First published as Byrne, Jody (2008) Learning Technology in the Translation Classroom. Proceedings of the XVIII FIT World Congress 2008 in Shanghai, China.

The Internet has touched virtually every area of human activity and it presents tremendous possibilities as well as serious challenges. Translation is one area which has experienced significant changes as a result of the Internet. These changes are manifest in terms of the demand for translation, the way translators work and in the way translation is taught. E-learning, defined by Wentling et al. (2000:5) “the acquisition and use of knowledge distributed and facilitated primarily by electronic means”, is a $23 billion industry (Driscoll 2002) which is generating increased interest in the translation community. A range of tools, such as Virtual Learning Environments, online forums, email, chat etc. are available to translator trainers and this paper will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using these technologies in terms of design, delivery, quality and workload. It will also examine ways in which these technologies can be used in practice.

1.    Current Issues in E-Learning

E-learning is without doubt gaining in popularity in the current educational climate and more importance is being attached to its inclusion in teaching and learning strategies, not least because of its economic benefits (Joy-Matthews et.al. 2004; Kruse 2004; Rodriguez 2002). However, the proliferation of e-learning does not necessarily mean that it is being used effectively. As Bain and McNaught point out, many academics adopt Internet-based technologies to support their teaching but often this is done in quite limited forms (2006:99). A frequently cited criticism of attitudes to e-learning technologies is that they are regarded as little more than online repositories for learning materials that would normally be distributed in face-to-face classes or, to use Massey’s description, a decentralised electronic classroom management system (2005:630). Massey goes on to say that equating this with e-learning, as many teachers seem to, is to reduce it to an electronic postal service and notice-board (ibid.).

In their 2006 study into how academics use learning technologies in teaching, Bain and McNaught identified a key issue in the literature on e-learning which might account, in part, for this under-utilisation of the technologies. Claiming that attitudes to e-learning and the subsequent use of associated technologies are to a certain extent shaped by the educational philosophy of the individual teacher and their institutions, they identified two broad types of educator: those who believe that the aim of learning is to reproduce established knowledge, and those who believe that learning is the outcome of an understanding process which, while assisted by teachers, must be constructed by the students themselves (2006:100).

One might assume that deploying learning technologies in such a way that they merely relieves teachers of the need to distribute notes and assignments might be equated with a transmissionist view of education. It would, however, be unfair and disingenuous to say that this is always the case for the fact of the matter is that e-learning is still in its infancy and it is highly likely that many educators are still trying to find their feet with the new technologies and associated teaching methods. Indeed, Bain and McNaught (2006) found that while there are differences of approach among groups of teachers with different teaching philosophies, reliably equating a particular e-learning strategy with a particular educational attitude proved difficult. Pym (2001:4) also adopts a more measured view when he says that we are still in a period of experimentation when it comes to e-learning, due in part to the lack of empirical experience upon which we can base our approaches. This being the case it is not unreasonable to assume that it is the relative novelty of the technology which means that it is still regarded more as a new means of flexible delivery than as a medium which presents a new paradigm for learning (Santally and Raverdy 2006:312).

2.    Challenges in Deploying E-Learning

Santally and Raverdy (2006:318ff) identified several barriers to the teaching and learning process in relation to e-learning and these go some way to explaining the difficulties in making the most of learning technologies. These same barriers also provide us with a clear indication of the issues we need to consider when developing e-learning resources.
•    The need for changes to the teaching and learning culture
•    Proficiency in IT and the availability of technical support
•    Professional and social commitments
•    Internet access and costs
•    Evaluation and assessment policies

With regard to the need to adapt to new teaching and learning cultures we can say that by virtue of the fact that learning takes place outside a traditional face-to-face setting, students on an e-learning course must assume a greater degree of responsibility for their learning. For many students, this requires a substantial amount of adaptation, particularly for first-time e-learners. This problem is compounded by the fact that in many countries the “spoon-feeding” approach to teaching is still prevalent (Santally and Raverdy 2006:319) and students who are used to being provided with all of the required materials, instructions and even answers suddenly find themselves in a situation where they are required to create their own answers and knowledge (Kiraly 2003).

