I will be presenting a self-paced online CPD program I recently developed in the MEDFAC E-Learning Showcase 2011. In my ten minute presentation, I will talk about:

• The background of the CCRE Anxiety Education Project
• The design methods, including how to work with a large SME team of 23 members to design peer-reviewed course content under the same framework
• The development process, using Articulate Studio, Text Aloud, Moodle, Adobe CS5, etc.
• The main features of the e-learning program including screenshots and a quick live pre-view of the actual program
• The future directions, including how to improve the process of CPD program development on a continuing basis

If you are interested in medical-related e-learning projects, you are welcome to attend this free event at New Law 026, University of Sydney, Camperdown Campus, at 12:30 on the 23rd of November 2011. This free event will be showcasing e-learning (broadly defined to include LMSs, multimedia, use of social media etc.) within Sydney Medical School – not just innovations but also work in progress, planned etc. The topics will include:

• Introducing LMS skills: a staged approach
• Using Adobe Connect for research consultations and troubleshooting
• Compass: Sydney Medical Program LMS
• Integrating e-portfolios, Blackboard and Compass
• E-learning modules for physiotherapists and junior clinicians for international (resource-poor) and local settings
• Internationalising your online course
• Using the i-pad to create dynamic lecture materials
• E-learning in Opthalmology using Ocean Browser
• Online OSCARS in Dentistry
• A self-paced program in psychiatry using Moodle and Articulate
• Using social media and webinars in student recruitment
• Computer‐based support for psychiatry
• Teaching/Learning Evidence Based Practice WITHOUT – PowerPoint, Quarbon, ‘Clickers’ and Blackboard
• E-learning strategic projects
• Mobile learning
• Researching e-learning in the Faculty

The full program can be downloaded here.

上周，我到Informa公司在墨尔本组织举办的E-Learning峰会上，作了一个关于跨机构E-Learning项目管理的演讲。内容包括E-Learning项目管理的技巧、用于项目管理的教学设计原理、以及能促进E-Learning大规模开发的企业架构设计的优化方法。以下是现场的录音配幻灯片，期待与你交流！

点击这里可整页观看

E-Learning Weekly近日发表了一篇文章，讲述适应2011年E-Learning发展趋势的E-Learning从业者所必需具备的5大技能。这5大技能分别是：

• 视频制作：使用基本的录制设备和视频编缉软件制作视频文件。
• 社交媒体：灵活运用各种社交网络媒体。
• 移动开发：开发适合移动设备（如手机、平板电脑）使用的版本，并进一步发展到移动学习活动的设计。
• 平面设计：搜索并购买恰当的图片（或使用带共同创作授权的图片），并使用平面设计软件作修改处理。
• 快速开发：使用快速快速开发工具，开发E-Learning课程；但这并不意味着“快速设计”可以被省略，快速开发需要体现教学理论和学习规律。

此外，还有4项高级技能，能进一步提升你在这个行业里的价值：

• 项目管理：一个E-Learning项目从最初的构思，到设计，到开发，到测试、到市场推广，再到升级换代…… 你需要控制和优化真个流程，降低成本，提高效率！
• 写作能力：一个E-Learning项目里设计的各种文字性材料的书写能力——项目报告、课程文本、多媒体制作的脚本等。
• 分镜脚本：使用分镜脚本规划整个E-Learning课程，帮助开发人员与内容专家的沟通，以它为蓝图开发整个E-Learning课件。
• 快速样品：把一个构思或初始计划快速地转化为样品，及时与内容专家以及客户沟通确认，使产品与整个团队不同角色的人员之间的期望和理解保持一致。

总而言之，E-Learning这个行业，需要其从业人员掌握多项跨领域、跨层次的职业技能。仅仅有教学设计的技能已经远远不足以应付E-Learning的发展，教学设计不等于E-Learning设计。E-Learning产业仍在高速发展，它对从业人员的要求也在不断变化。紧跟时代步伐，提升自我，是成功的关键！

2011年E-Learning峰会将于2011年3月21-22日在墨尔本Hilton on the Park酒店由Informa公司举办。我将在会议的第2天作一个关于E-Learning项目管理的演讲，欢迎参与！

我的演讲主题是：

Managing e-learning projects across multiple institutions

• Best practice of coordinating a large group of content experts for an e-learning project
• The implications for enterprise architecture design in higher education for distance online learning development
• The instructional design rationale behind the e-learning development

会议的宣传手册可点击下图下载：

会议简介:

The E-Learning Summit will showcase the e-learning programmes of Australia’s premier distance education providers, with honest and insightful presentations from a cross section of public and private organisations.

No longer a lonely pursuit of silent readings and monthly packages, fast internet has produced a flourish of highly interactive, rich media learning solutions which have empowered universities, TAFEs, private institutions and corporations to tailor and develop complex and effective learning solutions, delivering anything from a single unit of learning to an MBA degree.

Join us at E-Learning Summit in Melbourne in March 2011, to ensure that your organisation is equipped with the latest ideas, technologies and strategies, to provide education for a wider range of students, and to give them the unique option of e-learning.

会议亮点:

• Case studies from Australia’s top universities
• Digital marketing campaign analysis – an Australian first for reaching virgin target markets
• Presentation of the latest in learning technology
• A discussion about the importance of branding in e-learning
• Analysis of distance education as a tool for furthering social inclusion
• Effective student support, at a distance

and many more…

会议日程:

Day One: Monday 21st March 2011

8.00

Registration and coffee

8.45

Welcome and speed networking session
Get to know your peers right from the start in this relaxed and informal speed networking session. Bring your business cards!

9.00

Opening remarks from the Chair

9:10

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

E-Learning in Australian tertiary education

* A snapshot of the current market: myths and realities
* Characteristics and aspirations of online students
* Key providers
o Domestic
o International
* Prospects for growth of the industry
* Which institutions have been most successful at providing online education, and why?
* Case Study: e-learning success at Navitas Ltd

Prof James Dalziel, Director, Macquarie e-Learning Centre of Excellence (MELCOE), Macquarie University

10:00

INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDY

The Open University, UK

* Maintaining an internationally respected degree program in the online space
* Finding the right balance in course materials
* Building strategic partnerships that work

Dominic Newbould, Director of External Relations, Open University Worldwide

10:45

Morning tea

ADVERTISING & MARKETING

11:00

Managing people and products: Finding the balance and blend in e-learning

* Segmenting target markets for online learning
* Digital communication for digital students
* Case study: Gradschool.com.au

Professor Kevin McConkey, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, (Academic and Global Relations), The University of Newcastle

