P r o c e d i a – S o c i a l a n d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e s 1 1 6 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 3 [619166]

P r o c e d i a – S o c i a l a n d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e s 1 1 6 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 9 9 9 – 2 0 0 3
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.510 ScienceDirect
5th World Conference on Educational Sciences -WCES 2013
SWOT anlysis of e-learning educational services from the
perspective of their beneficiaries
Venera-Mihaela Cojocariu a, Iulia Lazara, Valentin Nedeff a, Gabriel Lazar a *,
a “Vasile Alecsandri” University of Bacau, M ărășești Street no. 157, Bac ău, 600115, Romania































Abstract
The purpose of this analysis is to identify, based on current literature analysis, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats specific to e-learning educational services. The objectives are: 1. identifying, structuring and prioritizing in a “mirror”
system the strenghts and weaknesses, respectively the opportunities and threats; 2. comparing the results in order to define those
aspects with representative impact in future development of the project. The final result consists of the synthesis of weaknesses
and threats as a basis of reflection and reporting for the university strategic management to the problem of e-learning educational
services in the perspective of their optimization.
Keywords: e-learning, e-learning educational services
1. Introduction. E-learning and e-learning educational services
The polysemy of the e-learning term, coupled with the rapid evolution of technology and its application in
learning, illustrates a variety of senses. Most of the terms (online learning, open learning, web-based learning,
computer-mediated learning, blended learning, m-learning, for ex.) have in common the ability to use a computer
connected to a network, that offer the possibility to learn from anywhere, anytime, in any rhythm, with any means.
The meanings extend to the maximum. At one extreme is the e-learning as a philosophy of social learning,
focused on student: [anonimizat], formed at the junction of psycho-logical and pedagogical dimensions and the networks
(Demiray, 2010, vol. II). At the other extreme is the e-learning as a specific way to learn. Maximum restrictive, for
some „e-learning is a tool to make the learning process more flexible, innovative and learner-centred” (Demiray,
2010, vol. I, p. 152, Ozuorcun & Tabak, 2012, p. 301).
Between them there can be ordered a number of other meanings, with different degrees of coverage: theory about
on-line learning, methods of organizing the teaching process, specific learning process, learning strategy, method of
learning. Summarizing a series of reports and recent studies, we conclude that the meaning most often used and with
the most practical coverage is the one that sees e-learning as a specific collaborative procces, conducted through
internet technology, which does not necessarily require the presence of teacher and learner at the same time and
place (Yucel, 2006).











%" !"#" "

%" !"#"#$#!




 



Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.

2000 Venera-Mihaela Cojocariu et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 ( 2014 ) 1999 – 2003
E-learning educational services are el ectronic learning services. These provide education, training, retention,
transfer, consolidation, evaluation, revi ew, systematization. Our analysis narrows to using these only at university
level. Their systematization can be achieved by multiple pedagogical, psychological, tec hnical criteria, including:
the specific of fundamental activity; predominant category of acquired learning content; degree of involvment of the
teacher in using the service; the categor y of learning subject; the age at which th ese will be recovered; beneficiaries;
the number of persons for whom the use of the service was designed; the co re of the service; fundamental type of
instrument used to access the services. This paper pr esents the theoretical background underlying the Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis that was made.
2. SWOT anlysis of e-learning educational services from the perspective of their beneficiaries
Our intention is to identify, structure and prioriti ze in a “mirror” system th e strenghts and weaknesses,
opportunities and threats. Comparing the results allows us to present a synthesis of weaknesses and threats as a
practical basis of reflection and reporting the university strategic management to the problem of e-learning
educational services in the pers pective of their optimization.
2.1. Strengths
1. It is a process in full actional agreement with some of the defining characteristics of learners in the third
millennium. These are „digital natives” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, 2011), who think and process information in a
fundamentally different from their predecessors (INTEL, 2011) so that its correlation with the educational process is
more than normal (Demiray, 2010, volume II).
2. It is characterized by flexibility (Brown & Charlie r, 2012; Cook, 2007; Demiray, 2010, vol. II; Dobre, 2010;
Hsieh & Cho, 2011; Ozuorcun & Tabak, 2012; Rosenberg, 2001; Singh, Pathak, & Naz, 2007; Šolc, Legemza,
Sütőová, & Girmanová, 2012; Wang & Chiu, 2011; Canadian Council on Learning [CCL], 2009), accessibility
(Demiray, 2010, Volume I), geographical independence, respectively mobility (Yucel, 2006; Cook, 2007), all
meaning for the beneficiary of a highe r degree of autonomy in organization, management and implementation of the
process.
3. It provides considerable customiza tion of learning related to the needs of the learner (Clark & Mayer, 2008,
2011; Cook, 2007; Demiray, 2010, vol. II; Dobre, 2010; Liebowitz & Fra nk, 2011; Ozuorcun & Tabak, 2012;
Rosenberg, 2001; Singh et al., 2007; Šolc et al., 2012; Yucel, 2006).
4. It offers a great diversity (methodological (Dobre, 2010) , instrumental (Ozuorcun & Tabak, 2012)), a
substantial and versatile package of methods, procedures , means and techniques of learning as well as learning
processes, integrated and subordinated to e-learning.
5. It provides a specific intuitive character (Clark & Mayer, 2008, 2011; Cook, 2007). In e-learning, written text
and audio message can effectively combine, the kinesthe tic way of presenting the content being added. Color,
images, video components, graphics, animation, complex simulations enrich and facilitate a curriculum that would otherwise be very difficult to learn only from textbooks.
6. It offers interactivity to the process (Clark & Mayer, 2008, 2011; Demi ray, 2010, vol I; Li ebowitz & Frank,
2011; Wang & Chiu, 2011; Wu, Xu, & Ge, 2012; INTEL, 2011 ). Multimedia presentations encourage debate,
existing technical means allow re-creation of processes and their simulation. Image, dynamic, sound and word are
stimulating the connectivity in terms of: cognitive proce sses (sensory and rational, analytic and synthetic, the
representation of thinking) content, people who interact.
7. It achieves a collaborative learning (Clark & Mayer, 2008, 2011; Demiray, 2010, vol I; Wu et al., 2012; Yucel,
2006), managing to constitute, by using platforms a nd networks, a professional learning community.
8. It is motivating (Clark & Mayer, 2008, 2011; Demiray, 2010, vol I; Ozuorcun & Tabak, 2012; Šolc et al.,
2012, CCL, 2009). Carrying out the tasks, the immediate feedback, formative assessment encourages and helps the
increase of self confidence, and gradually makes them expr ess their involvement in learning, and take responsibility

