E-learning technology offers a wide range of new opportunities for development of education, and the advantages of the use of e-learning are numerous. The advantages cover administrative, financial, societal as well as pedagogical areas. The major advantages of and arguments for using e-learning technology are:

These advantages are often mentioned in connection with e-learning and more specifically in connection with the use of virtual learning environments (VLE) and learning objects. The advantages can be summed up in the word flexibility which is made possible by VLE and learning objects. VLE offer opportunities for teachers to give online lectures and for students to follow courses and collaborate online. Learning objects provide the opportunity for teachers and students to (re)use and (re)arrange learning materials in different orders - thereby creating different courses or course units (see Wiley (2002) for a definition of learning objects).

The advantages of flexibility in education are unquestionable. However, the discussions of design and use of e-learning suffer from a too narrow focus on the potentials of the technology itself. Concerning design of learning objects, Orrill (2002) writes:

”While there are undoubtedly advantages to the development of these learning objects, we have, as a field, overlooked the most important aspect of the tools - how they support student learning. The discussion on learning objects thus far has focused largely on their design and technical development.”

In other words, a discussion of the pedagogical quality of e-learning is, to a large extent, missing. This is partly due to a belief that e-learning technology is pedagogically neutral; a belief that a technical solution to flexibility can be used in relation to different pedagogical approaches. This article will discuss design and use of e-learning from a pedagogical perspective. I will present a framework for the evaluation of e-learning technology in relation to different concepts of learning. By using the framework to evaluate e-learning technology, it is argued that the technology is not pedagogically neutral. Further, the framework provides criteria for a purposeful design and use of e-learning technology to support learning, and it helps create a consciousness about the pedagogical consequences of using e-learning technology. Instead of attempting to achieve pedagogical neutrality, it is argued that it is necessary to focus on design of technology that explicitly supports a certain learning theoretical approach.

How can we design and use e-learning to better the pedagogical quality of education? In From change to renewal, Koper (2000, p. 7) writes:

”I think that in education quite a lot of energy is wasted on chasing solutions that have everything to do with chance technical possibilities, and nothing to do with fundamental renewal.”

Koper believes it is necessary to create a fundamental renewal of the educational system, and not only to make small adjustments to the existing system. The purpose of the framework developed in this article is not only to support design and use of e-learning to change education but to fundamentally develop and renew education pedagogically. The argument of Koper (2001) and his colleagues behind the development of Educational Modelling Language (EML) is a modelling or design of technology which makes explicit use of pedagogical models.

In line with Hannafin et al. (1997; 1999), I argue that design and use of e-learning must be grounded in a theoretical approach. First, as Hannafin et al. (1997, p. 102) write, the argument is that: ”Learning environments are routinely mismatched with their espoused epistemological roots”. It means that the specific solutions of practice are not congruent with advocated underlying theoretical principles. Second, besides the problems concerning a potential mismatch between practice and theoretical roots, I further argue that a theoretical grounding is necessary in order to develop the educational practice qualitatively. If an educational practice is developed strictly on the basis of an existing practice, the implementation of new technologies will result in a remediation of the existing learning activities; i.e. a transfer of the existing learning activities from physical locations to a virtual environment. A remediation maintains but does not improve the quality of the educational practice. In order to develop the use of e-learning from a pedagogical point of view, it is therefore not enough to study the existing practice. Instead, it is necessary to have an understanding of theoretical principles of the learning process and of the ideal learning environment. It means that the use and design of e-learning should be grounded in a learning theoretical approach and cannot be based on an existing practice.

The concept in Hannafin et al. (1997) of grounded design is ”defined as the systematic implementation of processes and procedures that are rooted in established theory and research in human learning” (p. 102). The framework presented in this article attempts to provide a learning theoretical grounding for design and use of e-learning. It is therefore necessary to create a link between theory and practice to ensure that the solutions of practice are congruent with the learning theory. The approach to a theoretically grounded design and use of e-learning is based on the following relations:

Figure 1 - Theoretically grounded evaluation of technology

Together, the concepts of figure 1 can be termed a pedagogical approach; it is characterised by a learning theory, learning principles, and by the use of technology (and other materials) in different activities in the learning environment. E-learning consists in different technologies such as discussion forums, e-mail, file sharing, shared white board, video conferencing and chat. In a learning environment these technologies are used in support of different activities. The structure of the activities of a course or a course unit is determined by learning principles which provide a model of the learning environment. Finally, the learning principles are founded in a learning theory which describes the human learning process.