11:45

Using social media strategy to acquire new students

* Setting realistic budgets
* In-house vs agency identifying the appropriate amount of in-house expertise necessary
* Effective seeding strategy

Marc Niems, VP, Export Markets and Mobile Learning, E-learning Industry Association

12:30

Legal issues for online education providers

* Considering copyright when developing coursework
* Understanding safe-harbor protections
* Strategies for developing rich, multimedia content without breaching copyright

Belinda Muir, Associate IP Lawyer and Trade Mark Attorney, Griffith Hack

1:15

Lunch

CASE STUDIES

2:15

University of New England

* Academic strategy with a new toolkit: pushing the limits of e-learning
* An examination of government policy relating to e-learning
* Working with international agencies

Belind Tynan, Academic Director, University of New England

3:00

It’s not easy being ‘e’: a behind the scenes look at what it really takes to succeed as an e-learning e-business

* Adopting an all inclusive e-business model
* The importance of digital administration
* Creating a student community online

OTEN – TAFE NSW

3:45

Afternoon tea

4:00

Facilitating online learning and teaching

* Transitioning academics to online learning and teaching
* Pedagogy and the online techno abyss
* Supporting academics in their online learning and teaching endeavours

Cath Moore, Academic Manager (Open Universities Australia) Programs, Swinburne University of Technology

4:45

Managing an Online MBA: University of South Australia

* Creating legitimacy in an online MBA program
* Innovative approaches to content
* Appropriating traditional assessment tasks for the online space

Bob Gilliver, MBA Course Director, University of South Australia

5:20

Closing remarks from Chair

5:30

Networking drinks

Day Two: Tuesday 22nd March 2011

8.40

Welcome and speed networking session

8.45

Opening remarks from the Chair

9:00

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Key factors that contribute to a great online education experience

* Are we really delivering a product that meets the needs of our customers?
* Catering for an increasingly diverse target market
* An examination of the challenges faced and solutions found in delivering a successful online education service

Malcolm Kinns, Director, Think Education Group

9:45

INTERNATIONAL KEYNOTE

Using evaluation evidence at a course level to both improve students’ learning experiences and optimize institutional planning for e-learning

* Developing an evaluation culture in universities
* Improving students’ learning experiences and outcomes
* Ensuring effective horizontal and vertical communication strategies within universities
* Optimising planning for e-learning infrastructure and support

Professor Carmel McNaught, Director/ Professor of Learning Enhancement, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

10:30

Morning tea

LEARNING AND TEACHING

10:45

Change Management in e-learning

* Innovations in real time video: new directions in virtual classrooms
* Effective online assessment tools
* Online education as a social media: developing content with student syndication in mind
* Cloud computing development
* Mobile streaming

Clint Smith, Director, Learnworks, President, E-Learning Network of Australiasia

11:30

Pedagogy and the impact evolving e-learning technology

* Identifying the best e-learning solution for the campus/ student
* Conflicts between traditional teaching knowledge and e-learning sensabilities
* Developing an all inclusive approach to e-learning implamentation

Steve Linquist, Senior Educator, E-Learning at University of Ballarat

12:15

Lunch

TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN

1:15

Managing e-learning projects across multiple institutions

* Best practice of coordinating a large group of content experts for an e-learning project
* The implications for enterprise architecture design in higher education for distance online learning development
* The instructional design rationale behind the e-learning development

Richard Wenchao He, Education and Multimedia Design Coordinator, Westmead Hospital (University of Sydney)

2:00

UTS/ Acid Green – Successful university – agency partnerships in developing learning technology

* The importance of educational research as an underpinning for e-assessment software ReView
* Recognition of academic research as an important feature of educational software for the Higher Ed market
* Importance of developing e-assessment software from the basis of sound research and live incremental pilot studies as a basis for commercial viability

Darral Thompson, Senior Lecturer and Director of Teaching and Learning University of Technology, Sydney (UTS)
Sam Marciano, General Manager, AcidGreen

2:45

Afternoon tea

3:00

CASE STUDY

The Australian Wind Energy Institute

* How to produce a top shelf e-learning program
* Developing e-learning projects which meet commercial realties and social responsibilities
* Sourcing private funding for e-learning initiatives

Sigfried Roy, Director, The Australian Wind Energy Institute

3:45

Designing for e-Learning: Promises and pitfalls

* Supporting the student learning experience
* Enabling connectivity, communication and collaboration
* Maximising participation and social inclusion

Som Naidu, Associate Professor and Director of Teaching and Learning Quality Enhancement and Evaluation Services, Division of Learning and Teaching Services, Charles Sturt University

4:30

Closing remarks from the Chair

4:45

Conference close

If you are using Articulate Studio to develop your interactive e-learning course and using an LMS to host the courseware, you may want to do a poll and survey on relevant topics within the course in order to promote the students’ participation and interests. If you would like to embed a poll or a survey within an Articulate presentation, you may firstly think of using Articulate Quizmaker to develop the survey questions.

However, many people are concerned about the reporting function of Articulate Quizmaker. With Articulate Quizmaker, you can develop graded quizzes or non-graded surveys. If you set the questions types as survey, you would find it difficult to deal with the reporting process. Firstly, you will not able to track the survey report unless you have an Articulate Online subscription; secondly, you are not able to let the students view the status immediately after they submit their answers; and thirdly, your mail box will be bombed if you set to receive e-mails of individual survey submission and you will find it time-consuming to transfer the data from the e-mails to the spreadsheet.

After several tries, my conclusion is that Articulate Quizmaker 09 is not suitable for developing survey or poll. if you are using an LMS to host your Articulate courseware, why not embed the poll and survey function of the LMS into your presentations? Here is any example:

I’m using Moodle to host the Articulate presentations that I’m developing. In Moodle, there is an activity called “Choice” which enable the students to select one item from a list and to view the report showing the ratio of choices of the whole class. There is also a plugin called “Feedback” which has more question types for you to choose from. On the other hand, Articulate Presenter 09 can embed “Web Object” into presentations. I’m using this function to embed the Choice and Feedback in the presentations. It works well! Here is the procedure:

1. You will need to set up the Choice or Feedback first in the course.
2. Once the poll or survey is set up, you should have a link of the poll or survey page within your Moodle system.
3. Copy the link.
4. Switch to your Articulate presentation, click “Web Object”.
5. Paste the link on the Web Object dialogue, and click “OK”.
6. Publish your Articulate presentation and upload to Moodle as a SCORM package.

The above example is an introduction to a unit of 4 modules. We asked the students to watch a video clip and do a poll to make them think whether a person’s anxiety can be judged by his/her appearance. Once the students make their choice, they will be prompted the poll result. Then the lecturer will continue to give further explanation afterward.

