We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books Built by scientists, for scientists

3,550+

Open access books available

112,000+

International authors and editors

115M+

Downloads

151 Countries delivered to Our authors are among the

Top 1%

most cited scientists

12.2%

Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

## Interested in publishing with us? Contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected. For more information visit www.intechopen.com

## **Meet the editor**

Dragan Cvetković graduated in Aeronautics from the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, in 1988. In the Aeronautical Department, he defended his doctoral dissertation on 3 December 1997. So far he has published 61 books, scripts, and practicums about computers and computer programs, the aviation weapons, and flight mechanics. He has published a large

number of scientific papers in the country and abroad as well. Since 20 March 2007 he had been working at the Singidunum University in Belgrade as an assistant professor. Since 1 October 2013 he has been working as the Dean of the Faculty of Informatics and Computing at the Singidunum University, Belgrade. On 10 March 2014 he became a full professor in the field of Informatics and Computing.

## Contents

#### **Preface XI**

Chapter 7 **New Educational Challenges and Innovations: Students with Disability in Immersive Learning Environments 101** Gonzalo Lorenzo, Asunción Lledó, Rosabel Roig, Alejandro Lorenzo and Jorge Pomares

## Preface

Chapter 8 **MOOCs in Higher Education 121** Sung-Wan Kim

**Learning 137**

**VI** Contents

Chapter 9 **Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) and Its Possibilities as**

Chapter 10 **Digital Factory and Virtual Reality: Teaching Virtual Reality**

**Principles with Game Engines 155** Petr Hořejší, Jiří Polcar and Lucie Rohlíková

**Instrument of Formal, Nonformal, Informal and Lifelong**

Srdjan Trajković, Radica Prokić-Cvetković and Olivera Popović

Virtual learning environment (VLE) is a set of tools necessary for teaching and learning and a set of tools designed to make learning easier for students and application of what they have learned as well, including computers and the Internet in the learning process. VLE main components include the mapping of curriculum ("breaking" of the curriculum into sections that can be processed), monitoring of users (students), online support for teachers and users, electronic communication (e-mail, discussions, chat, Web publishing), as well as Internet links to external resources curriculum. In general, VLE users are identified via the ID, as teachers or as users. The teacher and the user can see the same things, but the teacher has additional user rights to create and change the content of the program and to monitor the work of users. It should be noted that the terms virtual learning environment (VLE) and the managed learning environment (MLE) are often mixed or replaced.

The lecturer or teacher is a key element for virtual learning, just like in a real environment for learning. The success of the program depends on the ability of teachers to revive the space, to attract the attention of listeners, and to receive feedback from them. No matter what, the man is still "a major player" in this environment.

Benefits of virtual learning are reflected in profitability, saving time, the consistency of learning, global communication, flexibility, employee engagement, and "friendly" environ‐ ment.

Educational institutions of higher education use VLE more often in order to achieve the fol‐ lowing:

• Providing instruction to students or trainees in a flexible way, regardless of where the stu‐ dent is or what the time zone is

• Providing instruction in a way which is close to today's generations, because these are the generations of the digital age

• Providing automatic integration of results of participants in the reports of appropriate in‐ formation system (locally and beyond)

Chapters are listed in a logical order, but they could be arranged differently, depending on the point of view. The first chapter provides an overview of the popular systems for dis‐ tance learning, as well as their comparison, with the aim of more efficient selection for the adequate problem solving. In the second chapter, a review of all major social and economic activities in order to improve the system of virtual learning or distance learning is given. The third chapter deals with the influence of technology in the management of educational institutions, as well as the influence of the culture of behaviors within the same. The fourth chapter provides an overview of the graphic communication, which is extremely important when it comes to communication engineering and design. The fifth chapter confirms that quality assurance remains an integral and indispensable part of the process of virtual learn‐ ing, as a basic pillar of higher education. The sixth and seventh chapters are dedicated to health, mutual communication about health problems and causes, as well as the facilitation of communication between persons with certain deficiencies or certain disabilities. The eighth and ninth chapters are dedicated to massive open online courses (MOOC) and their applications in education, without age restrictions. The tenth chapter refers to the wide‐ spread use of virtual reality in industrial environments because most of the leading industri‐ al manufacturing facilities have a strategy called "concept of the digital factory", where all aspects of manufacturing are checked on computers and in virtual environments before the very beginning of real, physical production.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the authors and coauthors for their contri‐ bution. The successful completion of the book *Virtual Learning* has been the result of the co‐ operation of many people. I would especially like to thank the Publishing Process Manager Ms. Iva Lipović for her support during the publishing process.

> **Dragan Cvetković** Singidunum University Faculty of Informatics and Computing Belgrade, Republic of Serbia

#### **A Review of Distance Learning and Learning Management Systems** A Review of Distance Learning and Learning Management Systems

Mümine Kaya Keleş and Selma Ayşe Özel Mümine Kaya Keleş and Selma Ayşe Özel

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/65222

#### Abstract

Chapters are listed in a logical order, but they could be arranged differently, depending on the point of view. The first chapter provides an overview of the popular systems for dis‐ tance learning, as well as their comparison, with the aim of more efficient selection for the adequate problem solving. In the second chapter, a review of all major social and economic activities in order to improve the system of virtual learning or distance learning is given. The third chapter deals with the influence of technology in the management of educational institutions, as well as the influence of the culture of behaviors within the same. The fourth chapter provides an overview of the graphic communication, which is extremely important when it comes to communication engineering and design. The fifth chapter confirms that quality assurance remains an integral and indispensable part of the process of virtual learn‐ ing, as a basic pillar of higher education. The sixth and seventh chapters are dedicated to health, mutual communication about health problems and causes, as well as the facilitation of communication between persons with certain deficiencies or certain disabilities. The eighth and ninth chapters are dedicated to massive open online courses (MOOC) and their applications in education, without age restrictions. The tenth chapter refers to the wide‐ spread use of virtual reality in industrial environments because most of the leading industri‐ al manufacturing facilities have a strategy called "concept of the digital factory", where all aspects of manufacturing are checked on computers and in virtual environments before the

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the authors and coauthors for their contri‐ bution. The successful completion of the book *Virtual Learning* has been the result of the co‐ operation of many people. I would especially like to thank the Publishing Process Manager

> **Dragan Cvetković** Singidunum University

Faculty of Informatics and Computing

Belgrade, Republic of Serbia

very beginning of real, physical production.

VIII Preface

Ms. Iva Lipović for her support during the publishing process.

In recent years, rapid developments in technology and the web have led to many changes in education. One of the most important changes in education is in the form of distance learning. Distance learning, which is used to define education where educators and learners are physically separated, is not a new concept; however, emerging technologies and the web allow web‐based distance learning and therefore increase its popularity. As a result of these developments, many universities have started to use web‐based distance learning systems to provide flexible education that is independent of time and place. In this chapter, we review all popular, widely used, and well‐known learning management systems and include detailed comparison of some of these systems to allow institutions to choose the right system for their distance education activities.

Keywords: distance learning, literature review, educational research, learning management systems, Moodle

#### 1. Introduction

Distance education, which is now also referred to as distance learning or e‐learning, has existed for centuries. Although as Keegan says "the ideas surrounding the educational endeavor are somewhat similar" [1], it is not easy to find a single definition of distance education. While according to North [2], a few definitions even look to define it in terms of a single technology, according to long‐distance teaching [3], others display distance education simply as a recent development of the class into a remote location [4]. However, such definitions are restrictive and fail to recognize the actual needs of distance education users. Mugridge [5] provides a better definition, describing distance education as "a form of education in which there is normally a separation between teacher and learner and thus one in which other means—the printed and written word, the telephone, computer conferencing or teleconferencing, for example—are used to bridge the physical gap".

Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, © 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons

distribution, and eproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Many educational institutions have created solutions to their increasing educational needs through the development of distance education programs. Distance education allows educational paths to be determined by educators and students, who are separated with physical distance, using technology (e.g., audio, video, data, and written text). It is a form of education in which students, teachers, and teaching materials in different geographies are brought together through communication technology [6]. Using video, audio, active learning, simulations, and electronic advances appeals to a variety of students with multiple learning styles.

This chapter presents a review of distance learning literature; the purposes, advantages, disadvantages, and types of distance learning; and a detailed comparison of web‐based distance learning tools in education.

## 2. A review of distance learning

Research on distance education has been subject to long and numerous debates [7–10]. Distance education needs a reliable means of communication between students and lecturers. Therefore, the history of distance education begins at the point where a reliable communication method is established. Most historians date distance education to the eighteenth century, when a few lecturers began to offer what were called correspondence courses. One of the first examples of distance education was observed in 1728, when "an advertisement in the Boston Gazette named 'Caleb Phillips', teacher of the new method of Short Hand" was searching students for lessons to be sent weekly [11]. But technology‐based distance education started after the introduction of some devices, which are using both sight and sound, into the schools in the early 1900s.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, microwave technology was developed. So networking technology costs were reduced, and universities began to use microwave networks to take advantage of the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) authorized by the Federal Communications Commission [12].

Today, distance education programs have a wide range of approaches [13]. For example, independent study courses through computer networking, computer‐delivered instruction, communication between students and instructors through electronic mail, class sessions, cluster groups, undergraduate and graduate degrees through cable networks, and video courses with texts and other collateral materials are these approaches [13].

In summary, the history of distance education shows a constant state of evolution. In the historical view of distance education, a stream of new ideas and technologies has been observed. Historical development of distance education shows that nontraditional education tends to blend with traditional education while meeting the changing learning theories and developing technologies [13].

#### 2.1. The purposes of distance learning

The main goal of distance education is to overcome barriers of place and time. Learners may live in isolated, less‐populated and nonurban, rural areas and have no access to education. Other learners may have ready access to a private school or college but that college might not offer the course of study needed by that learner. Distance learning allows education to reach those who are not able to physically attend courses in universities [14].

One of the most important purposes of distance education is to provide an opportunity of education, often on an individual basis, to learners who are not physically present in a classroom [15]. Also, it provides equity in educational opportunities by allowing access to quality education for those who otherwise would have been denied.

#### 2.2. The advantages and disadvantages of distance learning

The aim of distance education is to provide a strong communication between students and lecturers. That's why there are also disadvantages as well as advantages of distance education.

The main advantage of distance learning is that the students can study wherever, whenever, and whatever he/she wants. So, it can be said that flexibility is the most important advantage of distance learning. The other advantages of distance learning are as follows:

Many educational institutions have created solutions to their increasing educational needs through the development of distance education programs. Distance education allows educational paths to be determined by educators and students, who are separated with physical distance, using technology (e.g., audio, video, data, and written text). It is a form of education in which students, teachers, and teaching materials in different geographies are brought together through communication technology [6]. Using video, audio, active learning, simulations, and electronic advances appeals to a variety of students with multiple learning styles.

This chapter presents a review of distance learning literature; the purposes, advantages, disadvantages, and types of distance learning; and a detailed comparison of web‐based distance

Research on distance education has been subject to long and numerous debates [7–10]. Distance education needs a reliable means of communication between students and lecturers. Therefore, the history of distance education begins at the point where a reliable communication method is established. Most historians date distance education to the eighteenth century, when a few lecturers began to offer what were called correspondence courses. One of the first examples of distance education was observed in 1728, when "an advertisement in the Boston Gazette named 'Caleb Phillips', teacher of the new method of Short Hand" was searching students for lessons to be sent weekly [11]. But technology‐based distance education started after the introduction of

some devices, which are using both sight and sound, into the schools in the early 1900s.

with texts and other collateral materials are these approaches [13].

