E-learning, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis

Abstract

In the 21st century, the information and communication technology explosion increases the uses of digital devices for many purposes in the world of work and in formal and non-formal education. This study analyzes existing literature on the basis of the definition of the concepts, terminology used, differences, fundamental perspectives, benefits, disadvantages, and finally the similarities and differences of the e-learning (electronic learning), m-learning (mobile learning), and d-learning (digital learning). It reveals that e-learning and m-learning are subsets of d-learning. On the other hand, some learning tools could be considered as m-learning as well as e-learning.

Full text

Article
E-learning, M-learning and
D-learning: Conceptual
definition and
comparative analysis
Sujit Kumar Basak, Marguerite Wotto and
Paul Be
´langer
Universite
´du Que
´bec a
`Montre
´al (UQA
`M), Canada
Abstract
In the 21st century, the information and communication technology explosion increases the uses
of digital devices for many purposes in the world of work and in formal and non-formal education.
This study analyzes existing literature on the basis of the definition of the concepts, terminology
used, differences, fundamental perspectives, benefits, disadvantages, and finally the similarities and
differences of the e-learning (electronic learning), m-learning (mobile learning), and d-learning
(digital learning). It reveals that e-learning and m-learning are subsets of d-learning. On the other
hand, some learning tools could be considered as m-learning as well as e-learning.
Keywords
E-learning, M-learning, D-learning
Introduction
In the 21st century, technology is playing a crucial role in our daily lives and it calls
professionals, educators, and learners reflect again over their basic beliefs in order to
use technology for the re-design or re-engineering of education and training system. In
addition, these technological devices play a significant role to help learners and teachers
to get more advantages from it. However, the terms of electronic learning (e-learning),
mobile learning (m-learning), and the digital learning (d-learning) are used indifferently
or in a complementary way to mean technological learning. E-learning is the alternative
of traditional education and it can also be a complementary to it. On the other hand, the m-
learning is the complementary of both traditional learning as well as e-learning. M-learning
Corresponding author:
Sujit Kumar Basak, Universite
´du Que
´bec a
`Montre
´al (UQA
`M), 1205 rue St Denis, Montreal, Quebec H2X3R9, Canada.
Email: sujitbasakmca@gmail.com
E-Learning and Digital Media
2018, Vol. 15(4) 191–216
!The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2042753018785180
journals.sagepub.com/home/ldm

allows learners to interact with their learning resources when they are far away from their
normal place of learning environments (Clark, 2007). Through the m-learning, students can
easily buy e-books and they can download to their devices (Geist, 2011) and it is no longer a
novelty for learners, but “it is a mainstream, pervasive learning delivery medium relied upon
by thousands of post-secondary education institutions and millions of workforce” (Cherian
and Williams, 2008). M-learning is the subset of e-learning and the e-learning is a macro
concept and it includes the mobile learning as well as online environments. Quinn (2000: 1 of
4) pointed that “M-learning is e-learning through mobile computational devices: Palms,
Windows CE machines, even your digital cell phone.” D-learning is a tool which addresses
a numerous of challenges that are faced by educational institutions, community leaders as
well as by the policymakers and it helps learners to connect in the remote areas “with high
quality college – and career-prep courses taught by a highly qualified teacher who does not
work inside their school building”. In addition, the d-learning can also be very helpful for
instructors in fact who is facing a lot of barriers in order to meet student’s needs (Digital
Learning, 2011). And uses of these technical terms sometimes confuse users with the con-
cepts of online learning or e-learning, m-learning, and the d-learning encompasses. This
paper will clearly encompass the aforementioned concepts. Firstly, it presents the conceptual
elements and methodology of the study. Secondly, it presents the conceptual definition of e-
learning, m-learning, and d-learning. Finally, it analyzes the terminology used in e-learning,
m-learning, and d-learning in order to present in the subsequent parts the comparison
between them and in then also presents the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning,
m-learning, and d-learning.
The significance of the study
How to select appropriate teaching and learning scenario and techniques? The rise of the
online technology learning stimulates many ways of learning. But a bit of confusion remains
when comes time to name the different technological ways of learning. E-learning, m-learn-
ing, and d-learning stimulated in this digital uses for learning are not always used correctly
where they overlap. The similarities and differences between e-learning, m-learning, and d-
learning should be clarified for teachers, researchers, trainers, learners, etc. to solve educa-
tional and learning issues and improve educational outcome that are associated with the
current real life situation.
Conceptual elements and methodology of the study
Research questions
The following research questions were taken into consideration:
(i) What is meant by e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning?
(ii) What are the differences, similarities, advantages, disadvantages, and terminology used
in e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning?
The aim, objective, and sub-objectives
The aim of this study is to shed light on the e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning. To
achieve the aim, the following objective is considered:
192 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

Objective:
•To analyze the concept and the fundamental perspectives of e-learning, m-learning, and
d-learning.
In order to achieve the objective the following sub-objectives were taken into
consideration:
•Sub-objective 1: Analyze the terminology used and differences in e-learning, m-learning,
and d-learning.
•Sub-objective 2: Analyze the conceptual definitions of e-learning, m-learning, and
d-learning.
•Sub-objective 3: Analyze the fundamental perspectives of e-learning, m-learning, and
d-learning.
•Sub-objective 4: Examine the similarities and differences between e-learning, m-learning,
and d-learning.
•Sub-objective 5: Compare the benefits and disadvantages of e-learning, m-learning, and
d-learning.
The methodology
The methodology is defined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), the five framework stages are:
Framework stage 1: Identifying the research question: As with any systematic review, starting
point is to identify research questions that need to be addressed.
Framework stage 2: Identifying relevant studies: At the beginning, we conducted a targeted
search on the e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning. Then, we have used some keywords on
the two search databases, namely, Google (only scientific articles were considered) and
Google Scholar. And for each of the keywords we searched up to 10 pages. “E-learning,
M-learning, D-learning”, “Digital learning for education” (first 10 pages of Google
Scholar), “Mobile learning teaching and learning”, “Comparative analysis of E-learning,
M-learning, and Digital learning”, Digital learning environment (first 10 pages of Google
and Google Scholar), “Digital learning” (first 10 pages of Google).
Framework stage 3: Study selection: Our initial search picked up from two search databases a
large number of relevant studies. From this initial search using two databases, we have
found a total of 292 articles. Having read all the 292 articles we found that a total of 280
articles were related and selected for inclusion in the review.
Framework stage 4: Charting the data: Having read all the 280 articles, we have summarized
in a Microsoft word document a total of 130 pages of all the information. Then, we have put
information from each article in a Microsoft word document. In general, this information
was about the study and specific information relating to, for instance, study population,
type of the intervention, outcome measures that employed, and the study design. And
finally, we kept information (such as author(s), year of publication, study location, inter-
vention type, comparator, study population, aims, methods, literature, results, etc.) that are
related to our study with regard to the e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning.
Framework stage 5: Collating,summarizing,and reporting the results: We have gone through
all the 280 articles step by step and selected a total of 126 articles and these 126 articles were
Basak et al. 193

directly related with the e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning study. We analyzed these 126
articles that are directly associated to our key themes. This have presented with a graphical
representation in Figure 1.
Conceptual definition
E-learning is “the learning supported by digital electronic tools and media” and m-learning
is the “e-learning using mobile devices and wireless transmission” (Hoppe et al., 2003: 255)
and finally, the “Digital learning is any type of learning that is facilitated by technology or
by instructional practice that makes effective use of technology” and it occurs in all learning
areas and domains (Victoria State Government, 2017: n.p.). While having significant impact
on the sustainable development and on the living conditions (Podlacha et al., 2016), e-
learning, m-learning, and d-learning seem to be very closely related. But there are some
differences among them. M-learning is the subset of e-learning and d-learning is the com-
bination of e-learning and m-learning. This is represented in Figure 2.
D-learning is a term that is increasingly replacing e-learning and it concerns the use of
information and communication technology (ICT) in the open and distance learning.
Furthermore, d-learning is the technical solution to support teaching, learning as well as
for the studying activities (Suhonen, 2005) and it can also be an educational software, a
digital learning tool, an online study program or a learning resources (Anohina, 2005). D-
learning technologies enhance learners grasping more quickly and fully in order to connect
theory and application adeptly. In addition, it also improves the instructional techniques,
leveraging instructor time, and to facilitate the widespread of knowledge sharing. It is a new
and better way to create possibilities beyond limits of our current imagination (https://odl.
mit.edu/value-digital-learning).
Some of the definitions of d-learning are given below:
•“Digital learning means bringing this together in a format that fits today’s digital world
of work. All great learning organizations should deliver learning solutions through sim-
ulations, collaboration, meeting other people and learning from experts. So, digital
Initial pool of articles
(n=292)
Removal of duplicates
(n=280)
12
duplicates excluded
Second screening of articles
(n=160)
120 records excluded after
screening of title and abstract
Final number of articles
(n=126)
34 excluded after full text review.
Reasons for exclusion:
were not directly related
studies published before the year 2000 (n=7)
•
•
Figure 1. Flowchart of the studies included in the review.
194 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