在企事业单位高层上评估用于支持教学的新技术的核心要素

何文超

E-mail: w.r.he@unsw.edu.au

澳大利亚新南威尔士大学

这是一个约5分钟的关于评估教育技术产品的简要演讲展示。我采用我创建的DOAMI模型——Decisions（决定）、Objectives（目标）、Approaches（途径）、Management（管理）、Interpretation（解析），来讲解从企事业单位高层的角度，如何评估用于教学的新技术。

家长参与的周末学前儿童外语（英语） 面授课程

网上学习解决方案： 灵格风中国案例研究

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Learning Science and Technology

by

Wenchao He

wenchao.he@sydney.edu.au

Centre for Research on Computer-Supported Learning and Cognition

Faculty of Education and Social Work

The University of Sydney , Australia

July 2008

学位论文全文

论文研究计划

参与者信息综述

家长参与者同意函

父母或监护人同意函

教师参与者信息综述

教师参与者同意函

Abstract

This case study was driven by the needs of Guangzhou Kids Centre, Linguaphone Group China Branch to explore the feasibility of developing an e-learning solution to promote parental involvement in order to enhance the learning outcomes of the preschooler-level students attending weekend face-to-face English classes. A pilot e-learning project was initiated in two classes (Level 1 and 2) to help the parents to organise weekly family-based English learning activities under the instruction of the teachers. During a five-week period, the parents were given access to an online learning management system where there were weekly instruction packages including the teachers’ summaries of what was taught in class, family-based English learning activity guide with relevant materials, and a feedback forum. The teachers checked and replied the parents’ feedback during the week to provide further assistance. To have a better understanding of parental involvement in the weekend English class and to avoid influences of any potential technical issues related to the e-learning project, an alternative method was taken at the same time in another two classes (Level 1 and 2), where the parents received the same instruction packages in print. The parents completed some questionnaires before and after the project, and were interviewed by the researcher. The four teachers were also interviewed at the end of the project. The results show that most of the parents of Level 2 students actively participated in the project while the participation by the parents of Level 1 students was limited. The E-Learning Group’s and Print Group’s parents participated in the program using different strategies. The teachers’ and parents’ observations seem to suggest that the students’ progress was associated with the degree of activeness of the parents’ participation. Suggestions for the subsequent development of the e-learning solution are made based on the analysis and discussion of the results.

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I am grateful to my supervisor Dr. Chun Hu for her support and help throughout my study. Her valuable suggestions and comments on my work gave me a strong direction to move further. Discussing with her usually triggered much new idea conducive to the subsequent research procedure. She cared not only my study but also my life in Australia, a foreign country for me. This has led to my confidence and enjoyableness during the study.

I thank Linguaphone China and Ask Idea Educational Studio for providing this study with funding, relevant materials and continual support.

I thank Mr. Yaowei Situ and Mr. Tim Ng for their promoting my proposed parental involvement program to be implemented in Guangzhou Kids Centre, Linguaphone China. Without their support, I could not conduct the case study with Linguaphone.

I thank the four teachers’ participation in this study. They have worked with me collaboratively within the parental involvement program. Without their support and effort, I could not implement the project and conduct the study internationally.

Finally, and certainly not least, my greatest thanks are due to my fiancée for cheerful encouragement and unfailing support during the study. And I thank my parents who are living in China but always encourage me to overcome difficulties via synchronous chat on the Internet.

Licensing

The author of this dissertation, Mr. Wenchao He, owns the copyright of this dissertation which is protected by Copyright Act 1968 and other applicable law in Australia . Without the copyright holder’s written permission, any use of this dissertation other than as authorised under this license is prohibited.

On 1 July 2008, this dissertation will be submitted to Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney for examination. The Faculty and University of Sydney Library and its agents will be permanently licensed to hold the hard and electronic copies of this dissertation which can be made available to the staff and the students of University of Sydney . Once this dissertation has been submitted, Linguaphone Group and Ask Idea Educational Studio will be respectively granted a permanent, irrevocable, free, world wide, non-exclusive license (including a right of sublicense) to use, reproduce, adapt and exploit the intellectual property rights in this dissertation for any commercial or noncommercial purpose.

From 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2008, the full text of this dissertation should be kept partially confidential and should not be copied, distributed, displayed or reproduced out of the scopes of University of Sydney, Linguaphone Group and Ask Idea Educational Studio. The author and any other staff and student in the three organisations who has received this dissertation should only use the dissertation for their work, study, or research within the three organisations and should not forward the full text of this dissertation to any other party or upload the full text of this dissertation to the Internet to make it available to the public.

From 1 January 2009, this dissertation will be made available to the public and become licensed unde Australian Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Work 2.5 License , which is:

You are free:

to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights.

Any request for any use of this dissertation other than as authorised under the above licensing statement can be forwarded to the copyright holder, Wenchao He, who can be contacted at wenchao.he@sydney.edu.au.