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, microwave technology was developed. So networking technology costs were reduced, and universities began to use microwave networks to take advantage of the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) authorized by the Federal Com-

Today, distance education programs have a wide range of approaches [13]. For example, independent study courses through computer networking, computer‐delivered instruction, communication between students and instructors through electronic mail, class sessions, cluster groups, undergraduate and graduate degrees through cable networks, and video courses

In summary, the history of distance education shows a constant state of evolution. In the historical view of distance education, a stream of new ideas and technologies has been observed. Historical development of distance education shows that nontraditional education tends to blend with traditional education while meeting the changing learning theories and

The main goal of distance education is to overcome barriers of place and time. Learners may live in isolated, less‐populated and nonurban, rural areas and have no access to education.

learning tools in education.

2 Virtual Learning

munications Commission [12].

developing technologies [13].

2.1. The purposes of distance learning

2. A review of distance learning

Although distance learning has numerous benefits, it has some disadvantages that are listed as follows:

#### 2.3. Types of distance learning

In general, distance education is collected under two main headings:

Synchronous learning requires all students to participate the classes at the same time. The method of delivery is usually interactive and includes Internet chat sessions, teleconferences, telecourses, and web conferencing [16]. Synchronous distance education is less flexible than asynchronous distance education because synchronous distance education requires all enrolled students and the teacher to be online at a specific time. Asynchronous instructions do not require simultaneous participation of all students in the class, so it is more flexible. Asynchronous instruction gives students the freedom to interact with the material and instructor at a time that is convenient for them [16].

Internet‐based distance education has become a specific focus for at least three reasons according to the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) [17]:

First, Internet is quickly becoming the predominant technology in distance education, because of its increasing telecommunications bandwidth capabilities. Second, Internet‐based distance education especially asynchronous instruction mode allows the teaching and the learning processes to occur "at any time and any place." Provision of the interactive learning activities at any time and any place has become the most important characteristic of this technology. Third, Internet‐based distance education is, in many ways, fundamentally different from traditional classroom‐based education.

Internet‐based distance education must have the following features [18]:

#### 2.4. Learning management systems

Computers and computer networks are rapidly becoming the preferred long‐distance communication tool, and they are evolving as a major resource in distance education. There are many computer‐based distance education tools, and the names of the major tools and their web addresses are listed in Table 1 [19].

In this chapter, we have reviewed the most popular, widely used and well‐known learning management systems (LMSs) and included detailed comparison of these systems. Therefore, we include ATutor, Blackboard, Claroline, Desire2Learn (D2L), Docebo, Dokeos, eFront, Moodle, OLAT, and Sakai systems in this chapter. Among the others, Blackboard and Moodle are the two most well‐known web‐based learning management systems widely used in universities and higher education [19].

#### 2.4.1. ATutor

• The cost of developing course materials is too much, and it is needed more time to prepare

• Some of the students cannot access the necessary facilities, such as computers, Internet,

Synchronous learning requires all students to participate the classes at the same time. The method of delivery is usually interactive and includes Internet chat sessions, teleconferences, telecourses, and web conferencing [16]. Synchronous distance education is less flexible than asynchronous distance education because synchronous distance education requires all enrolled students and the teacher to be online at a specific time. Asynchronous instructions do not require simultaneous participation of all students in the class, so it is more flexible. Asynchronous instruction gives students the freedom to interact with the material and instruc-

Internet‐based distance education has become a specific focus for at least three reasons

First, Internet is quickly becoming the predominant technology in distance education, because of its increasing telecommunications bandwidth capabilities. Second, Internet‐based distance education especially asynchronous instruction mode allows the teaching and the learning processes to occur "at any time and any place." Provision of the interactive learning activities at any time and any place has become the most important characteristic of this technology. Third, Internet‐based distance education is, in many ways, fundamentally different from

• Distance learning is not suitable for undisciplined learners or inflexible instructors.

• Students who have little technological knowledge cannot follow the courses.

• There is unconsciousness in the use of educational technology.

• Laboratory and experimental courses cannot be given remotely.

In general, distance education is collected under two main headings:

according to the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) [17]:

Internet‐based distance education must have the following features [18]:

• Students and instructors need to take technical training and support.

course materials.

2.3. Types of distance learning

tor at a time that is convenient for them [16].

traditional classroom‐based education.

• Preparation of online course contents

• Managing courses

• The identification and management of users

etc.

4 Virtual Learning

i. Synchronous ii. Asynchronous

> ATutor is a free and open‐source course management system that has a simple and straightforward structure. It is a web‐based learning content management system (LCMS) under the GNU General Public License (GPL). It was prepared such that it can be easily used in any type of computer system and all operating systems. ATutor has been used in many universities, institutions, research centers, and educational institutions.

> ATutor was implemented in Personal Home Page (PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor), and it includes facilities for teachers and students. Students can change the learning environment based on existing templates, send messages, and collaborate on courses. On the other hand, instructors can manage the courses, store files, and create workgroups. At the same time, in ATutor, people with disabilities were considered, so ATutor was arranged to use easily.

> ATutor has blog, forum, photo gallery, glossary, site map, chat, directory, tests and surveys, and MyTracker tool, which tracks users' navigational patterns. It supports Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) standards and Instructional Management Systems (IMS) packets. It is available in more than 20 languages. Some video conference softwares such as Adobe Connect, BigBlueButton, and OpenMeetings modules can be integrated in ATutor. Figure 1 shows web page for an ATutor course.

#### 2.4.2. Blackboard

Early in 2006, owners of Blackboard Learning System and WebCT decided to join their forces and merge two companies under the existing name of one of them—Blackboard. The new entity continues to support both systems [19]. Also, Blackboard Learning System acquired Angel Learning System in May 2009. So the Blackboard Learning System is a web‐based

Table 1. The distance learning tools and web addresses.

commercial distance education system dedicated to education containing teaching resources and straightforward user hierarchy. It allows instructors to post course information and materials as well as readings and assignments.

Thanks to the flexibility of the Blackboard Learning System, it is easy to design a course curriculum or study schedules, and the continuation of education courses go on flawlessly. Not only can the teacher shift page layouts including font types or colors but also choose texts and icon links. It also facilitates interaction between users, who can have basic discussion, and offers other collaborative tools.

The idea behind the Blackboard Learning System is to let teachers deliver course content, especially adjusted to large courses at lower levels. The role of an administrator of the system A Review of Distance Learning and Learning Management Systems http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/65222 7

Figure 1. ATutor Course Web Page.

is limited to conducting basic operations such as initial course and teacher registration. The administrator is not overly dependent on it as many course management tasks, such as student and course content registration or tests and statistics check, can be carried out by a teacher. The system consists of many communication and discussion features enabling active participation of students [20]. The possibility of the use of multimedia, an instructional option, is willingly utilized by teachers. Figure 2 shows the web page for a Blackboard course.

Figure 2. Blackboard Course Web Page.

#### 2.4.3. Claroline

commercial distance education system dedicated to education containing teaching resources and straightforward user hierarchy. It allows instructors to post course information and mate-

SimplyDigi http://www.simplydigi.com/products.html

Thanks to the flexibility of the Blackboard Learning System, it is easy to design a course curriculum or study schedules, and the continuation of education courses go on flawlessly. Not only can the teacher shift page layouts including font types or colors but also choose texts and icon links. It also facilitates interaction between users, who can have basic discussion, and

The idea behind the Blackboard Learning System is to let teachers deliver course content, especially adjusted to large courses at lower levels. The role of an administrator of the system

rials as well as readings and assignments.

Table 1. The distance learning tools and web addresses.

Tools Web addresses

6 Virtual Learning

ATutor http://atutor.ca/

AkademikLMS http://www.akademiklms.org/

Blackboard (WebCT) http://www.blackboard.com/ Bodington http://bodington.org/ Claroline http://www.claroline.net/ CoursePark http://www.coursepark.com/ Desire2Learn http://www.d2l.com/ Dokeos http://www.dokeos.com/ DotLRN http://dotlrn.org/ Drupal http://drupal.org/ eFront http://www.efront.gr/

eStudy http://estudy.sourceforge.net/ ETUDES https://myetudes.org/portal

Fle3 http://fle3.uiah.fi/ ILIAS http://www.ilias.de/ IntraLearn SME http://www.intralearn.com/ Janison Toolbox http://www.janison.com.au/

Moodle http://moodle.org/ OLAT http://www.olat.org/ Perculus http://www.perculus.com/ RCampus http://www.rcampus.com/ Sakai http://www.sakaiproject.org/

Adobe Connect http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html

ANGEL http://www.angellearning.com/community/highered.html

Avilar WebMentor http://www.avilar.com/learningmanagement/lms.html

Enocta http://www.enocta.com/enocta/web/pdefault.aspx

offers other collaborative tools.

Claroline is an open‐source e‐learning and e‐working platform. It can work on both Windows and Linux server systems. Claroline provides the ability to manage public education activities on the web and to create effective online courses. There is a large community of users and software developers worldwide.

In Claroline Learning Management System, a user has three roles. These roles are student, teacher, and administrator.

GNU/Linux, BSD, Unix, Windows (9x, ME, NT4, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7), or Mac OS X operating systems, Apache, IIS or Wampler web servers, PHP and MySQL database server should be installed on the web server where Claroline is installed. It is under the GPL.

Two language options, which are website language and course language, are available in Claroline. It has been used in more than 100 countries and translated into 35 languages. However, some languages such as Turkish are not supported completely and some sections are still awaiting translation.

Claroline has rich interaction tools such as chat, forum, and wiki, but there is no survey functionality and whiteboard application. It does not require any programming skills to install, manage, and use. It supports SCORM standards. Claroline allows user lists to be created and user statistics to be seen. User groups can be created in courses. Figure 3 shows a web page from Claroline.

Figure 3. Claroline Course Web Page.

#### 2.4.4. Desire2Learn

Desire2Learn, which is also known as Brightspace Learning Management System, is another educational learning management system. It is based on competency education and provides a cloud‐based learning suite.

Desire2Learn is a commercial educational system that supports mobile learning and web conferencing. It also has some features such as exams, discussions, assignments, quizzes, grades, and portfolio‐based activities. D2L supports foreign languages and mathematical notations. D2L also includes a learning repository, course creation tools, an e‐portfolio module, mobile delivery, analytics, and lecture capture facilities. Figure 4 presents web page of Desire2Learn.

#### 2.4.5. Docebo

Docebo LMS platform is a learning management system that is based on SaaS/cloud platform. With Docebo, users can organize, track, and distribute online courses for formal learning. The instructors can create users as well as groups and create reports about them. It was offered as open source but it is not available as open source for a while. Although Docebo is offered for education, now it is primarily used in the corporate sector.

A Review of Distance Learning and Learning Management Systems http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/65222 9

Figure 4. Desire2Learn Course Web Page.