While it is fairly safe to say that IT is no longer a mysterious subject accessible to few, there are potential problems raised by the IT proficiency of students and the lack of technical support for students. Most students have at least some basic IT skills; some may even have what could be termed a respectable level of proficiency in the use of computers. However, such proficiency, according to Santally and Raverdy (ibid.), often relates to the use of general office programs and standard communication tools such as email and web browsing. Santally and Raverdy found that this proficiency alone was not always enough to prepare students who are faced with online discussions, chatrooms, forums, wikis, multimedia content and so on. Not only do such technologies pose certain technological challenges for students but they also require an understanding of the language, customs, etiquette and strategies needed to make optimum use of these tools. From this point of view, the learning curve for some students becomes steeper and longer.

The off-site nature of e-learning also places the onus for ensuring accessibility and availability of IT resources on the students. Even highly computer-literate users may hit a stonewall when it comes to resolving technical problems such as computer crashes, corrupt files, computer viruses and the like. In addition to the distress and loss of confidence caused by such problems, students can also incur additional expense for repairs, and possibly even travel expenses if they need to use the resources on campus. Indeed, this can severely curtail one of the key benefits of e-learning, i.e. constant, anytime access to materials. It is, therefore, vital that contingencies are in place for this and to ensure that materials and resources are as compatible as possible with as many different computer platforms as possible.

Professional and social commitments also pose significant challenges for students and developers of e-learning courses alike. By not having fixed contact hours as is the case with face-to-face courses, many e-learning courses are highly attractive to part-time students who need to assume responsibility for managing their own learning time and balancing it against their professional and social obligations. Since most learning will take place outside the traditional working day, students with irregular working hours or those who work shifts may find that work may encroach upon and disrupt their studies, often at quite short notice. While this is a problem for all students (especially part-time students) and is not unique to e-learning, it is nevertheless essential that contingencies are in place to allow students to catch up and to communicate difficulties with the course staff.

Related to the whole area of IT facilities is the issue of Internet access. Much of the discussions of e-learning in the literature assume students have unlimited, high-speed Internet access which is charged at a flat-rate. Unfortunately this is not the case in many parts of the world. Even in supposedly advanced industrial nations broadband Internet access can still be limited and costly. The alternative is dial-up Internet access which is both slow and expensive. The lack of broadband means that learning resources need to be small enough to allow students to access them in a reasonable amount of time and without incurring excessive charges. The cost of dial-up Internet access may prove prohibitive for students so download times and the time students spend online need to be appropriate to the access speeds available.

Just as e-learning, if used to its full potential, involves a change in teaching philosophy and strategies, it ultimately requires us to revisit our approaches to evaluation and assessment. The interactive, communicative and social nature of e-learning means that we cannot simply rely on examination or essay-style assessments. Similarly, the possibilities offered by e-learning technologies makes available a new level of flexibility in designing project-based, collaborative assessments. Even traditional quiz-based assessments can be transformed into fun and highly effective exercises as demonstrated by Wang (2007). It is crucial, therefore, that assessment strategies and methods are fully thought-out when deploying an e-learning course.
Assuming that these issues have all been taken into account, we will be better placed to begin developing e-learning resources. In the following sections, we will examine some key methods for incorporating learning technologies into teaching practice and it will highlight key considerations in this regard.

3.    Making the Most of E-Learning

Rodriguez (2002:1) asserts that defining and discussing e-learning invariably involves some form of comparison with traditional face-to-face learning. By comparing e-learning with face-to-face learning we not only gain a better insight into what e-learning is but also into how we can make most use of its capabilities. Such a comparison helps us to make a crucial distinction between the applications of e-learning, namely to replace face-to-face teaching or to supplement it. E-learning which is intended to replace traditional face-to-face learning is sometimes referred to using the generic term “distance learning”, although this term can include learning which does not necessarily involve electronic resources. Learning which uses e-learning to supplement face-to-face learning, is described as blended learning, defined by Motteram (2006:17) as “the bringing together of traditional physical classes with elements of virtual education”. In terms of learning outcomes and the success of learners it could be argued that a blended approach combines the best of both worlds in that it makes use of the most attractive features of both teaching modes. A more pragmatic, perhaps more cynical view, would be that the blended approach means that any problems in the design of the materials, for example, can be quickly addressed in the face-to-face part of the course. However, there is evidence to support the view that a blended approach really is more beneficial. El-Deghaidy and Nouby in their 2007 study of a blended e-learning course for pre-service teachers found that not only did students achieve better learning results but they also reported greater levels of satisfaction with the course and their learning.

