The advent of the internet has changed people’s lives as well as the business environment, and because of its accessibility and flexibility, the application of e-learning has been developed as an approach to deliver training and development content. Larry Pereira of Motorola Inc. describes e-learning as being as much of an essential factor in the knowledge-dependent supply chain environment as the role of ERP is in the manufacturing supply chain environment.

Adams & Morgan (2007) describe the distinguishing characteristics between first and second generation e-learning which may exist simultaneously in a planned manner. First generation e-learning seems to be limited in its application of technological skills in that practitioners appear to place too much emphasis on becoming familiar with the new technological interface, while neglecting the real learning needs. Therefore, the critical issue of e-learning is considered to be ‘taking a pedagogical, rather than a technology-driven approach for developing effective online programmes for job-based learning and performance improvement.’ (p.157)

However, this does not indicate that first generation e-learning is less beneficial than second, because the former generates effective learning results when it used for instructive learning approaches with definite right and wrong answers and, because of its learning design, it also makes evaluation easier by providing qualitative and quantitative data of the learning process. First generation e-learning appears to be the fundamental basis of developing the embryo of e-learning, since it provides the most general initiation to make information available online. However, second generation e-learning seems to be more suitable for managerial training due to its characteristics of being pedagogy-driven and learner-in-control. Not all of the employees in an organisation need this reflective learning approach. They simply need to acquire some essential skills. Zornada (2005) indicates that e-learning is ideally suited to certification-driven markets, regulation-driven markets, training-intensive markets, and multinational organisations (p.17) since most of these involve large numbers of trainees. The benefits of e-learning are obvious, especially when used in response to large-scale training needs, and first generation e-learning seems to be appropriate for these approaches. Moreover, first and second generation e-learning both offer the advantage of ‘just-in-time’ (Adams & Morgan 2007). Zornada (2005) describes this fundamental benefit as follows: ‘There was no need to wait until enough new employees were available to have a critical mass of participants to make a classroom training programme viable. Employees could do the training as soon as required and apply it immediately’ and this ultimately resulted in ‘making new employees productive as quickly as possible.’ (p16) 

On the CloudWorks blog which discusses the issue of VLE, Steve Wheeler offers a very interesting interpretation, when he says that ‘some (VLEs) are little more than glorified e-mail systems.’ Graham Attwell’s comment points out that VLEs are the tools/technology with which to manage learning, which can enable the easy creation of a personal learning log by a technological system, and a personal learning environment (PLE) which offers learners the opportunity to develop their learning. He also mentions the challenges of VLE and suggests that PLE may be the solution, since social media, which is sharpened by learners, can overcome the divide between the environment and learning. However, Nick Sharratt’s comment reveals that VLEs ‘provide stable, reliable, self-contained and safe environments in which all teaching and learning activities can be conducted.’

Many people may sometimes feel bothered by the issue of environment, and Nick Sharratt neglects to mention the fact that classrooms/lecture rooms create a learning atmosphere because so many learners are gathered there. When people perceive that everyone has come together to do the same thing, i.e. learn, peer group pressure will form and people will feel urged to learn. However, when sitting in front of a computer, the everyday scenario for most people is likely to be surfing the internet, chatting online, news browsing, and so on. People tend to use their personal computers to entertain themselves instead of pondering serious issues, so learners will find it hard to concentrate on the learning activities in the VLE alone. The challenge for VLEs is not only the development of the approach to transmit learning materials, but how to inspire the learners. 

Online chat and discussion boards have become a widely accepted approach of distant learning. However, Smith (2006) describes online chat as a ‘beast’ due to the fragmented and incoherent conversations, as well as the chaos. To beat or to be beaten; the pros and cons of new technology can also direct the proper applications.

To tame the ‘beast’, Smith (2006) provides some etiquette to improve the order of synchronous discussion and avoid party-like talk. Appropriate rules will help to form the learning atmosphere and prevent participants from bringing their daily and casual online chat habits to the synchronous discussion class, making it ineffective. This also indicates a necessity to distinguish the difference between casual chat and academic discussion, even though the platform/interface looks similar, to assist learners to concentrate on their work.

Apart from the manner of online communication, Mazzolini and Maddison (2003) go further to explore the role of the instructors, which depends on the extent to which they become involved in the discussion board. Should they act as sages, guides or ghosts? Which role will make the discussion more effective or more profoundly inspire participants? The research findings suggest that the proper interventions can facilitate the discussion atmosphere, and it seems that fewer interventions encourage a more autonomous discussion. However, the participants still consider the instructors who post more to be better performers, and this assessment criterion may be the result of traditional class-based interaction.