Figure 1 suggests a link between theory and practice; a link between learning theory and activities. Learning theory, learning principles and activities (including the use of technology) represent three different levels of abstraction. A learning theory is considered an abstraction or generalisation of learning principles which means that it does not prescribe the creation of learning principles. Similarly, learning principles do not prescribe creation of activities and use of technology. It means that there is no direct link between the three levels of abstraction, meaning that learning principles cannot be derived from learning theory, and that activities cannot be derived from learning principles.

However, it is possible to view learning principles in light of a learning theory, and similarly view activities in light of learning principles; it is possible to see whether or not an activity supports given learning principles. Thus, it is not a question of transforming the learning theory into learning principles, but instead a question of creating learning principles which support the learning theory - and, correspondingly, designing activities and technology in support of the learning principles.

In the development of e-learning technology to create new learning activities, the approach of this article suggests that the designer reflects the use of technology in relation to activities, learning principles and learning theories. As Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, and Perry write, ”effective instructional design is possible only if the developer has reflexive awareness of the theoretical basis underlying the design” (cited from Hannafin et al., 1997, p. 102). In a critique of an empirical approach to instructional design manifested in the use of prescriptions in the design process, Winn (1989; 1997) similarly calls for what he terms reasoning from first principles. The term describes the designer’s reflection on problems on the basis of a theory:

”Reflection on problems, enabled by knowledge of underlying theory whose greater abstraction gives you more room for thought, is an expedient way to find new and creative solutions.” (Winn, 1997, p. 36)

According to the approach of this article, reflection takes place on the three levels of abstraction. As Winn (1997) writes, the use of abstractions implicate that the framework guides rather than prescribes the activities of the designer or user. The arrows of figure 1 suggest a connection between theory and practice. They indicate an orientation from practice to theory - from technology and activity towards learning principles and finally towards learning theory. First, technology is evaluated in practice by reflecting the technology in relation to different activities. Second, an activity is reflected in relation to learning principles which are finally reflected in relation to learning theory.

The framework for a theoretically grounded evaluation of e-learning, presented below, consists of learning theories and learning principles which means that it deals only with two of the three levels of evaluation. Activities and use of technology take place in connection with a specific learning environment, and it is out of the scope of this article to develop activities and discuss the specific use of e-learning technology. Instead some illustrative examples will be given.

It is not possible to construct one universal framework, because it must be founded in a specific learning theoretical approach. Below, three frameworks will be developed on the basis of three different learning theoretical approaches; a cognitivist approach, radical constructivism and activity theory, respectively. The presentations of the three approaches are not substantial descriptions, and they do not describe the nuances of the theories and the different strands within the approaches.

A learning theoretical approach is developed on the basis of a philosophical understanding of knowledge and learning. A learning theory can be defined as a conception of the individual, the world, the individual’s relation to the world, and knowledge. Analytically, learning principles can be divided into the form, content and relations of a learning environment. The concept of form describes the organisation of the students’ work; how do the students work with the subject matter? Content describes organisation of the subject matter; what are the students working with? Finally, the concept of relations describes the relationship between the participants (teachers and students) in the learning environment and their respective roles. Learning principles can be defined as an approach to form, content and relations of the learning environment.

The learning theories and learning principles of the three pedagogical approaches describe different approaches to the principles behind an ideal learning environment. It means that they describe the demands that technology should meet in order to support the different approaches. By viewing different technologies in relation to the learning theories and learning principles, it is possible to see what pedagogical approach they support. Rewriting the learning theories and learning principles into questions, creates evaluation criteria. Evaluation criteria are questions which the designer and implementer ask during design and use of e-learning technology. Criteria formed on the basis of learning theories support reflection and evaluation of learning principles in relation to learning theories (see figure 1). Criteria formed on the basis of learning principles support reflection and evaluation of activities (which the technology supports) in relation to learning principles (see figure 1). Table 4 shows the evaluation criteria formed on the basis of the three learning theoretical approaches.