GNU/Linux, BSD, Unix, Windows (9x, ME, NT4, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7), or Mac OS X operating systems, Apache, IIS or Wampler web servers, PHP and MySQL database server should be

Two language options, which are website language and course language, are available in Claroline. It has been used in more than 100 countries and translated into 35 languages. However, some languages such as Turkish are not supported completely and some sections

Claroline has rich interaction tools such as chat, forum, and wiki, but there is no survey functionality and whiteboard application. It does not require any programming skills to install, manage, and use. It supports SCORM standards. Claroline allows user lists to be created and user statistics to be seen. User groups can be created in courses. Figure 3 shows a

Desire2Learn, which is also known as Brightspace Learning Management System, is another educational learning management system. It is based on competency education and provides a

Desire2Learn is a commercial educational system that supports mobile learning and web conferencing. It also has some features such as exams, discussions, assignments, quizzes, grades, and portfolio‐based activities. D2L supports foreign languages and mathematical notations. D2L also includes a learning repository, course creation tools, an e‐portfolio module, mobile delivery, analytics, and lecture capture facilities. Figure 4 presents web page of

Docebo LMS platform is a learning management system that is based on SaaS/cloud platform. With Docebo, users can organize, track, and distribute online courses for formal learning. The instructors can create users as well as groups and create reports about them. It was offered as open source but it is not available as open source for a while. Although Docebo is offered for

education, now it is primarily used in the corporate sector.

installed on the web server where Claroline is installed. It is under the GPL.

are still awaiting translation.

8 Virtual Learning

web page from Claroline.

2.4.4. Desire2Learn

Desire2Learn.

2.4.5. Docebo

cloud‐based learning suite.

Figure 3. Claroline Course Web Page.

Figure 5. Docebo Course Web Page.

Docebo is under the GPL, so it has no licensing cost. It is compatible with SCORM, Aviation Industry CBT Committee (AICC), and xAPI. It has a component‐based architecture and works with PHP and MySQL database.

Docebo has interfaces for video conferences. It is integrated with Adobe Connect, BigBlueButton, Cisco WebEx, Citrix GoToMeeting, OnSync by Digital Samba, and TeleSkill Live. Also, it has integrations with Google Apps, WordPress, and Vivocha.

Docebo is available in more than 30 languages and more than 10 countries. This platform is mobile‐ready platform, so it includes mobile learning. The features of Docebo are blogs, course catalogs, labels, and discussions. Figure 5 shows a course web page from Docebo.

#### 2.4.6. Dokeos

Dokeos is an online and open‐source course management system that is widely known and freely available. It is also a learning content management system based on MySQL database and written in PHP language. Dokeos is based on Drupal, which is a content management system. It is available in standard and Professional (PRO) versions.

Figure 6. Dokeos Course Web Page.

Dokeos is used in more than 60 countries, and it has been translated into 34 languages. It features a variety of e‐learning templates and e‐learning course authoring tools. The features of Dokeos are documents, announcements, tests, agendas, forums, links, tracking tools, and chats [21].

Dokeos supports mobile and cloud learning. Also, it supports SCORM, AICC and Tin Can API compliant. Portals and assessments can be used in Dokeos system; on the other hand, it has agenda, forums, discussion forums, chat, videoconference, open questions, and assignments. It is fully compatible across all browsers and platforms. Web page of Dokeos is presented in Figure 6.

#### 2.4.7. eFront

eFront is a modern learning, which is also known as a course management system or learning management systems or virtual learning environment, and an educational platform. eFront is designed to help creating online courses. It has many features such as project management, extended statistics, files management, reports generators, assignments builders, internal messaging system, forum, calendar, chat, survey, etc. It supports SCORM standards.

eFront is a multilingual platform. It offers two types of language files: machine translated and human translated. It supports 48 languages. While 18 of these languages are machine translated, 30 languages are human translated.

This learning management system is PHP based and open source. eFront runs on GNU/Linux, Microsoft Windows, and any other operating system that supports PHP 5.1+ and MySQL 5+. It is under the Common Public Attribution License (CPAL) license. eFront supports Unicode and LDAP, and uses 3‐tier architecture with low bandwidth connections.

eFront is content friendly by using presentations and videos. It has multiple types of test and questions. This course management system can collect and analyze surveys. It supports the blended learning. Some video conference software such as Adobe Connect, BigBlueButton, and OpenMeetings can be used with eFront. A sample course page is given in Figure 7.

#### 2.4.8. Moodle

Moodle is an online course management system that is widely known and freely available. The word Moodle stands for "Modular Object Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment" and was

#### A Review of Distance Learning and Learning Management Systems http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/65222 11

Figure 7. eFront Course Web Page.

Dokeos is used in more than 60 countries, and it has been translated into 34 languages. It features a variety of e‐learning templates and e‐learning course authoring tools. The features of Dokeos are documents, announcements, tests, agendas, forums, links, tracking tools, and chats [21].

Dokeos supports mobile and cloud learning. Also, it supports SCORM, AICC and Tin Can API compliant. Portals and assessments can be used in Dokeos system; on the other hand, it has agenda, forums, discussion forums, chat, videoconference, open questions, and assignments. It is fully compatible across all browsers and platforms. Web page of Dokeos is presented in Figure 6.

eFront is a modern learning, which is also known as a course management system or learning management systems or virtual learning environment, and an educational platform. eFront is designed to help creating online courses. It has many features such as project management, extended statistics, files management, reports generators, assignments builders, internal mes-

eFront is a multilingual platform. It offers two types of language files: machine translated and human translated. It supports 48 languages. While 18 of these languages are machine trans-

This learning management system is PHP based and open source. eFront runs on GNU/Linux, Microsoft Windows, and any other operating system that supports PHP 5.1+ and MySQL 5+. It is under the Common Public Attribution License (CPAL) license. eFront supports Unicode and

eFront is content friendly by using presentations and videos. It has multiple types of test and questions. This course management system can collect and analyze surveys. It supports the blended learning. Some video conference software such as Adobe Connect, BigBlueButton, and OpenMeetings can be used with eFront. A sample course page is given in Figure 7.

Moodle is an online course management system that is widely known and freely available. The word Moodle stands for "Modular Object Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment" and was

saging system, forum, calendar, chat, survey, etc. It supports SCORM standards.

LDAP, and uses 3‐tier architecture with low bandwidth connections.

2.4.7. eFront

10 Virtual Learning

Figure 6. Dokeos Course Web Page.

2.4.8.

Moodle is a software package that it is used to create Internet‐based courses and their websites. Moodle is used in 234 countries, providing support for 139 languages, and has 88,204,960 registered users according to Moodle statistics on the Moodle website in July 2016. There are currently 10,106,758 registered courses and 70,872 active sites that have been registered from those countries.

Moodle is utilized by both institutions and individuals. The list of the former is long, including universities, high and primary schools, governmental departments, military, and healthcare organizations as well as airlines or oil companies. Homeschoolers, independent educators, and special educators are among the individual users.

Moodle, a PHP‐based open‐source online learning system, has been used since 2002 as a distance education tool, and has various versions supported by Windows, Linux, Unix, and Mac OS X operating systems. The latest version of Moodle is Moodle 3.1.1, released on 11 July 2016. Moodle is under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL). There are documents for use, training, and online help in Moodle. Moodle has 14 different activity types such as assignments, chat, choice, database, external tool, feedback, forum, glossary, lesson, quiz, SCORM, survey, Wiki, and workshop.

A number of programs, namely PHP, which is a script language embedded into html codes that work in a server‐side; MySQL, which is a database management system that can run in the background and can respond to requests, such as a high‐performance web server; and Apache, which is an open‐source software web server that is completely free and has a high performance, are required before the Moodle program is set up.

Moodle supports mobile learning, so it has its own Moodle Mobile application. Moodle Mobile supports currently 15 languages. It has responsive design for phones and tablets. Users can download and view some course resources. A course web page from Moodle is presented in Figure 8.

#### 2.4.9. OLAT

OLAT is an abbreviation of the words Online Learning and Training. OLAT is a Java‐based open‐source learning management system that was developed in 1999. OLAT is under the Apache 2.0 Open Source License. OLAT has forums, chat, blogs, surveys, grading and submission modules, wikis, quizzes, and discussions. It allows monitoring the effectiveness of learners and tutors.

OLAT is multilingual and available in fifteen languages. OLAT runs on Unix, Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Windows, and Mac OS X operating systems. Java SDK, Apache as a web server, Tomcat Servlet Engine as an application server, and MySQL or PostgreSQL as database are required to install OLAT. It supports SCORM, IMS Content Packaging, and OTI standards. A main web page of OLAT is displayed in Figure 9.

Figure 8. Moodle Course Web Page.

Figure 9. OLAT Course Web Page.

#### 2.4.10. Sakai

Sakai is a free learning system that is designed for educational institutions. It is a Java‐based LMS. It has been launched as a "Sakai Project" supported by the Mellon Foundation.

Sakai is a free and open‐source course design platform. It is web‐based and platform‐independent application with many features such as supporting training. It can run on CentOS, Debian GNU/Linux, Fedora, Gentoo Linux, Mac OS X server, Microsoft Windows, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Sun Solaris, SuSe Linux, and Ubuntu operating systems. It can be downloaded from the Internet for free, and it works interactively with both MySQL and Oracle database management systems.

Sakai has forums, chat rooms, message center, assignments, grade book, discussions, syllabus, wikis, and WebDAV. It is designed to present mathematical notation such that it can display LaTeX equations on most pages. Sakai is under the Educational Community License (ECL). It is available in more than 20 languages.

Some video conference software such as Adobe Connect, BigBlueButton, Kaltura, and OpenMeetings can be integrated in Sakai, and it has IMS Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) standards. Figure 10 shows a sample web page for a course from Sakai.

Apache 2.0 Open Source License. OLAT has forums, chat, blogs, surveys, grading and submission modules, wikis, quizzes, and discussions. It allows monitoring the effectiveness of

OLAT is multilingual and available in fifteen languages. OLAT runs on Unix, Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Windows, and Mac OS X operating systems. Java SDK, Apache as a web server, Tomcat Servlet Engine as an application server, and MySQL or PostgreSQL as database are required to install OLAT. It supports SCORM, IMS Content Packaging, and OTI standards. A

Sakai is a free learning system that is designed for educational institutions. It is a Java‐based

LMS. It has been launched as a "Sakai Project" supported by the Mellon Foundation.

learners and tutors.

12 Virtual Learning

Figure 8. Moodle Course Web Page.

2.4.10. Sakai

Figure 9. OLAT Course Web Page.

main web page of OLAT is displayed in Figure 9.

#### 2.4.11. Comparison of learning management systems

In the below sections, we provide comparisons among the most similar learning management systems, and in Table 2, all comparisons of all learning management systems are summarized.

#### <IP_ADDRESS>. ATutor, eFront, and Moodle

ATutor is a PHP application and it has some registered installations such as Moodle.

ATutor seems like a down‐sized version of Moodle with a slightly more technical look than eFront. But the development on its modules are rather limited [23].

#### <IP_ADDRESS>. Blackboard and Moodle

The Blackboard Learning System (i.e., WebCT) ensures variety in course content and materials. In addition, the Blackboard Learning System assists students in their offline efforts. Curriculum

Table 2. The comparison of all popular learning management systems.

design is supported by the two systems by providing course templates, thanks to which instructors can deliver course materials, define study schedules, and plan class activities.

Regarding communication and discussion, both Blackboard and Moodle deliver discussion forums and chat rooms together with exchange of e‐mails and files.

The Blackboard Learning System also provides private folders and internal e‐mail for students and gives them an option of making their own notes. As for performance assessment, systems incorporate assessment and grading functions.

Course administration is embraced again by both tools by facilitating uploading of student data and course data in batches. The Blackboard Learning System is also equipped with direct data interfaces. It should be noted that there are certain similarities between Blackboard and Moodle such as option of student enrollments in courses, access to discussion forums, or taking quizzes and tests.

The Blackboard Learning System and Moodle are about equal in terms of administrative features, collaboration, and instruction methods.