List of Contents

1    Introduction. 1

1.1 Problem Statement. 1

1.2 Possible solution. 2

1.3 Purposes of the Study and Research Questions. 2

2    Literature Review. 4

2.1 Parental Involvement. 4

2.1.1 Parental Involvement’s Effectiveness. 4

2.1.2 Parent-school Partnership. 5

2.1.3 Communicative Issue of Parental Involvement Programs in Kindergartens. 6

2.1.4 Parental Involvement Possibility. 7

2.2 E-learning. 8

2.2.1 E-learning’s Representations. 8

2.2.2 Networked Learning. 9

2.2.3 E-learning in a Family Context 10

2.2.4 Using Technology to Promote Family-School Connection. 12

2.3 Second/Foreign Language Learning. 13

2.3.1 Family-based Linguistic Input and Interaction. 13

2.3.2 The Transitional Shift of CALL. 15

3    Methodology. 18

3.1 Research Method Selection. 18

3.2 Participants. 20

3.3 Instruments. 21

3.3.1 Questionnaires. 21

3.3.2 Telephone Interview. 25

3.4 Procedure. 27

3.4.1 Parental Involvement Program. 27

3.4.2 Data Collection. 28

3.4.3 Data Analysis. 28

4    Results. 30

4.1 Overview. 30

4.1.1 Overview of the Students and the Parents. 30

4.1.2 Response Rates. 33

4.1.3 Participation Rate. 34

4.2 Parental Involvement in Children’s English Learning. 35

4.2.1 Parental Modeling in Children’s English Learning. 35

4.2.2 Parental Involvement Preferences. 39

4.2.3 Summary. 43

4.3 E-learning Solution Supporting Parental Involvement. 43

4.3.1 Parent Involved Networked Learning Model 43

4.3.2 Promoting Connections. 44

4.3.3 Summary. 49

4.4 Enhancing the Outcomes of Children’s English Learning. 49

4.4.1 Enhancing English Input and Interaction by CALL. 50

4.4.2 Let the Students Know about their Parents’ Participation. 52

4.4.3 Multiple Language Representations. 53

4.4.4 Parent-Teacher Face-to-Face Communication. 54

4.4.5 Customised Instruction in Class. 54

4.4.6 Parents’ Learning English for Themselves. 55

4.4.7 Summary. 56

5    Discussion and Conclusion. 57

5.1 Summary of the findings. 57

5.2 Implications and Suggestions. 58

5.2.1 Multiple Solutions. 58

5.2.2 Instruction on Parental Involvement 58

5.2.3 Promoting Connections. 59

5.2.4 Promoting English Input and Interaction. 59

5.3 Limitations of the study. 60

5.4 Future research. 61

6     References. 62

Evaluation Proposal for an Online

IELTS Writing Tutoring System

Wenchao He

Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Australia

1    Introduction

This plan describes the background, purposes, limitations, stakeholders, decisions, questions, methods, participants, instruments, procedures, logistics, and timeline for the evaluation of Chao Yue IELTS Online Tutoring System, which is an e-learning program for IELTS candidates who have purchased IELTS preparation books on www.cyielts.com.au. The methodology, procedures, and instrumentation included in this plan are based on several meetings between members of the development team and the evaluation team, as well as a review of several draft design documents. The primary objective of this evaluation is to provide timely and accurate information to support decisions regarding the enhancement and marketing of the e-learning program. The evaluation project will involve students and teachers who are to go through the standard instructional process and complete tests and/or questionnaire and/or interview. The system log will also be used for data analysis. The evaluation project will start on 1 June 2009 and finish by the end of the month. The estimated cost will be $27,200. This plan is to be reviewed, revised and approved in the first week of June.
 

2    Background

Chao Yue IELTS Online Tutoring System (http://e-learning.cyielts.com.au) is a Moodle-based learning management system providing IELTS candidates with tutoring service for their IELTS preparation. IELTS stands for International English Language Testing System. People from non-English speaking countries should take IELTS test and use the test result to apply for courses and/or jobs offered in English speaking countries (e.g., Australia). IELTS result is also a requirement for applying for a permanent visa and/or immigration to English speaking countries. Chao Yue IELTS sells IELTS preparation books online and provides the customers with tutoring services. The operation is that the students firstly purchase IELTS preparation books online, then receive and use the books for self-study. Once they have any difficulties in studying the materials, they can ask the online tutors for help on the e-learning system. When they complete an IELTS writing task, they are to submit the essays to the e-learning system and the tutors will provide them with feedback and a web-based customised small course with various learning activities. The tutoring service for the first essay that the student submits is free of charge. After the first round, the student can decide to pay for extra writing tutoring service. So basically, Chao Yue IELTS’s e-learning system offers two kinds of services – general questions answering and IELTS writing tutoring. This evaluation will focus on the IELTS writing tutoring part of the system. A detailed tutoring process is illustrated in Figure 1.

Besides the one-on-one tutoring mode in the IELTS Writing Tutoring Section, once the tutors identify the students’ common problems in IELTS writing, they will organise some instructional materials and make them available to the students. The tutors also moderate an online learning community where students discuss about their learning and help each other.
 

•    Figure 1    Chao Yue IELTS Writing Tutoring Process

 
3    Purposes

The overall purpose of this evaluation is to provide the directors and tutors at Chao Yue IELTS with the timely, accurate information required to support decisions regarding the enhancement and marketing of the IELTS Writing Tutoring program. This evaluation is primarily an effectiveness evaluation in the sense that the information collected will be used as the basis for determining whether the program accomplishes its objectives within the immediate or short-term context of its implementation. As a result of this evaluation and the decisions and actions stemming from it, the e-learning program should be ready for being further promoted in the IELTS preparation education market, or should be enhanced before being further promoted.
Specific sub-purposes of this evaluation are:

*    to collect information for promoting the e-learning program,
*    to investigate the reasons why the students subscribe to or not subscribe to extra tutoring service after they receive the first round of service for free,
*    to measure to what extent the program helps the students improve their English writing skills for IELTS, and
*    to decide if the program needs to be modified for students’ better learning outcome.

 
4    Stakeholders

The clients for this evaluation are the managers of Chao Yue IELTS. Important primary stakeholders include the tutors and marketing personnel involved in the development effort and the students of the e-learning system. The technical staff who is in charge of maintaining the e-learning system and the customer service staff may also be viewed as secondary stakeholders in this evaluation, but dissemination of the evaluation plans and results will be controlled by the clients.

 
5    Decisions

To empower this evaluation to provide timely and accurate information to support decision making, we have identified a set of anticipated decisions that will be made about the e-learning program. Most of these decisions must be made regardless of the quantity and quality of information available to the decision makers, but the evaluation will ensure that the decisions are informed by the best possible information. The following decisions are anticipated:

*    Advertising and marketing decisions will be made about the e-learning program by the managers of Chao Yue IELTS.
*    Modifications will be made in the e-learning program to improve its effectiveness and appeal.
*    Strategies will be made for persuading students subscribe to extra IELTS Writing tutoring service after the free-trial.
 

6    Questions

The following questions will be addressed during this effectiveness evaluation:

*    How are the knowledge and skills of the students changed by the program?
*    What are the students’ reactions to free trial of the program?
*    What are the factors in students’ decision to subscribe or not to subscribe to the program after free trial?
*    What are the fee-paying students’ reactions to the program?
*    What corrections must be made to the program?
*    What enhancements can be made to the program?
 

7    Methods

7.1    Data Collection Matrix

No single evaluation design can encompass the six major questions specified for the evaluation of the IELTS Writing Tutoring e-learning program. Therefore, a mixed methods evaluation design and multiple data collection strategies will be utilised to collect the information required to address these questions. The data collection strategies include questionnaire, interview, automatic data collection and tests. Table 1 specifies the data collection methods and their corresponding evaluation questions.

•    Table 1    Data Collection Matrix

7.2    Learner Questionnaire

7.2.1    Questionnaire Design

Questionnaires are one of the most frequently used methods of collecting data for effectiveness evaluation (Reeves and Hedberg 2008). The Learner Questionnaire for this evaluation will be addressing all the six research questions. The current enrolled and past non-paying and fee-paying students will be invited to complete the questionnaire. Although the questionnaire may be anonymous, the two groups of students will be labelled so that we can differentiate their responses. The objectives of the questionnaire are as followed:

*    to clarify what kinds of benefit in terms of knowledge and skills, if any, the students have got from the program,
*    to let the students recall and specify their reactions to the free trial,
*    to know about the subscribers and non-subscribers’ decision making process in terms of subscription,
*    to let the fee-paying students recall and specify their reactions to the program, and
*    to obtain the data about the weakness and strengths of the program from the students’ perspective.

