[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-597666-105":59,"doc-detail-597666-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","canadian-journal-of-learning-and-technology-commentary-on-e-learning-review","Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology - Commentary on e Learning Review","","Commentary by Margaret Haughey on an e-learning review in Canada, focusing on how research orientations and qualitative data approaches can be meta-analytically combined with quantitative strategies. The discussion interrogates what “e learning” means, quoting definitions that treat e learning as the application of computer technologies to education across classroom and distance contexts, while stressing it is broader than content or any single technology type. The commentary questions the usefulness of an expansive research categorization scheme, including whether ICT granularity may dilute actionable policy guidance. It also addresses evidence of impacts, funding rationales, and the persistent tension between optimistic and skeptical views of ICT in schools.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/canadian-journal-of-learning-and-technology-commentary-on-e-learning-review/597666/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/canadian-journal-of-learning-and-technology-commentary-on-e-learning-review/597666.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"pop out","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-25","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":81},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"How does the commentary frame the relationship between qualitative and quantitative research methods?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It describes traditional research as often converting qualitative data (e.g., open-ended survey responses) into quantitative forms, and notes substantial debate about how to acknowledge differing research orientations while reaching conclusions useful to policy makers.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What definition of e learning is discussed in the commentary?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The authors’ definition presents e learning as the application of computer technologies to education across face-to-face, blended/hybrid, mediated distance, and online environments, and it also quotes a Canadian Council on Learning definition emphasizing knowledge and skills supported by ICT-enabled learning interactions.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why does the commentary question the usefulness of the research categorization scheme?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It argues that the definition is expansive, raising concerns that the granularity of included ICT-related studies may be too broad to provide specific, actionable direction for any particular context.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},597666,1792192523,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":81,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":46,"preview_page_count":4},962090760408,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology Volume 32(3) Fall / automne 2006 Commentary on e Learning Review  \nMargaret Haughey  \nAuthor  \nMargaret Haughey is Vice President, Academic at Atha basca University .  \nCorrespondence regarding this commentary can be e mailed  \nto:m haughey@atha bascau.ca  \nGiven the extensive adoption of research orientations that employ qualitative data collection techniques in education, I found it exciting to read about a meta analytical method that combined findings from studies within these research orientations with those from the well established traditional forms that most often employed quantitative data strategies . Traditional research methods are not exclusively quantitative but usually transform qualitative data obtained through methods such as open question survey responses into a quantitative form. Since the development of alternative research paradigms and data analysis strategies for qualitative data, there has been extensive writing, much heat and little light on the vexing question of how to acknowledge the differing research orientations—and by that I mean chiefly constructivist/interpretiv ist, critical science, and post structuralist, although there is a longer list in the Denzin and Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research (2000)—while coming to some general conclusion that could be useful to policy makers . Abrami, Bernard and their colleagues suggest they have a format and I congratulate them for attempting to bridge the chasm.  \nThe most obvious next question raised for me was, Does this research categorization scheme work? Before I comment, I would like to go back to a more fundamental question. This is a review of e learning in Canada, but what do we mean by e learning? The authors begin with a definition;  \nE learning has become the general term encompassing the application of computer technologies to education, whether it occurs in face to face classrooms, in blended and hybrid courses, in mediated distance education contexts or in online learning environments. (p. 9)  \nThey go on to quote the Canadian Council on Learning’s definition as “the development of knowledge and skills through the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) particularly to support interactions for learning—interactions with content, with learning activities and tools, and with other people .” They conclude with the note that e learning is “not merely content related,” ( p. 9) or technology specific, and can include hybrid or blended learning. Embedded in the definition is the use of ICTs (information and communication technologies) . ICT is wonderful shorthand but it defies easy definition and covers a “long list of goods and services, including older technologies . . . such as the telephone and television, and newer technologies whose functionalities are increasingly overlapping through the process of convergence” ( Sciadas, 2006, p. 5) .  \nThe definition of e learning then is a very expansive definition and while it may be useful tobe broad when one is trying to identify papers for possible inclusion in the database, it raises questions about the variety of possibilities it entails . Many would contend that all learning is mediated whether through words, spoken or written, or images constructed in two or three dimensions so that the specification of ICTs adds little to the complexity of the general definition of mediated learning. Are studies on the teaching of computer skills or software programs included in this definition? What about studies on the use of PDFs ( portable data formats) in science fieldwork? It must include video based multimedia developed in language and literature courses but also learning objects used in advanced calculus courses, but does it include students using PowerPoint or keyboarding their work into a computer? All of these examples employ ICTs in pursuit of enhanced learning but in the end we are left wondering whether the granularity is so large that","cbCaitIFl5xCwZhs","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitIFl5xCwZhs","pdf",210420,"English","# Commentary on e Learning Review\n## Interpreting research orientations and data strategies\n## Defining e learning and the role of ICT\n## Questioning categorization granularity and policy utility\n## Evidence, funding rationales, and outcomes","[{\"question\":\"How does the commentary frame the relationship between qualitative and quantitative research methods?\",\"answer\":\"It describes traditional research as often converting qualitative data (e.g., open-ended survey responses) into quantitative forms, and notes substantial debate about how to acknowledge differing research orientations while reaching conclusions useful to policy makers.\"},{\"question\":\"What definition of e learning is discussed in the commentary?\",\"answer\":\"The authors’ definition presents e learning as the application of computer technologies to education across face-to-face, blended/hybrid, mediated distance, and online environments, and it also quotes a Canadian Council on Learning definition emphasizing knowledge and skills supported by ICT-enabled learning interactions.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the commentary question the usefulness of the research categorization scheme?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that the definition is expansive, raising concerns that the granularity of included ICT-related studies may be too broad to provide specific, actionable direction for any particular context.\"}]","Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology - Commentary on e Learning Review | PDF",1792085464]