These evaluation criteria make it possible to evaluate e-learning technology in relation to the three different pedagogical approaches and thereby to determine the (implicit) theoretical foundation of the technology.

According to the approach of this article, the first step in the design process is reflection of technology in relation to different activities. Below, I will argue that it is necessary to focus on design of activities that explicitly support a certain learning theory. Central to the approach of this article is that design of technology first of all should be directed at activities (see figure 1). This should be understood in contrast to a focus solely on the organisation of content. There is a tendency in the field of instructional design - especially concerning design of learning objects - to focus on the organisation of content:

”In distance education and in the classic instructional-design approach it happens fairly often that instructional materials and the media, rather than the learning activities, are central.” (Koper, 2000, p. 12)

As mentioned, an important objective of instructional design is often to design learning objects and VLE that are pedagogically neutral which would mean that they can be used in connection with different courses. This focus on pedagogical neutrality has meant that instructional design has prevented from explicitly designing technology in support of certain activities of a learning environment. Instead, the focus has to a large extent been on the organisation of content. Hoel (2002) argues that the standardisation of e-learning lacks pedagogical consideration, and he criticises the SCORM standard for a focus strictly on content without considering the consequences for and restrictions on activities of a learning environment.

In contrast to a focus on content and pedagogical neutrality, I argue that it is necessary to direct the design process at certain activities - which implies a certain organisation of content. The argument is that organisation of content is closely connected to the activities of the learning environment which means that organisation of content is never pedagogically neutral. Consequently, organisation of content and thus the designed technology will (implicitly) determine the potential activities in which technology can be used. It means that technology can - unintentionally - put restrictions on activities.

Below, I will argue that technology should be designed explicitly to support certain activities instead of attempting to achieve pedagogical neutrality. The purpose is not to discuss the specific use of e-learning technology. Instead, I will provide some brief illustrative examples of design of e-learning technology with a focus on activities. The starting point of the discussion is the advantages of e-learning mentioned in the introduction (cf. independence of time and space and individuality). On the basis of the evaluation criteria (table 4) of the three different learning theoretical approaches, I will discuss possibilities of the creation of new activities that support a flexible education. The framework puts the concept of flexibility into perspective and leads to a discussion of the use and design of VLE and learning objects.

Flexibility as independence of time and space requires activities that are based on individual work where the students are not interdependent. With individual work activities it is possible to organise the course flexibly. In contrast, collaboration between students is extremely difficult to combine with this kind of flexible organisation of the course. In collaborative activities the students are interdependent which means that their work must be coordinated with each other. Flexibility as independence of time and space, to some extent, supports cognitivism and radical constructivism, because according to both approaches (however, in different ways) the students should work individually. Activity theory, on the other hand, is difficult to combine with independence of time and space, since the approach focuses on collaboration.

Flexibility in the sense that students individually choose their course materials requires that the content is organised on the basis of the students. If students work independently and control the course, they can decide which course materials to use. A curriculum ordered in a predetermined sequence, on the other hand, is not flexible. This means that this kind of flexibility seems, to some extent, to support activity theory. The content of the course needs to be flexibly organised, because the students have control of the work process and choose the content on the basis of their independent work. To a lesser extent, the same applies to radical constructivism. Flexible organisation of content, however, does not support a cognitivist approach. Students cannot organise their own work process, because it is structured and sequenced on the basis of an inner structure of the subject matter.

Design of activities involved in these two different meanings of the concept of flexibility shows that different learning theories support different aspects of flexibility. It is perhaps possible to create flexible education on the basis of all three learning theories, but the nature of education will vary considerably. This means that e-learning technology should be designed differently according to the different theoretical approaches. In other words, the discussion of flexibility shows the importance of designing technology that explicitly supports a certain pedagogical approach.

