The Change of Time and Space in E-Learning

Anne Mette Nortvig^1,

¹Departmentof Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark

Cite this paper:
Anne Mette Nortvig. The Change of Time and Space in E-Learning. American Journal of Educational Research. 2014; 2(8):612-616. doi: 10.12691/education-2-8-9

Abstract

Teaching in e-learning settings often involves the dichotomies of time (synchronous/asynchronous) and space (same place/different places), but when e-learning involves a hybrid mix of students on campus and e-learning students on-line – and the teaching is recorded in order to be watched by other students later on – this traditional dichotomy cannot capture the complex and multiplied learning settings. This paper attempts to focus on the change of space and time in e-learning settings the way e-learning students and teachers in a professional bachelor programin physiotherapy describe it, and the purpose is to present a framework for categorizing time and space in e-learning settings. Thus, the paper introduces the concept of multi- and mono-locality in order to be able to describe a teaching and learning settings where presence is sometimes felt in more than one place at a time.

Keywords:
e-learning time space physiotherapy education multi- and mono-local settings

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Loureiro‐Koechlin C, Allan B. Time, space and structure in an e‐learning and e‐mentoringproject. British Journal of Educational Technology 2010; 41(5):721-735.
[2]	Giesbers B, Rienties B, Tempelaar D, Gijselaers W. A dynamicanalysis of the interplaybetweenasynchronous and synchronouscommunication in online learning: The impact of motivation. J Comput Assisted Learn 2013.
[3]	James N, Busher H. Researching hybrid learningcommunities in the digital age througheducationalethnography. Ethnography and Education 2013; 8(2):194-209.
[4]	Garrison DR. E-learning in the 21stcentury: A framework for research and practice. : Taylor & Francis; 2011.
[5]	Harasim LM. Learning theory and online technology. New York, NY: Routledge; 2011.
[6]	A theoretical framework for designing online master communities of practice. Forth International Networked Learning Conference (NLC2004); 2004.
[7]	Friesen N. Telepresence and Tele-absence: A Phenomenology of the (In) visible Alien Online. Phenomenology&Practice 2014; 8(1): 17-31.
[8]	Hartman J, Truman-Davis B. Factors relating to the satisfaction of facultyteaching online courses at the University of Central Florida. Online education 2001; 2: 109-128.
[9]	Tait A. Face-to-face and at a distance: the mediation of guidance and counsellingthrough the new technologies. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 1999; 27(1): 113-122.
[10]	Borup J, West RE, Graham CR. Improving online social presencethroughasynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education 2012; 15(3): 195-203.
[11]	Hedberg JG, Stevenson M. BreakingAway from Text, Time and Place. Curriculum Models for the 21st Century: Springer; 2014. p. 17-33.
[12]	Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). In theirownwords: Exploring the learner'sperspective on e-learning.: Joint Information Systems Committee; 2007.
[13]	Hanson J. Displaced but not replaced: the impact of e-learning on academicidentities in highereducation. Teaching in Higher Education 2009; 14(5): 553-564.
[14]	Hilary Spencer. A matter of trust and identity: someuniversityteachers’responses to the increaseduse of information technology in theirworkingenvironmentUCL (University College London); 2011.
[15]	Taylor PG, Lopez L, Quadrelli C. Flexibility, technology and academics' practices: Tantalising tales and muddymaps. : Citeseer; 1996.
[16]	Sappey J, Relf S. Digital Technology Education and ItsImpact on Traditional Academic Roles and Practice. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 2010; 7(1): 3.
[17]	Graham CR, Dzuiban C. Blended learningenvironments. In: Spector JM, Merrill MD, van Merriënboer J, Driscoll MP, editors. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology New York: Routledge; 2008. p. 269-276.
[18]	Laurillard D. E-learning in highereducation. Changinghighereducation: The development of learning and teaching 2006: 71-84.
[19]	Amiel T, Reeves TC. Design-Based Research and Educational Technology: Rethinking Technology and the Research Agenda. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 2008; 11(4).
[20]	Anderson T, Shattuck J. Design-Based Research A Decade of Progress in Education Research? Educational Researcher 2012; 41(1): 16-25.
[21]	Brown AL. Design experiments: Theoretical and methodologicalchallenges in creatingcomplex interventions in classroomsettings. The journal of the learningsciences 1992; 2(2): 141-178.
[22]	Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide throughqualitativeanalysis. London: Sage; 2006.
[23]	Clarke A. Situationalanalysis: Grounded theoryafter the postmodernturn. London: Sage; 2005.
[24]	Charmaz K. Grounded theory. Strategies of qualitativeinquiry 2003; 2: 249.
[25]	Blumer H. Symbolicinteractionism: Perspective and method. London: University of California Pr; 1969.
[26]	Reynolds LT, Herman-Kinney NJ. Handbook of symbolicinteractionism. Oxford: RowmanAltamira; 2003.
[27]	Denzin NK. 40th Anniversary of Studies in SymbolicInteraction. : Emerald Group Publishing; 2013.
[28]	Mead GH. Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. London: University of Chicago press; 1934.
[29]	Dede C. If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLSspecialissue on design-based research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2004; 13(1): 105-114.
[30]	Edelson DC. Design research: Whatwelearnwhenweengage in design. The Journal of the Learning sciences 2002; 11(1): 105-121.
[31]	Strauss AL. A social worldsperspective. Studies in symbolicinteraction 1978; 1: 119-128.
[32]	Wang F, Hannafin MJ. Design-based research and technology-enhancedlearningenvironments. Educational Technology Research and Development 2005; 53(4): 5-23.
[33]	Charmaz K. Grounded Theory. In: Smith JA, Harré R, Van Langenhove L, editors. Rethinkingmethods in psychology London: Sage; 1995. p. 27-49.
[34]	Glaser B, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing Co.; 1967.
[35]	Clarke A. From Grounded Theory to Situational Analysis: What’s new? Why? How? Developing grounded theory: The second generation 2009: 194-234.
[36]	CreswellJW, Clark VLP. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. : Wiley Online Library; 2007.
[37]	Hine C. Virtual Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications; 2013.
[38]	Nortvig A. E-learning in poly-topicsettings. Electronic Journal of e-Learning 2014; 12(2): 206-214.
[39]	Wenger E. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge university press; 1998.
[40]	Lave J, Wenger E. Situatedknowledge and legitimateperipherical participation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
[41]	Bryman A. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford university press; 2012.
[42]	Lawson T, Comber C, Gage J, Cullum‐Hanshaw A. Images of the future for education? Videoconferencing: A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 2010; 19(3): 295-314.