Generally, the questionnaire will predefine a series of variables represented as a list of 5-point Likert scaling questions. The questionnaire will be web-based so it can be completed on the Internet. The respondents will be given an option to address if they are willing to be contacted for a follow up e-mail or telephone interview.

7.2.2    Rationale of the Questionnaire

A questionnaire is an effective tool to gathered responses in a standardised and objective way. It does not require too much time and effort for evaluators to prepare and analyse, and for students to complete (see Table 2). So this method is relatively quick to collect information. In this evaluation context, a web-based questionnaire is easy to develop in Moodle because this is an existing function built in the system.

•    Table 2    Requirement of Questionnaire (Harvey 1998)

However, it is believed that questionnaire’s response rate could be low, specially the questionnaire can not be delivered and responded to in face-to-face class time (e.g., in an e-learning context). This is because students may not be willing to answer the questions. They might not wish to reveal the information or they might think that they will not benefit from responding. Furthermore, the students may answer superficially especially if the questionnaire takes a long time to complete (Harvey 1998). Thus, we should simplify the questionnaire and most of the questions designed are of 5-point Likert scaling type. Where possible, every respondent should have an opportunity to enter a draw to prizes.

7.3    Teacher Interview

7.3.1    Interview Design

In the teacher interview session, the teachers who are offering IELTS writing tutoring service at Chao Yue IELTS will be asked semi-structured questions regarding the students’ progress and the quality of the program. The objectives of the interview are:

*    to obtain the information about the teachers’ impression and observation of the students’ progress, and
*    to let the teachers address their concerns about the design of the program including the instructional process detailed in Figure 1, the current configuration of the Moodle system, and the instructional materials they are using for developing customised small courses for the students.
The semi-structured interview will start with broad questions and then the teachers are free to add extra information to help achieve the objectives of the interview.

7.3.2    Rationale of the Interview

Generally, there are three types of interview design: (1) standardised interview, where questions are asked in the same way across a sample population by different interviewers, (2) semi-structured interview, where the interaction is kept focused on the same ground while allowing individual experience to emerge, and (3) conversational interview, where the evaluator responds quickly to individual differences and situational changes. According to Harvey (1998), all the three types of interview require much time and effort for preparation, conducting the interview and analysis afterwards (see Table 3). However, as the sample for the interview is not large – less than 5, this part of the evaluation would not be extremely time-consuming. Amongst the three types of interviews, the semi-structured one is adopted because the anticipated information from the interview is based on the teachers’ tacit impression, if we choose standardised interview, some important information may be missed; if we choose conversational interview, the teachers may provide too much information which is irrelevant to the predefined evaluation questions.

•    Table 3    Requirement of Interview (Harvey 1998)

7.4    Automated Data Collection

7.4.1    Automated Data Collection Design

In the Moodle system, users’ every single activity will be logged. The e-learning program includes a number of discrete modules, with each module containing several different types of instructional options, e.g., tutorials, quizzes, practice exercises, and mastery tests. The students’ paths through the modules, their choices among the instructional options, and their quiz and test scores, will all be recorded. However, not all the logged data will be used for the evaluation. Our focus is on the following aspects:

*    the frequency of usage,
*    the time spent on each activity and/or resource,
*    exit page (on which page the users are likely to exit the system), and
*    the comparison between expected activity paths and actual activity paths.

The primary objective of collecting the information about the above aspects is to presume the users’ attitude towards the program (e.g., high frequency and moderate time of usage may imply positive attitude while unexpected and sudden exit could be a sign of dislikes). Another objective is to identify any technical problems within the program which may be indicated by unexpected exit and/or unexpected activity paths.

7.4.2    Rationale of Automated Data Collection

Automated data collection is a step-by-step recording of user interaction with an e-learning program. The level of detail recorded is determined by a purpose-built program and can include mouse clicks, menu calls, and all operations on objects. Modelled on a “record” facility, log data is a useful way of tracking user preferences and navigational choices. This approach does not require any attention from the students and administration because once the logging function is turned on, everything is done automatically. However, the preparation time could be long because not all the data is useful for evaluation purpose (see Table 4). Evaluators need to determine what data needs to be logged, how it should be recorded and summarised and what level of detail of activities should be logged (Harvey 1998).

•    Table 4    Requirement of Automated Data Collection (Harvey 1998)

In the current evaluation context, the logged data is a useful resource for presuming users’ reaction and help refine the questionnaire and interview protocol. The reason that the logged data should be linked to the questionnaire and the interview protocol is that the data does not answer “why” questions and further evaluation is necessary to find explanations for occurring phenomena (Harvey 1998). We acknowledge that this approach has such nature so the logged data will not form a strong evidence for the evaluation result.

7.5    Pre- and Post-Testing

7.5.1    Pre- and Post-Testing Design

As the e-learning program being evaluated is an exam preparation program, to determine its effectiveness, a pre- and post-testing approach should be applied and the result can demonstrate if students are making progress or not. The tests are to solely answer the first evaluation question – “How are the knowledge and skills of the students changed by the program?” The subject of the tests will be the fee-paying students who have paid for extra five rounds of IELTS writing tutoring process (see Figure 1). The objective of the tests is to measure to what extent the five rounds of IELTS writing tutoring service has helped the students raise their IELTS writing scores.

7.5.2    Rationale of the Testing

Tests are widely accepted as an effectiveness evaluation strategy, but we should be wary of tests unless you have evidence of their reliability and validity (Reeves and Hedberg 2008). Pre- and post-testing’s result could be easily affected by external factors which influence student learning. It would be very wrong to assume that we can discount a variety of external factors which will affect student performance when considering the reasons for variation between pre and post test responses (Harvey 1998). The reason why this approach requires long time on preparation (see Table 5) is not only about the test questions preparation but also about organising the students (e.g., trying every effort to exclude external factors, recruiting at least 60 students in order to allow us to make reliable statistical conclusions from the data, etc.).

•    Table 5    Requirement of Pre- and Post-Testing (Harvey 1998)

Despite that, we still need to include this approach in the evaluation because this is the only method that can objectively and quantitatively demonstrate the effectiveness of the e-learning program. One of the evaluation purposes is to collect information for promoting the e-learning program. The result of the tests will become an important resource to response to this predefined purpose.