Other common features are supporting file upload (e.g., Word, PowerPoint, audio), being SCORM compliant, allowing grading, providing course calendar, and monitoring students' participation.

#### <IP_ADDRESS>. Blackboard, eFront, and Sakai

The Blackboard Learning System is superior to Sakai in terms of administrative features and course development. But in terms of collaboration and instruction methods, both are very similar.

When eFront and Blackboard are compared, it is observed that eFront is superior to Blackboard in terms of administrative features but they are about equal in terms of course development and instruction methods.

Sakai is superior to eFront in terms of collaboration.

#### <IP_ADDRESS>. D2L (Brightspace) and eFront

eFront is superior to D2L (Brightspace) in terms of administrative features but in terms of collaboration, course development and instruction methods both of them are about equal.

#### <IP_ADDRESS>. D2L, OLAT, and Sakai

ATutor

> Price

Open

Yes

No

 Yes

 No

 No

source

License

Type SCORM Language Countries Written in

Video

Yes

conferences

integration

Operating

Windows, Unix

Microsoft

NT

system

Servers,

Windows,

GNU/Linux,

Windows,

Cross‐

Cross‐

GNU/Linux,

Windows,

Cross‐platform

 Cross‐ platform

Linux,

Unix, and

Mac OS X

Windows, Cent

OS, Windows

Server 2003

platform

platform

Linux, and

Mac OS X

Windows,

BSD, Unix, Mac OS X

> Mac OS X

Database

MySQL

N/A

 MySQL

 MySQL

 MySQL

 MySQL

 MySQL 5+

 MySQL

 MySQL,

MySQL,

Oracle

PostgreSQL

server

Web server

Apache, Zeus, lighttpd,

N/A

 Apache,

N/A

 Apache, IIS

 Apache

 Apache

 Apache

 Apache

 Apache Tomcat 7,

Apache

Http Server

IIS,

Wampler

Abyss, Zazou Mini Web

Server, Microsoft IIS, and

Jana‐Server

Mobile

Yes, but works still

Yes

 No

 No (only for

Yes

Yes

 No, but it can be

Yes

 No

 Yes

> used with

mobile phones

and tablets

Brightspace)

continue

learning

support

Table 2. The comparison

 of all popular learning

management

 systems.

PHP

N/A

More than 20

Yes

LCMS

GPL

N/A

LMS

Yes

More than

35

 More than

10

20

More than

100

 N/A

 More than 10

 More than

More than 50

 234

 More than

20

30

60

PHP

Yes

 Yes

 PHP

PHP

Yes

 No

 Yes

 Java

 Java

50

N/A

Yes

 No

 Yes

 Yes

 PHP

 PHP

 PHP

 Yes

 Yes

 Yes More than 30

 34

 LMS

 LMS

 LMS

 GPL

 N/A

 GPL

GPL

LCMS

Yes

 Yes

48

139

 More than

15

20

 LMS

 CPAL

GPL

LMS

Yes

 Yes

 Yes More than

 LMS

 LMS

 Apache 2.0 ECL

Free

Blackboard

Commercial

 Free

Commercial

Commercial

 Free but it

also has commercial

version

Yes

 Yes

Yes

 Yes

 Yes

 Claroline

 D2L

 Docebo

 Dokeos

 eFront

Free

Free

 Free

 Free

14 Virtual Learning

Moodle

 OLAT

 Sakai

> D2L (Brightspace) is superior to OLAT in terms of administrative features and course development, but for collaboration facility, both of them are about equal.

D2L (Brightspace) is superior to Sakai with respect to instruction methods used.

#### <IP_ADDRESS>. Dokeos, Docebo, and eFront

Docebo is superior to eFront with respect to administrative features and course development. But in terms of collaboration methods and instruction methods, eFront and Dokeos are very similar.

#### <IP_ADDRESS>. Moodle, Dokeos, and OLAT

Dokeos looks better and less complex than Moodle in terms of interface [23].

But Moodle is superior to OLAT in terms of administrative features, collaboration, course development, and instruction methods.

#### <IP_ADDRESS>. Moodle and Sakai

Unlike Moodle, Sakai is mainly implemented in Java and can cause some problems in older versions of browsers [23].

Moodle is superior to Sakai in terms of administrative features, collaboration, and course development.

#### <IP_ADDRESS>. OLAT and Sakai

Sakai, similar to OLAT, is a Java‐based e‐learning system developed by an international alliance of universities, colleges, and commercial affiliates; and both have very similar properties [24].

#### <IP_ADDRESS>. OLAT and the others

Although most of the other e‐learning applications in this chapter are PHP based, OLAT (Online Learning and Training) is based on Java and is Apache Licensed [24].

eFront and Moodle are superior to OLAT in terms of administrative features and course development.

## 3. Conclusion

In this chapter, the literature about distance education and learning management systems are summarized. This chapter also presents a brief comparison of some of the most significant learning management systems used for education.

In summary, the history of distance education shows a constant state of evolution. A stream of new ideas and technologies exist in the historical view of distance education. It is also observed that nontraditional education tries to blend with traditional education while meeting the changing learning theories and developing technologies [13].

The Internet‐based distance learning model can be defined as a transmission of educational content with the use of text, image, video, and audio files over the Internet, online or offline. According to the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), the Internet‐based distance education has gained a special status for three basic reasons. First of all, the Internet has become the predominant technology in distance education, due to its increasing telecommunications bandwidth capabilities. Second, the Internet‐based distance education allows the teaching and learning process to happen "at any time and any place." Asynchronous interactive learning environments, especially, have become the signature characteristic of this field. Finally, the Internet‐based distance education is, in many ways, fundamentally different than traditional classroom‐based education hence attractive for learners [17]. The main difference is that the Internet‐based distance education removes the physical barrier and time constraints for students and lecturers.

Within the framework of this study, the open‐source learning management systems especially Moodle are widely used particularly in universities and higher education institutions. In general, the commercial learning management systems especially Blackboard are superior to open‐ source learning management systems in terms of administrative features; however, according to instruction methods that are employed, the open‐source learning management systems especially Moodle are superior to the commercial learning management systems. According to existing literatures [25], Moodle still comes out as the top used system among the open‐source LMSs. This result also supports our observations that are explained in this chapter.

## Author details

<IP_ADDRESS>. Moodle, Dokeos, and OLAT

<IP_ADDRESS>. Moodle and Sakai

versions of browsers [23].

<IP_ADDRESS>. OLAT and Sakai

<IP_ADDRESS>. OLAT and the others

learning management systems used for education.

changing learning theories and developing technologies [13].

development.

16 Virtual Learning

ties [24].

development.

3. Conclusion

development, and instruction methods.

Dokeos looks better and less complex than Moodle in terms of interface [23].

But Moodle is superior to OLAT in terms of administrative features, collaboration, course

Unlike Moodle, Sakai is mainly implemented in Java and can cause some problems in older

Moodle is superior to Sakai in terms of administrative features, collaboration, and course

Sakai, similar to OLAT, is a Java‐based e‐learning system developed by an international alliance of universities, colleges, and commercial affiliates; and both have very similar proper-

Although most of the other e‐learning applications in this chapter are PHP based, OLAT

eFront and Moodle are superior to OLAT in terms of administrative features and course

In this chapter, the literature about distance education and learning management systems are summarized. This chapter also presents a brief comparison of some of the most significant

In summary, the history of distance education shows a constant state of evolution. A stream of new ideas and technologies exist in the historical view of distance education. It is also observed that nontraditional education tries to blend with traditional education while meeting the

The Internet‐based distance learning model can be defined as a transmission of educational content with the use of text, image, video, and audio files over the Internet, online or offline. According to the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), the Internet‐based distance education has gained a special status for three basic reasons. First of all, the Internet has become the predominant technology in distance education, due to its increasing telecommunications bandwidth capabilities. Second, the Internet‐based distance education allows the teaching and learning process to happen "at any time and any place." Asynchronous

(Online Learning and Training) is based on Java and is Apache Licensed [24].

Mümine Kaya Keleş 1,\* and Selma Ayşe Özel2

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

### References

[22] Cole J. R., Foster H. Using Moodle: Teaching with the Popular Open Source Course Management System. 2nd ed. O'Reilly Media, USA. 2007.

[8] Bernard R. M., Abrami P. C., Lou Y., Borokhovski E. A Methodological Morass? How We Can Improve Quantitative Research in Distance Education. Distance Education. 2004; 25(2): 175–198.

[9] Perraton H. Rethinking the Research Agenda. International Review of Research in Open

[10] Saba F. Research in Distance Education: A Status Report. International Review of

[11] Holmberg B. The Evolution, Principles and Practices of Distance Education. Bibliotheks‐ und Informationssystem der Universitat Oldenburg, Germany. 2005; 11, 13. ISBN:

[12] Carnegie Commission in Higher Education. The Fourth Revolution: Instructional Tech-

[13] Jeffries M. Research in Distance Education. [Internet]. 2008. Available from: http://www.

[14] Stateuniversity.com. Distance Learning in Higher Education—Related Terms and Concepts, Goals of Distance Learning. Technologies Used in Distance Learning. [Internet]. 2016. Available from: http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1917/Distance‐Learn-

[15] Ma X. Expansion Dynamic Game Analysis on Education Quality Control for Distance

[16] Harrison J. C. Different Types of Distance Education. [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://ezinearticles.com/?Different‐Types‐of‐Distance‐Education&id=6073038 [Accessed:

[17] Merisotis J. P., Phipps R. A. Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for Success in Internet‐Based Distance Education, The Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), IHEP Report, National Education Association (NEA). [Internet]. 2000. Available from: http://www.nea.

[18] Al U., Madran R. O. Web-Based Distance Education Systems: Required Features and

[19] Kaya M. Distance Education Systems Used in Universities of Turkey and Northern

[20] Cheung K. S. A Comparison of WebCT, Blackboard and Moodle for the Teaching and Learning of Continuing Education Courses. Enhancing Learning through Technology International Conference on ICT in Teaching and Learning. 2006; 1:219–228. DOI:

[21] Kastelic M., Lončarič T. A Model of Introducing e‐Learning System at Vocational College for Business Secretaries. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology. 2007, 4:

digitalschool.net/edu/DL\_history\_mJeffries.html [Accessed: 2016‐07‐01]

Education System. Advanced Materials Research. 2011; 230–232: 481–485.

org/assets/docs/HE/QualityOnTheLine.pdf [Accessed: 2016‐07‐01]

Cyprus. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 31: 676–680.

Standards. Bilgi Dünyası. 2004; 5(2): 259–271.

10.1142/9789812772725\_0018

175–187.

and Distance Learning. 2000; 1(1):52-62.

3814209338

18 Virtual Learning

2016‐07‐01]

Research in Open and Distance Learning. 2000; 1(1):43-51.

nology in Higher Education. McGraw-Hill Inc., US. 1972.

ing‐in‐Higher‐Education.html [Accessed: 2016‐07‐01]

#### **Social Collaboration Style Preferences and Cognitive Receptivity to Technological Change and Innovation in Open and Distance e-Learning Social Collaboration Style Preferences and Cognitive Receptivity to Technological Change and Innovation in Open and Distance e-Learning**

Melinde Coetzee Melinde Coetzee

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/65220

#### **Abstract**

The proliferation of online courses in open and distance e-learning higher education contexts brought attention to the role of social collaboration activities in enhancing student learning. Constructive social collaboration in an e-learning environment is influenced by the interaction dynamics of the relevant virtual learning community. Social learning involves the acquisition of knowledge and skills relevant to the individual's unique work or learning context through collaborative endeavours and interactions that often include the use of technological tools such as web-based platforms and social media technological applications. This chapter focuses on how the social collaboration style preferences of members of the virtual learning community relate to their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation. The practical implications for virtual learning in open and distance e-learning contexts are outlined.