Below, I discuss how e-learning technology can be designed explicitly to support activities of the three different approaches. In the discussion, I position myself within the field of activity theory as I wish to focus on the demands that this approach places on e-learning technology. I believe that existing technology supports this approach very poorly, and that activity theory places challenging demands on design of e-learning technology. Design of e-learning technology is discussed through some illustrative examples of the use of VLE and learning objects in support of different activities.

A radical constructivist approach is supported by an activity where the students work individually on identical assignments. This activity can be supported by a certain use of a discussion forum. The students can use a discussion forum to help each other solve the assignment, and the teacher can participate in the discussions. This activity is supported by a single discussion forum dedicated to the specific assignment. To some extent, this activity also supports a cognitivist approach. However, the focus of cognitivism on individual training means that discussions are not important in relation to a cognitivist approach. Activity theory is supported by an activity where the students collaborate on a shared project. This activity can be supported by a different use of discussion forums. Since the students need to discuss different aspects of their project and share their thoughts and findings, the activity is supported by a system of discussion forums (created by the students) in which the students can share discussions as well as documents. Although some VLE support collaborative activities, there is a need to further develop VLE in this direction. To support an activity theoretical approach, VLE should be designed as environments or settings in which the project is placed and can be discussed as well as developed by the students.

Whereas the definitions of learning objects are numerous (see Wiley, 2002), it is easier to find an agreement on the ideas behind the use of learning objects. The main purpose is to break down learning materials into smaller units - learning objects - which can be reused in different contexts. The advantages are, as mentioned, that the teachers can reuse and rearrange learning objects in different courses, and that the students can organise their courses individually.

According to a cognitivist approach it is possible to structure the activities and divide the content into a number of smaller units. In other words, it is possible to create learning objects that are mutually independent and can therefore be used in different activities. In line with cognitivism it is possible to structure the learning objects in a linear sequence. It is the job of the teacher to structure the learning objects for the students’ activities. The learning objects can be designed to cover a specific and isolated learning goal which means that when the student has finished working with the learning object, he/she has acquired a very specific part of the subject matter. Each learning object can organise the path of the students’ work in a predetermined sequence of steps. Since the content can be divided into small units, the learning objects can cover a narrow learning goal which means that they can be very small and therefore highly reusable.

In support of radical constructivism one possibility is to create learning objects that represent a problematic situation for the students. The learning objects should support the students’ independent activities. Similar to the cognitivist approach, it is possible to create learning objects on the basis of specific learning goals, because the problematic situations cover isolated topics. However, since the independent activities demand problematic situations that cover a larger area than the small units of a cognitivist curriculum, the goals will be much broader defined. Consequently, the learning objects will be larger and less reusable in comparison with the cognitivist learning objects described above. Such learning objects will not consist of isolated units with a specific build-in path or sequence for the students’ work. Instead, the learning objects will present a problem field for the student to explore in their own way.

In line with activity theory one possibility is to create learning objects that represent problems and attached resources for the students’ independent projects. Consequently, a learning object would be a large compilation of resources and would have limited reusability. Reusability can, however, be obtained if learning objects are created as resources for the students. Such learning objects must be neutral in the sense that they do not contain a learning goal. The reason is that students should be able to use them differently in connection with different projects. This means that the learning object in itself as a resource does not teach the student a specific part of a subject matter. Instead it can be used in connection with different goals of the students. According to an activity theoretical line of thought it is not possible to predetermine a sequence or a set of learning objects for the students to use. Instead, the students should have access to a wide variety of learning objects or resources to use in their own way in connection with their independent activities. The activity theoretical approach to learning objects as resources presents a type of learning object which has not been developed. The problems concerning reusability, learning goals and sequencing inherent in this type of learning object presents serious challenges for design of learning objects. Therefore, there is a need to further explore the possibilities of designing learning objects explicitly on the basis of an activity theoretical approach.

These differences in design of VLE and learning objects show that e-learning technology designed to support one approach does not necessarily support a different approach. Similarly, e-learning technology can be designed in different ways to support the activities of different approaches. This stresses the importance of designing e-learning technology in support of certain activities in relation to a specific learning theoretical approach.