learning is not all digital, but it should take advantage of digital tools in an integrated
way” (Bersin, 2017: 1).
•“The term ‘digital learning’ means any instructional practice that effectively uses tech-
nology to strengthen a student’s learning experience and encompasses a wide spectrum of
tools and practices:
•Interactive learning resource, digital learning content (which may include openly
licensed content), software, or simulations, that engage students in academic content;
•Access to online databases and other primary source documents;
•The use of data and information to personalize learning and provide targeted supple-
mentary instruction;
•Online and computer-based assessments;
•Learning environments that allow for rich collaboration and communication, which
may include student collaboration with content experts and peers;
•Hybrid or blended learning, which occurs under direct instructor supervision at a
school or other location away from home and, at least in part, through online delivery
of instruction with some element of student control over time, place, path, or pace”
(Renton School District: n.p.).
According to Behera (2013), m-learning is involved in e-learning and mobile computing.
M-learning is considered to be an extension of e-learning, but the quality of m-learning can
be delivered with the awareness of special limitations and benefits of mobile devices.
Sa
´nchez-Prieto et al. (2016) stated that m-learning is a method of learning which is directly
linked to the e-learning and it belongs to the independent typology, where teaching and
learning process can have an electronic context. Kothamasu (2010) argued that m-learning is
nothing but learning through the use of mobile devices and it is targeted to those who are on
the move and the current mobile phones can support many latest services such as SMS,
GPRS, MMS, email, packet switching, WAP, Bluetooth and many more. Besides mobile
communications, there is a wide range of mobile products available such mobile scanner,
mobile printers and moble labelers (Kothamasu, 2010: n. p.).
Digital learning
Electronic
learning
Mobile
learning
Figure 2. Relationship of e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning.
Basak et al. 195

According to Kothamasu (2010), mobility helps to expand teaching and learning beyond the
traditional classrooms and the m-learning can increase the flexibility as well as it opens a
new opportunity within the classroom for instructors and learners.
Some of the definitions of m-learning are given below:
•“M-learning is learning as it arises in the course of person-to-person mobile
communication” (Oloruntoba, 2006 as cited in Clark, 2007: 7).
•“Mobile learning is learning through mobile computational devices” (Quinn, 2000 as
cited in Behera, 2013: 63).
•“M-learning is not just electronic, it’s mobile”.
•“Mobile learning as a form of education whose site of production, circulation and con-
sumption is the network” (Polsani, 2003, as cited in Behera, 2013: 63).
•“M-learning is the use of mobile technology to aid in the learning, reference or explora-
tion of information useful to an individual at that moment or in a specific use context”
(Feser, 2010, as cited in Mboungou Mouyabi, 2012: 787).
According to Duderstadt et al. (2002), e-learning is used in the study environments to
learn with a special importance of the web to describe a wide range of applications of
electronic technologies, namely, TV, radio, CD-ROM, DVD, cell phone, Internet, etc.
Sharma and Kitchens (2004) stated that e-learning includes learning with the help of a
web-based training facilities such as virtual universities and classrooms that allows digital
collaboration and technology assisted distance learning. E-learning innovation can be
defined as the technological or the methodological e-learning forms that are perceived as
new by the potential users (Fischer, 2013). According to Ally (2005), e-learning plays a
significant role in any nations in the educational growth and it offers opportunities to
develop nations in order to enhance their educational development. Furthermore, it also
helps for the new generation of teachers to upgrade their skills for pedagogies of learning of
the existing teaching force to the 21st century tools. Behera (2013) also stated that the
modern technology, namely, the Internet is no longer limited within the four walls of class-
rooms and it includes all sorts of electronically supported learning as well as teaching. E-
learning is defined as learning through the use of electronic devices, namely, desktop/laptop
computers, smart phones, CD/DVD players, etc. that was firstly emerged in 1980s as a
contender to the classical face-to-face learning (Abuhamdeh, 2010; Wains and Mahmood,
2008). The growth of e-learning is accredited to advantages such as manpower, cost, flex-
ibility, and convenience (Ozkan and Koseler, 2009).
Some of the definitions of e-learning are given below:
•“E-learning refers to the use of computer network technology, primarily over or through
the internet, to deliver information and instructions to individuals” (Wang et al.,
2010: 167).
•“E-learning covers a wide set of applications and processes, including multimedia online
activities such as the web, Inte
´ernet video SD-ROM, TV and radio. Students can use
these materials to teach themselves” (Hassenburg, 2009 as cited in Tittasiri, 2003: 68).
•“E-learning is a wide set of applications and processes, such as Web-based learning,
computer-based learning, virtual classrooms, and digital collaboration. It includes the
delivery of content via internet, intranet/extranet (LAN/WAN), audio and video tapes,
196 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

satellite broadcast, interactive TV, and CD-ROM” (ASTD in DeRouin et al., 2005 as
cited in Nore
´n Creutz and Wiklund, 2014: 303–304).
•“E-learning as the experience dimension of e-learning, which includes such factors as
engagement, curiosity, simulation and practice” (Elliott Masie as cited in Behera,
2013: 67).
Terminology used in E-learning, M-learning, and D-learning
The transition from e-learning to m-learning to d-learning can be characterized by a change
in the terminology of learning environment. Many studies have shown how to distinguish e-
learning, m-learning, and d-learning by analyzing the descriptions of these three fields that
are found in the existing literature.
Some of the terminology from the existing literature of e-learning, m-learning, and d-
learning is given in Table 1.
Fundamental perspectives of E-learning, M-learning, and D-learning
Each of these learning tools has fundamental perspectives, namely, cognitive perspective,
emotional perspective, behavioral perspective, contextual perspective. M-learning has three
fundamental perspectives such as mobility of technology, mobility of learning, and mobility
of learner. Finally, for the d-learning perspectives are technology, digital content, and
instruction.
Figure 3 represents the graphical depiction of four fundamental perspectives of e-learning
that are delivered in higher educational institutions and these four fundamental perspectives
of e-learning are interdependent and equally important in terms of making electronic devices
feasible as instruments for the delivery of educational institutions.
Cognitive perspective: Cognitive perspective focuses on the cognitive processes that involves
in the learning and how does brain works (Clark, 2007). In order to apply the cognitive
pedagogical models in an e-learning environment, the smart learning system and adaptive
learning technology can be used to optimize learner’s progress; virtual (simulated) worlds
and other structured learning environments that can also help learners in the content. The
support system can be guided and be used quickly to teach learners to communicate; and
social and other collaborative tools can be used to promote dialogue, interaction, and
vicarious learning (Tlambda, 2014).
Emotional perspective: Emotional perspective focuses on motivation, engagement as well as
other emotional aspect of learning (Clark, 2007). Kim (2008) points out various emotions,
namely, pride, frustration, relief, resistance, fear, expectation, hopelessness, anxiety, confi-
dence, complex, and the envy confirms that these functions are strongly associated with the
integration of cognition, motivation, and action.
Behavioral perspective: Behavioral perspective focuses on the skills and behavioral outcomes
of the learning process (Clark, 2007; HRDI Developmentinfo, n.d.) and it focuses on the
role-playing and application to on-the-job settings (Ryan, 2012).
Contextual perspective: Contextual perspective focuses on the environmental and social
aspects that can stimulate learning (Clark, 2007; Ryan, 2012) and it focuses on the interac-
tion with people, discovery of collaboration as well as the importance of peer support and
pressure (Ryan, 2012).
Basak et al. 197

