The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The myths about e‐learning in higher education
Abstract
Proponents have marketed e‐learning by focusing on its adoption as the right thing to do while disregarding, among other things, the concerns of the potential users, the adverse effects on users and the existing research on the use of e‐learning or related innovations. In this paper, the e‐learning‐adoption proponents are referred to as the technopositivists . It is argued that most of the technopositivists in the higher education context are driven by a personal agenda, with the aim of propagating a technopositivist ideology to stakeholders. The technopositivist ideology is defined as a ‘compulsive enthusiasm’ about e‐learning in higher education that is being created, propagated and channelled repeatedly by the people who are set to gain without giving the educators the time and opportunity to explore the dangers and rewards of e‐learning on teaching and learning. Ten myths on e‐learning that the technopositivists have used are presented with the aim of initiating effective and constructive dialogue, rather than merely criticising the efforts being made.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,322
The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001 · Cited by 18,010
The Knowledge-Creating Company
Nonaka, I. (1998) · The Economic Impact of Knowledge · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7009-8.50016-1 · Cited by 14,619
Valente, T. W. (2003) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.gim.0000061743.67794.c4 · Cited by 13,723
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1
Prensky, M. (2001) · On the Horizon · doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 · Cited by 11,104
Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy
Reid, L. A., & Polanyi, M. (1959) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3119338 · Cited by 7,538
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants
(2012) · From Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom: Hopeful Essays for 21st Century Learning · doi:10.4135/9781483387765.n6 · Cited by 7,107
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think Differently?
Prensky, M. (2001) · On the Horizon · doi:10.1108/10748120110424843 · Cited by 4,035
Cited by
Tracking e-learning through published papers: A systematic review
Rodrigues, H., Almeida, F., Figueiredo, V., & Lopes, S. L. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.007 · Cited by 399
Azizan, S. A., & Abu Shamsi, N. (2022) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.860097 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Njenga, J. K., & Fourie, L. C. H.
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-02-10
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 199-212
- ISSN
- 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8535
- OpenAlex
- W2012854001
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 40.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The myths about e‐learning in higher education. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00910.x
- The paper
- Njenga, J. K., & Fourie, L. C. H. (2010). The myths about e‐learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00910.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.