Volume 32(3) Fall - A Response and Commentary on A Review of e Learning in Canada - Terry Anderson

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by pop out

A response and commentary reflecting on a review of e-learning research in Canada in the early 21st century, with emphasis on the limited availability of robust data and systematic analysis of e-learning’s social, economic, and educational impacts. The author evaluates the review’s starting definition of e-learning from the Canadian Council for Learning, highlights interaction-centered perspectives, and questions the narrow interpretation of “what works” based on causal evidence.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages8

Reading Time20 min

AccessFree to download

A Response and Commentary to A Review of e Learning in Canada

Author background and correspondence

Definition of e learning and interaction focus

Limits of data and under-researched impact

Critique of “what works” evidence framing

Volume 32(3) Fall / automne 2006 A Response and Commentary to: A Review of e Learning in Canada Terry Anderson Author Terry Anderson is a professor and Canada Research chair in Distance Education at Atha basca University – Canada ’s Open University . He teaches in the Masters of Distance Education program. Correspondance regarding this commentary may be sent by e mail: Terry@atha bascau.ca Philip Abrami and his colleagues at Concordia University have done an admirable job of over viewing the complex state of research and related perceptions of e learning in Canada in the early years of the 21 st Century . The work of these scholars at quite effectively aggregating and synthesizing is commendable given the emergent, regionally disparate, complex and most critically, under researched domain that they have reviewed. Unfortunately, what stands out most readily for me ( and echoed by the authors) is the poverty of data, sound research, and systematic analysis of the considerable social, economic and educational impact that has accompanied the rapid integration of e learning technologies into both formal and informal learning institutions and organizations . This dearth of data is especially ironical and perplexing given the positive views of almost all respondents (from educators to policy makers, from students to the general public ) identified in the review . Canadians seem to very clearly see e learning as a critically important component of life and learning. However that interest has not evolved into an active e learning research and development and knowledge dissemination program The report begins with a definition of e learning—one developed by the Canadian Council for Learning ( CCL) who are sponsors of t he study . Their definition seems to adequately define the diverse set of practices and technologies in actual use . “E learning is the development of knowledge and skills through the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to support interactions for learning—interactions with content, with learning activities and tools, and with other people” ( Rossiter, 2002) . I was especially pleased to note the focus on interaction—with both humans, activities and content that is included in the definition. In the tradition of John Dewey, Vygotsky and Paiget, I have argued and tried to further delineate the various types of interactions and noted its effect on learning motivation, achievement and persistence in educational contexts (Anderson, 2003) including those created on campus and in online environments . I also appreciated the acknowledgement by the authors and by CCL of t he convergence of tools and practice between formerly distinct modes of distance and campus based education into models in which e learning plays significant, if not dominant importance . I doubt that I could craft abetter definition, but I note that the breadth and extensiveness of the definition, allows inclusion of very diverse forms of instruction and learning ranging from the use of a computer in a classroom for drill and practice to completion of complete graduate degrees online, with no face to face meetings . Both of these are examples of e learning but it stretches my mind past the point of credibility to think how “what works” in one context applies to “what works” in the other. The review attempts to answer a quixotic question that plagues every intervention informal and informal learning. What practices and procedures relating to e learning use are most effective in promoting learning? Given the pragmatic nature of many Canadian educators, politicians and parents, this is an important question. It follows that a thorough reading of a broad range of research, professional and popular writing should provide both specific and broad policy guidelines, best practices and specific activities that work effectively with e learning technologies and techniques . Unfortunately, the authors admit in the executive summary that

FAQs

Why does the author highlight a poverty of data in the Canadian e-learning research review?

The author says the review stands out for the limited data, sound research, and systematic analysis regarding e-learning’s social, economic, and educational impact despite generally positive views from respondents.

What definition of e-learning does the response discuss?

The response quotes a definition developed by the Canadian Council for Learning, describing e-learning as developing knowledge and skills through ICTs to support learning interactions with content, learning activities and tools, and other people.

What concerns does the author raise about the phrase “what works” in e-learning research?

The author argues that “what works” is used to favor a particular epistemological approach, often excluding other types of knowledge, and that it implies results apply regardless of context.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by pop out