**Keywords:** social collaboration, social learning, virtual learning community, cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation, self-other regulation

## **1. Introduction**

Virtual learning environments and online learning platforms have become characteristic of open and distance e-learning institutions to support online teaching and learning [1]. More specifically, the proliferation of online courses in open and distance e-learning higher education contexts brought attention to the role of social collaboration online activities in enhancing student learning [2, 3]. The adoption of virtual learning systems such as online learning platforms, e-learning applications and collaborative virtual learning communities is

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

a new breed of educational technology that supports enhanced student learning experiences through a variety of online teaching and learning tools [1]. In this regard, higher education institutions that stay abreast with the latest information and communication technological developments are seen to be a driving force in preparing graduates to become valuable human capital that supports the performance and competitiveness of successful organisations in today's knowledge- and service-driven economy [1, 4]. In the light of constant technological innovation being a hallmark of successful companies, employers place high value on the digital citizenship and cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation as important twenty-first-century skills for graduates' work readiness [4, 5].

Research has underlined the importance of studying dispositional and other person-related antecedents to individuals' cognitive receptivity to change and the adoption of new technologies in organisational context [4, 6, 7]. This is partly because of social psychology literature indicating attitudes, motivations and beliefs as significant predictors of behaviour [4]. The theory of reasoned action [4, 8] also postulates the link between beliefs and attitudes and behavioural intentions in the use of technology (i.e. electronic or digital products or services [9]). Numerous researches have been conducted on the factors influencing individuals' acceptance and adoption of technology [9–11] and openness to organisational change [6]. However, significantly less attention has been paid to how individuals' social collaboration learning styles in a virtual learning community influence their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation. The present study attempts to fill this research void by exploring the relationship dynamics between these two cognitive-behavioural constructs (social collaboration style and cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation) in the virtual learning environment context provided by open and distance e-learning. This chapter explores whether individuals' social learning collaborative style preferences significantly explain the variance in their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation. Understanding the relationship dynamics between these two cognitive-behavioural constructs contributes to the emerging virtual learning research literature on factors influencing individuals' responsiveness to technological change.

#### **1.1. Social collaboration style preferences**

Social learning involves the acquisition of knowledge and skills relevant to the individual's unique work or learning context through collaborative endeavours and interactions that often include the use of technological tools such as web-based platforms and social media technological applications [3]. Social learning theory [12] postulates that learning takes place among and through other people and requires active participation in a social world. Social learning is an interpersonal and collaborative endeavour requiring significant social interaction [13]. The processes of participation and interaction are of significance because they provide, condition and sustain the context of knowledge generation and learning for the virtual community [14, 15]. Social learning through technological platform collaboration (for example, group debate forums) involves socially shared regulation and social regulation in coordinating and regulating work on a joint task [16]. Social constructivism postulates that in communities of collaborative learning individuals are autonomous in their self-expression, in the authoring of their own content and in sharing that content with others in efficient and meaningful ways [17]. However, individuals differ in terms of their preferred way of interaction with others in a collaborative social learning set-up. Coetzee [18] differentiates between four social collaboration style preferences: (1) active-initiator, (2) independent-evaluator, (3) reflective-evaluator and (4) passive-independent.

a new breed of educational technology that supports enhanced student learning experiences through a variety of online teaching and learning tools [1]. In this regard, higher education institutions that stay abreast with the latest information and communication technological developments are seen to be a driving force in preparing graduates to become valuable human capital that supports the performance and competitiveness of successful organisations in today's knowledge- and service-driven economy [1, 4]. In the light of constant technological innovation being a hallmark of successful companies, employers place high value on the digital citizenship and cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation as important

Research has underlined the importance of studying dispositional and other person-related antecedents to individuals' cognitive receptivity to change and the adoption of new technologies in organisational context [4, 6, 7]. This is partly because of social psychology literature indicating attitudes, motivations and beliefs as significant predictors of behaviour [4]. The theory of reasoned action [4, 8] also postulates the link between beliefs and attitudes and behavioural intentions in the use of technology (i.e. electronic or digital products or services [9]). Numerous researches have been conducted on the factors influencing individuals' acceptance and adoption of technology [9–11] and openness to organisational change [6]. However, significantly less attention has been paid to how individuals' social collaboration learning styles in a virtual learning community influence their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation. The present study attempts to fill this research void by exploring the relationship dynamics between these two cognitive-behavioural constructs (social collaboration style and cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation) in the virtual learning environment context provided by open and distance e-learning. This chapter explores whether individuals' social learning collaborative style preferences significantly explain the variance in their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation. Understanding the relationship dynamics between these two cognitive-behavioural constructs contributes to the emerging virtual learning research literature on factors influenc-

Social learning involves the acquisition of knowledge and skills relevant to the individual's unique work or learning context through collaborative endeavours and interactions that often include the use of technological tools such as web-based platforms and social media technological applications [3]. Social learning theory [12] postulates that learning takes place among and through other people and requires active participation in a social world. Social learning is an interpersonal and collaborative endeavour requiring significant social interaction [13]. The processes of participation and interaction are of significance because they provide, condition and sustain the context of knowledge generation and learning for the virtual community [14, 15]. Social learning through technological platform collaboration (for example, group debate forums) involves socially shared regulation and social regulation in coordinating and regulating work on a joint task [16]. Social constructivism postulates that in communities of collaborative learning individuals are autonomous in their self-expression, in the authoring

twenty-first-century skills for graduates' work readiness [4, 5].

22 Virtual Learning

ing individuals' responsiveness to technological change.

**1.1. Social collaboration style preferences**

**Table 1** provides an overview of the dominant personality-based characteristics of the four social collaboration style preferences in a typical virtual learning setting.

Limited research has been conducted on the four social collaboration preferences postulated by Coetzee [18]. Social regulation theory [13] suggests that facilitative and directive forms of other-regulation influence the process of collaboration and quality of socioemotional interaction between group members within the community of collaborative learning. The activeinitiator and independent-evaluator preferences represent characteristics of a directive otherregulation orientation (i.e. taking an instructive role in guiding the joint activity and others and controlling and/or dominating others' attempts at making task contribution [13]), while the reflective-evaluator represents characteristics of a facilitative other-regulation orientation (i.e. high-level content processing via monitoring for content understanding and improved task and content quality [13]). Directive other-regulators tend to limit opportunities for other group members to regulate, contribute and participate in the joint task by preferring that their own contributions remain central to the discussion [13]. The facilitative other-regulators tend to regulate the collaboration and task quality by inviting and encouraging others to participate and contribute to the joint tasks and by facilitating cognition and content understanding through a meta-cognitive monitoring and guiding approach [13].

**Table 1.** Overview of the dominant personality characteristics of the four social collaboration style preferences exhibited in a virtual learning setting.

Learning that requires collaboration in a virtual learning setting calls for proactive selfregulated learning from students [19]. As such, social collaborative regulation is influenced by the self-regulated learning capacity of the virtual learning community members. Self-regulated learning denotes the self-initiated management of thoughts, feelings and behaviours, which are used to achieve learning goals [20] and the extent to which participation in the virtual community will be initiated. Participation in the collaborative learning tasks refers to the amount of energy or effort that students devote to the learning activity [19]. Active learners tend to adopt a participatory learning style such as those represented by the active-initiator and independent-evaluator collaboration styles. Members with a participatory style prefer actively processing information by participating in learning activities and debates; they consistently show initiative and accountability towards the successful completion of the learning task [19] and therefore tend to exhibit a high level of self-directedness and openness to change. On the other hand, collaboration styles such as the reflective-evaluator and passiveindependent collaboration styles typically prefer working in individual learning spaces allowing them to reflect on the information obtained in solitude. Reflective learners such as those represented by the reflective-evaluator and passive-independent collaboration style types generally tend to exhibit lower levels of self-directedness and more resistance to change in a collaborative leaning community because they tend to be more dependent on the participatory or directive and/or facilitative leadership energy of active learners.

the reflective-evaluator represents characteristics of a facilitative other-regulation orientation (i.e. high-level content processing via monitoring for content understanding and improved task and content quality [13]). Directive other-regulators tend to limit opportunities for other group members to regulate, contribute and participate in the joint task by preferring that their own contributions remain central to the discussion [13]. The facilitative other-regulators tend to regulate the collaboration and task quality by inviting and encouraging others to participate and contribute to the joint tasks and by facilitating cognition and content understanding

**Reflective-evaluator Passive-independent**

Impartial observer slow to catch up on debate, keep own viewpoints to self Resistant to contribute

Passive-reluctant style (other-directed)

Reflecting on and building on others' ideas/viewpoints —searching for and finding new ideas and information to support group encouraging others/ appreciative stance

Facilitative style High-level content processing—monitoring for content and process (other-

directed)

High High High Low

High High High Low

Learning that requires collaboration in a virtual learning setting calls for proactive selfregulated learning from students [19]. As such, social collaborative regulation is influenced by the self-regulated learning capacity of the virtual learning community members. Self-regulated learning denotes the self-initiated management of thoughts, feelings and behaviours, which are used to achieve learning goals [20] and the extent to which participation in the virtual community will be initiated. Participation in the collaborative learning tasks refers to the amount of energy or effort that students devote to the learning activity [19]. Active learners tend to adopt a participatory learning style such as those represented by the active-initiator and independent-evaluator collaboration styles. Members with a participatory style prefer actively processing information by participating in learning activities and debates; they

**Table 1.** Overview of the dominant personality characteristics of the four social collaboration style preferences

through a meta-cognitive monitoring and guiding approach [13].

**evaluator**

matter

Directive style Proactive evaluator/

instructor (self-directed)

Critiquing debate to stimulate new perspectives—prefer to contribute own unique ideas about subject

**Active-initiator Independent-**

Initiating debate Bring own innovative and creative ideas to debate and invite debate to stimulate new insights

Directive style Proactive initiator/ instructor (selfdirected)

**Social**

24 Virtual Learning

**collaboration style preferences**

**Other-regulation orientation**

**Dominant regulation style**

**Collaboration**

**Openness to change level**

exhibited in a virtual learning setting.

**level**

#### **1.2. Social collaborative learning and cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation**

In open and distance e-learning virtual learning communities, the affordances of technology offer important opportunities and challenges for enhancing students' learning processes and experiences, including the digital and personal capabilities that are foundational to their social competency and their personal and professional success [15]. Collaborative social learning in distance e-learning methodologies offers to distance learning students the opportunity to collaborate and interact with other members of the virtual learning community, which facilitates a sense of belongingness, reduces the feeling of loneliness and encourages learning [2]. Collaborative learning endeavours in virtual learning educational contexts offer cognitive advantages to students and positively influence the development of personality traits and personal skills that are beneficial for future autonomous or cooperative learning and working [2]. Research has indicated that social collaborative learning increases student achievement levels, helps e-learning students to be more conducive to long-term successful learning and develops high-level cognitive and problem-solving skills regarded as important by employers for their work readiness [2].