Table 1. Terminology used in E-learning, M-learning, and D-learning.
E-learning terminology M-learning terminology D-learning terminology
Computer (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Mobile (Laouris and Eteokleous,
2005; Sharma and Kitchens,
2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Adaptive learning (Jones and Jo,
2004; Yang et al., 2013)
Bandwidth (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004)
Bluetooth, GPRS, 3G (Laouris
and Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma
and Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-
Alila et al., 2013)
Badging and gamification (Olsson
et al., 2015; Gibson et al.,
2015; Garrison and
Kanuka, 2004)
Multimedia (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Objects (Laouris and Eteokleous,
2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004)
Blended learning (Bonk and
Graham, 2006; Victoria State
Government, 2017)
Interactive (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Traxler, 2007;
Soualah-Alila et al., 2013)
Networked (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Classroom technologies (L
opez,
2010; Robin, 2008)
Hyperlinked (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Situated learning (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013; Traxler, 2007)
E-textbooks (Dennis, 2011;
Davy, 2007)
Collaborative (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Realistic situation (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004)
Learning analytics (Siemens and
Baker, 2012; Slade, 2013)
Distance learning (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Constructivism (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Learning objects (Nash, 2005;
Sarah et al., 2004)
Simulated situation (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Social interaction (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004)
Mobile learning (Alexander,
2004; Hwang and
Chang, 2011)
Hyper learning (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Collaborative (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Sharma and
Kitchens, 2004; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Personalized learning (Dabbagh
and Kitsantas, 2012;
McLoughlin and Lee, 2010)
Media-rich (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Soualah-
Alila et al., 2013;
Traxler, 2007)
Spontaneous (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Traxler,
2007; Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Online learning (or e-learning)
(Anderson, 2008; Hiltz and
Turoff, 2005)
More formal (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Soualah-
Alila et al., 2013)
Connected (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Soualah-
Alila et al., 2013)
Open educational resources
(Beetham and Sharpe, 2013;
Hilton et al., 2010)
Structured (Traxler, 2007) Lightweight (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Soualah-
Alila et al., 2013)
Technology-enhanced teaching
and learning (Hannafin and
Land, 1997; Manca and
(continued)
198 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

Figure 4 represents the graphical depiction of three fundamental perspectives of
m-learning that are delivered in higher educational institutions and these three fundamental
perspectives of m-learning are interdependent and equally important in terms of making
mobile devices viable as instruments for the delivery of educational institutions.
Mobility of technology: Mobile technology refers to the digital cellular phones that are used
to deliver different educational content and instructors for learners (Trinder, 2005). Most of
Table 1. Continued.
E-learning terminology M-learning terminology D-learning terminology
Ranieri, 2013; Manouselis
et al., 2011)
Broadband (Traxler, 2007) Informal (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Soualah-
Alila et al., 2013;
Traxler, 2007)
Virtual reality (Bailenson et al.,
2008; Merchant et al., 2014)
Intelligent (Traxler, 2007) Situationism (Laouris and
Eteokleous, 2005; Soualah-
Alila et al., 2013)
Game-based learning (Erhel and
Jamet, 2013; Kiili, 2005; Van
Eck, 2006; Victoria State
Government, 2017)
Usable (Traxler, 2007) Personal (Traxler, 2007) Accessing digital content
(Littlejohn et al., 2012;
Victoria State
Government, 2017)
Lecture in classroom or in
Internet labs (Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Disruptive (Traxler, 2007) Collaborating locally and globally
(Victoria State
Government, 2017)
More text- and graphics-based
instructions (Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
Opportunistic (Traxler, 2007) Assessment and reporting online
(McDaniel et al., 2012; Palmer
and Holt, 2009; Victoria State
Government, 2017)
Pervasive (Traxler, 2007) Active participation in online
communities (Lock, 2006;
Victoria State
Government, 2017)
Private (Traxler, 2007) Using technology to connect,
collaborate, curate and create
(Victoria State
Government, 2017)
Context-aware (Traxler, 2007)
Bite-sized (Traxler, 2007)
Portable (Traxler, 2007)
Learning takes place while
mobile (Soualah-Alila
et al., 2013)
More voice, graphics and anima-
tion based instruction
(Soualah-Alila et al., 2013)
Basak et al. 199

these cellular phones are connected to public switching telephone network and have many
services, namely, email, WAP, Bluetooth, SMS, GPRS, MMS, etc. (Kothamasu, 2010).
Mobility of learners: With the m-learning, learning can be at any place and at any time. The
m-learning is a platform where learners can have interaction opportunities with their fellow
learners and educators from different locations although they will not be in the formal
classroom (Kukulska-Hulme and Taxler, 2007). M-learning is not restricted to learners in
a specific physical environment, a specific delivery channel, or for the particular set of
training and education (Naismith et al., 2004). Then m-learning concerns either formal or
informal education but also non-formal education.
Mobility of learning: The mobility of learning is a powerful learning experience where
learners can move from everyday context and can develop themselves in terms of any pro-
fessional, social, intercultural, and interpersonal competencies (Lifelong Learning Platform,
n. d). M-learning is engaged in the pioneering experiments to transmit the full content of
higher educational learning, especially for learners using mobile cellular devices. According
to Walker (2007), learning experience with mobile devices is unique since it can receive and
process within the context for which a learner is situated. And the context is utterly indi-
vidual – as well as entirely different from the rigid outlay of a traditional classroom or to the
lecture room, and finally in the computer laboratory.
Mobility of learning
M-learning
Mobility of technology
Mobility of learner
Figure 4. Fundamental perspectives of e-learning adopted from El-Hussein and Cronje (2010: 17).
E-learning
Cognitive perspective
Emotional perspective
Behavioral perspective
Contextual perspective
Figure 3. Fundamental perspectives of e-learning.
200 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

Figure 5 represents the graphical depiction of three fundamental perspectives of d-learn-
ing that are delivered in higher educational institutions and these three fundamental per-
spectives of d-learning are interdependent and equally important in terms of making digital
devices viable as instruments for the delivery of educational institutions.
Digital “learning facilitated by technology that gives students some element of control
over time, place, path and/or pace” (DDLN, n.d.) as cited in Georgiagov (n.d.: n.p.). In
the case of time, learning is not restricted anymore to the school day or to the school year
and the Internet access have given learners to learn anytime. In the case of place, the
learning is not restricted to four walls of classrooms because the Internet has given the
opportunity for learners to learn anywhere and everywhere (Georgiagov, n.d.). In the case
of path, learning is not restricted to pedagogy used by teachers because the interactive and
adaptive software allows learners to learn in their own style, making learning personal and
engaging. In addition, learning technology provides a real time data that provide teachers
relevant information which are needed to make the adjustment of instruction in order to
meet the unique need of each learner (Georgiagov, n.d.). In the case of pace, learning is
not restricted to the pace of an entire classroom of learners and software such as inter-
active and adaptive software allows learners to learn at their own pace and spend time
more or less on lessons or subjects in terms of achieving the same level of learning
(Georgiagov, n.d.).
D-learning needs a combination of technology, digital content, and the instruction and
below each term is explained.
Technology: Technology is a tool, but it is not an instruction and it is a mechanism which
delivers the content and it enables learners to receive the contents. Technology also incor-
porates Internet access and hardware that can be any Internet access device – from the
desktop to the laptop to iPad to the smartphone (Georgiagov, n.d.).
Digital content: Digital content is a high quality of academic material that is delivered
through technology and it is not just a PDF of the text or the PowerPoint presentation.
It is ranged from the interactive and adaptive software to classic literature to video lectures
to games (Georgiagov, n.d.).
Instruction: Educationists are required for digital education. Technology can change the
teacher’s role, but it will never end teacher’s requirements. Through digital education,
teachers will be able to provide personal guidance and support to learn and to stay on
Digital content
D-learning
Technology
Instruction
Figure 5. Fundamental perspectives of d-learning.
Basak et al. 201

track – for years and years after year – to graduate to high school. The teacher can be the
guide next; the sage is not on stage (Georgiagov, n.d.).
E-learning, M-learning and D-learning over the time
E-learning
The e-learning term was originated in the mid-1990s when the Internet began to gather the
momentum (Garrison, 2011) and the application of e-learning includes a computer-based
learning as well as web-based learning. Finally, these learning contents can be transferred
via Internet, intranet, video/audio tapes, CD-ROM, DVD, and TV channels (Mohanna,
2015). Papanis (2005) as cited in Tittasiri (2003: 69) stated that “e-learning provides faster
learning at reduced cost, increased access to learning, and clear accountability for all par-
ticipants in the learning process”.
A study conducted by Harriman (2010) indicated different types of e-learning, namely,
online learning, distance learning, blended learning, m-learning. In the case of online learn-
ing, it is done through the Web and it may add graphics, animation, text, audio, video,
email, discussion boards, and testing. In addition, it is self-directed and “on demand” but it
can incorporate the web-based teleconference such as audio, graphics, synchronous chat, or
technology that are similar (Harriman, 2010). In the case of distance learning, it takes place
when learners and instructors are not in the same place and also when learners and instruc-
tors are at the same place but not at the same time. In recent days, the distance learning
takes place using the number of media and these media are from the postal mail to the
teleconferencing or the Internet. In addition, these two terms such as distance learning
(learner focus) and distance education (instructor focus) are used interchangeable since
learning is the result of education. In the case of blended learning, it is nothing but the
combination of two learning steps that are face-to-face learning and online learning. The
main purpose of blended learning is to combine delivery modalities of the efficient and
effective instruction experience. Furthermore, it is used to describe a solution that includes
different delivery methods, namely, collaboration software, Web-based courses, and the
electronic performance support systems. In the case of m-learning, it is used to handheld
many information technology devices that can be used in teaching and learning namely,
personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile phones, laptops.
According to Rosenberg (2001) and Wentling et al. (2000), e-learning is the use of
Internet technologies that can provide a wide range of solutions to enhance knowledge
and performance. It facilitates and enhances the learning through and based on the com-
puter and communication technology. In addition, it can also support learning using a Wide
Area Network (WAN) and it can be considered as a flexible learning. Papanis (2005) stated
that e-learning components include the content delivery in different formats, to manage the
learning experience, learners’ network community, and content developers and experts.
E-learning is a personalized approach that focuses on the individual learner and it includes
self-paced training, many of the virtual events, mentoring, simulation, collaboration, assess-
ment, competency road map, authoring tools, e-store, and the learning management system.
E-learning also includes many of the different components that are very familiar with the
traditional learning, namely, learner’s presentation ideas, group discussions, arguments and
other different forms that conveying the information accumulating knowledge
(Bencheva, 2010).
202 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