However, there is a risk that adopting a blended approach might simply result in an unnecessary increase in the workload for staff and for students (see Santally and Raverdy 2006:318). This is particularly true if the two strands, i.e. face-to-face and online, are not integrated in a coherent and meaningful way. As El-Deghaidy and Nouby point out, blended e-learning requires “new pedagogic skills in order that the learner gains the most from the presented course” (2007: 2).

Beyond this, however, e-learning resources need to be designed in such a way that they are highly interactive (Massey 2005:630) and conducive to collaboration, both between individual students and between teachers and students. Indeed, combining face-to-face learning with forums which allow collaboration and interaction among students and staff as well as online resources is widely regarded as best-practice in e-learning pedagogy (Folaran 2003; Horton 2000). This idea of collaboration among students and staff is very much in line with the constructivist approach to learning, particularly as applied to translator training by Kiraly (2000; 2003) where students are expected to discover and/or create their own knowledge through participating in authentic professional activities (Kiraly 2003: 28).

Collaboration and interaction also allow students to share information and obtain feedback more readily. This interaction among all participants in a class helps to create a sense of community in the class and there are various studies which attest to the fact that learning occurs best in a community environment (Johnson et al. 2008; Hiltz 1994). But as Thompson and MacDonald (2005:234) point out “a learning community does not develop easily or intuitively, [so] practitioners must thoughtfully weave strategies for community-building into their course designs”. One of the strategies proposed by Thompson and MacDonald is the use of “triads” of students, i.e. subgroups within the main class group consisting of three students who provide a familiar support group to kick-start interaction and which can become the seeds of a learning community (2005:239).

4.    Applications of E-Learning in Translator Training

In order to make the best possible use of e-learning technologies in the training of translators, taking into account the points raised above, it is necessary to consider what we need to teach on translation courses. To do this we need to examine what is meant by the term “translation competence”. The PACTE Group at the Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona defines translation competence as “the underlying system of knowledge and skills needed to be able to translate” (2000:100). This simple definition is based on six sub-competences which PACTE identify as:

1. Communicative Competence in two languages
2. Extra-linguistic Competence
3. Instrumental-Professional Competence
4. Psycho-Physiological Competence
5. Transfer Competence
6. Strategic Competence

Communicative competence is defined as the system of skills needed for linguistic communication, and in the case of translation, this competence is divided into source language comprehension and target language production. Extra-linguistic competence is what is commonly referred to as world knowledge and specialist knowledge. It is this knowledge which allows the translator to understand what a text is about. Instrumental-professional competence consists of a translators knowledge and skills in relation to the translation profession as a whole as well as the tools used by practitioners. PACTE explain that this can include an extremely diverse spectrum of sub-components such as research skills and information literacy, technical skills and a knowledge of working practices, ethics and professional conduct. Psycho-physiological competence refers to a translator’s ability to use various psychomotor, cognitive and attitudinal resources to facilitate, for example, reading, writing, cognitive functions such as memory, attention and problem-solving. Transfer competence is, according to PACTE, the competence which links together all of the other competences and which guides the translator through the translation process from source text reception to target text production. Strategic competence refers to the various individual conscious and unconscious, verbal and non-verbal procedures which are used by translators to solve the different problems  encountered during the translation process. This relates to the specific strategies used by translators while translating.

In order to achieve overall translation competence it is necessary to acquire each individual sub-competence, gradually adding declarative knowledge, building upon it and integrating it with existing knowledge until such time as it becomes operative knowledge which, as PACTE point out is the very foundation of translation competence (ibid.). Over time, as the sub-competences become more stable and reliable, they will begin to interact with each other and form cognitive links at various levels. Of the six competences outlined above, e-learning is, perhaps, most easily applied to the acquisition of instrumental-professional competence and strategic competence, even though most, if not all, of the other competences can be taught via e-learning.

Part of the attraction of e-learning in a translation context is that it requires students to use the very tools which will later form a central part of the professional work. In addition, it also makes it possible to recreate and facilitate various real-life work scenarios such as downloading and working on electronic texts, using translation memory tools, working collaboratively as part of a distributed team, sharing resources etc. It is even possible to simulate the interaction between translators on professional translator forums such as Proz, Aquarius and Translator’s Café. Such a strategy is used on the German translation module at the University of Sheffield where an “Ask the Class” forum (see Figure 1) allows students to ask for help and advice from other members of the class in relation to each translation assignment. So from this point of view,  the need for instrumental competence and, to a certain extent, strategic competence, are clearly catered for. Jekat and Massey (2003:51) also contend that e-learning also provides an ideal environment for students to gain practical experience of various software tools. In the case of Jekat and Massey, they used product demonstrations as part of an online course. Again, this approach has also been used at the University of Sheffield where Flash-based tutorials created using Camtasia (which will be discussed later) are used on the Translation Technologies module to teach students how to use certain software functions.

