[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-598537-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-598537-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","an-extended-systematic-review-of-canadian-policy-documents-on-e-learning-what-were-doing-and-not-doing","An Extended Systematic Review of Canadian Policy Documents on e-Learning - What We’re Doing and Not Doing","","A systematic review synthesizes publicly available Canadian government policy documents on e-learning. The study identifies and analyzes 138 policy documents from Canadian provinces and territories and several federal agencies, covering 2000–2010, using prescriptive and emergent coding approaches. Findings indicate policymakers view technology as offering benefits for learners, yet reveal concerning gaps in specific details, consistency, and coordination needed to implement e-learning matching optimistic expectations.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/an-extended-systematic-review-of-canadian-policy-documents-on-e-learning-what-were-doing-and-not-doing/598537/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/an-extended-systematic-review-of-canadian-policy-documents-on-e-learning-what-were-doing-and-not-doing/598537.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"A glass of water","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-05","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the purpose of this systematic review of Canadian e-learning policy documents?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It synthesizes and discusses publicly available Canadian government policy documents on e-learning, identifying areas of commonality and inconsistency and determining where discussion is lacking.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How many policy documents and which time span were analyzed?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The review analyzed 138 policy documents from 2000 to 2010, drawn from Canadian provinces and territories and several federal agencies.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What did the review find about how technology is viewed by Canadian policymakers?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Policymakers are seen as recognizing potential benefits of technology for learners, but the review also finds a troubling lack of specific details, consistency, and coordination for implementing e-learning.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},598537,1792211312,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":112,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},962090760832,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","An Extended Systematic Review of Canadian Policy Documents on e-Learning: What We’re Doing and Not Doing  \nÉtude systématique de longue durée des documents d’orientation canadienne sur l’apprentissage en ligne : ce que nous faisons et ne faisonspas  \nEugene Borokhovski, Concordia University Robert M. Bernard, Concordia University Erin Mills, Canadian Council on Learning Philip C. Abrami, Concordia University  \nC. Anne Wade, Concordia University  \nRana Tamim, Hamdan Bin Mohammad e-University Edward Bethel, Concordia University  \nGretchen Lowerison, Coreidea Innovation Inc.  \nDavid Pickup, Concordia University Michael A. Surkes, Concordia University  \nAbstract  \nThis systematic review builds upon the work of Abrami et al. (2006) and McGreal and Anderson (2007). It seeks to provide a synthesis and discussion of publicly available government policy documents with regard to e-learning in Canada. In total, 138 policy documents from Canadian provinces and territories and several federal agencies, dated from 2000 to 2010, were identified, retrieved and analyzed using prescriptive and emergent coding approaches with the purpose of uncovering and describing areas of commonality and inconsistency and, hence, determining where discussions about e-learning are lacking. The review confirmed that Canadian policymakers view technology as offering various potential benefits to learners, but also revealed a troubling lack of specific details, consistency and coordination in facilitating the development of e-learning to fulfill these optimistic expectations.  \nRésumé  \nCette étude systématique repose sur les travaux Abrami et al. (2006) et de McGreal et Anderson (2007) . Elle vise à fournir une synthèse et une analyse des documents publics d’orientation gouvernementale qui traitent de l’apprentissage en ligne au Canada. Au total, 138 documents d’orientation publiés, de 2000 à 2010, par les provinces et les territoires canadiens ainsi que par plusieurs agences fédérales ont été identifiés, récupérés et analysés selon des méthodes de codage nouvelles et consacrées par l’usage, dans le but de découvrir et de décrire des zones de points communs et d’hétérogénéité, et, du coup, de déterminer des déficiences dans les analyses de l’apprentissage en ligne. L’étude a confirmé que, pour les responsables politiques canadiens, l’informatique offre des avantages potentiels aux apprenants; toutefois, l’étude a aussi révélé unmanque préoccupant d’explication, de constance et de coordination quand il a fallu faciliter l’implantation de l’apprentissage en ligne afin de répondre à ces attentes optimistes.  \nIntroduction  \nThere is widespread agreement on the importance of technology in education, and much of the research that has been carried out over the past few decades supports this notion. For better or worse, the term e-learning has come to broadly signify various uses of learning technologies that in earlier times might have been referred to separately as CAI, CAL, CSCL, CBI, CMC, etc. Even distance education (DE), online learning (OL) and blended learning (BL) are now considered to be subsets of e-learning.  \nFor the purposes of this article, e-learning refers to the range of electronic and digital technologies used for teaching and learning. It encompasses all levels of formal education, including classroom uses, distance and online learning and blended learning (i.e., partly online and partly classroom-based). Given the variety of terminology used for e-learning, this definition includes other related terms (e.g., ICT, technology integration in education, Web-based distributed learning, electronic/digital learning tools/objects, and technologybased learning) .  \nInformation and communication technologies (ICTs) bring advantages to learning processes that are not readily or easily available through other means, the most important being greater access to learning, better allocation of teaching resources, shared learning content, deeper learning and the soc","cbCaiubVKG6xPtdV","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiubVKG6xPtdV","pdf",1158075,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose of this systematic review of Canadian e-learning policy documents?\",\"answer\":\"It synthesizes and discusses publicly available Canadian government policy documents on e-learning, identifying areas of commonality and inconsistency and determining where discussion is lacking.\"},{\"question\":\"How many policy documents and which time span were analyzed?\",\"answer\":\"The review analyzed 138 policy documents from 2000 to 2010, drawn from Canadian provinces and territories and several federal agencies.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the review find about how technology is viewed by Canadian policymakers?\",\"answer\":\"Policymakers are seen as recognizing potential benefits of technology for learners, but the review also finds a troubling lack of specific details, consistency, and coordination for implementing e-learning.\"}]","An Extended Systematic Review of Canadian Policy Documents on e-Learning - What We’re Doing and Not Doing | PDF",1792087114,76]