The E prefix was more marketing than anything else. This is probably the best example of “Smoke and Mirrors” that
I have seen so far. We also heard of words like E-Crap to describe what some called E-Learning.

So I would say that the way for elearning not to be a THING is for it to be recognized as the publicity stunt it was.

To me it is just Learning, Health, Government etc. “Knowledge and Technological” advances have always played a role in these and
they always will.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. However, I believe that managers and
governmental organizations reaction to the invention of the word E-Learning,E-gov, E-health is a sign that our leaders do not understand how to manage technological or other types of change.

Technology is not the opportunity. Technology is not the threat. Change is the opportunity and threat.

I do understand the argument that we need to indicate when we propose to deliver some learning resources via electronic means, but, by the same token, I can’t help wondering how helpful it is to distinguish between learning modalities and instructional delivery media. Doesn’t that ensure that elearning will remain a “thing” rather than just becoming a normal, integral part of a larger whole?

Your diagram nicely depicts possible responses to performance problems. What’s more, you’ve captured something about “learning” that’s bothered me for a while.

Learning is always internal — that’s where the neurons live. Externals, like web pages and ergonomic tools and consultants, can have some influence on whether learning is more or less likely, but there’s no direct relationship.

Nuance, of course, doesn’t have much of a constituency in large organizations, so we get Learning Management Systems that are mainly FTDs (file/track/display). Nothing wrong with filing, tracking, and displaying, if that’s what you want to do — but as we ought to have, um, learned, those don’t necessarily result in learning.

“Long may your chimney smoke,” a traditional Scots wish for good things.

When we focus on learning (internal) rather than on external activities such as teaching/instruction, there is a danger of becoming caught up in something that we can’t really measure. We can also easily disrupt natural processes because we try to mold natural thinking/learning processes to theorical processes.

Those who focus on learning also tend to value some forms of learning over other forms. If you can’t think of examples you have been focusing on learning rather than on teaching.

We can also easily fall in the trap of labeling people with learning disabilities when it is the instructional methods that are not working.

Similar dangers exists for those involved in organizational change and for those who are building the technologies of tomorrow.

The black box approach has proven successful in many other fields so I tend to believe it can applied to education.

Learning just happens. It may be planned and structured but this is not a requirement to learn. In fact, learning the hard way is normally neither planned nor structured.

Therefore, the problem is not the terminology, but the semantic. Just because some people call computer based training e-learning, it does not mean that all e-learning is computer based training.

In my mind, e-learning refers to any learning that happens through information technolgy. Like reading your blog…

But what’s the point of instruction/teaching without learning? I suppose you could say they are independent, in that learning relies on the individual being motivated to change an opinion, their behaviour, or the way they think.

But then isn’t that part of the role of the instructor/teacher – to provide some level of extrinsic motivation, and to help the learner develop intrinsic motivation.

BTW. Brilliant diagram – really useful

PS. Not sure if this comment is going to be duplicated, the script timed out when I posted it first time.

Gilbert says……Yes. Yes. Yes.

When we think in terms of “learning” we come up with strange solutions to problems that are instructional in nature.

Also interesting is the fact that we often confuse “self-instruction” and learning.

GB