E-learning in Australia and Korea: Learning from practice

• Both Korean and Australian governments have made conscious efforts to provide the information and communications technology infrastructure and funding required to promote and support e-learning in educational institutions and enterprises.
  
  
• E-learning provides immediate access to a wide array of resources and reference materials to assist in learning. It provides increased flexibility and opportunities for individuals who have historically found it difficult to access regular training and qualifications because of conflicting family, work and other commitments.
  
  
• However, availability of resources and financial incentives on their own will not ensure that individuals and enterprises will engage in e-learning. There is also a need to motivate learners, teachers and trainers to engage with e-learning by promoting its benefits, and providing them with the skills and resources they will require for effective participation. In Korea the availability of government incentives to enterprises should also be accompanied by a streamlining of accountability processes.
  
  
• There are common teaching/learning issues for Australian learners, teachers and trainers and their Korean counterparts. These mainly relate to motivation to engage with the technology, development of skills in using the technology, and access to timely assistance.
  
  
• Administrators in educational institutions should also acknowledge the considerable amount of time it takes teachers to develop and maintain relevant, suitable, accurate and up-to-date, web-based learning and assessment resources, and provide timely and appropriate feedback to students. This time should be accurately reflected in teacher work schedules and working conditions.
  
  
• The costs associated with the production of customised or commercially produced learning materials can be significant. However, in Korea the costs are further exacerbated by the need for all materials from other countries to be translated into Korean.
  
  
• Australia has in place formal standards for dealing with copyright and privacy issues. Such concerns have yet to be addressed in Korea.
  
  
• E-learning used in isolation is not widely observed in Korea and Australia. Both e-learning and traditional learning approaches can and will continue to exist side by side as viable learning approaches. The real challenge is to ensure that each can enhance the other to provide learning that meets the needs of individuals and organisations.

There is increasing demand for affordable, accessible and timely education and training. The rapid growth, availability and uptake of information and communications technology (ICT) over the last two decades has opened up opportunities for the promotion of e-learning to help governments meet these demands.

E-learning in this study refers to learning which is facilitated by electronic technologies. This includes courses or components of courses that are provided online.

In this study we compare the experiences of two countries which have facilitated the implementation of e-learning by driving national policy agendas to ensure that citizens, enterprises, government agencies and educational institutions engage with online technologies. The primary aim is to increase our understanding of political interventions, and practical issues faced by organisations, practitioners and learners when engaging in e-learning.

This report is organised into six separate chapters which deal with arrangements for the two countries.

In Chapter I, we set the context by emphasising the importance of e-learning for the knowledge-based economy. We also present a brief overview of major differences between the Australian and Korean arrangements for e-learning. This chapter also details the purpose of the study and organisation of the remainder of the report.

In Chapter II, we review policies and strategies adopted by Australian and Korean governments to create the appropriate environment to enable the development of e-learning. In Australia, these include the Strategic Framework for the Information Economy, and associated national and state and territory action plans for education and training for schools, universities and vocational education and training (VET) sectors. It also includes the establishment of web-based services like www.education.au and EdNA (Education Network Australia) Online. In Korea, the National Informatization Framework (NIF), represents an endeavour by the Ministry of Information and Communication to build information and communication technology infrastructure in Korea. In addition, the Korean Government has also provided support for information and communication technology education of students at all education levels, but in particular for those at primary and secondary education. The Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development has legislated for the establishment of cyber-universities whose main purpose is to provide higher education programs via e-learning. The Ministry of Labour has implemented the Employment Insurance Reimbursement Policy to encourage uptake of e-learning in Korean enterprises.

In Chapter III, we present statistics on the uptake of information and communication technology in Australia and Korea. Although both countries are highly ranked against Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) comparator countries on various information and communication technology statistics, Korea has shown exceptionally rapid growth in terms of internet access and internet usage. Its performance has placed it among the leading countries in this area.

