You are here:

Implementing E-Learning in Organisations: What E-Learning Research Can Learn From Instructional Technology (IT) and Organisational Studies (OS) Innovation Studies
Article

, , University of South Australia, Australia

International Journal on E-Learning, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This article explores the applicability of interdisciplinary research on the implementation of technological innovations to the field of e-learning research. Arguing that there are important ways in which e-learning systems can be treated as "technological innovations," this article presents a review of several key theoretical and research design approaches that have been developed for use in the Instructional Technology (IT) and Organisational Studies (OS) fields. The literature review presented here demonstrates the complexity of the processes associated with implementation and observes that, despite the long-standing research interest in this area, unsatisfactory implementation outcomes continue to be encountered in practice. Given a high failure rate for e-learning implementations and the field's newness relative to the IT and OS disciplines, it is argued that e-learning research could benefit from greater interaction with these literatures. This article concludes with a discussion of the ways in which IT and OS research can be amended to make them more directly applicable to e-learning systems and offers some suggestions for future research.

Citation

Hogarth, K. & Dawson, D. (2008). Implementing E-Learning in Organisations: What E-Learning Research Can Learn From Instructional Technology (IT) and Organisational Studies (OS) Innovation Studies. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 87-105. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 29, 2023 from .

© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204–215. American Society for Training and Development. (2003). Summary of International Conference Proceedings [online], San Diego, CA. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from http://www.adelaideiglobal.com/gradcert/astd.htm (This address no longer works, unable to find one which does.) Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organisational learning II. Boston: Addison Wesley. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to action: A theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behaviour, (pp. 11-39). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  2. Cooper, R., & Wolfe, R. (2005). Information processing model of information technology adaptation: An intraorganisational diffusion perspective. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 36(1), 30–48.
  3. Cooper, R., & Zmud, R. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123–139.
  4. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease-of-use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.
  5. De Abreu, A., & Conrath, D. (1993, April). The role of stakeholders’ expectations in predicting information systems implementation outcomes. Proceedings of Conference on Computer Personnel Research, (pp. 408-415), St. Louis, MO.
  6. Eaton Baier, V., March, J., & Saetren, H. (1986). Implementation and ambiguity. Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies, 2(3&4), 197–212.
  7. Eklund, J., Kay, M., & Lynch, H. (2003). E-learning: Emerging issues and key trends. White paper by Australian Flexible Learning Network.
  8. Fichman, R. (1992, December). Information technology diffusion: A review of empirical literature.
  9. Gallivan, M. (1996, April). Strategies for implementing new software processes: An evaluation of a contingency framework. Proceedings of SIGCPR/SIGMIS ’96 (pp. 313–325), Denver, CO. Gallivan, M.
  10. Gery, G. (1987). Making CBT happen: Prescriptions for successful implementation of computerbased training in your organisation. Boston: Weingarten.
  11. Griffith, T., & Northcraft, G. (1996). Cognitive elements in the implementation of new technology: Can less information provide more. MIS Quarterly, 20(1), 99–110.
  12. Horner Reich, B., & Benbasat, I. (2000). Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81–113. Joshi, K. (1991). A model of users’ perspective on change: The case of information systems technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 229–242. Kwon, T., & Zmud, R.
  13. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
  14. Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Management Science, 34(10), 1252–1265.
  15. Levine, H., & Rossmoore, D. (1993). Diagnosing the human threats to information technology implementation: A missing factor in systems analysis illustrated in a case study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(3), 55–73.
  16. Levine, H., & Rossmoore, D. (1994–1995). Politics and the function of power in a case study of IT implementation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(3), 115 –133.
  17. Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 459-473). New York: Henry Holt and Company. Markus, L., & Benjamin, R. (1996). Change agentry: The next IS frontier. MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 385–407.
  18. Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1984). Fit, failure and the hall of fame. California Management Review, 26(3), 10–28.
  19. Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222. Orlikowski, W., & Barley, S. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organisations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145-165. Poole, M., Van de Ven, A., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. (2000). Organisational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. New York: Oxford University Press.
  20. Prescott, M., & Conger, S. (1995). Information technology innovations: A classification by IT locus of impact and research approach. Data Base Advances, 26(2&3), 20–41.
  21. Rivard, S. (1987). Successful implementation of end-user computing. Interfaces, 17(3), 25–33. Robey, D., Ross, J., & Boudreau, M-C. (2002). Learning to implement enterprise systems: An exploratory study of the dialectics of change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 17–46.
  22. Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
  23. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Romiszowski, A. (2003). The future of e-learning as an educational innovation: Factors influencing project success and failure. Teorias: Aspectos Teoricos e Felosoficos [online]. Available: http://www.abed.org.br/publique/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?UserActiveTemplate=1por&inf Oid=834&sid=70
  24. Sauer, C., Southon, G., & Dampney, C. (1997, December). Fit, failure, and the house of horrors: Toward a configurational theory of IS project failure. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 349-366), Atlanta, GA.
  25. Scarbrough, H., & Corbett, M. (1992). Technology and organisation: Power, meaning and design. London: Routledge.
  26. Schofield, K. (2003). Think strategy: E-learning in four companies. In H. Guthrie (Ed.), Online learning: Research findings (pp. 163-182). Adelaide, SA, Australia: NCVER, 163–182. Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2003). The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 533–555.
  27. Southon, G., Sauer, C., & Dampney, C. (1997). Information technology in complex health services: Organisational impediments to successful technology transfer and diffusion. Information Technology in Complex Health Services, 4(2), 112–124.
  28. Srinivasan, A., & Davis, J. (1987) A reassessment of implementation process models. Interfaces, 17(3), 64-71.
  29. Szajna, B., & Scamell, R. (1993). The effects of information system user expectations on their performance and perceptions. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 493–516.
  30. Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M. (1995). Explaining development and change in organisations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.
  31. Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M . (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377–1404.
  32. Wilcox, P., Dexter, H., & Petch, J. (2004). A foundation for modelling e-learning processes. The e-Learning Research Centre. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from http://www.elrc.ac.uk/publications/148
  33. Xia Systems. (2005). Rapid e-learning development process. Xia Systems. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from http://www.xiasystems.com/cSolutions/eProcess.htm.
  34. Yetton, P., Sharma, R., & Southon, G. (1999). Successful IS innovation: The contingent contributions of innovation characteristics and implementation process. Journal of Information Technology, 14(1), 53–68.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Related Collections