Two Categories of E- Learning in Japan Nakayama, M., & Santiago, R. (2004). Two categories of e-learning in Japan. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52(3), Retrieved January 6, 2005, from the ProQuest database.
Two Categories of e-learning Training and licensing with content- system provider as major role University teaching where content authority plays major role Training and licensing with content- system provider as major role University teaching where content authority plays major role
Recent Developments 2000 MEXT acknowledged e-learning as a way of teaching and course delivery MEXT retains authority on program approval and accreditation Growing number of government projects on e-learning, including E- Japan Adoption of IT policies that promote e- learning 2000 MEXT acknowledged e-learning as a way of teaching and course delivery MEXT retains authority on program approval and accreditation Growing number of government projects on e-learning, including E- Japan Adoption of IT policies that promote e- learning
Cultural Factors Preference for traditional educational methods, including measuring learning through examinations and mastery of classical information Education viewed as mental activity, without regard for issues of efficiency and ROI Belief that private investment in education (e.g. juku) is necessary part of education Preference for traditional educational methods, including measuring learning through examinations and mastery of classical information Education viewed as mental activity, without regard for issues of efficiency and ROI Belief that private investment in education (e.g. juku) is necessary part of education
Key Roles Content Authority (subject matter expert) Content-system provider Learner Content Authority (subject matter expert) Content-system provider Learner
Category 1: E-Learning for Career Training and Licensing Licensing criteria/standards implicitly defined by content authority – goals and content not explicitly defined Content-system providers market complete systems Learners as consumers Content authority and learner interact two times: when providing info on licensing and during test/certification Learner does independent study Licensing criteria/standards implicitly defined by content authority – goals and content not explicitly defined Content-system providers market complete systems Learners as consumers Content authority and learner interact two times: when providing info on licensing and during test/certification Learner does independent study
Category 1 Diagram
Cases of Category 1 Language Learning (English) Training and licensing of Information Processing Engineers In-house training or performance support learning systems Pre-employment in-house training Language Learning (English) Training and licensing of Information Processing Engineers In-house training or performance support learning systems Pre-employment in-house training
Category 2: E-learning in Higher Education University teaching University professor as content authority Content-system provider as hardware/software developer Learner students Professor develops course and lectures online or f2f. Also assess learning. Until 2000, only f2f courses accredited, so e- learning only supplement. Now accredited, being integrated University teaching University professor as content authority Content-system provider as hardware/software developer Learner students Professor develops course and lectures online or f2f. Also assess learning. Until 2000, only f2f courses accredited, so e- learning only supplement. Now accredited, being integrated
Category 2 Diagram
Instructor-designed e-learning Traditionally, professor designs and organizes lectures. Course design includes selecting material and media, using appropriate evaluations, and constructing well-designed assessment. Few instructional designers available Very few address both pedagogical and technological aspects of elearning Students say elearning courses are difficult to understand, and lack clear objectives. Traditionally, professor designs and organizes lectures. Course design includes selecting material and media, using appropriate evaluations, and constructing well-designed assessment. Few instructional designers available Very few address both pedagogical and technological aspects of elearning Students say elearning courses are difficult to understand, and lack clear objectives.
NIME survey 2002 15.4% of courses have online features 40% under development Online text – 75.3% Slide presentations – 77.1% Video streaming – 55.1% Bulletin boards – 46% Internet chat – 15.6% 2.2% of online courses accredited 91.6% departments have no plan to offer courses fully online 15.4% of courses have online features 40% under development Online text – 75.3% Slide presentations – 77.1% Video streaming – 55.1% Bulletin boards – 46% Internet chat – 15.6% 2.2% of online courses accredited 91.6% departments have no plan to offer courses fully online
Concerns Effectiveness – both learning and cost Necessary operational and management structures Lack of instructional designers Learner motivation Japanese students used to passive learning style, while e-learning requires active learning and participation Effectiveness – both learning and cost Necessary operational and management structures Lack of instructional designers Learner motivation Japanese students used to passive learning style, while e-learning requires active learning and participation
Category 2 cases Shinshu Uniiversity, Graduate School on the Internet (SUGSI) Asian E-learning Network (AEN) Shinshu Uniiversity, Graduate School on the Internet (SUGSI) Asian E-learning Network (AEN)
American Trends in Distance Education Existing institutions Corporate-university ventures Virtual universities Corporate university or training institutions Existing institutions Corporate-university ventures Virtual universities Corporate university or training institutions