Talk:E-learning/Archive 2

E learning

Apparrently it stands for Internet Learning, not Electronic Learning as you might think - accoring to my friend. Dsgtrain (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was originally electronic learning, but, as noted in the first sentence, there isn't a universally accepted definition. If your friend has published his or her opinion in a reliable source, perhaps it could be included here.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't thing so (well not that your friend told you this, but what is stands for). 'e' is not for Internet. On the other hand , e-learning is most probably largely based on 'Internet technologies' (web-based, etc.) and can therefore potentially be used over Internet (but also do not forget the Intranet). We are also observing some trends of using cloud computing for implementing e-learning (i.e. services). Having said that, and as is indicated in the Wikipedia article, it is difficult to find a commonly accepted definition (I search quickly at academic papers, as well as experts such as ASTD, Bertein or Brendon Hall, I do not manage to find easily a defintion). Looking at a document dating from 2000, Wentling T, Waight C, Gallaher J, La Fleur J, Wang C, Kanfer A. E-Learning: A Review of Literature 2000, I get this definition: e-learning is the acquisition and use of knowledge distributed and facilitated primarily by electronic means. The NCSA e-Learning group definition--Nabeth (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal

I removed the text below once and it was immediately readded by an anonymous editor who provided no comment or justification for the reversion. I propose removing the text again as it is completely unsourced and doesn't seem to add much to the article beyond a link to purchase the book in question.

The text in question:

"The practice of e-learning became acceptable with the emergence of the Internet’s Web. The first book in this area wasWeb-Based Instruction containing 63 chapters, contributed by more than one hundred authors from throughout the world, published by Educational Technology Publications in 1997. Since the publication of the Web-Based Instruction book, e-learning approach to online education became focus of global education and training communities."

--ElKevbo (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this same IP address (and one more in the same range) have edited the article about the editor of this book. Looking at Google Scholor and ERIC, he's got enough publications to be notable, but this section seems primarily about promoting the book. If there was another source provided referring to this book as the first or talking about its significance in the field, I think something about it could possibly be mentioned (without the detail of the number of chapters & promotional language). WeisheitSuchen (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes by User:Jonathanbishop

Dear Jonathan, this page definitely needs some cleaning, and your input would be welcome (I like what you put in history) if you did not remove important material (for instance the part on Learning 2.0). Can you please proceed more progressively and indicate here your plans? Thanks. --Nabeth (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nabeth - I will just take a look at restoring that, it may just have been moved --Jonathan Bishop(talk) 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If you plan to make big changes, and if it take you sometime, can you please announce it first, so that we know when we can look at the result. Thanks. --Nabeth (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nabeth, I think I've restored the part you wanted. If not, can you dig it out and re-include it on top of my revisions? I must admit I'm not keen on the neologism E-Learning 2.0, because it was something I argued for when I was programming CBL applications years before I got my MSc in E-Learning! --Jonathan Bishop(talk) 21:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Concerning Learning 2.0, I hope we are not goign to enter in a debate like it was the case with Entreprise 2.0 (and at some point Web 2.0) that raised a lot of hostily. Later on many notable academic journal and research refered specifically on Web 2.0.

Please the next time you pan to make major changes, indicate it first to the talk page what you plan to do, and when you have finished, so that people have the oportunity to 'recover' useful content that would be lost. When you have time, since you seem to be an expert in social dynamics, have a look at: Social actions. Best regards --Nabeth (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It is an interesting area, though it is not exclusive to sociology. My first encounter with 'social action' came from Giuseppe Mantovani's New Communication Environments and also later with Lucy Suchman's work. I will have to edit that article sometime to include such references! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Need section on free eLearning resources already online -- or separate WP article.

MIT and a number of other top-tier universities offer extensive free course materials and lectures online.

A January 2010 AARP article is a good starting place:

The New U: How to Learn Just About Anything Online ... For Free —Preceding unsigned comment added byOcdcntx (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is Open Culture, a superb, hard-to-find, and unique, (so far as I can tell) website started and edited by the head of Stanford University’s continuing studies. Open Culture provides an extensive collection of links to and thoughtful discussion of high-quality eLearning materials available free online. This seems the exact kind of external link that should be included under WP:EL.

• Openculture - extensive collection of links to E-learning resources

From the AARP article above:

Dan Colman, who directs Stanford University’s continuing studies program, sees no end to the growth of e-learning opportunities. Colman, who founded and edits Open Culture, a website that tracks free educational and cultural media on the Web, considers these materials to be an important resource for personal enrichment, not a replacement for a college education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx(talk • contribs) 01:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't. This is an encyclopedia article, not a how-to article, guide, or directory of links. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WTF

As an example of really, really poor electronic learning we can have the article link to itself. Who brutalized this article? Why is the lead sentence a comment on the topic as opposed to what it should a description of it? Where in the Manual of Style, WP:LS do I find that? Hutcher (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up the list of Benefits of eLearning a bit. #9 (Receive quality training that bolsters job performance) doesn't really look like a benefit of eLearning per se. The suggestion is that it's better than classroom? I don't think that argument's been madeLacbolg (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Capital L

What about the capital "L"? Is there any spelling convention about writing e-learning or e-Learning? Or is it the same?Tesi1700 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Drawbacks to E-Learning

In the article, only the benefits were listed. I find it hard to belive there are no drawbacks to this method of learning. What about the human contact, the personal touch, recognising those that have understood a piece of information and those 'still in the dark'? How can those who can't read or write properly cope? What about people who do not readily have access to a computor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.55 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Systems

Suggest renaming "Systems" to "Systems and Organizations" since some of these (Sakai, eCollege (since removed for not being a system, despite being a major player in the market), HotChalk) are not actually links to product pages but company pages. 174.23.246.14 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe the "Systems" section should just go away entirely. It seems like a link to List of learning management systems is a better thing to have than a separate list on this page.174.23.246.14 (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes and References

Why is there a "Notes" section mid-way through the article and also a "References" section at the end? Should they not be combined? Is this the result of merge or something? Just wondering. Wikipelli ^Talk 11:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

E-Learning, e-learning, eLearning, e-Learning or elearning?

What is the correct terminology here? This 'talk' page is riddled with inconsistency, for instance.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by80.254.147.188 (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Manners

I stand corrected but in that case a note from you to me explaining the deletion would have shown good form on your part.Mx96 15:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

E learning

Hello I want the details of new standards of E learning. Can any one suggest the websites for getting the topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snehith1520 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know that my small edit was an assignment. --Pcm130 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)