2001 Venera-Mihaela Cojocariu et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 ( 2014 ) 1999 – 2003
of learning. Motivation increases pe rformance and studying without a teacher reduces the stress, according to
research by 50% (Demiray, 2010, vol II, p 534);
9. It provides focus on the learner (Demiray, 2010, vol II ; Ozuorcun & Tabak, 2012). In an approach centered on
the learner, the focus is not on content but on the process, on how to teach and the technology is adapted to assist
closely and continuously the learning process (Clark & Mayer, 2008, 2011).
2.2. Weaknesses
1. Insufficient compatibility between the technological de sign of the service and the psychological component of
the learning process (Clark & Mayer, 2008, 2011), a certain kind of rupture that sometimes occurs between these
two aspects. Not every e-learning educational services automatically involves the expected useful effects.
2. The flexibility and autonomy in learning are relative a nd fragile and can generate traps for both the learner and
for the one who designs and operates the activity both to sp ecific groups of service users in certain contexts, and
teachers (Arabasz, Pirani, Pond, & Fawcett, 2003; Cook, 2007).
3. The limited, inadequate or unattainable character of the learning customizati on (Cook, 2007). Designing the e-
learning educational services is not alwa ys characterized by the best architect ure related to the needs of learners.
Individualization remains rather to the "level of vision th an reality, training being more predetermined than custom
made", introducing the term "un-individuali zation of instruction" (Cook, 2007, p 39).
4. A possible superficiality in lear ning induced by a wide variety of me thodology, tools, processes, due to
imbalances between: training activity that develops digita l competence and the one that develpos academic skills
(CCL, 2009).
5. A certain kind of reduction of the relations between learners, between them and the teacher (Ozuorcun and
Tabak, 2012), a possible loss of direct communication a nd immediate collaboration once the call for learning
technologies, the possibility of, by using e-learning to cr eate dependence on technology and isolation of the learner,
rather than amplifying interactions with those involved in the process (CCL, 2009).
2.3. Opportunities
1. Expansion of technology causes the latter to become a perfect environment for expression and development of
e-learning educational services (Clark & Mayer, 2008, 2011; Motschnig-Pitrik & Standl, 2012; Liebowitz, 2011;
Welsh, Wanberg, Brown, & Simmering, 2003; Dobre, 2010);
2. Radical transformation of all asp ects of education (from access to obtaining diplomas, from final to results,
from process to infrastructure, from teaching to evalua tion, from teacher to students) as a result of technology
dynamics (Demiray, 2010, vol I; Mo tschnig-Pitrik & Standl, 2012).
3. Increasing interest for different categories of bene ficiaries for e-learning educational services. Research
(Danish Technological Institute, 2008) show s that the interest in the deploymen t of e-learning systems is growing
higher and it is visible.
4. Increasing market demand for e-lear ning educational services appears as a natural result of the evolution of
services and the amplification of their need. Statistic s highlight the phenomenon of increasing market share for
digital learning in conjunction with a corresponding decrease in demand for traditional training (Clark & Mayer,
2008, 2011).
5. Relatively lower costs of e-learning services – st udies (Clark & Mayer, 2008, 2011; Cook, 2007; Demiray,
2010, vol I; Dobre, 2010; Oz uorcun & Tabak, 2012; Rosenberg, 2001; Wu et al., 2012; CCL, 2009) emphasizes the
financial aspects such as: reduced distribution costs. 2.4. Threats
1. Exaggerating the positive role of technology generates negative effects such as: the danger of ignoring the
student (Clark & Mayer, 2008, 2011), the possibility of producing an entire generation "of noncritical thinkers"

