Self-paced learning seems to be a good idea. However, based on the
literature, learners tend to postpone or delay their coursework as it is
learner-centered, whereby the success or failure depends on the learner
(Carrier et al. 1986; Hiltz, 1994; Bourne et al. 1997; Olugbemiro et
al. 1999; Young-Ju et al. 2000). In an e-learning environment, learners
need to manage their learning and schedule their assignments (Grant et
al, 2003). This is rather different from the traditional learning
environment where learners need to attend some courses in physical
classrooms, and they need to do their assignments or take examinations
within a certain time frame (Miller et al, 2001). As a result,
e-learning learners may take a longer time to graduate, as compared to
traditional students who need to complete their studies within a time
frame (Choy, 2002). Learners with poor writing skills may be at a
disadvantage in an e-learning environment (Smith et al. 2004). This is
because learners need to communicate in a text-based environment.
Therefore, the inability to write well may inhibit the learning process
and lead to misunderstandings. Limitations compared to Traditional
Campus Lacking physical interaction is another limitation in e-learning.
Schott et al. (2003) expressed that the lack of physical interactions
made e-learning students feel isolated and apprehensive. Lacking
physical interaction may also affect the completion rate (Haigh, 2004).
McAleavy et al. (1996) found out that half of the students for an
Advance Diploma in Education from the University of Ulster commented
that it was rather hard to seek advice, as compared to face-to-face
instruction. Physical classrooms however will enable learners to learn
faster, as they can always refer to the instructors or peers for
guidance. Body language is absent in e-learning. An example is when a
student stated that he missed “facial and hand gesturesâ€, from which
important cues can be derived (Meyer, 2003). The lack of physical
interactions shown above will hinder the learning process as pointed out
by McKnight (2000), that the omission of observation of student
emotions may prevent professors or instructors from responding to
student’s needs.
Apart from this lack of physical interaction, e-learning is also criticized for not having facilities like traditional campuses: internship, volunteer opportunities, access to physical library, book stores, career and development counselling (McCraken, 2004). Some learning institutions tried to provide these facilities but they were too limited (McCraken, 2004). McCraken further pointed out problems such as budget, compatibility of software, and college policies that hindered the development of integrated supporting systems. E-learning may not be suitable for certain groups of learners, especially science students who need extensive physical science laboratory experiments (Vernon, 2002; Bourn et al. 2005). UCLA’s School of Dentistry spent around US$750,000 to develop their online courseware but later found out that the prospective customers would rather spend more for traditional classroom-based lectures (Kypreos, 2003). This may be due to the fact that these students need to carry out a lot of laboratory experiments in order to deepen their skills and knowledge, and this may be hard to achieve through e-learning laboratory simulations. Difficulty in teaching in an e-learning environment is another issue, as instructors may not be able to teach well. Moving into e-learning is difficult for instructors who are already familiar with the traditional teaching environment (Kearsley, 2000; Angelina, 2002a; Strauss et al. 2003). This is because the e-learning teaching environment is new and the e- learning technologies are developing and changing rapidly (Calvert, 2001). Strauss (2003) said that transition into e-learning is rather difficult as it involves conversion of physical teaching materials into e-learning materials and this takes time to complete. Many instructors are not exposed to the necessary software, and do not want to change their teaching styles (Levy, 2003). Instructors need to have interpersonal skills to communicate effectively in an electronic classroom (White et al. 2000). As a result, instructors need e-learning training before transitioning (Levy et al. 2003). All these points seem to support Rogers’ (2000) argument that a good classroom instructor may not be a good online instructor. Palloff et al. (1999) also mentioned that some instructors might even underestimate e-learning, as they think that it is similar to face-to- face instruction. All these complicate instructors’ transition towards e- learning.
iii. Design Limitations
Poor design of the e-learning courseware is a major issue for learners and e-learning providers, as pointed out by Ivergard et al. (2005). A poor design “gave users a feeling of being stressed and badly treated by the systemâ€. They further said this causes users to feel frustrated and eventually stop learning. Courseware design should be tailored to the needs of the learners: it should be easy to use and students should have easy access to guidance and information (Howell, Williams et al. 2003). Svensson (2004) said that it is not easy to design the e-learning courseware, as it should not be limited to just content and should include other components to enhance learning. In a nutshell, the poor usability of the online course will inhibit the learner’s ability to acquire knowledge (Smulders, 2003). Since e-learning is designed basically for the ICT savvy, it may be too technical for ICT novices (James et al, 2003). Angelina (2002) also stressed the importance of ensuring equality of access to learners from all backgrounds and walks of society. In short, the courseware should be easy to use and come with detailed guidance and ultimately be suitable for all learners. As there are many course wares available in the market, Sambrook (2003) mentioned that it is not easy for learners to choose a suitable courseware that comes with relevant content and adequate levels. Trainers also find it hard to judge the quality of the training materials (Carr, 1999).
