The Hyperwave eLearning Suite Report (Assessment)

Introduction

The Hyperwave eLearning Suite is a novel technological solution that combines education with knowledge management. In addition, this course-management system facilitates the continuous transfer of knowledge and information among students at any place or time (Liu & Wang 2009).

Falvo and Johnson (2007) have noted that the virtual classroom allows teachers and students. The convenience of the eLearning tool allows learners to access course content and materials on demand.

The Hyperwave eLearning Suite conveys corporate memory, as well as the knowledge of an organization that is didactically logical (Davies & Graff 2005).

The elemental objective of the Hyperwave eLearning Suite is to facilitate the transfer of corporate knowledge. These tools achieve this goal in a didactically and logical manner. The eLearning Suite accomplishes this objective by integrating with the Hyperwave eKnowledge Portal.

These tools facilitate effectual learning by availing applications and information to the end-users (Liu & Whang 2009). The Hyperwave eLearning Suite employs two primary approaches:

• Aptitude-Treatment Interaction (ATI) Approach: The principal tenet of this model is that the effectiveness of instructional strategies depends on the learners’ specific abilities. According to ATI, optimal learning occurs when the instruction matches exactly with the learners’ aptitude (Shute & Towle 2003).
• The Micro-Adaptive Approach: This adaptive process allows trainers to select instructional alternatives. Such options may include the delivery system, levels of detail and learning objectives. The selection of these components considers the learning abilities, achievement and goals of the learners (Shute & Towle 2003).
• Constructivist-Collaborative Approach: The focus of the constructivist classroom shifts from the teacher to the student. This model encourages students to be active participants in the learning processes rather than passive spectators. The students’ thoughts and contributions are valid even if they do not make sense (Shute & Towle 2003).

The combination of these approaches ensures that the e-learning supports didactical and pedagogical aspects. These issues are essential in determining the efficiency of both learning and teaching processes.

The main argument is that computers and their associated software do not improve an individual’s learning process (Yu, Zhang & Chen 2006).

On the contrary, these systems only act as mediums and facilitators. As such, the educational outcomes mandate the learner to be willing and motivated to take advantage of these tools (Astani, Ready & Duplaga 2010).

A Review of Literature

The adoption of web-based training and learning by companies and educational institutions provides a myriad of benefits. According to Dobbs, Ward and Del Carmen (2009), e-learning has emerged as one of the most viable education tools in the contemporary society.

The overall advantage of e-learning tools is that they support robust interactions with multiple media contents, which enhances performance and productivity (Dykman & Davis 2008). The review of the current literature has identified the following as the primary advantages of web-based learning:

• The internet-based learning is flexible since it allows students and teachers to interact at any time and place. Forman (2011) has noted that companies save money by training their employees located in multiple geographic locations. This flexibility reduces the cost of travel for both trainees and trainers (Davies & Graff 2005).
• One of the limitations of the conventional classroom learning is the lack of interactivity between the teacher and students. Kumani (2001) has argued that instructors do not pay attention to the trainees’ individual needs. The e-learning platform considers the individual differences among users because it provides personalised experiences (Hsu & Lin 2008).
• Education theorists have established that students learn at different paces. Nonetheless, classroom teaching fails to acknowledge this fact. Online training and learning allow self-pacing by providing asynchronous interactions between the trainer and trainee (Kirkup & Kirkwood 2005).
• The modern world continues to experience remarkable changes. Education becomes meaningful if the learning content reflects these transformations (Watson, Watson & Reigeluth 2012). Forman (2011) has asserted that it is easier and much faster to update online content than classroom instruction. Trainers can update new information on servers instead of waiting for the development of new curricular (Weston 2009).
• Online learning improves performance outcomes because the rate of retaining information is high (Weston 2009). Hsu and Lin (2008) have found out that the use various elements of instructions (simulations, animations, audio, video, interactions and others) reinforces the message.
• Internet-based learning allows students to take control over their learning. In essence, students can use the various e-learning tools to customise their learning materials and experiences. Thus, trainees can learn soft skills very fast than they could have done in the conventional classroom (Watson, Watson & Reigeluth 2012)

Despite its many benefits, e-learning also presents various limitations. The majority of people have criticised e-learning based on the issue of quality. For example, Allen and Seaman (2011) have argued that online instruction only complements classroom techniques.