The collaborative nature of well-conceived e-learning classes is also conducive to the development of strategic skills where students share, try out and discuss translation problems and strategies and in doing so, acquire new ideas for tackling different translation problems. This constructivist environment allows students to achieve much more in terms of learning than if they were working in isolation.

5.    Tools

Having discussed various considerations in the deployment of e-learning methods and identified key areas where they can be of most use in the training of translators, the following paragraphs will look at a number of tools which can be used to develop and deliver e-learning courses.

When discussing e-learning tools it is useful to distinguish between two broad categories of technologies: those which facilitate communication and those which facilitate the presentation and dissemination of materials and resources. While interaction, collaboration and communication are undoubtedly among the most important aspects of any e-learning strategy   particularly if we are to avoid the situation outlined earlier on where the technologies are simply used as an online repository of materials which would normally be distributed in face-to-face classes – there are also cases where it is necessary to provide purely factual information in the form of reading and reference materials, images, video, audio etc. depending on the topic and learning outcomes. It is for this reason that focussing exclusively on communication tools would be to omit an important part of the e-learning toolkit.

5.1    Virtual Learning Environments versus Stand-Alone Tools

The various technologies needed to engage with e-learning are based on the Internet and can include conferencing tools, content management systems, communication tools, databases etc. To make it easier for teachers to design e-learning courses, a range of all-in-one-solutions which combine all of the necessary tools into a single, unified suite have emerged. Such suites are referred to as Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) or as Learning Management Systems (LMS). Common examples of such suites include Moodle (see Figure 2) and WebCT (see Figure 3). The advantage of these suites is that once set up, they provide teachers with a host of different tools which can be accessed, combined and managed from within a single interface. Such VLEs are generally deployed on an institution-wide basis and so it may not always be practical for individual teachers to obtain and use one. One reason for this is that products can be very expensive and are generally only affordable for large institutions who have made a strategic commitment to invest significantly in e-learning. It is worth pointing out, however, that Moodle is an open-source product and can be downloaded and used free of charge. For more information on Moodle, Fictumova (2004) presents an interesting case study of how Moodle can be used to enhance translator training courses.

However, the financial cost of acquiring a VLE notwithstanding, there are additional costs and requirements involved in using VLEs. The first of which is access to a web server which is capable of running various scripts and storing what can be quite large databases. Installing, configuring and commissioning such systems is a complicated process which requires a high level of technical knowledge. Similarly, the on-going management of such systems requires time and technical expertise. Assuming the financial, staff and technical resources are available, VLEs are easy to use and their polished, integrated interface provides a reliable and effective portal to various learning resources.

While VLEs such as Moodle and WebCT certainly provide an integrated solution for creating and running e-learning courses, they are not the only way of utilising technology to develop e-learning courses. Most, if not all, of the most important features of VLEs – such as communication, collaboration, timetabling and presentation of resources – are all available for free from a variety of sources. The following paragraphs will look at the communication and collaboration tools available as part of VLEs and as stand-alone tools.

5.1.1    Email

While email is not by any means a new or sophisticated technology it can, in the absence of any other alternatives, be used to facilitate communication between groups of people. Creating mailing lists with the email addresses of every member of the class can provide a simple and very basic for sharing materials and supporting class discussions. Problems can arise as a result of the fact that there is no centralised repository where students can revisit discussions and emails can rapidly becoming unwieldy and difficult to read, particularly if the discussion is active or involves many people.

5.1.2    Forums

Forums are an essential tool for achieving both interaction and collaboration within an e-learning class. At the most basic level, forums are a type of electronic notice board where students and staff can post and respond to messages asynchronously, i.e. with a time lag as opposed to instantly. An advantage of this type of interaction is that it allows students to follow discussion threads and read responses from other students, post comments and reply to messages. The fact that this method is asynchronous means that students have time to digest messages and consider their own responses.