7.6    Procedure of the Evaluation

The evaluation process can be divided into the following phrases:

*    The evaluators recruit students and teachers for the evaluation. The students should include non-paying students and fee-paying students.
*    The administrator turns on automatic logging function in the Moodle system.
*    The evaluators conduct pre-test for fee-paying students who have paid for five rounds of IELTS writing tutoring process.
*    The students go through their study process.
*    The evaluators analyse the logged data of the students’ activities in the learning system.
*    Based on the analysis of the logged data, the evaluators revise the questionnaire and the interview protocol.
*    When the non-paying students finish their first round free trial, they are given the questionnaire to complete.
*    When the fee-paying students finish their five rounds of study process, they are to take the post test and complete the questionnaire.
*    The evaluators conduct the interview with the teachers.
*    The evaluators analyse all the data.
*    The evaluators conduct follow-up interview with students and teachers, where necessary.
*    The evaluators compose the evaluation report.

 
8    Participants

The participants in this effectiveness evaluation will be:

*    2 evaluators
*    60 fee-paying students
*    60 non-paying students
*    4 teachers

 
9    Sample Instruments

9.1    Student Questionnaire

Appendix A includes the Student Questionnaire that the students participating in this evaluation will complete after they finish the free trial (for non-paying students) or after they finish the five rounds of tutoring process (for fee-paying students).

9.2    Teacher Interview Protocol

Appendix B includes the protocol for teacher interview that will complete with the four teachers who are currently offer the tutoring service in the e-learning program.

9.3    Automatic Data Collection

Appendix C includes a list of all the data to be collected by the computer while users are studying within the e-learning program. This data includes both navigation paths and response choices.

9.4    Pre-Test and Post-Test

Appendix D includes a sample of pre-test. All the recruited students should take the pre-test before they enrol in the e-learning program. The pre-test will take one hour to complete. It includes two writing tasks which are standard IELTS Writing tasks.

Appendix E includes a sample of post-test. It is also a standard IELTS Writing test. The difficulty of the pre- and post-tests are the same.
 

10    Data Analysis

10.1    Student Questionnaire

As for the Likert Scale questions, the evaluators are to check the answers for values out with expected ranges and inconsistencies. The results will be presented in bar charts, histograms, and/or scatterplots.
As for the open ended questions, the evaluators are to check the answers to see if they have common responses that can be coded up in some way. The coding technique will be used to transfer the qualitative data into quantitative data.

10.2    Teacher Interview

The evaluators are to check the interview transcripts to see if different teachers have common responses that can be coded up. As for their differences, the evaluators are to summarise them and present the result in a concise format.

10.3    Automatically Collected Data

The automatically collected data will be analysed and will form the basis for the evaluators to presume the users’ thoughts as they were going through the tutoring process. The assumption will be reflected on the revision of the questionnaire and the interview protocol.

10.4    Pre-Test and Post-Test

The test scores will be input into an SPSS database and will be calculated out whether there is significant difference between the pre-test and post-test.
 

11    Deliverables

Below is an outline of how the evaluation findings will be reported:

11.1    Progress of Students
11.1.1    Self-Rated Progress
11.1.2    Pre- and Post-Tests
11.1.3    Teachers’ Observation
11.2    Free Trial
11.2.1    Students’ Reaction to the Free Trial
11.2.2    Factors that Influence Students’ Decision to Subscribe to Extra Tutoring Service after Free Trial
11.2.3    Students’ Performance Described by Teachers
11.3    Paid Tutoring Service
11.3.1    Students’ Reaction to the Program
11.2.2    Students’ Performance Described by Teachers
11.4    Corrections to Be Made
11.4.1    Instructional Process
11.4.2    Instructional Materials
11.5    Enhancements to Be Made
11.5.1    Instructional Process
11.5.2     Instructional Materials
 

12    Limitations

12.1    Individual Learners’ Learning Experiences Vary

Although the trained teachers are to provide the service in a standard process using the same instructional strategy, individual learners’ learning experience will not be the same. This is because the writing tasks each student does are not the same, either as the teachers’ comments and the customised small courses. This may influence the reliability of the evaluation, especially for the student questionnaire part.

12.2    Difficulty in Controlling the Pre- and Post-Tests

The pre- and post-tests require the students complete the writing tasks online individually in one hour. The students are supposed not to look up words in dictionary or have any reference materials. However, this is not controllable because the evaluators can not monitor the testing process directly (e.g., seeing the students doing the tasks without any form of assistance). If any students do not follow the instruction, the reliability of the tests could be doubtful.
 

13    Logistics

Two evaluators will coordinate the implementation of this evaluation plan, including scheduling, data collection, and data transmission, with the course manager for this project. All data will be processed, analysed, interpreted, and reported by the two evaluators. All reports will be provided to managers and the teachers at Chao Yue IELTS. Further dissemination of the evaluation findings will be determined by the managers. Additional details about the logistics are found in the timeline section of this plan. The due dates for various deliverables are also specified in the timeline.

 
14    Timeline

 
15    Budget

 
16    References

Harvey, J 1998, Evaluation Cookbook, Learning Technology Dissemination Initiative, Edinburgh.
Reeves, T C & Hedberg, J G 2008, Evaluating e-Learning: a user-friendly guide (in press).

 
Appendix A    Student Questionnaire

Dear Student,

We are currently running an evaluation project for our e-learning program. We need your feedback to help us improve the IELTS writing tutoring service. Your responses are anonymous. Once you have finished the questionnaire, you will be entered into a draw to win one of the five $100 Coles Gift Cards. It will approximately take you 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Thank you for your time!

1. Please circle your responses to the following statements using the scale below.

1 = Strongly Disagree    2 = Disagree        3 = Neither Agree or Disagree
4 = Agree            5 = Strongly Agree

a. The program helped you identify your weakness in IELTS writing. 1 2 3 4 5

b. The program helped you identify your strengths in IELTS writing. 1 2 3 4 5

c. The tutor’s comment helped you understand how IELTS writing is scored. 1 2 3 4 5

d. The customised small course helps you overcome your weakness in IELTS writing. 1 2 3 4 5

e. Your IELTS writing skills have been improved at the completion of the program. 1 2 3 4 5

d. You satisfied with the free trial. 1 2 3 4 5

e. You decided whether to subscribe to extra tutoring service based on money for value. 1 2 3 4 5

f. You decided whether to subscribe to extra tutoring service based on your experience in the free trial. 1 2 3 4 5

g. You decided whether to subscribe to extra tutoring service based on your availability. 1 2 3 4 5

For Fee-Paying Students:

h. You think your decision to subscribe to extra tutoring service was correct. 1 2 3 4 5

i. You satisfied with the quality of the extra tutoring service. 1 2 3 4 5

j. You actively involved in the learning activities in the paid tutoring process. 1 2 3 4 5

2. What is the best aspect of the e-learning program?

3. How would you improve the e-learning program?

4. Please write any other comments about this e-learning program.

 
Appendix B    Teacher Interview Protocol

*    From your impression and observation, what progress did the students make during the studying this e-learning program?
*    What do you think of the current instructional process?
*    What do you think of the current configuration of the Moodle system?
*    Do you find it difficult or easy to organise relevant instructional materials for developing customised small course for the students?