Researcher found that e-learning factors include bandwidth (Homan and Macpherson,
2005), lack of formal implementation process (Masoumi and Lindstr€
om, 2012), lack of
interest of faculty (Forman et al., 2002; Qureshi et al., 2012), lack of ICT-enabled teachers
(Carr, 1999; Iqbal and Ahmad, 2010; Levy, 2003; Nawaz and Khan, 2012; P~
oldoja et al.,
2012), lack of ICT-enabled students (Oliver, 2001; Qureshi et al., 2012; Qureshi et al., 2011),
power failure (Sangi, 2008; Iqbal and Ahmad, 2010), lack of learning objects (LO) in local
language (Khattak, 2010), socio-cultural norms (Iqbal and Ahmad, 2010), lack of resources
(Iqbal and Ahmad, 2010), accessibility of Internet broadband (Farid et al., 2014), cost of
mobile Internet, practical arrangements for practical oriented courses, and literacy rate
(Expert opinion) (Farid et al., 2015).
M-learning
It is in 1960s by Alan Kay that the concept of the mobile educational device was established
(Najmi and Lee, 2009 as cited in Pollara, 2011). M-learning is portable electronic devices
that are used as a trend in higher education in order to access and share information (Geist,
2011; Miller, 2012). Kothamasu (2010) argued that five basic parameters are used in m-
learning, namely, portable, social interaction, sensitive to the context, connectivity, and
customized. In the case of portable, it is easy to carry such as PDA along with users every-
where, including a restroom and this can help learners to get information very quick and
rapid. In the case of social interaction, it helps to interact with friends to send messages. In
addition, it also helps to exchange data with other people and get and gain some extra
knowledge. In the case of sensitive to the context, it helps to gather data (real data and
simulated data) unique to the current location, time, and the environment. In the case of
connectivity, it helps to get a strong network where a learner can connect to mobile phones,
data collection devices, and to a common network. Finally, in the case of customized,itis
very unique because it can help learners to customize learning information.
A study was conducted by Sobri and Fatimah (2012) in Malaysian students’ on the
awareness and requirements of mobile learning services in higher education and the results
of the study revealed that students have enough knowledge and awareness to incorporate m-
learning in their education environment. Another study conducted by Mao (2014) at the
southwest university on 300 undergraduate learners and the study revealed that 76% of the
learners were satisfied to use m-learning. In addition, 84% of the respondents also indicated
that they will use m-learning as a future learning. Furthermore, the study also revealed that
the majority of the learners was immensely benefited from the m-learning because it helped
them to solve problems very quickly that they were encountered in the learning.
Using m-learning, learning setting is changing frequently because of the mobility of
learners, learning technology, and learning content. According to Chen and Kotz (2000),
there are four categories of mobile context, namely, computing context, user context, phys-
ical context, and the time context. Computing context is all about a network connection,
communication bandwidth, and the used resources. The user context is all about the learner
profile and location. The physical context is all about noise, lighting, traffic conditions, the
temperature of the learner’s physical location. Finally, in the case of time context, it is all
about the specific time of learning. Similarly, Zhao and Zhu (2010) and Li and Qiu (2011)
stated three important factors that are needed to be considered when dealing with the m-
learning systems and having considered, these three pillars can provide the desired level of
quality. These three pillars are namely, learner’s style, mobile, mobile device or applications,
Basak et al. 203

and the learning content. Furthermore, the advanced hardware of mobile devices such as
camera, accelerometer, and different software such as Apps provides more capability to
manipulate, organize, and to generate the formation for teaching and learning (Chen et al.,
2008; Keskin and Metcalf, 2011).
Mohanna (2015) stated that m-learning can be integrated with the help of various soft-
ware and hardware technologies into the multimedia applications that can facilitate to
communicate the educational format in different formats such as games, short messages,
quizzes, and multimedia contents. Similarly, m-learning can also be applied to many sub-
jects in different level of education such as primary, secondary, higher, lifelong, community,
and the professional education. Different devices of m-learning applications includes usually
general mobile phone, PDA, smart phone, portable media player (Apple’s iPod), or event in
the tablet computer and all these applications are incorporated with the WiFi, 4G, and 4G
Long Term Evaluation (LTE) telecommunication networks.
Sharples (2006) as cited in Pollara (2004: 67–68) stated that m-learning
i) enables knowledge building to take place in different contexts; ii) provides the ability to gather
data unique to the current location, environment, and time (real and situated); iii) enables
learners construct their own understanding (customized to the individuals path of investigation);
iv) changes the pattern of learning or the work activity (supports interactivity); v) supports the
use of mobile learning applications which are mediating tools and can be used in conjunction
with other learning tools; and vi) goes beyond time and space in which learning becomes part of
a greater whole.
According to Song (2007), using mobile devices, the course content can be divided into six
categories such as pushing, messaging, response and feedback, file exchange, posting, and
the classroom communication.
A study conducted by Adeyeye et al. (2013) revealed that several factors that are linked
with the success or failure of m-learning projects and these factors are from the existing
literature, namely, technology availability, support of the concerned institution, network
connectivity, assimilation with study curriculum, student experience, or real life and the
technology ownership by the learners. According to UNESCO (2011), m-learning considers
several factors for the successful adoption and these factors are affordability, leadership,
content, support from educators and parents, well-defined m-learning goals, recognition of
informal learning, and the defined target learner groups for m-learning. Huang et al. (2010)
revealed that m-learning applications not only can facilitate learners but also can interact with
others for collaborations anytime and anywhere. Hereafter, m-learning for the education has
significant implications in the way learners and instructors interact in educational institutions.
D-learning
D-learning is perceived to be an educational tool that is capable to change the way higher
education is delivered and it continues to getting wide spread and to gaining popularity day
by day in the digital world (Chitkushey et al., 2014). It is an instructional practice that is
effectively used by technology in order to strengthen students’ learning experience. It
encompasses
204 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

a wide spectrum of tools and practices, including, among others, online and formative assess-
ment; an increase in the focus and quality of teaching resources and time; online content and
courses; applications of technology in the classroom and school building; adaptive software for
students with special needs; learning platforms; participation in professional communities of
practice; and access to high-level and challenging content and instruction (Alliance for Excellent
Education, 2012, as cited in Council of State Governments, 2013: n.p.)” (Council of State
Governments, 2013: n.p.)
D-learning can also facilitate new strategies and formats, namely, online and blending
learning and the competency-based learning that has a potential in terms of contributing
to the deeper learning (VanderArk and Schneider, 2012). D-learning can promote three
different ways to enhance the deeper learning such as personalized skill building, schools
and tools, and the extended access (VanderArk and Schneider, 2012).
According to Suhonen (2005), d-learning environments can provide solutions to support
learning, teaching and studying activities. Anohina (2005) stated that d-learning environ-
ment is educational software, digital learning tool, and online study program or the learning
resource. Wit and Dompseler (n.d.) urged that the d-learning environment can consist of
different components where learners and teachers can use as it is needed. Furthermore, they
also stated that some of the components will only be available to all learners and teachers at
the institution whereas others needed authorization. These components must be swappable
between learners and teachers in order to adopt the latest development in the education and
to the technological innovations. These components are namely organization of learning;
testing; submission and assessment of assignments; management and use of student infor-
mation; timetabling; internships and final projects; developing, managing, and sharing
learning materials; education process support; learning analytics; communication; collabo-
ration; multimedia; and freely available applications.
In the case of organizational of learning, it makes assurance to learners that clear and easy
accessibility for the right content. In addition, this also includes the functionalities namely,
learners assigning into groups, learners assigning to courses and finally arranging their
access management. In the case of testing, it can improve the learning quality and testing
in the education. For the submission and assessment of assignment, it is a key element of the
learning environment that is provided by an uploaded tool. Moreover, this component also
incorporates the functionalities to manage the submission and evaluation process, namely,
setting and communicating deadlines (deadline alerts and the inclusion of deadlines for
learner’s calendars), to allocate the first and second assessors, to coordinate between asses-
sors, to provide feedback to learners, awarding marks for learners, notifications of assess-
ment, and the option for learners in terms of appeal decisions. In the case of management
and use of student information, it involves with the student administrative data management
(such as personal details) and the registration of marks, progress, and the attendance (Wit
and Dompseler, n.d.). For the timetabling, it is all about time and resource distribution
across learners and teachers. In the case of internships and final projects, it provides the
opportunity to evaluate the match between internship assignment or final assignment and
the host organization and learners. For the developing,managing, and sharing learning
materials, it deals with the functionalities in terms of developing, managing, and sharing
learning materials (Wit and Dompseler, n.d.). In the case of education process support,it
concerns with tools that are used to monitor learners’ progress and giving them targeted
feedback in order to support the learning process. For the learning analytics, it deals with the
Basak et al. 205