More sophisticated forums allow users to include attachments with their messages and this makes them useful for sharing materials or for disseminating assignments. All VLEs include a forum component but there are alternative methods for using forums. One popular way of creating forums is to set up a social website such as a Yahoo Group. Such sites are online communities which allow members who share a common interest to interact and communicate with each other. Communities created with Yahoo Groups can be restricted so that only authorised members who have been approved by a moderator (the course owner or teacher) can access and contribute to discussions. The benefit of this approach is that it is free and all technical management and administration tasks are taken care of by Yahoo. One of the drawbacks of this type of tool is that there is inevitably a certain amount of advertising in the form of banner ads which are used to generate revenue for the company providing the tools. However, if it is possible to gain access to a web server (whether university-owned or rented from a third party) it is possible to use free systems such as phpBB or YaBB (see Figure 4) to create online communities with various functions, including forums and instant messaging. The advantage of this is that, with the necessary technical skills it is possible to modify the design and layout of the site to suit your own requirements and preferences. However, although the software is free, it is still necessary to have administrator access to a server where the software will be installed and managed.

5.1.3    Conferencing and Chat

In contrast to forums which are used for asynchronous communication, chat rooms and conferencing tools are used for synchronous communication, i.e. communication takes place instantly and in real-time. The advantage of this is that students gain immediate feedback and responses to comments and questions. Due to the relatively fast pace at which communication takes place in chat rooms, communication is less likely to be detailed as is the case with forum posts. However, the benefit of chat is in the speed, not in the comprehensiveness of the material communicated. Like forums, most if not all VLEs incorporate some form of chat function. However, there are other chat tools for real-time group discussions, many of which are freely available. Such tools include Windows Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, ICQ, Skype and Jabber. It is worth point out that students can access both Yahoo Messenger and Yahoo Groups using the same user account. From a technical point of view, they can therefore be integrated quite easily into an e-learning strategy because students use the same username and password to access both tools.

5.1.4    Video Resources

As described by Jekat and Massey (2003), e-learning is an ideal environment for teaching instrumental competences using software tools. The multimedia nature of the web means that we are not restricted to using static, text-based web pages to impart information. Instead we can use a combination of audio, video and animations to produce rich and informative learning materials. For the purposes of teaching students how to use software, we need to be able to show them what is taking place on-screen when the software is being used. There are various methods for achieving this. One option is to use online conferencing tools such as LiveLook, Clip2Screen, Live Office, WebEx or AccuConference which allow teachers to broadcast live pictures of actions taking place on-screen.

This is often a low-cost approach because several of the tools are freely available. One limitation is that the materials are only available synchronously, i.e. students must all be present while the teacher is demonstrating the software. Much like face-to-face classes, there is no permanent record which students can consult later and there is no possibility of students accessing the materials at a more convenient time. One method for overcoming this is to use screen recording software such as Camtasia (see Figure 5). This software allows users to record actions performed on a computer screen, add audio narrations and captions and package the resulting productions for distribution on the Internet. One of the key advantages of this method is that it is infinitely reusable and once uploaded onto a server, recordings can be accessed by students at any time and replayed as many times as required. This method is, however, limited to recording actions which can be directly observed on a computer screen, i.e. mouse movements, typing, selecting menu options etc. However, as this technique is proposed as a way of developing software skills, there is no major problem. Creating such resources does require careful planning and practice to ensure that the video proceeds smoothly and at an appropriate speed and that any captions appear for a sufficient length of time.

6.    Conclusions

From the preceding paragraphs it is clear that e-learning is a tremendously important area of pedagogy which is steadily becoming more prolific. With e-learning still at very much at an early stage in its development it is clear that there is still much to learn in order to make the best use of the technologies if we are to ensure that the technologies are not used simply as a means of disseminating materials. Among the various challenges facing adopters of e-learning technologies are the issues of modifying teaching philosophies to embrace the full gamut of possibilities on offer, securing the availability and accessibility of the technological resources and infrastructure and designing courses so that they provide an effective environment within which the technologies can work.
It has also been shown that a blended approach which combines traditional face-to-face learning with e-learning is widely regarded as best-practice, particularly when teaching translation. In this context, collaboration, communication and interaction are key considerations which need to be incorporated into the design of courses.

