Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology - Commentary on "A Review of e Learning in Canada"

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by pop out

Richard A. Schwier’s commentary reflects on a review titled “A Review of e Learning in Canada,” praising the research team’s rigorous work while explaining why the author cannot adopt a purely critical stance. The piece argues that evidence-based decision making differs from seeking proof that technology is inherently good or bad. It emphasizes limitations of focusing on effect sizes for issues that are not yet research-mature, and proposes serial-essay observations on evidence, authority, and how technology should be integrated thoughtfully.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

On Evidence and Authority

Evidence vs. efficacy questions

Technology as entity vs. array/process

Authority and decision-making

Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology Volume 32(3) Fall / automne 2006 Commentary on "A Review of e Learning in Canada" Richard A. Schwier Authors Richard A. Schw ier is a professor and Graduate Program Coordinator of Educational Communications and Technology at the University of Saskatchewan. He can be contacted by e mail at [richard.schwier@usask.ca](richard.schwier@usask.ca) Talk about a struggle! This commentary seemed to refuse to be written. I've filled a few virtual wastebaskets with rejected prose, failed approaches and trivial commentary . Finally, I had to ask myself why I was struggling so much with this piece of work, and it came down to a couple of important things : 1. The research team (hereafter called Team Concordia ) that performed this review did a superb job of it. This, like many of the other products that seem to fly off the desks of Abrami and Bernard, is an impressive piece of research, despite the limited time and resources they had to complete it, and beyond the limitations of using an Argument Catalogue as their primary research methodology . So I can't adopt the role of stern critic and point out all of the failingsand oversights in their research with a dismissive air of academic remove; they 're too good for that (and besides, it would be un Canadian to be so rude ) . I found that the report did what excellent research should do; it caused me to reflect on important issues in e learning that have been moiling around in my mind for some time . 2. If this paper isn't to be about criticizing flaws in their work, what should it be? What literary form should it take? Description? Argument? Conceptual flight of fancy? As a former English teacher, it made some old muscles ache, but I knew I didn't want to write traditional academic discourse . So I decided this should be a serial essay . With apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson for using the titling convention of "On...", I will draw a few observations of w hat I think are key issues in e learning that come directly out of the report, and that may find their way into a future argument catalogue or meta analysis . Some of the things I'll discuss in this essay will be side conversations to the report wereviewed. Much of what concerns me is not included in the review, nor should it be included. The review by its design and intent is aimed at drawing persistent understandings from existing experimental ( or sometimes quasi experimental) studies that meet prescribed criteria . That is their strength and their contribution, and it is a considerable contribution indeed. But it seems like some of the things that interest me the most are not yet at that level of research maturity . They are topics that haven't yet generated the volume or type of research necessary to allow the kind of compressed scrutiny that this type of review and meta analyses are built to analyze . In fact, much of the research that I'm drawn to these days isn't asking questions that will ultimately provide much if any useful data for generalizing results . But I do think they have important things to say, or at least, they are interesting things to talk about that relate obliquely to this report. Let's take a look at some of the issues that aren't ready for prime time in the world of effect sizes . On Evidence and Authority I want to briefly discuss the notion of evidence based decision making vs . evidence for whether using technology is a good or bad idea . I am glad the authors debunked the Maclean's story on " How computers make Our Kids Stupid" . It was an inflammatory, silly charge—in my experience not an unusual feature of cover stories from Maclean's—but we shouldn't be drawn into a useless and divisive debate by trying to answer, " Does technology make our kids smart?" Certainly this team does not fall into the trap; they 're far too sophisticated and experienced to allow that to happen. They look for evidence of what practices and procedures work, what

FAQs

Why does Schwier frame his response as a serial essay rather than traditional academic discourse?

He struggles with the piece’s composition and, as a former English teacher, chooses a serial essay format to present key issues without resorting to conventional academic prose.

What does Schwier praise about the original review?

He credits the research team with producing an impressive, disciplined work despite limited time and resources, particularly their use of a structured methodology to derive persistent understandings.

How does Schwier distinguish evidence-based decision making from asking whether technology is simply good or bad?

He argues that educators often confuse these goals, whereas the more constructive approach is to examine what practices work, the confidence level of findings, and what questions still need research rather than proving technology’s overall worth.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by pop out