 
Appendix C    Automated Data Collection

Appendix D    Pre-Test

Task 1

You should spend about 20 minutes on this task. The table below gives information about changes in modes of travel in England between 1985 and 2000. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words.

Average distance in miles travelled per person per year, by mode of travel

Task 2

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. Write about the following topic: Successful sports professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

 
Appendix E    Post-Test

Task 1

You should spend about 20 minutes on this task. The graph and table below give information about water use world wide and water consumption in two different countries. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words.

Global water use by sector

Water consumption in Brazil and Congo in 2000

Task 2

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. Write about the following topic: Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of advertising and not the real needs of the society in which they are sold. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

  Review of Munyofu et al.’s

the Effect of Different Chunking Strategies

in Complementing Animated Instruction

Wenchao He 

Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Australia

Munyofu, M, Swain, W J, Ausman, B D, Lin, H, Kidwai, K & Dwyer, F 2007, ‘The effect of different chunking strategies in complementing animated instruction’ Learning, Media and Technology, vol.32, no.4, 407-419.

Usability Evaluation of E-Learning Environment

 

 

Review of Norman’s “Three Challenges for Design”

Wenchao He

Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Australia

Norman, D. (2007). Three challenges for design.   Retrieved 15/08/2008, from http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/three_challenges_for.html

Norman has summarised the three main challenges for design, which are (1) ever-increasing complexity of everyday things, (2) ever-increasing burden of security, authentication, and identification, and (3) ever-increasing use of automation (Norman 2007). These issues’ focuses are on the different parts of human-computer interaction (i.e., users’ contexts, interfaces between users and machines, and the operation of programs).

In terms of complexity of everyday things, Norman used the example of the danger of automobile drivers’ mobile phone usage (Strayer, Drews et al. 2006) to explain the challenges for automobile dashboard design. He calls for better design to assist relatively unskilled drivers manage two or more tasks at the same time during driving. Even though without same time stress and safety concerns, as the users’ life has become full of complex stuff (e.g., various appliances’ menus, multiple choices, and microprocessors), designers should try effort to reduce complexity so that users’ mind will not be overloaded. Cognitive load theory (Sweller 1988; Sweller 1989) can further explain Norman’s (2007) concern in terms of complexity. The theory suggests that ineffective instruction occurs if learners or users unnecessarily are required to mentally integrate disparate sources of mutually referring information such as separate text and diagrams. Such split-source information may generate a heavy cognitive load. That is to say, people’s working memory is so limited that can not store and process too much information at the same time. Norman (2007) did not explore the challenge deep from the users’ perspective. Actually, such challenge is likely to be solved if users’ cognitive load is reduced. It has been recognised that cognitive load is a central consideration in the design of multimedia instruction (Mayer and Moreno 2003). Mayer & Moreno (2003) further provided nine ways to develop multimedia so that users’ cognitive load can be reduced, which included moving some essential processing from visual channel to auditory channel so that users’ attention on the two channels can be even, allowing time between successive bite-size segments, placing printed words near corresponding parts of graphics to reduce need for visual scanning, etc.

Regarding burden of security, authentication, and identification, Norman (2007) points out that the differences between the three phrases are usually not understood very well and more thorough security demands usually lead to less secure results because of inappropriate security procedures. As a result, the burden of security has decreased the degree of ease of use. However, Norman (2007) does not think this is a typical technical problem and he encourages using psychological and social approaches to deal with the challenge, but he has not provided further support to this point of view. Actually, multimedia security design’s goals can be categorised into content copyrights and content access rights management (Yu 2002). Traditional techniques such as cryptographic tools (Schneier 1996) would result in the security paradox that Norman (2007) described (the more thorough the demands of security, the less secure the result), because after decryption operation, there is no mechanism to protect against unwanted media access and duplication. Knowing this weakness may psychologically and socially increase our concern and burden of security. Therefore, we may want to use the digital watermarking technique to embed a discreet data stream imperceptibly into a digital medium data stream using steganographic (i.e., data hiding) principles (Barni and Bartolini 2004). This technique is believed to maximise the protection of both content copyrights and content access rights without adding burden to users (Yu, 2002).

As for automation, Norman (2007) does identify it as a challenge, but has not demonstrated any convincing evidence to support the argument. Although he points out that difficulties exist in automated domains and predicts that the next domain of automation, the relationship between automation and design is still unclear in his discussion. His main point about automation and design is that over-automation would increase stress and workload and change the type of error and accident. However, if the degree of automation of either design process or final products is controllable, the potential disadvantages of over-automation are not likely to be recognised as “challenge” because the designers can make their own decision. This is different from the former two much less controllable challenges. As multimedia designers need to “have a clear picture of what goes on whenever the user interacts with the program” (Vaughan 2004), the term “automation” in multimedia design process should be more like a part of user response planning. That is to say, designers should exactly predict what users will “automatically” response when they see and/or hear something. This prediction would form the basis of subsequent development of the multimedia products. On the other hand, focusing on the design process per se, “automatic authoring” can refer to either an advanced helper for creating new multimedia presentations or a mechanism to facilitate automatic creation of more useful multimedia documents from existing sources (Li and Drew 2004). Such automation is a great advantage for designers, especially for beginners. For example, text-to-speech tools (Dutoit 1997) can help designers automatically convert text to speech, which saves them from actual voice recording. This kind of automation is highly controllable. It is the designers who decide whether adopt this approach during their work.

At the end, Norman (2007) provided us with some suggestions in response to the challenges he identified. For example, he suggests giving people more choices they want and need to deal with the complexity issue, reducing unnecessary security procedure, and avoiding over-automation. Where this paper goes beyond these suggestions is that, (1) rather than purely giving users more choices, designers can learn from the results of cognitive load experiments and adjust the way they design to ensure the users’ mind will not be overloaded; (2) rather than reducing “unnecessary” security procedures, designers can incorporate new technologies to the authoring process so that the security approach in the production can influence the users to the minimum extent; and (3) the present paper demonstrates that “automation” is not likely to be a challenge for design.

