A Responsive Paradigm for Technology Enhanced Learning (Tel) Integration Into Business Organizations

Lina Kaminskienė, Elena Trepulė, Aušra Rutkienė and Gintaras Arbutavičius 1
  • 1 Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania


The purpose of this paper is to explore the main barriers and enablers for integrating technology enhanced learning (TEL) into a business organization based on a responsive paradigm. The study is based on a current literature review on challenges and learners’ needs for TEL and the preconditions for TEL curriculum integration into business organizations. The theoretical study is matched with a qualitative research on learners’ needs for TEL in two international business organizations from IT sector. Technology enhanced learning (TEL) is tackling different barriers for learning in organizations. However, to make it effective, specific technological and teaching solutions must be implemented. The research revealed that companies’ employees give preference to TEL than other forms of learning, and defined specific requirements for successful technology enhanced learning integration into business organisations. A theoretical literature review is followed by empirical findings of a qualitative research (focus group interviews) in two international IT companies. The findings of the research offer valuable insights for a responsive TEL integration into business organizations from the point of view of companies’ employees.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Admiraal, W. and Lockhorst, D. (2009). E-Learning in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises across Europe: Attitudes towards Technology, Learning and Training. In International Small Business Journal, 27(6), (pp. 743-767). doi:10.1177/0266242609344244.

  • 2. Beer, D.; Busse, Th.; Hamburg, I.; Oehler, C. (eds.) (2008). Improving E-Learning Practices in SME. In Proceedings of the SIMPEL Final Conference in Brussels. April 14, 2008. Universitas-Györ.

  • 3. Blanco, M.M.; Van der Veer, G.; Benvenuti, L.; Kirschner, P.A. (2011).Design guidelines for self-assessment support for adult academic distance learning. Retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/2722249/Design_guidelines_for_selfassessment_ support_for_adult_academic_distance_learning

  • 4. Chang, V. and Guetl, Ch. (2007). E-Learning Ecosystem (ELES) - A Holistic Approach for the Development of more Effective Learning Environment for Small-to-Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs). In the Proceeding of Inaugural IEEE International Digital EcoSystems Technologies Conference (IEEE-DEST 2007), Cairns, Australia, (pp. 420-425).

  • 5. Davis, F.D. (1989). Usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. In MIS Quarterly, 13(3), (pp. 319-340).

  • 6. Fang, W.M.Y. (2001).Technology in Language Education: Meeting the Challenges of Research and Practice. Hong Kong, Language Centre, HKUST, (pp. 94-105).

  • 7. Farvaque, N.; Voss, E.; Lefebvre, M.; Schutze, K. (2009). Guide for Training in SMEs. European Commission.

  • 8. Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful Implementation of e-Learning Pedagogical Considerations. In Internet and Higher Education, 4(2002), (pp. 287-299). Pergamon. Retrieved from: http://www.qou.edu/arabic/researchProgram/eLearningResearchs/successfulImplementati on.pdf

  • 9. Hamburg, I. and Hall, T. (2013). Social Networks, Web and Mentoring Approaches in SME Continuing Vocational Education and Training. In Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education, 2(2), (pp. 85-94). Retrieved from: http://www.jitae.org/paperInfo.aspx?ID=5232

  • 10. Hamburg, I. and O’Brien, E. (2013). E-Learning 2.0, Social Media and Communities to Improve Knowledge in Companies. In Service Science and Management Research (SSMR), 2(3), (pp. 33-38). Retrieved from: http://www.seipub.org/ssmr/paperInfo.aspx?ID=6720

  • 11. Kirschner, P.A.; Sweller, J.; Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. In Educational Psychologist, 41(2), (pp. 75-86).

  • 12. Means, B.; Toyama, Y.; Murphy, R.; Bakia, M.; Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online-learning studies. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Education.

  • 13. Merrill, M.D. (2002). First principles of instruction. In Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50(3), (pp. 43-59).

  • 14. Mok, M.M.C.; Lung, C.I.; Cheng, D.P.W.; Cheung, R.H.P.; Ng, M.L. (2006). Self-assessment in higher education: experience in using meta-cognitive approach in five case studies. In Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), (pp. 415-433).

  • 15. Mungania, P., (2003). The Seven e-Learning Barriers Facing Employees. Final Report. Retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/8420360/The_7_E-Learning_Barriers_facing_Employees_- _Penina_Mungania

  • 16. Petrides, L.A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. In International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), (pp. 69-77). Retrieved from: http://www.iskme.org/sites/default/files/admin/web-based-technologies-for-distributed-ordistance- learning.pdf

  • 17. Richardson, C.A. and Rabiee, F. (2001). ‘A Question of Access’ - an exploration of the factors influencing the health of young males aged 15-19 living in Corby and their use of health care services. In Health Education Journal, 60, (pp. 3-6).

  • 18. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. (5th ed.) New York: Free Press.

  • 19. Rosenberg, M.J. (2001). E-Learning. Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.

  • 20. Rovai, A.P. (2007).Facilitating online discussions effectively. In Internet and Higher Education, 10, (pp. 77-88). doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001

  • 21. Schneckenberg, D. (2010). Overcoming barriers for eLearning in universities-portfolio models for eCompetence development of faculty. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), (pp. 979-991). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01046.x

  • 22. Slotte, V. and Herbert, A. (2008). Engaging Workers in Simulation-based e-learning. Positive effects of simulation-based training. In Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(3), (pp. 165-180). doi: 10.1108/13665620810860477

  • 23. Trueman, M. and Hartley, J. (1996). A comparison between the time-management skills and academic performance of mature and traditional-entry university students. In Higher education, 32(2), (pp. 199-215). doi: 10.1007/BF00138396

  • 24. Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. and Brand-Gruwel, S. (eds.) (2005). The Pedagogical Use of Information and Communication Technology in Education: A Dutch Perspective. In Computers in Human Behavior, 21, (pp. 407-215). Special issue.

  • 25. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. In Internet and Higher Education, 6, (pp. 77-90).

  • 26. Wolpers, M. and Grohmann, G., (2005). PROLEARN: technology-enhanced learning and knowledge distribution for the corporate world. In International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1(1/2), (pp. 44-61). Retrieved from: http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=6250

  • 27. Wu, F. (2013). Development Research of E-learning in Chinese Enterprises. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Research and Sports Education (ERSE 2013), (pp. 262-266). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/erse.2013.75. Retrieved from: http://www.atlantispress. com/php/pub.php?publication=erse-13


Journal + Issues