Virtual learning environments require a cognitive openness to new technological tools and platforms used in open and distance e-learning contexts for student learning. Such technologies include the use of web-based collaborative learning communities such as group discussion forums [19]. The extent to which an individual enjoys or is willing to trying out new applications, social media tools and applications and technological products reflects their cognitive openness to technological change and innovation [21]. Adopting new technologies and engaging in learning how to use and apply a new technological product are seen as an aspect of the individual's lifelong learning and development [21].

Theories of self-regulated learning provide a useful lens to understand the influence of selfinitiated management of thoughts, feelings and behaviours in achieving specific learning goals in virtual learning communities [20, 22]. Both cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation and social learning collaborative styles relate to the use of self-regulatory strategies and responsiveness. Constructive social collaboration in an e-learning environment is influenced by the interaction dynamics of the relevant virtual learning community [16]. Group collaboration involves self-regulatory cognitive processes in the regulation of others through the coordination and negotiation of varying group members' perspectives [13]. Research shows that individual members differ significantly in the cognitive processes they apply in other regulation when working on collaborative group tasks [13, 23]. Similarly, openness to technological change and innovation involves self-regulatory cognitive processes in evaluating new technological products and services, taking risks in bringing new technological products and ideas to the table, seeing the benefits of adopting new technological innovations and devising strategies in trying out new applications, social media tools and technological products [21].

Cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation is a form of change-oriented employee behaviour that represents agentic traits, such as proactivity and openness to experience, which indicate employees' tendencies to generate change in their social environment [24] and being resourceful in dealing with new and unusual technological experiences [21]. Individuals who are open to the innovation of new technologies generally believe that the new product will help them to change outdated work processes or improve outdated methods for performing work tasks [21]. On the other hand, individuals who are not ready for or who are overly cautious of new technological products and innovations may become resistant towards adopting the change represented by the new technological product [6, 21]. It stands then to reason that individuals with differing social learning collaboration style preferences may exhibit different levels of cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation due to the inclination to function either more autonomous or independent from others or to actively initiate and regulate interaction with other members of the virtual learning community. The study presented in the following section explored the empirical association between individuals' social collaboration learning style and their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation as exhibited in a virtual learning environment context.

## **2. Method**

#### **2.1. Participants and procedure**

Ethical clearance and permission to conduct the research were obtained from the management of the university. A random sample of working adults (*N* = 160; 67% black and 33% white people; 59% females and 41% males) enrolled for further studies at an open and distance higher education institution participated in the study. The participants were employed in the human resources and financial fields. The participants had an age range from 25 to 50 years with 80% in the early career stage (exploration and establishment phase) of their lives (25–40 years). Data were collected by means of a web-survey.

#### **2.2. Measuring instruments**

The participants' social collaboration style preferences were measured through the *social learning styles inventory* (SLSI) developed by Coetzee [18]. The SLSI uses a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never; 5 = almost always) with 45 items that measure individuals' orientation towards the use of social media tools and applications in collaborative learning activities: active-initiator (17 items; e.g. '*I prefer to initiate new ideas and stimulate the debate'*); reflectiveevaluator (14 items; e.g. '*I respond to ideas and viewpoints by pointing out flaws in members' arguments in order to improve the reasoning/ideas'*); passive-independent (7 items; e.g. '*I prefer to act as impartial observer of the ideas and debates'*) and independent-evaluator (7 items; e.g. '*I prefer to ignore the ideas and viewpoints already posted and try to contribute my own unique ideas about the subject matter in order to bring a new perspective to the ideas'*). For the present study, the overall subscale Cronbach's α coefficients ranged between 0.79 and 0.97 (high internal consistency reliability). Previous research indicated construct validity of the scale [18].

The participants' levels of cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation were measured through the *technological change receptivity scale* (TCRS) developed by Coetzee [18, 21]. The scale consists of 28 items and three subscales with a 6-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (almost always): (1) ingenuity (9 items; e.g. *I see myself as resourceful in dealing with new and unusual technological experiences/I like to take risks in bringing new ideas or products to the table*; (2) openness to change (11 items; e.g. *I believe that the innovation of new technological products helps create the future/I am quick to try out new apps and technological products*) and (3) resistant to change (8 items; e.g. *I find it difficult to adopt new technology—I would rather stick to the tried and tested/ I find it scary to try out new technological products*). Evidence of the construct and internal consistency reliability of the TCRS has been provided by Coetzee [21]. In terms of the present study, Cronbach's α coefficients for the three subscales were ingenuity (0.92), openness to change (0.93), resistant to change (0.79) and overall scale (0.90) (high internal consistency reliability). Previous research indicated construct validity of the scale [18, 21].

Demographic data were used as control variables and included: age (coded 0 = ≤45 years; 1 = ≥46 years), gender (coded 0 = male; 1 = female) and race (coded 0 = black; 1 = white). These variables were chosen based on previous research indicating that these variables are important to consider in evaluating individuals' career concerns and openness to change [6].

#### **2.3. Statistical analysis**

shows that individual members differ significantly in the cognitive processes they apply in other regulation when working on collaborative group tasks [13, 23]. Similarly, openness to technological change and innovation involves self-regulatory cognitive processes in evaluating new technological products and services, taking risks in bringing new technological products and ideas to the table, seeing the benefits of adopting new technological innovations and devising strategies in trying out new applications, social media tools and technological

Cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation is a form of change-oriented employee behaviour that represents agentic traits, such as proactivity and openness to experience, which indicate employees' tendencies to generate change in their social environment [24] and being resourceful in dealing with new and unusual technological experiences [21]. Individuals who are open to the innovation of new technologies generally believe that the new product will help them to change outdated work processes or improve outdated methods for performing work tasks [21]. On the other hand, individuals who are not ready for or who are overly cautious of new technological products and innovations may become resistant towards adopting the change represented by the new technological product [6, 21]. It stands then to reason that individuals with differing social learning collaboration style preferences may exhibit different levels of cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation due to the inclination to function either more autonomous or independent from others or to actively initiate and regulate interaction with other members of the virtual learning community. The study presented in the following section explored the empirical association between individuals' social collaboration learning style and their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation as exhibited in a virtual learning environment context.

Ethical clearance and permission to conduct the research were obtained from the management of the university. A random sample of working adults (*N* = 160; 67% black and 33% white people; 59% females and 41% males) enrolled for further studies at an open and distance higher education institution participated in the study. The participants were employed in the human resources and financial fields. The participants had an age range from 25 to 50 years with 80% in the early career stage (exploration and establishment phase) of their

The participants' social collaboration style preferences were measured through the *social learning styles inventory* (SLSI) developed by Coetzee [18]. The SLSI uses a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never; 5 = almost always) with 45 items that measure individuals' orientation towards the use of social media tools and applications in collaborative learning activities: active-initiator (17 items; e.g. '*I prefer to initiate new ideas and stimulate the debate'*); reflective-

lives (25–40 years). Data were collected by means of a web-survey.

products [21].

26 Virtual Learning

**2. Method**

**2.1. Participants and procedure**

**2.2. Measuring instruments**

Bivariate correlation (Pearson's coefficients) analyses were calculated to assess the pattern of relationships between the variables of concern to the study. Point-biserial correlations were calculated for discrete dichotomous variables (i.e. the demographic variables). Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) was used to study the multivariate relationships between the four SLSI scores and the three TCRS scores. CCA is a useful multivariate statistical procedure in human behaviour research because it assesses the association between multiple sets of variables and counteracts type I error.

## **3. Results**

As can be seen from **Table 2**, the practical effect of the significant correlations between the SLSI and TCRS variables ranged between *r* ≥ 0.23 ≤ 0.52 (small to large effect; *p* ≤ 0.01). No significant correlations were observed between resistant to change and the active-initiator, reflectiveinitiator and independent-evaluator variables. The passive-independent variable had no significant association with ingenuity and openness to change. Age had no significant associations with the SLSI and TCRS variables, while gender had associations of small practical effect (*r* < 0.16; *p* < 0.05) with only active-initiator and reflective-evaluator social learning styles and ingenuity. Race had associations of small practical effect (*r* < 0.16; *p* < 0.05) with only the active-initiator, reflective-evaluator and passive-independent social learning styles.

**Table 2.** Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations.

Canonical correlation analysis was used to study the multivariate relationships between the four SLSI scale scores and the three TCRS scale scores. **Table 3** shows that the full model was significant using Wilks' multivariate test criterion (Wilks' λ = 0.5757, function 1: F*p* = 7.83, *p* = 0.0001). The first function of the model was significant and contributed to 56% of the overall explained variation relative to the function. The full model *r2* type effect size (yielded by 1 − λ) was 0.42 (large practical effect), indicating that the full model explains an adequate proportion of the variance shared between the two variable sets. The redundancy index results summarised in **Table 2** show that the social learning styles represented by the SLSI variables was able to predict 20% (moderate practical effect) of the proportion of overall variance in the technological change receptivity variables.

3 provides the canonical coefficients (weights), canonical structure coefficients (*Rc*), canonical cross-loadings (*Rc*) and squared canonical loadings (*Rc*<sup>2</sup> ). Overall, only three of the social learning styles (active-initiator, reflective-evaluator and independent-evaluator) significantly predicted the technological change receptivity construct variables with the exception of the resistant to change variable, which also did not contribute much to explaining the technological change receptivity canonical construct variate. The canonical cross-loading *Rc* coefficients indicated that the three social learning styles explained 31% (*Rc* = 0.56/*Rc2* = 0.31, large practical effect) of the variance in ingenuity and 22% (*Rc* = 0.47/*Rc2* = 0.22, moderate practical effect) of the variance in openness to change.

Overall model fit measures (function 1): Overall *Rc* = 0.56 Proportion = 0.32 F(*p*) = 7.83 (*p* < 0.0001); df = 12; 405.09 \*\*\*Wilks' λ = 0.5757 *r2* type effect size: 1−λ = 0.42 (large practical effect) Redundancy index (standardised variance of technological change receptivity explained by the social collaboration style preferences): Proportion = 0.20. \*\*\* p≤ .0001;

**Table 3.** Results of the standardised canonical correlation analysis for the first canonical function.

Overall, the active-initiator style (*Rc* = 0.93), followed by the independent-evaluator (*Rc* = 0.86) and reflective-evaluator style (*Rc* = 0.84), contributed the most in explaining the variance in the social learning styles canonical variate construct and in predicting the technological change receptivity variables.

#### **4. Discussion**

initiator and independent-evaluator variables. The passive-independent variable had no significant association with ingenuity and openness to change. Age had no significant associations with the SLSI and TCRS variables, while gender had associations of small practical effect (*r* < 0.16; *p* < 0.05) with only active-initiator and reflective-evaluator social learning styles and ingenuity. Race had associations of small practical effect (*r* < 0.16; *p* < 0.05) with only the

Canonical correlation analysis was used to study the multivariate relationships between the four SLSI scale scores and the three TCRS scale scores. **Table 3** shows that the full model was significant using Wilks' multivariate test criterion (Wilks' λ = 0.5757, function 1: F*p* = 7.83, *p* = 0.0001). The first function of the model was significant and contributed to 56% of the overall

1 − λ) was 0.42 (large practical effect), indicating that the full model explains an adequate proportion of the variance shared between the two variable sets. The redundancy index results summarised in **Table 2** show that the social learning styles represented by the SLSI variables was able to predict 20% (moderate practical effect) of the proportion of overall variance in the

3 provides the canonical coefficients (weights), canonical structure coefficients (*Rc*), canonical

learning styles (active-initiator, reflective-evaluator and independent-evaluator) significantly predicted the technological change receptivity construct variables with the exception of the resistant to change variable, which also did not contribute much to explaining the technological change receptivity canonical construct variate. The canonical cross-loading *Rc* coefficients

type effect size (yielded by

). Overall, only three of the social

= 0.31, large practical

active-initiator, reflective-evaluator and passive-independent social learning styles.

