).

Kasprzak, J., & Nixon, M. (2004). Cheating in cyberspace: Maintaining quality in online education. Association for the Advancement of Computing In Education Journal, 12 (1), 85–99.

Keswani, R. N., Sethi, A., Repici, A., Messmann, H., & Chiu, P. W. (2020). How to maximize trainee education during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: Perspectives from around the world. Gastroenterology, 159 (1), 26–29.

Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers and Education, 106, 166–171.

Kituyi, G., & Tusubira, I. (2013). A framework for the integration of e-learning in higher education institutions in developing countries. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9 (2), 19–36.

Lederman, D. (2019). Professors’ slow, steady acceptance of online learning: A survey. Inside Higher Ed, 30.

Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2017). Online learning integrity approaches: Current practices and future solutions. Online Learning, 21 (1), 135–145.

Mann, A., Schwabe, M., Fraser, P., Fülöp, G., & Ansah, G. A. (2020). How the COVID-19 pandemic is changing education: A perspective from Saudi Arabia. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). How-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-changing-education-Saudi-Arabia.pdf (oecd.org).

McCain, C. (2021, February 4). How to best assess your e-learning programs. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/02/04/advice-how-ensure-online-learning-programs-are-top-quality-during-and-after

Mendez, M. C. (2021, October 21). How the open university works: An insider’s perspective. https://www.classcentral.com/report/open-university-insiders-perspective/

Mishra, L., Gupta, T., & Shree, A. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100012.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.

Mtebe, J. (2015). Learning management system success: Increasing learning management system usage in higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 11 (2), 51–64.

Mtebe, J. S., & Kissaka, M. M. (2015, May). Heuristics for evaluating usability of learning management systems in Africa. In 2015 IST-Africa Conference (pp. 1–13). IEEE.

Murphy, E. A., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2008). Revisiting transactional distance theory in a context of web-based high-school distance education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education/Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance, 22 (2), 1-14.

Nash, J. A. (2015). Future of online education in crisis: A call to action. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 14 (2), 80–88.

Núñez-Canal, M., de Obesso, M. D. L. M., & Pérez-Rivero, C. A. (2022). New challenges in higher education: A study of the digital competence of educators in Covid times. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121270. ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121270

Oh, C. H. (2003). Information communication technology and the new university: A view on e-learning. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585 (1), 134–153.

O’Keefe, L., Dellinger, J. T., Mathes, J., Holland, T. L., & Knott, J. (2020). The state of online learning in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A COVID-19 impact study for higher education. Online Learning Consortium.

Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online education: worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21 (4), 233–241.

Pandya, J. (2019, March 21). Preparing the human workforce for the machine workforce. https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/03/21/preparing-the-human-workforce-for-the-machine-workforce/#773e25f2f7df

Paul, J. A., & Cochran, J. D. (2013). Key interactions for online programs between faculty, students, technologies, and educational institutions a holistic framework. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14 (1), 49–62.

Paulsen, M. F. (2003). Experiences with learning management systems in 113 European institutions. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 6 (4), 134–148.

Pregowska, A., Masztalerz, K., Garlińska, M., & Osial, M. (2021). A worldwide journey through distance education—From the post office to virtual, augmented and mixed realities, and education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 11 (3), 118.

Qiu, J., & Attebery, P. (2020, June 24). Webinar - innovation imperatives during and post COVID. Retrieved June 25, 2020, from https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/18230/418119?utm_campaign=418119&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=90207882&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-86sxeWVzVWl_5MC6BTv5EaAcD-jeae9F6lYrtwjqQMcgfmb2pFyS8JWKhe7DLdh8jmql4sSRxFa-ao74cau9mg9t66rA&utm_content=90207882&utm_source=hs_email

Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers and Education, 147, 103778.

Redding, T. R., & Rotzien, J. (2001). Comparative analysis of online learning versus classroom learning. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 13 (4), 3–12.