In Chapter IV, we discuss findings from existing research and case studies which help to improve our understanding of the implementation of e-learning in Australia and the issues associated with teaching and learning processes. It is clear that both teachers and students need motivation to engage with the methodology, and require appropriate skills and resources to participate effectively. However, it is also clear that the research findings are mixed about the effectiveness of e-learning strategies in terms of educational achievement. The  information provided for Korea in this chapter adopts a macro-perspective in terms of policy directions and the expansion of e-learning in primary, secondary, and higher education, online universities and colleges, corporate training and general public education. Support for these findings are provided by the results from case studies presented in Chapter V. 

In Chapter VI, we provide conclusions for the study. To this end we make the following general observations. We conclude that the implementation of e-learning in Australia and Korea must be understood in terms of different starting points and approaches to government intervention. Despite these differences, both countries have displayed substantial endeavours to provide infrastructure, funding and resources to make it possible for e-learning to grow and prosper. In addition, high levels of internet access and usage means that individuals are also in a position to participate in e-learning. However, the implementation of e-learning in educational institutions and organisations, raises similar practical issues for teaching and learning in both countries. These relate to student and teacher motivation, and their confidence and skill in using the technology. It also relates to the ability of on-line methodologies used in isolation to provide effective mechanisms for providing and recording feedback to students, and for providing effective communication channels between students and their peers and their teachers. The need for administrators to provide appropriate recognition of the changing patterns of work for teachers is also another major issue for training systems.

It is clear that government intervention in the form of funding initiatives in Australia or specific legislation and funding initiatives in Korea have driven the expansion of e-learning. However, the proportion of programs which are solely delivered online is low in Australia, and although the proportion of such programs is much higher for Korea (especially in corporate training organisations and cyber-universities), there is an increasing preference and acknowledgement in both countries of the benefits provided by a blended learning approach.

Although the cost of development and production of e-learning materials is an issue for Australian and Korean organisations, it seems to be more serious for Korea. This is because any materials that are purchased from other countries must be translated into Korean. However, Australia has the benefit of purchasing materials from other English-speaking countries.

The shortage of human resources specialising in e-learning is also another major problem in Korea. In Australia this situation has been addressed in part by providing training in use of new technologies, and the development of strategies to facilitate online learning for existing teachers and trainers. Strategies for recruiting overseas specialists in information technology have been aimed at the increasing expertise for the ICT industry.

Although copyright and privacy are issues of importance for all countries, legal procedures have been established to address the development and implementation of copyright and privacy standards in Australia. These issues have yet to become significant concerns for Korea. Although there have been cases where breaches of copyright have been successfully re-dressed in Australia, the policing and enforcement of these laws remains difficult.

To sum up, there are common teaching/learning issues and concerns faced by teaching practitioners and learners in Australia and Korea. There is also a realisation in both countries that e-learning cannot, on its own, meet the needs of all learners, organisations and institutions. However, it is also clear that there is a place for e-learning in modern societies where the availability of advanced ICTs makes it possible for learners and their teachers and trainers to access considerable internet resources to enhance learning in whatever form it takes.

In some ways e-learning has helped to satisfy societal concerns for improving access and equity for citizens. It has helped to provide second chance opportunities for adults who in the past have been denied access to training and qualifications because of conflicting schedules with work and family commitments, or because physical disabilities have prevented them from engaging with regular classroom training. However, there continue to be concerns about access to adequate resources for students from disadvantaged groups in Australia, and effectiveness of infrastructure for those in rural areas. Increased flexibility for all learners to choose when and where they undertake their training also makes e-learning a viable methodology for all citizens to engage in education and training throughout their life time.

However, it is also clear that, despite the benefits that organisations and individuals derive from using the internet for accessing education, government and business services, and other information used for learning, e-learning cannot be expected to meet the needs of all learners. We have found that in some cases and for some individuals it can successfully replace traditional methods of face-to-face delivery. In most cases it needs to be combined with face-to-face training and support to ensure that learning is effective, and that learners do not feel isolated from teachers and from peers. The evidence is also mixed about whether it provides less costly training and whether it leads to better academic achievement or learning outcomes than traditional forms of learning. Nevertheless, both e-learning and traditional learning approaches can and will continue to exist side by side as viable learning approaches. The real challenge is to ensure that each can enhance the other to provide learning that meets the needs of individuals.