Educational Technology

Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289-306. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082

The article provided a much-needed study for the educational field, including both education and training practitioners. The question in the title humorously asks the overall research question. Over the years, many authors and scholars have agreed on some universal usage; however, some disagree over terminology and its various definitions’ language (qualifiers). Notably, the primary reasoning for this is the term’s ambiguity and confusion around its conceptual interpretation. Therefore, creating the current dilemma, which may not have an end in sight. We could ask, “why is this” and “how did we get here?” Those are great questions; this article presents some essential insight. In 2018, the National Center for Education Services (NCES) estimated that 6.3 million students were enrolled in online courses. One could only imagine how this number increased during the Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) (2020-2022). The author’s primary research objective is supported by four specific questions to investigate the key elements and scope of definitions of online learning in published literature.

The article encompasses a systematic literature review over the last three decades (1988-2018) regarding existing definitions of “online learning” or synonymous terms. This article aimed to investigate the number and content of definitions of online learning. The research endeavor provided 46 distinct definitions from 37 peer-reviewed resources. The data from the researcher’s spreadsheets were imported into NVivo (qualitative data analysis software). The authors conducted a content analysis on these sets of definitions. Doing so led to understanding the core elements for defining online learning, the confusion surrounding the terms, and the synonyms used for online learning. Another strength of the article is that it maps the evolution of technology and the online learning concept. Moreover, they developed a collective mental model of the concept represented in their findings. The authors present the data using four separate tables. Table 1 shows the number of definitions published by year of publication, where the high-water mark of seven occurred in 2001 and five in 2000 and 2015, respectively. Table 2 presents the terms used to define online learning and the number of scholarly articles in which the term appeared. Online learning was reflected in 15 articles, followed by 11 articles reflecting E-learning. Table 3 presents seven codes (elements) with a scope and the number of times the code was presented, where “Technology” is reflected in 34 articles without a significant-close second. Lastly, Table 4 represents the peak period (2000 – 2003) when terms were defined, with “online learning” and “E-learning” virtually going head-to-head. Interestingly, “blended learning” peaked between 2014 through 2016.

Even in my adult education learning environment, staff and faculty have a vague understanding of the terms online learning, blended learning, and Learning Management System (LMS). Additionally, the blended-learning type and environment have become the mainstay for many institutions and organizations, especially during and after post COVID-19 era. This article provides an outstanding evolution and foundation regarding online learning. Within my practice with the U.S. Army, we are grounded in “distributed learning,” as the synonymous terminology related to this article. Ironically, this term was only found in one article during their study. I am compelled to provide a status for using this term to other practitioners in the field, thus providing them with situational awareness.

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). (2023). The army distributed learning program. TRADOC Pamphlet 350-70-12. U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, The Army University.

This official resource (released last month) guides education and training practitioners on developing distributed learning (DL) content and courseware; explains the planning, analysis, design, development, and delivery of DL products; and the various roles involved in the management of DL development. The U.S. Army defines DL as “the delivery of standardized individual, collective, and self-development training to units, Soldiers, leaders, and Department of the Army (DA) Civilians at the right place and right time, using multiple means and technologies, with synchronous, asynchronous, and blended student-instructor interaction.” In contrast, the U.S. Army defines blended learning (BL) as “a mix of synchronous and asynchronous media and methodologies to meet the instructional goal best.” The combination of collaborative and independent learning enhances the learning process.

Systematically, the resource is segmented for the practitioner into five chapters of narrative texts supported by several tables and figures. Chapter 1 introduces The Army Distributed Learning Program (TADLP). The program supports all three training domains (operational, institutional, and self-development) for all Army components. The proponent for the resource is the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, The Army University. Chapter 2 presents a conceptual overview of DL. All of its elements illustrate a snapshot of the Army DL environment. Moreover, an inclusive list of DL content types is presented. These are described as Chapter 3 offers DL processes, including identification of resourcing levels, DL requirements and resourcing model, TADLP contracting process, and mobile products registration and development process. Chapter 4 presents DL and the ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation) process. The evaluation phase is a continuum and drives the reactivation of other phases during the life cycle of the DL product. This chapter lays out events that should occur in each phase. Furthermore, the five levels of interactivity are described along with interactive categories (sensory stimulus, branching, learning level, and participation). Finally, Chapter 5 describes mobile learning, which presents the mobile learning environment (user, data, transport, application, endpoint) and how these elements are interrelated.

Any adult learning work or future research I conduct must be cross-referenced with this resource regarding DL or its synonymous terms. I can add to established processes and procedures but stay within them. The U.S. Army Inspector General School (TIGS) falls directly into the institutional training domain. TIGS graduates conduct unit (organization) inspections, provide Soldier and command assistance, aid with formal investigations, and provide teaching and training. This resource is a great companion to my other primary resources. TRADOC Pamphlet 350-70-14, Training and Education Development in Support of the Institutional Domain, and TRADOC Regulation 350-70, Army Learning Policy and Systems, the Army’s overarching and foundational doctrine on training and education. ADDIE is the U.S. Army’s primary instructional design approach. Notably, the Army is free to use a single method or process and is open to including other instructional design and performance methodologies. In retrospect, the term “online learning” is not mentioned in this resource which I found interesting.