collection and analysis of information for the learners’ learning process to improve their
knowledge and skills for the teaching and learning process. In the case of communication,it
is an essential part of the sort of education that involves sending message and information
and staring dialogues. For the collaboration, it can enable and enrich depth learning. In the
case of multimedia, it plays an important role in the education sector and this multimedia are
video, virtual reality, 3D-printing, etc. and finally, for the freely available applications,
institutions provides learners and teachers to use social media, software and many other
applications for their learning process (Wit and Dompseler, n.d.).
Some of the d-learning factors include, instructor overall rating, facilitator rating, and the
overall course satisfaction (Chitkushev et al., 2014), system characteristics and their per-
ceived functionality (Lee, 2006 as cited in Nasser et al., 2011; Hayashi et al., 2004), academic
success (Heath and Ravitz, 2001), funding and technology access (Copley and Ziviani,
2004), lack of ICT knowledge and teachers provide a little support (Drent and Meelissen,
2008), teachers’ attitudes and teaching styles (Selim, 2007), learner motivation (Selim, 2007),
technical competency of learners (Selim, 2007), learner–learner interaction (Selim, 2007),
easy access to technology (Selim, 2007), infrastructure reliability (Selim, 2007), lack of sup-
port at the postsecondary level (Selim, 2007), teachers are prone to teach using the tradi-
tional methods (Becker, 2000), novice teachers with less training are less likely to use the
technology (Becker, 2000), a lack of commitment for the constructivist pedagogy (Becker,
2000), a lack of availability for the professional development (Becker, 2000), and a low level
of contact between teachers who have little experience using technology (Becker, 2000).
Similarities among E-learning, M-learning, and D-learning
There are similarities among e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning; each of the tools needs
infrastructure and with or without WiFi. All the three tools are digitized and used for the
education environment and learners and instructors can learn on their own. The learning
materials delivered in e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning are texts, images and video
clips, etc. For all the three models, learners and teachers are the main users. All the three
models provide learning opportunities for learners and teachers and finally for all tools, the
learning materials can also be updated.
Differences between E-learning, M-learning, and D-learning
Some of the differences of e-learning, m-learning and d-learning defined by researchers are
given in Table 2.
Advantages and disadvantages of E-learning, M-learning, and
D-learning
Advantages and disadvantages of e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning are given in
Table 3.
Conclusion
The main objective of this paper was to review and analyze the concept, terminology used,
differences, fundamental perspectives, benefits, disadvantages, and the similarities and
206 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

Table 2. Differences in e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning.
E-learning M-learning D-learning
Communicating with email
(Cisco, 2013) or E-mail to
Email (Mboungou
Mouyabi, 2012)
Instant messaging (Cisco, 2013;
Mboungou Mouyabi, 2012)
Direct contact to the moderator
(Edudip, 2016), Connect
communities to a vast net-
work of resources
(OpenEdSolution, 2011)
Lecture in classroom (Cisco,
2013; Mouyabi, 2012) or
internet lab (Mboungou
Mouyabi, 2012), synchronous
(Cisco, 2013)
Lecture capture technology,
learning can be synchronous
or asynchronous
(Cisco, 2013)
Connect in the most remotes
(OpenEdSolution, 2011), users
can learn specific subject
(Maniar et al., 2008), more
flexible and accessible learning
(Easton and Campbell-Wright,
2013; Easton and
Downes, 2016)
Fixed location, plugged in
(Cisco, 2013)
Collecting and analyzing data in
the field (Cisco, 2013)
Own style that maximizes suc-
cess (OpenEdSolution, 2011)
Tethered (Cisco, 2013) Untethered (Cisco, 2013) Exchange with other learners
(Edudip, 2016)
More formal, paced, structured
delivery (Cisco, 2013)
Less format, self-paced, on-
demand (Cisco, 2013)
With digital learning can access
high quality and rigorous
courses
(OpenEdSolution, 2011).
Private location (Mboungou
Mouyabi, 2012)
No geographic Boundaries
(Mouyabi, 2012)
Anywhere anytime learning cre-
ates a new world of opportu-
nity (Conneal, 2013)
Travel time to reach the internet
site (Mboungou
Mouyabi, 2012)
No travel time with wireless
internet connectivity
(Mouyabi, 2012)
Time and location independent
(Edudip, 2016)
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages in e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning.
Advantages Disadvantages
E-learning Easy access (Aczel et al., 2008; Behera, 2013),
individual instructions (Behera, 2013), dif-
ferent learning style (Behera, 2013), flexi-
bility (Behera, 2013), motivating and
interesting (Behera, 2013), on-line, off-line,
and live interaction (Behera, 2013), self-
learning and the self-improvement (Behera,
2013), feedback and evaluation (Behera,
2013), efficient and cost-effective strategy
(Frehywot et al., 2013)
Required knowledge and skills (Behera,
2013), lack of equipment (Behera,
2013), isolation (Behera, 2013),
missing social contact (Behera,
2013), negative attitude (Behera,
2013), technical defect (Behera,
2013), stressful and consumed more
time (Behera, 2013), lack of co-cur-
ricular activities (Behera, 2013), lack
of teacher training program
(Behera, 2013)
M-learning Accessibility (Chen et al., 2002; Desmond,
2002; Upadhyay, 2006), interactivity
Screen size and key size (Gautam, 2014;
Maniar et al., 2008), required
(continued)
Basak et al. 207

differences of e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning. A total of 292 articles were retrieved
and reviewed from the Google and Google Scholar Databases and a total of 126 articles
were taken into consideration which passed the quality appraisal criteria. All the three
technology tools (e-learning, m-learning, and d-learning) are very important and play a
crucial role in the modern education society. These tools help teachers as well as learners
Table 3. Continued.
Advantages Disadvantages
(Chen et al., 2002; Desmond, 2002;
Upadhyay, 2006), immediacy (Chen et al.,
2002), adaptability (Chen et al., 2002),
placing of instructional activities (Chen
et al., 2002), inexpensive (Crescente and
Lee, 2011; Elias, 2011), multimedia content
delivery (Crescente and Lee, 2011; Elias,
2011), decrease training cost (Crescente
and Lee, 2011; Elias, 2011), communication
skill (Gautam, 2014), better management
(Gautam, 2014), flexibility of learning spaces
(Alexander, 2004), portability Desmond,
2002; Upadhyay, 2006), motivation
(Desmond, 2002; Upadhyay, 2006), open to
society Desmond, 2002; Upadhyay, 2006)
bandwidth (Mehdipour and
Zerehkafi, 2013), limited memory
(Mehdipour & Zerehkafi, 2013), spe-
cific device file/asset format
(Mehdipour & Zerehkafi, 2013),
obsolescence (Mehdipour and
Zerehkafi, 2013), cost (Ishtaiwa,
2016; Pegrum et al., 2013; Veerasamy,
2010), distraction (Ishtaiwa, 2016;
Pegrum et al., 2013, Veerasamy,
2010), negative attitudes of parents
(Ishtaiwa, 2016; Pegrum et al., 2013;
Veerasamy, 2010)
D-learning Personalized learning (Ark, 2015), expanded
learning opportunities (Ark, 2015), high
engagement learning (Ark, 2015), compe-
tency-based learning (Ark, 2015), assess-
ment for learning (Ark, 2015, Easton and
Campbell-Wright, 2013; Easton and
Downes, 2016), collaborative learning (Ark,
2015), quality learning products (Ark,
2015), sharing economy (Ark, 2015), rele-
vant and regularly updated content (Ark,
2015), the next-gen learning for educators
(Ark, 2015), engagement (Conneal, 2013),
time (Conneal, 2013; Edudip, 2016), loca-
tion (Conneal, 2013; Edudip, 2016), pacing
(Conneal, 2013), individualization (Conneal,
2013), content (Conneal, 2013), sharing
(Conneal, 2013), data (Conneal, 2013),
ownership (Conneal, 2013), repeat learning
materials (Edudip, 2016), learning on many
channels (Edudip, 2016), exchange with
learners (Edudip, 2016), motivation (Easton
and Campbell-Wright, 2013; Easton and
Downes, 2016), strong digital sills (Easton
and Campbell-Wright, 2013; Easton and
Downes, 2016)
Internet access required (Edudip,
2016), self-discipline wanted (Edudip,
2016), infrastructure (Conneal,
2013), obsolesce (Conneal, 2013),
preparation and development
(Conneal, 2013), old paradigms
(Conneal, 2013)
208 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