The point of argument is whether e-learning tools are supportive devices or full-fledged models that can replace conventional classroom experiences (Kirkup & Kirkwood 2005). The following are some of the disadvantages of e-learning:

• The cost of developing and marinating online content has resulted in the development of inferior interfaces. In addition, the current faculty members do not have the capacity to develop high quality content that can adapt to the virtual setting (Dobbs, Ward & Del Carmen 2009).
• The lack of face-to-face interactions and social contact affects the general development of the learners. Watson, Watson and Reigeluth (2012) have argued that virtual environments lack the personal touch of human interactions.
• It is difficult to regulate or control acts of academic dishonesty because trainees take their exams via a proxy. Thus, cases of plagiarism and piracy have an adverse effect on the quality of education (Yu, Zhang & Chen 2006).

A Review of the KMS

The unprecedented advances in information and communication technologies have supported the growing demand for online education. The web-based e-learning uses the Internet and other sophisticated technologies to facilitate learning and instruction in virtual environments (Hsu & Lin 2008).

The use of electronic networks is allowing universities and college students to receive individualized support. The rising demand for online education has seen the development of novel technological tools and applications support this revolution (Weston 2009).

Hsu and Lin have noted that these tools and applications are essential for storing and retrieving information from depositories.

The knowledge management system fulfils mandate using the current technological advances. The World Wide Web has revolutionized the manner in which companies manage information. One of the fundamental pillars of the Web environment is its scale of interactivity (Allen & Seaman 2011).

As a knowledge management system, the Hyperwave eLearning Suite uses multiple tools to make the interaction between teachers and their students much easier.

The eLearning Suite also supports numerous synchronous and asynchronous communication features for tutors, trainers, and trainees (Liu & Wang 2009). The interaction aspects include info boards, chat, a discussion forum, and Electronic Mail (Barnes & Tynan 2007).

The opponents of eLearning have often argued that computer-based training (CBT) does not support effectual collaboration, communication, and interaction. The consequence of these limitations is reduced chances of educational success (Carliner & Shank 2008).

Nonetheless, the Hyperwave eLearning Suite has eliminated the principal drawbacks associated with technology and web-based learning. For instance, these tools have collaboration and communication features that allow tutors, trainers, and trainees to interact efficiently (Liu & Wang 2009).

Active Documents make it easier for the participants contribute and respond to queries (Shute & Towle 2003).

The SECI Model has three elements: SECI, Ba and knowledge assets (Nonaka, Toyana & Konno 2000). The dynamic and original interactions between the tacit and explicit elements facilitate the continuous creation of information (Nonaka 1994; Nonaka & Toyana 2003).

The Hyperwave e-Learning Suite will provide tacit and explicit knowledge through the following interactions:

• Tacit to Tacit (Socialization): The various interactions tools of the eLearning Suite will encourage trainers and trainees to communicate and share information efficiently
• Tacit to Explicit (Externalization): The eLearning interactions tools will not induce interactions without the input of users. The eLearning Suite will develop concepts by embedding the combined tactic knowledge from socialization
• Explicit to Explicit (Combination): The eLearning Suite will combine multiple components of explicit knowledge to facilitate the learning process. For example, the system can merge data and information from various sources to enhance interactions among the users
• Explicit to Tacit (Internalization): The eLearning Suite will internalise and use the programmed information to provide precise knowledge. This transmitted inform will then become a critical component of the system’s knowledge base and an asset to the company.

The integration of these elements will enable the eLearning Suite to create knowledge dynamically and continuously. The system will convert and amplify the knowledge possessed by the users through socialisation, externalisation, combination and internalisation cycle to facilitate the continuous flow of information.

