The following article was published in Open Learning Today [January 2002, Issue 58], the journal of the British Association of Open Learning.

One step further into the Matrix

It's great to see the industry pulling together with a definition of e-learning. Over the past few years an increasing number of vendors have attempted to define e-learning as though it were their own. It isn't. E-learning belongs to us all and as such we should at least attempt to agree on what e-learning is. You could argue that it doesn't matter how we define e-learning, just as long as we all agree on what it is when we see it!

Having said that, I particularly like the inclusion of the word 'effective' in the definition. The focus on effective interventions rather than technology or sexy presentation is definitely a step in the right direction.

I would suggest some amendments to the definition so it reads 'e-learning is the effective learning process created through an appropriate mix of digitally delivered content combined with learner support and services.' I have made two key changes to the original. Firstly, that the mix of digital content must be appropriate to the needs of the learner, and secondly, that support provided should be for the learner and not the learning.

Overall, the matrix is a great approach; it's clear and relatively unambiguous. It allows the user to define their needs and use these to aid discussion with vendors. Personally, I would start my numbering from 1 rather than 0; however this is a preference issue and not one which affects the overall operability of the matrix. I think it would be good to see the accessibility measure developed over time to include IDTV, 3G and other emerging and portable standards. Whilst technically speaking, delivery to a 3G device is via the Internet [level 4] the usability issues are far different than delivery to a PC.

It would also be useful to see the matrix develop to take account of multiple accessibility and learner support options, as many organisations utilise a combination of these. For example, organisations may provide a CD version of an Intranet course for use when working remotely.

In the same vein, it would be useful to take account of non-digital support materials such as workbooks, workshops, videos etc. Whilst these elements are technically outside the definition of e-learning, there is nevertheless the need to show that e-learning doesn't operate in isolation but naturally co-exists with other forms of learning media. In this way an e-learning intervention might be classified at 3-4-3-2, where the final number refers to an in-house workshop.

The matrix has been a great thought provoker for me and I hope that my comments stimulate other to contribute to the debate.