In terms of actually developing courses, there are various specialist e-learning systems available which provide myriad functions and tools. However, they are not always easily available (often for cost reasons) and even where they are, they may prove daunting to those who do not have the requisite technical expertise to set up and manage such tools. There are, however, other options which are both less expensive and which require less technical involvement from teachers. Such tools can provide a useful starting point for the development of e-learning courses or they even become the mainstay of an e-learning strategy. Consequently, learning technologies can incorporated into courses relatively easily and can achieve valuable results.

7.    Bibliography

• Bain, J.D. and C. McNaught (2006) “How academics use technology in teaching and learning: understanding the relationship between beliefs and practice”. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (22), pp.99-113
• Driscoll, M. (2002) Web-based training: Creating e-learning experiences. (2nd Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeifer
• El-Deghaidy, H. and A. Nouby (2007) [in press] “Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education programme”. Computers and Education (2007), doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.001
• Fictumova, J. (2004) “Technology-enhanced Translator Training”. In: Elia Yuste (ed.) COLING 2004 – Second International Conference on Language Resources for Translation Work, Research and Training. Geneva: COLING, pp.31-36
• Folaran, D. (2003) “Notes on Translator Training”. in A. Pym, C. Fallada, J.R. Biau and J. Orenstein (eds) Innovation and E-Learning in Translator Training: Reports on Online Symposia. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira I Virgili, pp.65-69
• Hiltz, S.R. (1994) The Virtual Classroom: Learning Without Limits via Computer Networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company
• Horton, W.K. (2000) Designing Web-Based Training. New York: Wiley
• Jekat, S.J. and G. Massey (2003) “The Puzzle of Translation Skills. Towards an Integration of E-Learning and Special Concepts of Computational Linguistics into the Training of Future Translators.” Linguistik online 17, 5/03, pp.41-55
• Johnson, R.D., S. Hornik and E. Salas (2008) “An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments”. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 66(2008), pp.356-369
• Joy-Matthews, J., D. Megginson and M. Surtees (2004) Human resource development. (3rd. Edition). London: Kogan Page
• Kiraly, D. (2000) A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education: Empowerment from Theory to Practice. Manchester: St. Jerome
• Kiraly, D. (2003) “From Teacher-Centred to Learning-Centred Classrooms in Translator Education: Control, Chaos or Collaboration?” in A. Pym, C. Fallada, J.R. Biau and J. Orenstein (eds) Innovation and E-Learning in Translator Training: Reports on Online Symposia. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira I Virgili, pp.27-31
• Kruse, K. (2004) The benefits and drawbacks of e-learning. [online] Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art1_3.htm [Accessed: 12/03/08]
• Massey, G. (2005) “Process-Orientated Translator Training and the Challenge for E-Learning”. Meta (50)2, pp.626-633
• Motteram, G. (2006) “’Blended’ education and the transformation of teachers: a long-term case study in postgraduate UK Higher Education”. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 37 No. 1, 2006, pp.17-30
• PACTE (2000) “Acquiring Translation Competence: Hypotheses and Methodological Problems of a Research Project” in A. Beeby, D. Ensinger and M. Presas (eds) Investigating Translation: Selected Papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona 1998. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.99-106
• Pym, A. (2001) E-Learning and Translator Training. [online] Available from: http://www.tinet.org/~apym/on-line/training/2001_elearning.pdf [Accessed on: 12/03/08]
• Rodriguez, M. (2002) “The difference between presence-based education and distance learning”. papers de tradumàtica [online] Available from: www.fti.uab.es/tradumatica/papers/articles/70_eng.pdf [Accessed: 12/03/08]
• Santally, M. and J. Raverdy (2006) “The Master’s Program in Computer-Mediated Computer Communications: A Comparative Study of Two Cohorts of Students”. Education Technology Research & Development 54(2006), pp.312-326
• Thompson, T.L. and C.J. MacDonald (2005) “Community building, emergent design and expecting the unexpected: Creating a quality eLearning experience”. Internet and Higher Education 8(2005), pp.233-249
• Wang, T.H. (2007) [in press] “Web-based quiz-game-like formative assessment: Development and evaluation”. Computers & Education. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.011
• Wentling, T.L, C. Waight, J. Gallaher, J. La Fleur, C. Wang and A. Kanfer (2000) E-Learning: A review of literature. [online] Available from http://learning.ncsa.uiuc.edu/papers/elearnlit.pdf [Accessed: 11/02/08]