to take responsibility of their personal growth. E-learning, m-learning, and d-learning
require innovative approach that are interrelated. Therefore, we can conclude that learners
and teachers need to acquire technological skills to success in the e-learning, m-learning, and
d-learning environments.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Abuhamdeh M (2010) A hierarchical framework to quantitatively evaluate success factors of mobile
learning. PhD Thesis, University of Banking and Financial Sciences, Amman, Jordan.
Aczel JC, Peake SR and Hardy P (2008) Designing capacity-building in e-learning expertise:
Challenges and strategies. Computers & Education 50(2): 499–510.
Adeyeye MO, Musa AG, Botha A, et al. (2013) Problem with multi-video format m-learning appli-
cations. In J. E. Pelet (Eds.), E-Learning 2.0 Technologies and Web Applications in Higher Education
(Chapter 10), Oman: IGI Global.
Alexander B (2004) Going nomadic: Mobile learning in higher education. Educause Review
39(5): 28–34.
Alliance for Excellent Education (2012) Culture shift: Teaching in a learner-centered environment
powered by digital learning. Retrieved from www.all4ed.org/files/CultureShift.pdf
Ally M (2005) Using learning theories to design instruction for mobile learning devices. Mobile
Learning Anytime Everywhere (pp. 5–8), London, UK: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Anderson T (2008) The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University, Canada.
Anohina A (2005) Analysis of the terminology used in the field of virtual learning. Educational
Technology & Society 8(3): 91–102.
Ark TV (2015) The shift to digital learning: 10 benefits. Retrieved from http://www.gettingsmart.com/
2015/11/the-shift-to-digital-learning-10-benefits/
Arksey H and O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 19–32.
Nore
´n Creutz & Wiklund (2005) Learning paradigms in workplace e-learning research. Knowledge
Management & E-Learning 6(3): 299–315.
Bailenson JN, Yee N, Blascovich J, et al. (2008) The use of immersive virtual reality in the learning
sciences: Digital transformations of teachers, students, and social context. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences 17(1): 102–141.
Becker HJ (2000) Access to classroom computers. Communications of the ACM 43(6): 24–25.
Beetham H and Sharpe R (2013) Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century
learning. Routledge publisher, 2nd edition (April 17 2013).
Behera SK (2013) E- and M-Learning: A comparative study. International Journal on New Trends in
Education and Their Implications 4(3): 65–78.
Bencheva N (2010) Learning styles and e-learning face-to-face to the traditional learning.

a
e
xyb
he
ljde

a
e
ceycrbz

ybde
h
cbnet 49(3.2): 63–67.
Bersin J (2017) How do you define digital learning? Retrieved from www.clomedia.com/2017/06/11/
define-digital-learning/
Basak et al. 209

Bonk CJ and Graham CR (2006) Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs.
San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Carr J (1999) The role of higher education in the effective delivery of multimedia management training
to small and medium-sized enterprises. Educational Technology & Society 2(2): 1–15.
Chen G and Kotz D (2000) A survey of context-aware mobile computing research (Vol. 1, No. 2.1, pp.
2–1). Technical Report TR2000-381, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, USA.
Retrieved from http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/dfk/papers/chen:survey-tr.pdf
Chen W, Tan NYL, Looi CK, et al. (2008) Handheld computers as cognitive tools: Technology-
enhanced environmental learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning
(3): 231–252.
Chen YS, Kao TC, Sheu JP, et al. (2002) A mobile scaffolding-aid-based bird-watching learning
system. In: IEE Cherian, E J and Williams, PE international workshop wireless and mobile technol-
ogies in education (WMTE2002), Taiwan, pp. 8–14, IEEE Computer Society Press.
Cherian E J and Williams P (2008) Mobile learning: The beginning of the end of classroom learning. In
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, IAENG publisher, San
Francisco, USA.
Chitkushev L, Vodenska I and Zlateva T (2014) Digital learning impact factors: Student satisfaction
and performance in online courses. International Journal of Information and Education Technology
4(4): 356–359.
Cisco (2013) The mobile learning phenomenon in education. Accelerating the delivery of personalized
learning, pp. 1–37, Custom Computer Specialists, New York, USA.
Clark JD (2007) Learning and Teaching in the Mobile Learning Environment of the Twenty-First
Century. Austin, Texas: Austin Community College.
Conneal (2013) Digital learning: Advantages and disadvantages!. Retrieved from https://5j2014mscon
neally.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/digital-learning-advantages-and-disadvantages/
Copley J and Ziviani J (2004) Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple
disabilities. Occupational Therapy International 11(4): 229–243.
Crescente ML and Lee D (2011) Critical issues of m-learning: design models, adoption processes, and
future trends. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 28(2): 111–123.
Dabbagh N and Kitsantas A (2012) Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated
learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher
Education 15(1): 3–8.
Davy T (2007)E-textbooks: Opportunities, innovations, distractions and dilemmas. Serials 20(2): 98–102.
Georgiagov (n.d.) The Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. Retrieved from https://gosa.geor
gia.gov/what-digital-learning
Dennis A (2011) E-textbooks at Indiana University: A summary of two years of research. Retrieved
from http://crg.iupui.edu/Portals/133/PropertyAgent/15158/Files/367/e-TextbooksatIU.pdf
Desmond K (2002) The Future of Learning from E learning to M learning. Germany:
FernUniversitat-Hagen.
Digital learning 2020: A policy report for Kentucky’s digital future. Prepared in Partnership with
OpenEdSolution. Retrieved from https://education.ky.gov/school/Documents/Digital%
20Learning%202020%20-%20A%20Policy%20Report.pdf
Digital Learning (2011) Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_learning (accessed 21
June 2017).
Drent M and Meelissen M (2008) Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT
innovatively? Computers & Education 51(1): 187–199.
Duderstadt JJ, Atkins DE and Van Houweling DE (2002) Higher Education in the Digital Age:
Technology Issues and Strategies for American Colleges and Universities. Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers/USA.
Easton S and Campbell-Wright K (2013) Digital Learning for Niche Groups: A Learner’s Perspective.
Learning & Work. Retrieved from http://www.learningandwork.org.uk/sites/niace_en/files/files/
digital%20learning%20with%20niche%20groups.pdf
210 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

Easton S and Downes S (2016) Digital Families. Learning & Work. Retrieved from https://www.
learningandwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/4.1-Cross-UK-Partner-Meeting-Research-
Analsis.pdf
Edudip (2016) The advantages and disadvantages of digital learning. Retrieved from https://blog.
edudip.com/die-vor-und-nachteile-von-digitalem-lernen/?lang=en (accessed 21 June 2017).
El-Hussein MOM and Cronje JC (2010) Defining mobile learning in the higher education landscape.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society 13(3): 12–21.
Elias T (2011) Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 12(2): 143–156.
Erhel S and Jamet E (2013) Digital game-based learning: Impact of instructions and feedback on
motivation and learning effectiveness. Computers & Education 67: 156–167.
Farid S, Ahmad R, Niaz I, et al. (2014) Identifying perceived challenges of e-learning implementation.
In: First international conference on modern communication & computing technologies (MCCT’14),
26–28 February, Nawabshah, Pakistan.
Farid S, Ahmad R, Niaz IA, et al. (2015) Identification and prioritization of critical issues for the
promotion of e-learning in Pakistan. Computers in Human Behavior 51: 161–171.
Feser J (2010) mLearning is not e-Learning on a mobile device. In: Udell C and Woodill G (eds.), John
Wiley & Sons, USA.
Fischer H (2013) E-Learning im Lehralltag: Analyse der Adoption von E-Learning-Innovationen in der
Hochschullehre. Springer-Verlag.
Forman D, Nyatanga L and Rich T (2002) E-learning and educational diversity. Nurse Education
Today 22(1): 76–82.
Frehywot S, Vovides Y, Talib Z, et al. (2013) E-learning in medical education in resource constrained
low-and middle-income countries. Human Resources for Health 11(1): 4.
Garrison DR (2011) E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. 2nd ed.
New York: Routledge.
Garrison DR and Kanuka H (2004) Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in
higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 7(2): 95–105.
Gautam A (2014) Mobile learning: An effective way of teaching and learning English language.
International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) 3(2): 50–52.
Geist E (2011) The game changer: Using iPads in college teacher education classes. College Student
Journal 45(4): 758–769.
Gibson D, Ostashewski N, Flintoff K, et al. (2015) Digital badges in education. Education and
Information Technologies 20(2): 403–410.
Bencheva, N. (2010). Learning styles and e-learning face-to-face to the traditional learning.

