Two Categories of E-Learning in Japan

1. Two Categories of E-Learning in Japan Nakayama, M., & Santiago, R. (2004). Two categories of e-learning in Japan. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52(3), 100-111. Retrieved January 6, 2005, from the ProQuest database.

2. Two Categories of e-learning • Training and licensing with content-system provider as major role • University teaching where content authority plays major role

3. Recent Developments • 2000 MEXT acknowledged e-learning as a way of teaching and course delivery • MEXT retains authority on program approval and accreditation • Growing number of government projects on e-learning, including E-Japan • Adoption of IT policies that promote e-learning

4. Cultural Factors • Preference for traditional educational methods, including measuring learning through examinations and mastery of classical information • Education viewed as mental activity, without regard for issues of efficiency and ROI • Belief that private investment in education (e.g. juku) is necessary part of education

5. Key Roles • Content Authority (subject matter expert) • Content-system provider • Learner

6. Category 1: E-Learning for Career Training and Licensing • Licensing criteria/standards implicitly defined by content authority – goals and content not explicitly defined • Content-system providers market complete systems • Learners as consumers • Content authority and learner interact two times: when providing info on licensing and during test/certification • Learner does independent study

7. Category 1 Diagram

8. Cases of Category 1 • Language Learning (English) • Training and licensing of Information Processing Engineers • In-house training or performance support learning systems • Pre-employment in-house training

9. Category 2: E-learning in Higher Education • University teaching • University professor as content authority • Content-system provider as hardware/software developer • Learner students • Professor develops course and lectures online or f2f. Also assess learning. • Until 2000, only f2f courses accredited, so e-learning only supplement. Now accredited, being integrated

10. Category 2 Diagram

11. Instructor-designed e-learning • Traditionally, professor designs and organizes lectures. Course design includes selecting material and media, using appropriate evaluations, and constructing well-designed assessment. • Few instructional designers available • Very few address both pedagogical and technological aspects of elearning • Students say elearning courses are difficult to understand, and lack clear objectives.

12. NIME survey 2002 • 15.4% of courses have online features • 40% under development • Online text – 75.3% • Slide presentations – 77.1% • Video streaming – 55.1% • Bulletin boards – 46% • Internet chat – 15.6% • 2.2% of online courses accredited • 91.6% departments have no plan to offer courses fully online

13. Concerns • Effectiveness – both learning and cost • Necessary operational and management structures • Lack of instructional designers • Learner motivation • Japanese students used to passive learning style, while e-learning requires active learning and participation

14. Category 2 cases • Shinshu Uniiversity, Graduate School on the Internet (SUGSI) • Asian E-learning Network (AEN)

15. American Trends in Distance Education • Existing institutions • Corporate-university ventures • Virtual universities • Corporate university or training institutions