Revianti, S. L. (2014). A moodle learning model for introduction to college english classes [Doctoral dissertation, Sanata Dharma University].

Rogers, C. F. (2006). Faculty perceptions about e-cheating during online testing. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 22 (2), 206–212.

Sarker, M. F. H., Al Mahmud, R., Islam, M. S., & Islam, M. K. (2019). Use of e-learning at higher educational institutions in Bangladesh. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11 (2), 210–223.

Schroeder, R. (2021, October). The placid ivy-covered walls and calm quad will remain when COVID is vanquished, but the university will never be the same. We are forever changed–by the disease and by the advance of technology and competition in this, the fourth industrial revolution. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/online-trending-now/no-return-%E2%80%98normal%E2%80%99

Smith, M., & Traxler, J. (Eds.). (2022). Digital learning in higher education: COVID-19 and beyond. Edward Elgar Publishers.

Staring, F., Brown, M., Bacsich, P., & Ifenthaler, D. (2022), « Digital higher education: Emerging quality standards, practices and supports », Documents de travail de l’OCDE sur l’éducation, n° 281, Éditions OCDE, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f622f257-en.

Stracke, C. M., Sharma, R. C., Bozkurt, A., Burgos, D., Swiatek Cassafieres, C., Inamorato dos Santos, A., Mason, J., Ossiannilsson, E., Santos-Hermosa, G., Shon, J. G., Wan, M., Agbu, J. F. O., Farrow, R., Karakaya, Ö., Nerantzi, C., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Conole, G.,Truong, V., & Cox, G. (2022). Impact of COVID-19 on formal education: An international review of practices and potentials of open education at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 23 (4), 1–18.

Supiano, B. (2020, October 1). Teaching: How to reduce cheating in online exams. https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/teaching/2020-10-01?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in

Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). IGI Global.

Thomas, M. (2021, December 19). The connected classroom: 9 examples of IoT in education. https://builtin.com/internet-things/iot-education-examples

Toquero, C. M. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for higher education amid the COVID-19 pandemic: The Philippine context. Pedagogical Research, 5 (4), em0063. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/7947

Trenholm, S. (2007). A review of cheating in fully asynchronous online courses: A math or fact-based course perspective. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35 (3), 281–300.

Unwin, T., Kleessen, B., Hollow, D., Williams, J. B., Oloo, L. M., Alwala, J., Mutimucuio, I., Eduardo, F., & Muianga, X. (2010). Digital learning management systems in Africa: Myths and realities. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25 (1), 5–23.

Vemula, S. (2021). Leveraging VR/AR/MR and AI as innovative educational practices for “iGeneration” students. In Handbook of research on equity in computer science in P-16 education (pp. 265–277). IGI Global.

Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. International Journal of Educational Management, 14, 216–223.

Wakim, P., & Mershad, K. (2018, August). Using internet of things in a learning management system for campus access control. In 2018 International Conference on Computer and Applications (ICCA) (pp. 46–51). IEEE.

Wang, J., Yang, Y., Li, H., & van Aalst, J. (2021). Continuing to teach in a time of crisis: The Chinese rural educational system’s response and student satisfaction and social and cognitive presence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (4), 1494–1512.

Watson, W., & Watson, S. L. (2007). An argument for clarity: What are learning management systems, what are they not, and what should they become.

Westby, C. (2019). The myth of learning styles. Word of Mouth, 31 (2), 4–7.

Whitesel, C. H. (2009). Virtualizing the teacher: The lived experience of teaching within technology [Doctoral dissertation].

Wong, L., & Fong, M. (2014). Student attitudes to traditional and online methods of delivery. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13 (1), 1–3.

Yilmaz Ince, E., Kabul, A., & Diler, İ. (2020). Distance education in higher education in the COVID-19 pandemic process: A case of Isparta Applied Sciences University. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4 (4), 345-351.

Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, Jr, J. F. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Communications of the ACM, 47 (5), 75‒79. https://doi.org/10.1145/986213.986216

Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13 (4), 152–165.