a
e
xyb
he
ljde

a
e
ceycrbz

ybde
h
cbnet 49: 63–67.
Hannafin MJ and Land SM (1997) The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced stu-
dents-centered learning environments. Instructional Science 25(3): 167–202.
Hassenburg A (2009) Distance education versus the traditional classroom. Berkeley Scientific
Journal 13(1).
Hayashi A, Chen C, Ryan T, et al. (2004) The role of social presence and moderating role of computer
self-efficacy in predicting the continuance usage of e-learning systems. Journal of Information
Systems Education 15(2): 139–154.
Head to Head: eLearning vs mLearning: What’s The Difference? (n.d.) Retrieved from www.open
sesame.com/blog/head-head-elearning-vs-mlearning-whats-difference.
Gibbs M, Dosen A and Guerrero R (2009) Bridging the digital divide: Changing the technological
landscape of innercity Catholic schools. Urban Education 44: 11–29.
Hilton J III, Wiley D, Stein J, et al. (2010) The four ‘R’s of openness and ALMS analysis: Frameworks
for open educational resources. Open Learning 25(1): 37–44.
Hiltz SR and Turoff M (2005) Education goes digital. Communications of the ACM 48(10): 59–64.
Basak et al. 211

Homan G and Macpherson A (2005) E-learning in the corporate university. Journal of European
Industrial Training 29(1): 75–90.
Hoppe HU, Joiner R, Milrad M, et al. (2003) Guest editorial: Wireless and mobile technologies in
education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19(3): 255–259.
HRDI Developmentinfo (n.d.) Developing content for E-learning. Retrieved from https://hrdevelop
mentinfo.com/developing-content-for-e-learning/
Huang YM, Hwang WY and Chang KE (2010) Guest editorial-innovations in designing mobile learn-
ing applications. Educational Technology & Society 13(3): 1–2.
Hwang G-J and Chang H-F (2011) A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to
improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education
56(4): 1023–1031.
Iqbal MJ and Ahmad M (2010) Enhancing quality of education through e-learning: The case study of
Allama Iqbal Open University. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 11(1): 84–97.
Ishtaiwa F (2016) Integrating mobile learning in an undergraduate course: An exploration of affor-
dances and challenges for learners in UAE. In: Human-Computer Interaction: Concepts,
Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, pp. 1333–1350. IGI Global, USA, David Parsons.
Jones V and Jo JH (2004) Ubiquitous learning environment: An adaptive teaching system using
ubiquitous technology. In Atkinson R, McBeath C, Jonas-Dwyer D and Phillips R (Eds),
Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of te 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 468–474) Perth, 5-
8 December. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/jones.html
Keskin NO and Metcalf D (2011) The current perspectives, theories and practices of mobile learning.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 10(2): 202–208.
Khattak D (2010) Development of multimedia instruction objects for delivery in a localized e-learning
environment. Doctoral Dissertation, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Kiili K (2005) Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and
Higher Education 8(1): 13–24.
Kim M (2008) Processes of emotional experiences in online discussions: Emotional changes through
interacting with other students. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology 22(4): 697–722.
Kothamasu KK (2010) Odl Programmes Through M-learning Technology. Retrieved from http://oasis.
col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/2214/2010_KothamasuK_ODLProgrammes.pdf?sequence=
1&isAllowed=y
Kukulska-Hulme A and Taxler J (2007) Designing for mobile and wireless learning. In: Beetham H
and Sharpe R (eds) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering e-Learning.
London: Routledge, pp. 180–192.
Laouris YN and Eteokleous N (2005) We need an educationally relevant definition of mobile learning.
In: Proceedings of MLearn, Cape Town, South Africa, pp. 290–294. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.
ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.106.9650&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Nasser R, Cherif M and Romanowski M (2011) Factors that impact student usage of the learning
management system in Qatari schools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning 12(6): 39–62.
Levy S (2003) Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning programs in higher
education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 6(1): 1–19.
Li H and Qiu F (2011) Analyzing theory characteristic and studying application mode about mobile
learning. In: International conference on electrical and control engineering (ICECE), pp. 6327–6330.
IEEE, Yichang, China.
Lifelong Learning Platform: European Civil, Society for Education (n.d.). Retrieved from http://
lllplatform.eu/policy-areas/skills-and-qualifications/learning-mobility-for-all/
Littlejohn A, Beetham H and McGill L (2012) Learning at the digital frontier: A review of digital
literacies in theory and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 28(6): 547–556.
Lock JV (2006) A new image: Online communities to facilitate teacher professional development.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 14(4): 663.
212 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

L
opez OS (2010) The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic suc-
cess. Computers & Education 54(4): 901–615.
Manca S and Ranieri M (2013) Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on
Facebook as a technology-enhance learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
29(6): 487–504.
Maniar N, Bennett E, Hand S, et al. (2008) The effect of mobile phone screen size on video based
learning. Journal of Software 3(4): 51–61.
Manouselis N, Drachsler H, Vuorikari R, et al. (2011) Recommender systems in technology enhanced
learning. In: Rokach L, Shapira B, Kantor P, Ricci F, (eds) Recommender Systems Handbook: A
Complete Guide for Research Scientists & Practitioners, pp. 387–409. Springer, New York, USA.
Mao C (2014) Research on undergraduate students’ usage satisfaction of mobile learning. Creative
Education 5(8): 614–618.
Masoumi D and Lindstr€
om B (2012) Quality in e-learning: A framework for promoting and assuring
quality in virtual institutions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 28(1): 27–41.
Mboungou Mouyabi JSM (2012) E-learning and m-learning: Africa’s search for a suitable concept in
the era of cloud computing? Word Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 6(5): 784–790.
McDaniel R, Lindgren R and Friskics J (2012) Using badges for shaping interactions in online learn-
ing environments. In: 2012 IEEE international professional communication conference (IPCC),
pp. 1–4, IEEE, Orlando, Florida, USA.
McLoughlin C and Lee MJW (2010) Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era:
International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology 26(1): 1449–5554.
Mehdipour Y and Zerehkafi H (2013) Mobile learning for education: Benefits and challenges.
International Journal of Computational Engineering Research 3(6): 93–101.
Merchant ET, Cifuentes L, Keeney-Kennicutt W, et al. (2014) Effectiveness of virtual reality-based
instruction on students’ learning outcome in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis.
Computer & Education 70: 29–40.
Miller W (2012) iTeaching and learning: Collegiate instruction incorporating mobile tablets. Library
Technology Reports 48(8): 54–59. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/3280
Mohanna M (2015) Using knowledge engineering for modeling mobile learning systems. Doctoral
Dissertation, Universite
´Laval, Canada.
Mouyabi JSM (2012) E-learning and m-learning: Africa’s search for a suitable concept in the era of
cloud computing? World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of
Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 6(5): 784–790.
Naismith L, Lonsdale P, Vavoula G, et al. (2004) Literature Review in Mobile Learning. Bristol, UK:
NESTA (National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts).
Najmi A and Lee J (2009) as cited in Pollara PC (2011) Mobile learning in higher education: A glimpse
and a comparison of student and faculty readiness, attitudes and perceptions. PhD Thesis, Louisiana
State University.
Nash S (2005) Learning objects, learning object repositories, and learning theory: Preliminary best
practices for online courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning
1(1): 217–228.
Nawaz A and Khan MZ (2012) Issues of technical support for e-learning systems in Higher Education
Institutions. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science 4(2): 38–44.
Nore
´n CI and Wiklund M (2014) Learning paradigms in workplace e-learning research. Knowledge
Management & E-Learning 6(3): 299–315.
Office of Digital Learning. Retrieved from https://odl.mit.edu/value-digital-learning (accessed 22
June 2017).
Oliver R (2001) Assuring the quality of online learning in Australian higher education. In: Proceedings
of moving online II conference, pp. 222–231. Lismore: Southern Cross University.
Basak et al. 213

