1. Two Categories of E- Learning in Japan Nakayama, M., & Santiago, R. (2004). Two categories of e-learning in Japan. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52(3), 100-111. Retrieved January 6, 2005, from the ProQuest database.

2. Two Categories of e-learning  Training and licensing with content- system provider as major role  University teaching where content authority plays major role  Training and licensing with content- system provider as major role  University teaching where content authority plays major role

3. Recent Developments  2000 MEXT acknowledged e-learning as a way of teaching and course delivery  MEXT retains authority on program approval and accreditation  Growing number of government projects on e-learning, including E- Japan  Adoption of IT policies that promote e- learning  2000 MEXT acknowledged e-learning as a way of teaching and course delivery  MEXT retains authority on program approval and accreditation  Growing number of government projects on e-learning, including E- Japan  Adoption of IT policies that promote e- learning

4. Cultural Factors  Preference for traditional educational methods, including measuring learning through examinations and mastery of classical information  Education viewed as mental activity, without regard for issues of efficiency and ROI  Belief that private investment in education (e.g. juku) is necessary part of education  Preference for traditional educational methods, including measuring learning through examinations and mastery of classical information  Education viewed as mental activity, without regard for issues of efficiency and ROI  Belief that private investment in education (e.g. juku) is necessary part of education

5. Key Roles  Content Authority (subject matter expert)  Content-system provider  Learner  Content Authority (subject matter expert)  Content-system provider  Learner

6. Category 1: E-Learning for Career Training and Licensing  Licensing criteria/standards implicitly defined by content authority – goals and content not explicitly defined  Content-system providers market complete systems  Learners as consumers  Content authority and learner interact two times: when providing info on licensing and during test/certification  Learner does independent study  Licensing criteria/standards implicitly defined by content authority – goals and content not explicitly defined  Content-system providers market complete systems  Learners as consumers  Content authority and learner interact two times: when providing info on licensing and during test/certification  Learner does independent study

7. Category 1 Diagram

8. Cases of Category 1  Language Learning (English)  Training and licensing of Information Processing Engineers  In-house training or performance support learning systems  Pre-employment in-house training  Language Learning (English)  Training and licensing of Information Processing Engineers  In-house training or performance support learning systems  Pre-employment in-house training

9. Category 2: E-learning in Higher Education  University teaching  University professor as content authority  Content-system provider as hardware/software developer  Learner students  Professor develops course and lectures online or f2f. Also assess learning.  Until 2000, only f2f courses accredited, so e- learning only supplement. Now accredited, being integrated  University teaching  University professor as content authority  Content-system provider as hardware/software developer  Learner students  Professor develops course and lectures online or f2f. Also assess learning.  Until 2000, only f2f courses accredited, so e- learning only supplement. Now accredited, being integrated

10. Category 2 Diagram

11. Instructor-designed e-learning  Traditionally, professor designs and organizes lectures. Course design includes selecting material and media, using appropriate evaluations, and constructing well-designed assessment.  Few instructional designers available  Very few address both pedagogical and technological aspects of elearning  Students say elearning courses are difficult to understand, and lack clear objectives.  Traditionally, professor designs and organizes lectures. Course design includes selecting material and media, using appropriate evaluations, and constructing well-designed assessment.  Few instructional designers available  Very few address both pedagogical and technological aspects of elearning  Students say elearning courses are difficult to understand, and lack clear objectives.

12. NIME survey 2002  15.4% of courses have online features  40% under development Online text – 75.3% Slide presentations – 77.1% Video streaming – 55.1% Bulletin boards – 46% Internet chat – 15.6%  2.2% of online courses accredited  91.6% departments have no plan to offer courses fully online  15.4% of courses have online features  40% under development Online text – 75.3% Slide presentations – 77.1% Video streaming – 55.1% Bulletin boards – 46% Internet chat – 15.6%  2.2% of online courses accredited  91.6% departments have no plan to offer courses fully online

13. Concerns  Effectiveness – both learning and cost  Necessary operational and management structures  Lack of instructional designers  Learner motivation Japanese students used to passive learning style, while e-learning requires active learning and participation  Effectiveness – both learning and cost  Necessary operational and management structures  Lack of instructional designers  Learner motivation Japanese students used to passive learning style, while e-learning requires active learning and participation

14. Category 2 cases  Shinshu Uniiversity, Graduate School on the Internet (SUGSI)  Asian E-learning Network (AEN)  Shinshu Uniiversity, Graduate School on the Internet (SUGSI)  Asian E-learning Network (AEN)

15. American Trends in Distance Education  Existing institutions  Corporate-university ventures  Virtual universities  Corporate university or training institutions  Existing institutions  Corporate-university ventures  Virtual universities  Corporate university or training institutions