From the author’s perspective, synchronous online chats and asynchronous discussion boards are both good tools for the distant learning environment, but best for participants who are not beginners in a new field. In other words, these approaches will receive better results when students are the most autonomous, as well as the most proficient. The sample for the study by Mazzolini and Maddison were students of Swinburne Astronomy Online (SAO), who were ‘lifelong learners’ aged in the mid 40s on average. This indicates that these participants possessed autonomy to some extent. They have joined a programme they are interested in and may have some basic concept of it, which provides them with a foundation to gain benefit from distant courses because they do not need full instruction.  

However, although autonomous study groups or project teams may gain more benefit from synchronous online chats and asynchronous discussion boards, this seems to be an inappropriate way to teach new knowledge. These tools may only work effectively when students already have a fundamental knowledge base. Alternatively, the instructor will need to make more of an effort to be a sage to guide them, while at the same time, constraining the dynamics of the discussion. 

The limitation of the 140-character content has a profound effect on the social network, which Picardo  (2010) suggests can be used as an extension to classroom teaching. Morrison (2009) considers that the primary advantage of Twitter, as a micro-blogging media, is its ‘predominately real time, here and now’ characteristic. He suggests that people may think about how Twitter can enable them to learn, rather than doubt how 140 characters can provide training. Twitter provides a super convenience for people to post brief inspirations, and share videos and links by mobile phone or through web page. Moreover, users can also use ‘hashtag’ to search for their interested topics and tag their own tweets. Discussion flexibility is not only broadened by the multi-upload interface but also the tag functions. Therefore, people can create a tag to attract others who share the same interests, and need not be limited to a certain discussion board.

In terms of learning and training, Twitter could be used to ask questions during training sessions or observe candidates’ responses. In cases where a company has organised training sessions in diverse locations at the same time, Twitter could facilitate the receipt of real-time feedback from trainers, as well as participants. 

Adams, J. & Morgan, G. (2007) 'Second Generation' E-Learning: Characteristics and Design Principles for Supporting Management Soft-Skills Developments, International Journal on E-learning, 6(2): 157-185

Berg, J., L. Berquam, and K. Christoph (2007): Social networking technologies: A "poke" for campus services. Educause Review, 42 (2): 32-44.

Clay, J. (2009): The VLE is Dead: Retrieved: 16^th Feb 2010 from
http://cloudworks.ac.uk/index.php/cloud/view/2162

CloudWorks (2009) The VLE is Dead: Retrieved: 16^th Feb 2010 from
http://cloudworks.ac.uk/index.php/cloud/view/2162

Grant, S., Rees Jones, P., Ward, R. (2004): E-portfolio and its Relationship to Personal Development Planning: A View from the UK for Europe and Beyond.

Jarche, H. (2009): The Training Department of the 21st Century. Retrieved: 16^th Feb 2010 from http://www.jarche.com/2009/10/the-future-of-the-training-department-2/

Luoma, M. (2000) Developing People for Business Success: Capability-Driven HRD in Practice, Management Decision, 38(3): 145-153

Liu, M. (2009): The Design of a Web-based Course for Self-directed Learning, Campus-Wide Information Systems, and 26(2): 122-131.

JISC (2008) Effective Practice with e-Portfolios: Supporting 21st Century Learning. JISC infoNet: www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/e-portfolios

Marquardt, M. J. (2004): Harnessing the power of action learning. T+D, 58(6): 26–32.

Mazzolini, M. and Maddison, S. (2003) Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums, Computers and Education, 40 (3): 237-253

McGill, I. & Brockbank, A. (2004): The action learning handbook. London: Rouledge Falmer.

McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. (2008) Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software, Innovate, 4(5).

Mintzberg, H (1990) The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact. Harvard Business Review, 68(2): 163-176.

Morrison, M (2009): How to Use Twitter as a Training & Learning Tool: RapidBI team. Retrieved: 28 March 2010 from

http://rapidbi.com/management/twitter-as-a-training-and-learning-tool-some-examples/

Picardo, J (2010) Microblogging: making the case for social networking in education: Box of Tricks. http://www.boxoftricks.net/?p=1727

Ravenscroft, A. (2009) Social software, Web 2.0 and learning: status and implications of an evolving paradigm, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1):1-5.

Second Life (n.d.): What is Second Life? Retrieved: 18 March 2010 from
http://secondlife.com/whatis/?lang=en-US

Smith, C. (2006) Synchronous discussion in online courses: a pedagogical strategy for taming the chat beast. Innovate: journal of online education, 2(5)

Van Ments, M (1983): The Effective Use of Role Play. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Waddill, D. (2006) Action E-Learning: An Exploratory Case Study of Action Learning Applied Online, Human Resource Development International, 9(2): 157-171.

Zornada, M. (2005) E-Learning and the Changing Face of Corporate Training and Development, Managing Global Transitions, 3(1): 5-21

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.) (2002a): Action learning, action research and process management, The Learning Organization, special double issue, 9 (3/4).