Oloruntoba R (2006) Mobile Learning Environments: A Conceptual Overview. In Brown, A (Ed.)
Learning on the Move: Proceedings of the Online Learning and Teaching Conference 2006,26
September 2006, Australia, Queensland, Brisbane.
Olsson M, Peter M and Jonas C (2015) Visualisation and gamification of e-learning and programming
education. Electronic Journal of E-Learning 13(6): 441–454.
OpenEdSolution (2011) Digital Learning 2020: A Policy Report for Kentucky’s Digital Future.
Ozkan S and Koseler R (2009) Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the
higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education 53(4): 1285–1296.
Palmer SR and Holt DM (2009) Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning 25(2): 101–113.
Papanis E (2005) Traditional Teaching versus e-learning. Experimental Approach, Statistical Review 1
(1): 19–35
Pegrum M, Howitt C and Striepe M (2013) Learning to take the tablet: How pre-service
teachers use iPads to facilitate their learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
29(4): 464–479.
Podlacha G, Alscher C, Amaya S, et al. (2016) Digital adult education – A key to global development?
Retrieved from www.dvv-international.de/fileadmin/files/Inhalte_Bilder_und_Dokumente/
Materialien/IPE/IPE_73_web.pdf
P~
oldoja H, V€
aljataga T, Laanpere M, et al. (2012) Web-based self-and peer-assessment of teachers’
digital competencies. World Wide Web 17(2): 255–269.
Pollara P (2011) Mobile learning in higher education: A glimpse and a comparison of student and faculty
readiness, attitudes and perceptions. PhD Thesis, Duquesne University, USA.
Polsani P (2003) Network learning. In: Nyinri K (ed.) Mobile Learning Essay on Philosophy,
Psychology and Education. Vienna: Passage Verlag, 139–150.
Quinn C (2000) MLearning mobile, wireless, in your pocket learning. LiNE Zine. Retrieved from
http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm
Qureshi IA, Ilyas K, Yasmin R, et al. (2012) Challenges of implementing e-learning in a Pakistani
university. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL)
4(3): 310–324.
Qureshi QA, Nawaz A and Khan N (2011) Prediction of the problems, user-satisfaction and prospects
of e-learning in HEIs of KPK, Pakistan. International Journal of Science and Technology Education
Research 2(2): 13–21.
Renton School District (n.d.) What is digital learning? Retrieved from www.rentonschools.us/
Page/2584.
Robin BR (2008) Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom.
Theory into Practice 47(3): 220–228.
Rosenberg MJ (2001) E-Learning Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Ryan D (2012) E-learning modules: DLR Associates Series. Available at: https://books.google.ca/
books?id=bYxMVVzdV80C&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Contextualþperspectiveþe-lear
ning&source=bl&ots=jHSR1RwM0T&sig=kfm-k8Jnd1Jb6Yx7mpzyaY8bAsk&hl=en&sa=
X&ved=0ahUKEwjLo-z_itfUAhXLVz4KHVn1DO0Q6AEISzAG#v=onepage&q=Contextual
%20perspective%20e-learning&f=false
Sa
´nchez-Prieto JC, Olmos-Miguela
´~
nez S and Garc
ıa-Pe~
nalvo FJ (2016) Informal tools in formal
contexts: Development of a model to assess the acceptance of mobile technologies among teachers.
Computers in Human Behavior 55(Part A): 519–528.
Sangi NA (2008) Electronic assessment issues and practices in Pakistan: A case study. Learning, Media
and Technology 33(3): 191–206.
Sarah C, Jane B, R
ona
´n O, et al. (2004) Quality assurance for digital learning object repositories:
Issues for the metadata creation process. ALT 12(1): 5–20.
214 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)

Selim HM (2007) Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models.
Computers & Education 49(2): 396–413.
Sharma SK and Kitchens FL (2004) Web services architecture for m-learning. International Journal of
Mobile Communications 2(1): 203–216.
Siemens G and Baker R (2012) Learning analytics and educational data mining: towards communi-
cation and collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics
and knowledge, pp. 252–254, ACM, New York, USA.
Slade S (2013) Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist
57(10): 1510–1529.
Sobri HA and Fatimah WW (2012) The development of new conceptual model for mobile school. In:
Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent system and informatics (ISI 2012) (Vol. 42),
14–16 November, Valetta, Malta.
Song Y (2007) Educational uses of handheld devices: What are the uses? TechTrends: Linking Research
and Practice to Improve Learning 51(5): 38–45.
Soualah-Alila F, Nicolle C and Mendes F (2013) Towards a methodology for semantic and context-
aware mobile learning. In: The Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology. 3rd ed. IGI
Global, 10p. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00876023/document
Suhonen J (2005) A formative development method for digital learning environments in sparse learning
communities. PhD Thesis, University of Joensuu, Joensuu, Finland.
Tittasiri W (2003) A comparison of e-learning and traditional learning: Experimental approach.
International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Science 12(3): 67–74.
Tlambda S (2014) E-learning pedagogy part 2: The cognitive perspective. Retrieved from http://blog.
lambdasolutions.net/e-learning-pedagogy-part-2-the-cognitive-perspective
Traxler J (2007) Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and
having writ. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 8(2): 1–12.
Trinder J (2005) Mobile technologies and systems. Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and
trainers. In: Kuklska-Hulme A (ed.) Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Educators and Trainers.
USA: Taylor & Francis, pp. 7–24.
UNESCO (2011) UNESCO mobile learning week report. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/fileadmin/
MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/ICT/pdf/UNESCO%20MLW%20report%20final%2019jan.pdf
Upadhyay N (2006) M-Learning – A new paradigm in education. International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning 3(2): 27–34.
VanderArk T and Schneider C (2012) How digital learning contributes to deeper learning. Retrieved
from www.faithformationlearningexchange.net/uploads/5/2/4/6/5246709/__digital_learning__
deeper_learning.pdf
Van Eck R (2006) Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless.
EDUCAUSE Review 41(2): 16.
Veerasamy BD (2010) The overall aspects of e-learning issues, developments, opportunities and chal-
lenges. Proceedings of World Academy of Science: Engineering & Technology 4(3): 364–367.
Victoria State Government (2017). Retrieved from www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/sup
port/Pages/elearningcurriculum.aspx
Wains SI and Mahmood W (2008) Integrating m-learning with e-learning. In: Proceedings of the 9th
ACM SIGITE conference on Information technology education, pp. 31–38. Cincinnati, OH,
USA: ACM.
Walker K (2007) Introduction: Mapping the landscape of mobile learning. In: Sharples M (ed.) Big
Issue in Mobile Learning: A Report of a New Workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence
Mobile Learning Initiative. UK: University of Nottingham, pp. 5–6.
Wang M, Ran W, Liao J, et al. (2010) A performance-oriented approach to e-learning in the work-
place. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 13(4): 167–179.
Wentling TL, Waight C, Gallaher J, et al. (2000) E-learning: A review of literature. In: Knowledge and
Learning Systems Group. USA: University of Illions at Urbana-Champaign, pp. 1–73.
Basak et al. 215

Wit MD and Dompseler HV (n.d.) How to create a digital learning environment consisting of various
components and acting as a whole? Retrived from http://www.eunis.org/download/2017/EUNIS_
2017_paper_16.pdf
Yang T-C, Hwang G-J and Yang SJ-H (2013) Development of an adaptive learning system with
multiple perspectives based on students’ learning styles and cognitive styles. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society 16(4): 185.
Zhao Y and Zhu Q (2010) Influence factors of technology acceptance model in mobile learning. In:
4th International conference on genetic and evolutionary computing (ICGEC), IEEE Shenzhen,
China, pp. 542–545.
Author Biographies
Sujit Kumar Basak is a researcher in the Interdisciplinary Research and Development Center
for Lifelong Learning (CIRDEF-UQAM), Department of specialized education and training,
Universite
´du Que
´bec a
`Montre
´al (UQA
`M), Canada. His research interests are e-learning,
workplace training, lifelong learning, and smart cities. Email: sujitbasakmca@gmail.com
Marguerite Wotto is an associate professor, researcher, and coordinator of the
Interdisciplinary Research and Development Center for Lifelong Learning (CIRDEF-
UQAM), Department of specialized education and training, Universite
´du Que
´bec a
`
Montre
´al (UQA
`M), Canada. Her research focuses on distance learning, workplace training,
lifelong learning, smart and learning cities, corporate social responsibility, environment, and
program evaluation. Email: wotto.marguerite@uqam.ca
Paul Be
´langer is a professor and director of the Interdisciplinary Research and Development
Center for Lifelong Learning (CIRDEF-UQAM), Department of specialized education and
training, Universite
´du Que
´bec a
`Montre
´al (UQA
`M), Canada. He dedicates his research to
adult education and learning, lifelong learning policies, workplace training development,
smart and learning cities. Email: belanger.paul@uqam.ca
216 E-Learning and Digital Media 15(4)