Critical Discussion

The Hyperwave eLearning Suite constitutes an essential component of the Hyperwave eKnowledge Infrastructure. The eKnowledge platform offers the solution managing corporate-wide knowledge. Organizations and companies store information in their respective knowledge management repositories.

This data includes the status reports for ongoing projects, details of current courses, the units on offer, or instructions on usage (Liu & Wang 2009).

On the one hand, these institutions can use the eLearning tools to update courses with the latest information. On the other hand, the employees can use these applications to act as both trainers and trainees at the same time (Shute & Towle 2003).

The trainers and trainees integrate web-based applications into their Windows desktop seamlessly. The Hyperwave Content Management accomplishes two elemental tasks (Liu & Wang 2009).

First, it allows companies to produce ad hoc courses and learning materials from the central repository. Second, it uses the Aviation Industry CBT Committee (AICC) and Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM 1.2) interfaces to facilitate the integration of standardized courses (Falvo & Johnson 2007).

The inclusion of the Hyperwave eConferencing Suite into the eLearning Suite is essential to enabling both asynchronous and synchronous communication (Shute & Towle 2003).

The teaching and learning processes are very critical in e-learning. According to Weston (2009), the purpose of computers and their various applications is to facilitate the instruction and learning processes.

Thus, educational achievements depend on the individual teacher and student rather than computer systems (Forman 2011). The most significant issues in web-based learning include relevance, attention, satisfaction and confidence.

The inclusion of these aspects in the e-learning tools is essential to enhance the users’ experiences (Carliner & Shank 2008). On the other hand, adaptive e-learning should also consider the following critical components: didactical and pedagogical factors, adaptation-based systems and learning processes (Shute & Towle 2003).

Firstly, learner-specific characteristics (motivation, preferences and prior knowledge) enhance the learning experiences (Shute & Towle 2003). The Hyperwave eLearning Suite has incorporated these pedagogical aspects using learner models and user profiles.

The application of models analyse the needs of the target group, which is crucial to support didactical activities (Liu & Wang 2009). The adaptability of the eLearning Suite allows trainers and trainees to diversify their teaching and learning styles respectively.

Both the didactical and pedagogical necessitates the development of adaptation based systems to enhance the learning processes and experiences (Shute & Towle 2003).

Secondly, the efficiency of web-based learning requires the e-learning tools and applications to adapt to didactical decisions. The adaptive e-learning provides instructional material depending on the learners’ individual characteristics.

The goal of this approach is to meet the needs and preferences of the particular trainee (Shute & Towle 2003). This technique improves the effectiveness and efficiency of the learning process.

In addition, this model facilitates engagement using valid and robust mappings between the appropriate content and learner characteristics (Liu & Wang 2009).

The principal models underpinning adaptive e-learning include the Aptitude-Treatment Interaction (ATI) Approach, the Macro-Adaptive Approach and the Micro-Adaptive Approach (discussed in the previous sections).

Finally, adaptive e-learning plays a significant function in enhancing the learning processes in a virtual classroom (Shute & Towle 2003). The Hyperwave eLearning Suite supports the development of a centralized and faster course production.

The eLearning Suite provides audiovisual support, which facilitates the learning process for the course participants (Falvo & Johnson 2007). The assimilation of these components ensures that both the trainers and trainees meet their pedagogical and didactical needs.

Conversely, the e-Learning Suite focuses on a particular learning context. Consequently, these tools do not support the automatic transition from one learning situation to the next (Watson, Watson & Reigeluth 2012).

The Hyperwave eLearning Suite is one of the technological advances that provide tools for web-based education. As a knowledge management tool, the Hyperwave eLearning Suite will continue to evolve to meet future demands.

One of the current limitations of online education is that it does not replicate classroom experiences. The absence of these crucial components is undermining the quality of computer-based training and learning (Allen & Seaman 2011).