\*\*\* p≤ .001; \*\* p≤ .01; \* p≤ .05 (two-tailed).

28 Virtual Learning

**Table 2.** Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations.

technological change receptivity variables.

explained variation relative to the function. The full model *r2*

cross-loadings (*Rc*) and squared canonical loadings (*Rc*<sup>2</sup>

indicated that the three social learning styles explained 31% (*Rc* = 0.56/*Rc2*

This chapter explored the association between adult learners' social collaboration style preferences and their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation. The empirical results clarified the magnitude and direction of the relationships between these two cognitive-behavioural constructs. As shown in **Figure 1**, the active-initiator style, followed by the independent-evaluator and reflective-evaluator style, contributed the most in predicting adult learners' technological ingenuity and openness to technological change. The participants who had a preference for these three social collaboration styles also exhibited less resistance to technological change and innovation and an openness towards and resourcefulness in dealing with new and unusual technological products and applications. The passive-independent style and attitudes of resistance to technological change contributed less to this association.

The positive association between especially the active-initiator style preference and cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation suggests that those student participants who enjoy taking the lead in initiating discussions and debates in the virtual community are likely to be keen to demonstrate their ingenuity in using new technological products. This finding corroborates Coetzee's [18] premise that active-initiators generally see social collaboration as an opportunity to demonstrate their own insights and originality. Active-evaluators are high self-other regulators who generally enjoy inviting debate from other members because their own and others' contributions are seen to stimulate new insights [18]. Their strong initiating style appears to be associated with positive perceptions of technology and an eagerness to engage with new technological products and applications.

**Figure 1.** Key finding: association between the social collaboration style preferences and cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation.

The independent-evaluators also showed a high level of cognitive receptivity to change and ingenuity (resourcefulness in dealing with new technological products and applications), which could be attributed to their preference to bring a new perspective to the debate by contributing their own unique ideas about the subject matter [18, 21]. The results further suggest that the reflective-evaluators' cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation may be attributed to their preference for constructively building on and adding to the group's contributions. They generally prefer to search for and find new ideas and information that may help the group in completing the joint task successfully [18].

The active-initiator, independent-evaluator and reflective-evaluator style preferences reflect change-oriented behaviour that represents agentic traits such as proactivity and openness to experience. These personality attributes have been associated with peoples' tendencies to generate change in their social environment [24] and being resourceful in dealing with new and unusual technological experiences [21]. Moreover, individuals who exhibit a preference for these three social collaboration styles generally tend to have a more positive perception of their ability to regulate their own and others' behaviour in a virtual learning community setting [13, 18]. It appears from the findings of the study that this sense of control is also likely to be positively extended to their perceptions of digital technological products and innovations. This finding corroborates research that indicated that locus of control influences the way people perceive and interact with information technology [25]. Research has also indicated selfdirectedness (self-directed learning, self-regulated strategies and self-motivated behaviour) as a powerful precursor of academic performance and goal-oriented learning [25]. Cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation suggests goal-oriented behaviour in the utilisation of technological products and applications for one's personal growth and development. This view is in agreement with research that indicated positive associations between people's cognitive receptivity to change and innovation and their lifelong learning orientation [21].

#### **4.1. Limitations and suggestions for future research**

The positive association between especially the active-initiator style preference and cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation suggests that those student participants who enjoy taking the lead in initiating discussions and debates in the virtual community are likely to be keen to demonstrate their ingenuity in using new technological products. This finding corroborates Coetzee's [18] premise that active-initiators generally see social collaboration as an opportunity to demonstrate their own insights and originality. Active-evaluators are high self-other regulators who generally enjoy inviting debate from other members because their own and others' contributions are seen to stimulate new insights [18]. Their strong initiating style appears to be associated with positive perceptions of technology and an

**Figure 1.** Key finding: association between the social collaboration style preferences and cognitive receptivity to tech-

The independent-evaluators also showed a high level of cognitive receptivity to change and ingenuity (resourcefulness in dealing with new technological products and applications), which could be attributed to their preference to bring a new perspective to the debate by contributing their own unique ideas about the subject matter [18, 21]. The results further suggest that the reflective-evaluators' cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation may be attributed to their preference for constructively building on and adding to the group's contributions. They generally prefer to search for and find new ideas and infor-

The active-initiator, independent-evaluator and reflective-evaluator style preferences reflect change-oriented behaviour that represents agentic traits such as proactivity and openness to experience. These personality attributes have been associated with peoples' tendencies to

mation that may help the group in completing the joint task successfully [18].

nological change and innovation.

30 Virtual Learning

eagerness to engage with new technological products and applications.

The findings need to be considered in the light of the limitations of the research design. The maximisation technique utilised in canonical correlation analysis points to the possibility of overestimation that may occur in canonical models due to the amplification of linear composites [26]. Generalisability of the findings to populations in different occupational industries and educational settings is limited by the relative small sample being confined to a specific population in the South African higher education context. Testing the variables on various multicultural populations from various occupational groups may further inform theories on personality variables that influence adult learners' anthropomorphic perception or cognitive openness towards digital technologies in virtual learning contexts. Future studies could consider longitudinal research designs exploring the link between individuals' social collaboration style preferences and their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation as their motivational beliefs, digital skills and citizenship, and adaptability develop over time. The measuring instruments used for studying the association between individuals' social collaboration style preferences and their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation drew on individuals' subjective perceptions and not actual behaviours. Ascertaining whether these perceptions may promote actual receptivity towards new innovations in technological products and applications needs further investigation by means of longitudinal research designs and additional measures.

#### **4.2. Implications for theory and practice**

Notwithstanding the limitations of the research design, the literature and study findings outlined in the chapter contributed valuable insights about the association between adult learners' anthropomorphic perception (cognitive receptivity) of technological products and innovations and their social collaboration style preferences. The value-add of the theoretical and empirical contribution is considered in the light of the little research that has been to date conducted on these constructs in the open and distance e-learning context in South Africa. Theory and research indicated that individual members in the virtual learning community generally differ in the cognitive processes they apply in self-regulation and other regulation when working on collaborative group tasks [13, 23]. These differences influence their cognitive receptivity towards the social learning digital technology that is available for virtual learning contexts. Understanding the relationship dynamics between the two cognitive-behavioural constructs that were discussed in this chapter (social collaboration style preferences and cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation) contributed to the research literature on factors influencing virtual learners' responsiveness to new technological products and applications.

The new insights and knowledge generated by the research are important in the light of digital literate citizenship regarded as a social demand in today's knowledge and information technology society [25]. Cognitive receptivity to technological innovations and their applications in educational and employment settings has become essential for survival in the contemporary society of knowledge and innovation [21]. Open and distance e-learning educational settings that focus on the application of new information systems and digital technological products and innovations enhance students' learning and prepare them as adult learners for the demands of employers who have to sustain a competitive business in a knowledge and information society [21].

E-learning designers and developers can use the new knowledge and insights demonstrated by the literature and empirical study in the design of e-learning collaborative tasks and activities. Adult learners should learn to understand the importance of digital citizenship and willingness to collaborate and engage with others in a virtual learning community through digital tools of communication and learning. Educators should make adult learners who are resistant or reluctant to engage with others in a virtual learning setting aware of how their social collaboration style preferences potentially influence their willingness to engage with others through digital tools. Adult learners with a passive-independent style preference should understand how their reluctance influences their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation, which, in turn, may potentially negatively influence their work readiness and career success in a digital society.

Learners who prefer to act as leaders in a virtual learning community such as those with an active-initiator collaboration style can be encouraged to use their style preference in inviting more reluctant and independent learners (i.e. those with a passive-independent style) to engage with digital technology in contributing their ideas to the virtual learning community. Similarly, independent-evaluators and reflective-evaluators can play a supportive role in the virtual learning community by eliciting participative behaviour from the more reluctant and resistant member. The active-initiator, independent-evaluator and reflective-evaluator style preferences generally tend to have a more positive perception of their ability to regulate their own and others' behaviour in a virtual learning community setting, and it appears that this sense of control is also likely to be positively extended to their perceptions of digital technological products and innovations. Encouraging adult learners' cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation has become essential in a digital information society. Technological advancements in the knowledge-based economy and information society will continue to result in frequent changes in the workplace and the nature of jobs. Developing one's digital social citizenship has therefore become an important aspect of people's lifelong learning and employability.

Educators should also take note that collaborative learning tasks in a virtual learning setting can place high demands on limited cognitive resources, often due to the ill-structured nature of the tasks and lack of clarity regarding the learning goals to achieve through the collaboration. Collaborating with fellow students in a virtual learning setting through social tools, such as discussion forums, for example, requires self-initiated self-regulatory processes apart from the other-regulation processes represented by the social collaboration style preferences. However, research has shown that students often do not self-initiate a high degree of self-directed learning processes and often struggle when engaging in ill-structured learning tasks [22]. Educators and e-tutors can consider scaffolding self-directed learning by providing timely instructional prompts and feedback on the role and contributions made by the virtual community members to the debate. From a cognitive meta-perspective, educators or e-tutors can timely adopt either a directive and/or facilitative style in regulating the participation of students in support of the members' dominant social collaboration style preferences. They can also act as moderators of the quality of the content of the debate and provide feedback to the members of the debate. By identifying the dominant social collaboration style preferences of the various members who participate in the collaborative learning task, strategies to encourage and facilitate optimal and quality participation of all members can be achieved. This type of intervention by the educator or e-tutor can support the learning of members and facilitate the development of the self-directed learning and other regulation qualities required for effective learning in a virtual learning setting. Experiencing successful learning through the use and application of digital technologies may further enhance a receptivity to adapt to changing technological innovations in virtual learning settings.

## **5. Conclusion**

conducted on these constructs in the open and distance e-learning context in South Africa. Theory and research indicated that individual members in the virtual learning community generally differ in the cognitive processes they apply in self-regulation and other regulation when working on collaborative group tasks [13, 23]. These differences influence their cognitive receptivity towards the social learning digital technology that is available for virtual learning contexts. Understanding the relationship dynamics between the two cognitive-behavioural constructs that were discussed in this chapter (social collaboration style preferences and cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation) contributed to the research literature on factors influencing virtual learners' responsiveness to new technological products

The new insights and knowledge generated by the research are important in the light of digital literate citizenship regarded as a social demand in today's knowledge and information technology society [25]. Cognitive receptivity to technological innovations and their applications in educational and employment settings has become essential for survival in the contemporary society of knowledge and innovation [21]. Open and distance e-learning educational settings that focus on the application of new information systems and digital technological products and innovations enhance students' learning and prepare them as adult learners for the demands of employers who have to sustain a competitive business in a

E-learning designers and developers can use the new knowledge and insights demonstrated by the literature and empirical study in the design of e-learning collaborative tasks and activities. Adult learners should learn to understand the importance of digital citizenship and willingness to collaborate and engage with others in a virtual learning community through digital tools of communication and learning. Educators should make adult learners who are resistant or reluctant to engage with others in a virtual learning setting aware of how their social collaboration style preferences potentially influence their willingness to engage with others through digital tools. Adult learners with a passive-independent style preference should understand how their reluctance influences their cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation, which, in turn, may potentially negatively influence their work

Learners who prefer to act as leaders in a virtual learning community such as those with an active-initiator collaboration style can be encouraged to use their style preference in inviting more reluctant and independent learners (i.e. those with a passive-independent style) to engage with digital technology in contributing their ideas to the virtual learning community. Similarly, independent-evaluators and reflective-evaluators can play a supportive role in the virtual learning community by eliciting participative behaviour from the more reluctant and resistant member. The active-initiator, independent-evaluator and reflective-evaluator style preferences generally tend to have a more positive perception of their ability to regulate their own and others' behaviour in a virtual learning community setting, and it appears that this sense of control is also likely to be positively extended to their perceptions of digital technological products and innovations. Encouraging adult learners' cognitive receptivity to technological change and innovation has become essential in a digital information society.

and applications.