2002 Venera-Mihaela Cojocariu et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 ( 2014 ) 1999 – 2003
(Liebowitz & Frank, 2011); technical problems (Demiray, 2010, vol I; Demi ray, 2010, Volume II) limiting the
access to services; lack of adequate infrastructure (lack of internet connection, telephone transmission rate and very
low bandwidth, poor ICT infrastructure); "some difficulties of online administering: assuring the security of users,
their registration, monitoring the students and offered services" (Dobre, 2010, p 17).
2. Contradictory effects produced by transforming contemporary educa tion on recipients of e-learning
educational services manifests through a psychological dimension of the beneficiaries correlated with the level of
their training. Some illustrations: a. reluctance to use se rvices; their criticism, negative representation (Demiray,
2010, Volume I) lack of confidence in their efficacy, fear of replacement of the teacher by computer, fear of the
unknown (Demiray, 2010, vol II), lack of trust in e-learni ng programs from students, limited experience in using
computer (Arabasz et al., 2003), b. l ack of training and / or experience of teachers in pedagogy and management of
e-learning (Demiray, 2010, vol I; De miray, 2010, vol II; Ozuorcun & Taba k, 2012). Adjacent, there are other
threats: long time necessary to create and maintain e-lear ning courses (Arabasz et al., 2003), costs of training to
update teaching methods and increased confidence in the new technologies.
3. Insufficient motivation for engagi ng in e-learning and its support – numerous studies, correlating the degree of
financial support for these services with the level of econom ic development of different countries, highlights that in
enough universities there is now adequate financial compen sation for the effort to produce and develop e-learning
materials, there is no motivation system to stimulate the involvement of teachers for implementation of e-learning
services (Demiray, 2010, vol I; Demiray, 2010, Volume II) or the opportunity and / or ability to maintain, as a
student, a high motivation for this long term learning (Yucel, 2006).
4. High dropout rate of students – The flexibility and au tonomy of e-learning are not always the guarantee of
student performance. The lack of face to face ongoing monito ring, the insufficient degree of development of their
responsibility determine the abandonment of consistent learning efforts. Thus, it installs a dropout phenomenon "which is more common in this context than in traditional education" (Dobre, 2010, p.17).
5. Expenditures on e-learning educational services are not as small as they seem. There are broad categories of
expenditures, such as expenditures on new technology (coveri ng the degree of novelty incorporated into services,
transmission of information in the ne twork, maintenance of equipment, pr oduction of materials) (Dobre, 2010). New
services require considerable invest ment in technology and human resources training, specific costs for designing
and developing e-courses and achieving technology that allo ws guest to use the program (Welsh et al., 2003).
Developing online tutorials can be very expensive (C ook, 2007). Although overall serv ice costs are significantly
lower compared to the own classic edu cational process (Dobre, 2010) they can grow pretty much, at least when their
launch, when the rate of orig inality is the highest.
6. Insufficient existence of a normative and legisla tive base on e-learning and digital learning resources
(Demiray, 2010, Volume II). There are studies (Demiray, 2010, Volume I) that demonstrate that both in Europe and
outside it there are a series of worryi ng phenomena: lack of clear stipulation in government policies and legislation
regarding courses and e-learning program s; the lack of quality standards of e-learning programs; lack of quality
controls, of a set of standards for e-cont ent production and their delivery mechanisms.

3. Weaknesses and threats – themes of ref lection for university strategic management

The synthesis of the analysis indicated 5 weaknesses (1. insufficient com
patibility between technological design
of the service and the psychological component of the lear ning process; 2. relative and fragile flexibility and high
degree of learing autonomy; 3. the limite d, inadequate or unattainable character of the learning customization; 4. a
possible superficiality in learning induced by a wide variet y of methodology, tools, proces ses; 5. a certain kind of
reduction of the relations between learners, as well as between them and the teacher) and 6 threats (1. exaggerating
the positive role and impact of technology; 2. contra dictory effects produced by transforming contemporary
education on recipients; 3. insufficient motivation for engaging in e-learning and its s upport; 4. high dropout rate of
students; 5. broad categories of expe nditures, such as expenditures on desi gining, maintaining and training human
resources; 6. insufficient existence of a normative and legi slative base on e-learning and digital learning resources)
of integrating and using e-learning educa tional services in higher education.