As such, it is imperative to bridge this gap by developing technological tools and applications that will support personalized interactions.

The eLearning Suite is already addressing this issue by integrating chats, email, discussion forums and Info Boards to allow for the efficient sharing of information. Despite these efforts, developments in the future should pay more attention to didactical processes.

The essence of this assertion is that learning is a cognitive process that requires commitment and determination from the learner (Weston 2009). Forman (2011) has argued that web-based learning has a slow response time than the classroom experience.

Thus, the future of the Hyperwave eLearning Suite necessitates the development of the capacity to support didactical learning more efficiently.

Conclusion

The ongoing advances in information and communication technologies have deluged the contemporary society with massive data. Companies are experiencing a myriad of challenges as they try to re-organise this data into meaningful use.

The evolution of the knowledge management systems has simplified these processes fundamentally. The Hyperwave eLearning Suite is one of the systems that facilitate efficient communication and collaboration.

Companies and institutions are increasingly using the eLearning System to champion internet-based instruction.

The current transition to the web-based learning has supported the development of e-learning tools and applications. Thus, it is essential to develop tools and systems that will enhance trainer-trainee interactions in virtual classrooms.

References

Allen, IE & Seaman, J 2011, Going the distance: online education in the United States, Sloan Consortium: Massachusetts.

Astani, M, Ready, KJ & Duplaga, EA 2010, ‘Online course experience matters: investigating online students’ perceptions of online learning’, Issues in Information Systems, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 14-21.

Barnes, C & Tynan, B 2007, ‘The adventures of Miranda in the brave new world: learning in a Web 2.0 millennium’, Research in Learning Technology, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 189-200.

Carliner, S & Shank, P 2008, The e-learning handbook: past promises, future challenges, John Wiley: San Francisco.

Davies, J & Graff, M 2005, ‘Performance in e-learning: online participation and student grades’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 657-663.

Dobbs, RR, Waid, CA & del Carmen, A 2009, ‘Students’ perception of online courses the effect of online course experience’, The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 9-26.

Dykman, C.A & Davis, CK 2008, ‘Online education forum: Part two-teaching online versus teaching conventionally’, Journal of Information Systems Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 157-164.

Falvo, D & Johnson, B 2007, ‘The use of learning management systems in the United States’, Tech Trends, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 40-45.

Forman, RO 2011, ‘A comparison of success in on-campus versus distance learning for an information systems course’, Issues in Information Systems, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 63-66.

Hsu, CL & Lin, JC 2008, ‘Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation’, Information & Management, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 65–74.

Kirkup, G & Kirkwood, A 2005, ‘Information and communications technologies (ICT) in higher education teaching: a tale of gradualism rather than revolution’, Learning Media and Technology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 185-199.

Kumari, DS 2001, ‘Connecting graduate students to virtual guests through asynchronous discussions: analysis of an experience’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 53-63.

Liu, Y & Wang, H 2009, ‘A comparative study on e-learning technologies and products: from the East to the West’, Systems Research & Behavioral Science, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 191–209.

Nonaka, I & Toyama, R 2003, ‘The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge

Nonaka, I 1994, ‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’, Organization

Nonaka, I, Toyama, R & Konno, N 2000, ‘SECI, Ba, and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation’, Long Range Planning, vol. 33, pp. 5-34.

Science, vol. 5, 1, pp. 14-37.

Shute, V & Towle, B 2003, ‘Adaptive E-Learning’, Educational Psychologist, vol. 38, pp. 105-114.

‘The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, vol. 1, pp. 2-10.

Watson, WR, Watson, SL, & Reigeluth, CM 2012, ‘A systematic integration of technology for new-paradigm education’, Educational Technology, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 25-29.

Weston, TA 2009, Evaluating online learning: challenges and strategies for success, Nova Science: New York.

Yu, D, Zhang, W & Chen, X 2006, ‘New generation of e-learning technologies’, First International Multi-Symposiums on Computer and Computational Sciences, pp. 455-459.