32 Virtual Learning

knowledge and information society [21].

readiness and career success in a digital society.

The chapter contributed to the sparse literature and research on the role of personality characteristics in people's ability to accept and adapt to the requirements of a digital information technology-driven society. More specifically, the research findings enhanced understanding of the association between adult learners' social collaboration style preferences and their willingness to engage with new technologies in a digitised learning environment. Exploring this association within the context of a virtual learning environment setting provided valuable insights that contributed to the new emerging research literature on the demands and challenges of open and distance e-learning in a digital society. The new knowledge contributed by the chapter can be used to enhance the learning experiences of the open and distance elearning student.

## **Author details**

#### Melinde Coetzee

Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

## **References**

[10] Chang, C., Yan, C. & Tseng, J. Perceived convenience in an extended technology acceptance model: Mobile technology and English learning for college students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2012;28(5):809–826.

**Author details**

34 Virtual Learning

Melinde Coetzee

South Africa

**References**

Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Journal. 2015;57:32–57.

2010. p. 13–34.

lins; 2010. 300 p.

2012;28:2075–2082.

Higher Education. 2013;27(2):419–436.

Psychology. 2012;85:136–155.

Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa, Pretoria,

[1] Padayachee, I., Van der Merwe, A. & Kotze, P. Virtual learning system usage in higher education—A study at two South African institutions. South African Computer

[2] de Cassia, R. & Marriott, V. Collaborative learning and concept mapping for language teaching. In: P.L. Torres & R. de Cassia, editors. Handbook of Research on Collaborative Learning Using Concept Mapping. 1st ed. Hershey: Information Science Publishing;

[3] Meister, J.C. & Willyerd, K. The 2020 Workplace: How Innovative Companies Attract, Develop, and Keep Tomorrow's Employees Today. 1st ed. New York, NY: HarperCol-

[4] Holt, L. & Brockett, R.G. Self-direction and factors influencing technology use: Examining the relationships for the 21st workplace. Computers in Human Behavior.

[5] Bazalek, V., Ng'ambi, D. & Gachago, D. Transforming teaching with emerging technologies: Implications for higher education institutions. South African Journal of

[6] Coetzee, M. & Chetty, P.J. Job stress and attitudes toward change: the mediating effect of psychological attachment. Journal of Psychology in Africa. 2015;25(6):528–536.

[7] Seppala, T., Lipponen, J., Bardi, A. & Pirttila-Backman, A. Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviour: An interactive product of openness to change values, work unit identification, and sense of power. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

[8] Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to

[9] Mitzner, T.L., Boron, J.B., Fausset, C.B., Adams, A.E., Charness, N., Czaja, S.J., Dijkstra, K., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A. & Sharit, J. Older adults talk technology: Technology usage

Theory and Research. 1st ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975. 300 p.

and attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior. 2010;26:1710–1721.

sonal Regulation of Learning and Motivation: Methodological Advances. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2013. p. 102–125.

#### **Digital Transformation in School Management and Culture Digital Transformation in School Management and Culture**

Fahriye Altınay, Gokmen Dagli and Zehra Altınay Fahriye Altınay, Gokmen Dagli and Zehra Altınay

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/65221

#### **Abstract**

sonal Regulation of Learning and Motivation: Methodological Advances. 1st ed.

[24] Marinova, S.V., Peng, C., Lorinkova, N., Van Dyne, L. & Chiaburu, D. Change-oriented behavior: A meta-analysis of individual and job design predictors. Journal of Vocational

[25] Makri-Botsari, E. & Paraskeva, F. Exploring the personality characteristics in information and digital age expertise. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010;9:1705–

[26] Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global

Perspective. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2010. 300 p.

London: Routledge; 2013. p. 102–125.

Behavior. 2015;88:104–120.

1716.

36 Virtual Learning

Quality becomes milestone for enhancing learning and teaching practices through contemporary standards. In this respect, considering the outcomes of transformation is essential. School management is an umbrella of facilitating learning and teaching. Therefore, role of digital transformation in school management is an intensified need to be underlined. In establishing school culture, school management plays an essential role that digital transformation effects the school management and culture for the quality in education. The nature of this research is qualitative. Reflective reports of headmasters are gathered as data to understand the readability and awareness of school management to the digital transformation in the case of North Cyprus. In addition, content analysis is done to realize the upcoming issues in school management and digital transformation. As this focus is demanding for developing countries especially North Cyprus, this research revealed that headmasters have awareness on the use of digital and techno‐ logical facilities. They are aware on digital transformation although budget and application restrictions are revealed to apply this transformation.

**Keywords:** culture, digital management, transformation, quality

## **1. Introduction**

Social and cultural values play an important role on institutions while forming the culture. The key point of development of the institutions is to provide vital information for the individuals in the institutions and to represent this in a visible way. This especially allows the cultural structures to be at quality standards in educational institutions.

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Today, educational systems and schools can form the basis of stepping forward to the participatory management approach to be at quality standards. By taking into consideration the opinions and considerations of all the components and stakeholders of school adminis‐ trations, all the decisions and activities could ensure the continuity of the present conception of sustainability [1]. Participation during judgement and coordination and being functional at cooperating is needed in order to create quality in education and oriented action perform‐ ance [2].

The strategic structure and functioning of educational institutions is very important in the twenty‐first century in terms of creating human profile [3]. Individuals who learn focus on learning. In the twenty‐first century, knowledge and ethics play an important role on human nature, so it is needed to adopt creative thinking, flexible thinking and peace to the individuals. It is unavoidable to have an education system, of the individual in peace with himself, with life and world, and have a vision of giving importance to the values. It is needed to increase the security of the school environment, form contents for the recovery of education in peace for the development of a self‐confident generation by facing technology. The education system of today emerges as an important question mark in terms of how much positive contribution it gives to the child's both psychological and social development under the framework of school education. The presence of technology and informatics in daily and educational life could affect negatively, both psychological and social development of the learner. Also, the necessity of implementation of social interactions brings together a value and peace to the education process [4].

A school environment must be managed securely as much as having a secure environment, and all the management stakeholders must communicate correctly with each other. In this context, it is expected to reflect today's administrative efficiency features of school teachers and administrators for correct performance [5].

It is also needed for administrative efficiencies, emotional strength, performance and technol‐ ogy, and when required, strategic steps must be taken for a sustainable positive image of the institution. To achieve this, a school culture must be created to provide its sustainable struc‐ ture [6]. To form a school culture, visible and invisible institution sizes must be well known by all the school staff and stakeholders and needed to be internalized.

Institutions must do the internal and external audit processes to see how it is perceived from outside, such as symbols and logos in visible and rituals in invisible sizes, which are important elements to affect the continuity of the institution culture [7, 8]. At the point of invisible sizes, institutions must increase their sharings in a consensus to ensure the continuity of the image to prevent conflict management by using empathy educations [9, 10].

Quality becomes a milestone for enhancing learning and teaching practices through contem‐ porary standards. Quality provides insights on enhancing standards of education to adopt transformation. In this respect, transformation is crucial. It is referred as an alteration, act and process to revamp the existing situation. Therefore, transformation in education is facilitated by the impact of the information and communication technologies. It is noticed that informa‐ tion and communication technologies play a great role to acquire changes in an education system. As schools are small units, as an example of organizations, digitalization of learning and teaching activities become intensified to accomplish transformation in education.

Information Communication Technology (ICT) has an impact on global economy, people's lives, as well as on the education system, especially in schools. The way of managing schools and the ways of learning and teaching have changed. In this respect, education becomes in transformation through digitalization. The use of new technologies change the way of school management and culture. In this respect, knowledge creation, learning and innovation become the milestone through support of digitalization in school management and culture. This puts an emphasis on establishing transformation in education, especially in school management. Digital based learning, teaching and leadership gain importance to facilitate contemporary standards in learning and teaching practices for the quality [11]. ICT has a social impact that makes headmasters and parties in schools to enhance school culture based on digitalization in knowledge creation. In this regard, it is essential to question the culture of schools and their management within the process of adaptation to digital transformation.

#### **1.1. Technology and education in North Cyprus**

Today, educational systems and schools can form the basis of stepping forward to the participatory management approach to be at quality standards. By taking into consideration the opinions and considerations of all the components and stakeholders of school adminis‐ trations, all the decisions and activities could ensure the continuity of the present conception of sustainability [1]. Participation during judgement and coordination and being functional at cooperating is needed in order to create quality in education and oriented action perform‐

The strategic structure and functioning of educational institutions is very important in the twenty‐first century in terms of creating human profile [3]. Individuals who learn focus on learning. In the twenty‐first century, knowledge and ethics play an important role on human nature, so it is needed to adopt creative thinking, flexible thinking and peace to the individuals. It is unavoidable to have an education system, of the individual in peace with himself, with life and world, and have a vision of giving importance to the values. It is needed to increase the security of the school environment, form contents for the recovery of education in peace for the development of a self‐confident generation by facing technology. The education system of today emerges as an important question mark in terms of how much positive contribution it gives to the child's both psychological and social development under the framework of school education. The presence of technology and informatics in daily and educational life could affect negatively, both psychological and social development of the learner. Also, the necessity of implementation of social interactions brings together a value and peace to the education

A school environment must be managed securely as much as having a secure environment, and all the management stakeholders must communicate correctly with each other. In this context, it is expected to reflect today's administrative efficiency features of school teachers

It is also needed for administrative efficiencies, emotional strength, performance and technol‐ ogy, and when required, strategic steps must be taken for a sustainable positive image of the institution. To achieve this, a school culture must be created to provide its sustainable struc‐ ture [6]. To form a school culture, visible and invisible institution sizes must be well known by

Institutions must do the internal and external audit processes to see how it is perceived from outside, such as symbols and logos in visible and rituals in invisible sizes, which are important elements to affect the continuity of the institution culture [7, 8]. At the point of invisible sizes, institutions must increase their sharings in a consensus to ensure the continuity of the image

Quality becomes a milestone for enhancing learning and teaching practices through contem‐ porary standards. Quality provides insights on enhancing standards of education to adopt transformation. In this respect, transformation is crucial. It is referred as an alteration, act and process to revamp the existing situation. Therefore, transformation in education is facilitated by the impact of the information and communication technologies. It is noticed that informa‐ tion and communication technologies play a great role to acquire changes in an education

ance [2].

38 Virtual Learning

process [4].

and administrators for correct performance [5].

all the school staff and stakeholders and needed to be internalized.

to prevent conflict management by using empathy educations [9, 10].

The education system in North Cyprus has a centralized management policy in which educational policies and strategies are decided by the government. There is a pre‐school, secondary school, high school and higher education system. Education is compulsory until high schools. All schools are connected to a central authority. The headmasters are responsible for the management and following the rules of the central authority [12].