DISCUSSION


 * [[image:Button-Previous-icon.png width="64" height="64" caption="NZ TERTIARY" link="CONCLUSION"]] || [[image:Button-Next-icon.png width="64" height="64" caption="CONCLUSION" link="CONCLUSION"]] ||

DISCUSSION
The preceding pages looked at the e-learning practices of New Zealand primary and tertiary institutions, and Japanese tertiary institutions. In looking at e-learning practices, we focused on: (1) the teaching and learning practices and (2) e-learning technology infrastructure, of these educational institutions. We also looked at e-learning government policies of New Zealand and Japan.

In this section, we discuss the similarities and differences of e-learning practices and e-learning government policies in these two countries.


 * E-learning Teaching and Learning Practice **

**Similarities.** The increasing use of computer network technology to "deliver information and instruction to individuals" (Welsh, Wanberg, Brown & Simmering, 2003, p. 246) is evident in New Zealand and Japanese educational institutions. There is also growing recognition of the importance of e-learning at all levels of education (see also Stein, Shepherd & Harris, 2009). However, e-learning technologies have largely been used as “enhancement tools” of existing practice, and not in potentially transformative ways (cf. Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. x; Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009). This seems to reflect a continuing preference for traditional face-to-face teaching among New Zealand and Japanese teachers, even as they recognise the need for teacher development in e-learning. In addition, e-learning practices in New Zealand and Japanese tertiary educational institutions have been rather slow and patchy, for reasons we explore below.

**Differences.** The largely reactive, ad-hoc, and patchy adoption of e-learning practices in New Zealand tertiary institutions observed by Marshall and Mitchell (2006) and Nichols (2008) may be due to a lack of emphasis on innovative teaching practices. The New Zealand government's Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-2015 (Ministry of Education, 2013b, p. 13), for instance, even failed to articulate a policy on e-learning. In addition, government funding through the Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF) is heavily weighted (60%) towards high-quality research (TEC, 2012; Ministry of Education, 2013b), instead of higher-quality teaching and learning which may potentially be achieved through e-learning innovations.

In the case of Japanese tertiary educational institutions, their slow uptake of e-learning practices may be due mainly to the mono-cultural setting (as opposed to the bicultural, even multicultural setting in New Zealand), acting as cultural inertia, which adheres strongly to traditional teaching modes which emphasise teacher dominance in the classroom.


 * E-learning Technology Infrastructure **
 * Similarities. ** In general, both New Zealand and Japanese educational institutions have invested heavily in an e-learning technology infrastructure, including providing resources for Internet access and connectivity, and computer and software use.

**Differences.** The New Zealand tertiary sector is distinguished by a high-level of involvement of private training establishments (PTEs). The Ministry of Education (2013a) reports that there are between 700 and 800 registered PTEs at any one time, including registered private English language schools. These PTEs are typically unable to access government funds which, through the PBRF, are skewed towards research-strong universities. Consequently, many of these PTEs have very poor e-learning technology infrastructure.


 * E-learning Government Policies **

**Similarities.** The e-learning policies of both the Japanese and New Zealand governments acknowledge the importance of e-learning practices in the education sector. In the case of Japan, this is reflected in its “New Deal Plan.” New Zealand’s E-Learning framework for the primary education sector also articulates this importance.

**Differences.** The strategic importance of e-learning is less pronounced in New Zealand tertiary education. For instance, the New Zealand government's Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-2015 failed to articulate a policy on e-learning. In addition, government funding through the PBRF is heavily weighted (60%) towards high-quality research (TEC, 2012; Ministry of Education, 2013b), and less on innovative teaching practices.

= Recommended Reading  = Anderson, Brown, Murray, Simpson, and Mentis (2006) give a broad overview of the global e-learning landscape in their report "[|Global picture, local lessons: E-learning policy and accessibility]". The annual report produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit (2010) entitled "[|Digital economy rankings: Beyond e-readiness]" gives information on how governments can use ICT to their benefit by ranking seventy countries, using both qualitative and quantitative data, on over 100 ICT factors.


 * [[image:Button-Previous-icon.png width="64" height="64" align="left" caption="NZ TERTIARY" link="E-LEARNING POLICY (NZ TERTIARY)"]] || [[image:cultural-differences-elearning/Button-Next-icon.png width="64" align="right" caption="CONCLUSION" link="CONCLUSION"]] ||