The purpose of the article has been to provide a pedagogical approach to design and use of e-learning technology. In order to develop and improve education pedagogically, it is necessary to reflect and evaluate technology in relation to a learning theoretical foundation. Further, technology should be designed explicitly to support activities in a learning environment, in contrast to a focus strictly on organisation of content.

It is problematic when technology is designed in the belief that content can be organised independently of activities, and that technology, consequently, can be used in different activities. The examples of design of e-learning technology in support of different activities illustrated that VLE and learning objects are not pedagogically neutral, but always support certain activities. The apparent advantages of e-learning such as flexible education are put into perspective when viewing them from a pedagogical point of view. Different aspects of flexible education do not necessarily match a given pedagogical approach. Instead of attempting to achieve pedagogical neutrality, it is necessary to focus on design of technology that explicitly supports a certain learning theoretical approach.

This calls for more attention on the pedagogical consequences of the use of e-learning and for an explicit use of learning theoretical approaches in the design of new technology. The consequence is a shift in the role of instructional designers; a shift from a focus on content to a focus on activities. Designers should design technology to support the organisation of activities of the learning environment. By an explicit use of an evaluation framework, such as the one presented in this article, it is possible for the designer or user to determine the pedagogical possibilities and advantages of e-learning technology and to develop new technologies to support and improve learning.

Davydov, V. V. & Markova, A. K.: A Concept of Educational Activity for Schoolchildren, 1983 Online: http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/davydov.htm . (2004-11-05)

Dewey, J.: Democracy and Education. The Free Press, 1916

Engeström, Y.: Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit Oy, 1987

Gardner, H.: Frames of mind. Basic Books. Inc., Publishers, 1983

Gardner, H.: Multiple Intelligences - The Theory in Practice. BasicBooks, 1993

Glasersfeld, E. von: An Introduction to Radical Constructivism. 1981 Online: http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/082.html . (2004-11-05)

Glasersfeld, E. von: Learning as Constructive Activity, 1983 Online: http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/080.html . (2004-11-05)

Glasersfeld, E. von: Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching, 1989 Online: http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/117.html . (2004-11-05)

Glasersfeld, E. von: Radical Constructivism and Teaching, 2000 Online: http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/geneva/ . (2004-11-05)

Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S. M. & Oliver, K.: Grounded Practice and the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments, Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 1997, p.101-117.

Hannafin, M., Land, S. & Oliver, K.: Open Learning Environments: Foundations, Methods, and Models. In: Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). Instructional-design Theories and Models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II, 1999, p. 115-141. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hoel, T.: Standardisering av e-læring: Bygges morgendagens læringsteknologi på gårsdagens læringssyn? [Standardizing e-learning: Is the learning technology of tomorrow built on the learning theories of yesterday?], IT University of Göteborg, 2002 http://hoel.nu/ituniv/thesis/ [only in Norwegian]. (2004-11-05)

Koper, R.: From change to renewal: Educational technology foundations of electronic environments, 2000 Online: http://eml.ou.nl/introduction/articles.htm . (2004-11-05)

Koper, R.: Modeling units of study from a pedagogical perspective - the pedagogical meta-model behind EML, 2001 Online: http://eml.ou.nl/introduction/articles.htm . (2004-11-05)

Leont’ev, A. N.: Activity, Consciousness, and Personality, 1978 Online: http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1978/index.htm . (2004-11-05)

Orrill, C. H.: Learning Objects to Support Inquiry-Based, Online Learning. In: Wiley, D. A. (2002). The Instructional Use of Learning Objects, 2002 Online: http://www.reusability.org/read/ . (2004-11-05)

Vygotsky, L. S.: Mind in Society. Harvard University Press, 1978

Wiley, D. A.: Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In: Wiley, D. A. (2002). The Instructional Use of Learning Objects, 2002 Online: http://www.reusability.org/read/ . (2004-11-05)

Winn, W.: Toward a Rationale and Theoretical Basis For Educational Technology, ETR&D 37(1), 1989, p. 35-46.

Winn, W.: Advantages of a Theory-Based Curriculum in Instructional Technology, Educational Technology 37(1), 1997, p. 34-41. Online: http://www.uog.edu/coe/ed451/tHEORY/WWINN.pdf . (2004-11-05)