References: 

Barni, M. and F. Bartolini (2004). Watermarking systems engineering : enabling digital assets security and other applications. New York, Marcel Dekker.

Dutoit, T. (1997). "High-quality text-to-speech synthesis: an overview." Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Australia  Retrieved 18/08/2008, from http://lands.let.ru.nl/TSpublic/strik/onderwijs/fonetiek/literatuur/Dutoit.pdf.

Li, Z.-N. and M. S. Drew (2004). Fundamentals of Multimedia. Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education.

Mayer, R. E. and R. Moreno (2003). "Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning." Educational Psychologist 38(1): 43-52.

Norman, D. (2007). "Three challenges for design."   Retrieved 15/08/2008, from http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/three_challenges_for.html.

Schneier, B. (1996). Applied Cryptography. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Strayer, D. L., F. A. Drews, et al. (2006). "A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver." Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48(2): 381-391.

Sweller, J. (1988). "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning." Cognitive Science 12: 257-285.

Sweller, J. (1989). "Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science." Journal of Educational Psychology 81: 457-466.

Vaughan, T. (2004). Multimedia: Making it work. Burr Ridge, McGraw-Hill.

Yu, H. (2002). Digital multimedia at home and content rights management. IEEE 4th International Workshop on Networked Appliances, Gaithersburg. 

Incorporating Semantic Web Technologies

to Enterprise E-Learning Solutions

Wenchao He

School of Information System and Technology

Faculty of Informatics, University of Wollongong, Australia

1       Introduction

The Semantic Web is the emerging landscape of new web technologies aiming at web-based information and services that would be understandable and reusable by both humans and machines. Its advent and the relevant technologies, tools and applications provide e-learning development and research with new contexts and opportunities. Enterprise e-learning solution can particularly benefit from the incorporation of Semantic Web technologies because of the nature of enterprise context—it requires that not only learning per se but also business processes should be taken into account, and Semantic Web technologies can optimise the solution so that the business goals can be more easily and likely achieved. This paper will explain the benefits and the approaches of incorporating Semantic Web technologies to enterprise e-learning solutions, and use the Ernst and Young example to demonstrate how to propose Semantic Web technologies to a given e-learning solution.

2       Why Incorporate?

2.1     Enterprise Training’s Goals

The most important concern about enterprise e-learning is its economic benefits. Converting traditional training delivery methods to e-learning will save the firms a large amount of budget. IBM saved US $200 million in 1999, providing five times the learning at one-third the cost of their previous methods. Using a blend of Web-based (80 percent) and classroom (20 percent) instruction, Ernst & Young reduced training costs by 35 percent while improving consistency and scalability. Rockwell Collins reduced training expenditures by 40 percent with only a 25 percent conversion rate to Web-based training. Many other success stories exist (Strother 2002). Such economic benefits are usually measured by comparing e-learning and traditional learning, focusing on the cost of travel, training locations, learning time, etc (Hall 2002). However, the nature of the training, disregarding its delivery mode, has tended to be ignored. That is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of employees’ work so that the firms’ management and business goals can be achieved.

When turning the focus back to the nature of training, we may want to rethink how e-learning can improve the employees’ performance, because this is the goal of “training”. Typical enterprise e-learning is predesigned and developed and the employees are to use and learn the self-paced instructional materials or attend synchronous sessions in which there is an instructor leads the “class”. A better scenario may be inviting the end-users to participate in the designing process so that the course may be more suitable for them (Carr-Chellman & Savoy 2004). However, if the learning content is not targeting the area that the learners are still not able to achieve but may achieve with assistance, the learning will be ineffective. That area is called Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which is the gap between what has been actually developed and what could be developed potentially (Vygotsky 1978). Different from typical educational settings where the teachers have time to observe and identify students’ ZPDs, enterprise e-learning designers and trainers tend to have much less time and effort on analysing exact learners. The mismatch between exact learners’ ZPDs and the e-learning content will lead to the low effectiveness, efficiency and motivation. Even though the learners have participated in design process where their prior knowledge are evaluated and then the course has been designed “appropriately”, they will still feel that either the e-learning content is repeating what they have known or teaching them irrelevant stuff as the enterprise contexts are changing from time to time. For example, the off-line communication between employees (e.g., informal chat, formal meetings, etc.) can increase their shared knowledge, but the predesigned e-learning system does not know about this. Then the employees are still required to go through specific e-learning units as it is part of the HR management procedures. In this case, the e-learning is wasting the staff’s time, i.e. the companies’ money.

To achieve the best training results, First Principles of Instruction suggest that (1) the learners should be engaged in solving real-world problems, (2) the existing knowledge should be activated as a foundation for new knowledge, (3) the new knowledge should be demonstrated to the learners, (4) the new knowledge should be applied by the learners, and (5) the new knowledge should be integrated into the learner’s world (Merrill 2002). Therefore, one of enterprise e-learning’s goals is that the content should match the individual learner’s context (e.g., the real-world problems he or she is facing, the prior knowledge, the possibility that he or she can really apply the new knowledge, etc). However, with traditional Web technologies, it is difficult for enterprise e-learning solutions to achieve that goal, unless there are trainers who can adjust the e-learning content and instructional strategies from time to time according to relevant information from learner analysis or learning evaluation, like the teachers in educational settings.

2.2     Semantic Web Technologies for E-Learning

Content-based and user-based techniques are two traditional approaches to personalization (Dai & Mobasher 2004). Recommendations produced with the content-based technique based on content similarity to the personal profile of the users, while the user-based techniques focus on similarities to other users (Mobasher, Jin & Zhou 2003). Their drawback concerns the difficulty to capture semantic knowledge of the application domain i.e. concepts and their relationships, inherent properties associated with the concepts, axioms or other rules, etc (Markellou, Mousourouli, Spiros & Tsakalidis 2005). As the Semantic Web comes with new emerging standards based on evolving Web technologies, it allows the reuse of material in different contexts, flexible solutions, as well as robust and scalable handling. For achieving this, the web documents are now annotated with meta-information or metadata. This metadata defines what the documents are about in a machine processable way. Ontologies offer a way to cope with these hererogeneous representations of Web resources. They comprise the backbone of the Semantic Web and appear as a promising technology for implementing in particular e-Learning applications. The reason ontologies are becoming so popular is due to what they promise: a share and common understanding of a domain that can be communicated between people and application systems. An ontology can formulate a representation of the learning domain by specifying all of its concepts, the possible relations between them and other properties, conditions or regulations of the domain. The development of the ontology is a