2003 Venera-Mihaela Cojocariu et al. / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 ( 2014 ) 1999 – 2003
They represent as many reflection themes for university strategic management interested in producing or
purchasing, respectively integrating these in the learning pro cess. For each of them there should be generated sets of
appropriate measures to reduce and eliminate them, stra ting from changing perceptions and attitudes of managers
towards this category of services and up to identif ying funding sources for this purpose. Psychological and
pedagogical dimensions of this process must remain the priordial and technology must be adapted according to the
known and respected learning particularities of a clearly defined category of beneficiaries.
Acknowledgements
This research was financially supported by the UEFISCDI (Grant PN-II-PT-PCCA- 2011-3.2-1108, “Networked
interactive ceramic whiteboards with integrated sound (ENO) for teachi ng and learning science and technology”).
References
Arabasz, P., Pirani, J., Pond, S., & Fawcett, D. (2003). Supporting E-Learning in Higher Education, Volume 3, Research Study from the
EDUCAUSE, Center for Applied Research, Boulder, Colorado, http://n et.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0303/rs/ers0303w.pdf, accessed on
26.09.2012.
Brown, K. G., & Charlier, St. (2013). An integrative model of e- learning use: Leveraging theory to understand and increase usag e. Human
Resource Management Review , 23(1), 37-49.
Canadian Council on Learning. (2009). State of E-learning in Canada . Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/E-learning/E-
Learning_Report_FINAL-E.PDF.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008, 2011). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction, Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of
Multimedia Learning, Third Edition, Pfeiffer: San Francisco.
Cook, D. A. (2007). Web-based learni ng: pros, cons and controversies. Clinical Medicine, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians , 7(1), 37-
42.
Danish Technological Institute. (2008). Compendium of Good Practice Cases of e-learning , Cases selected by Members of the ICT Cluster.
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifel ong-learning-programme/doc/elearningcomp_en.pdf.
Demiray, U. (2010). e-LEARNING practices, Cases on challenges facing e-lear ning and national development: Institutional Studies and
Practices, VOLUME: I, Anadolu University, Eskisehir-Turkey.
Demiray, U. (2010). e-LEARNING practices, Cases on challenges facing e-lear ning and national development: Institutional Studies and
Practices, VOLUME: II, Anadolu University, Eskisehir-Turkey.
Dobre, I. (2010). Studiu critic al actualelor sisteme de e-learning , Academia Român ă, Institutul de cercet ări pentru inteligen ță artificial ă:
București.
Hsieh, P.-A. J., & Cho, V. (2011). Comparing e-Learning tools’ success: The case of instructor–student interactive vs. self-pac ed tools.
Computers & Education, 57(3), 2025–2038.
INTEL. (2011). Educational Leadership in the 21st Century . Retrieved from http://www.intel.com/education/video/lead/.
Liebowitz, J., & Frank, M. (2011). Knowledge Management and E-Learning , Taylor & Francis Group, U.S.A.
Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Standl, B. (2012). Person-centered technology enhanced learning: Dimensions of added value. Computers in Human
Behavior , Available online 29 May 2012, http://dx.doi.o rg/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.013 , accessed on 19.09.2012;
Ozuorcun, N. C., & Tabak, F. (2012). Is M-learning versus E-learning or are they supporting each other? Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 46, 299 – 305.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age , New York : McGraw-Hill.
Singh, G., Pathak, R. D., & Naz, R. (2007). e-Learning and Educa tional Service Delivery – A case study of the University of the South Pacific
(USP), in Organization For Economic Co-Operation And Development (OECD). Elearning in Tertiary Education: Where Do We Stand?
Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Šolc, M., Legemza, J., Sütő ová, A., & Girmanová, L. (2012). Experiences with u tilizing e-learning in education process in university
environment. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences , 46, 5201 – 5205.
Wang, H. C., & Chiu, Y. F. (2011). A ssessing e-learning 2.0 system success. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1790–1800.
Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K. G., & Simmering, M. J. (2003). E
-learning: Emerging uses, empirical results and future directions.
International Journal of Training and Development, 7, 245–258.
Wu, B., Xu, W. X., & Ge, J. (2012). Innovation Research in E-Learning. Physics Procedia , 24, Part C, 2059–2066.
Yucel, A. S. (2006). E-learning a pproach in teacher training. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education -TOJDE, 7(4), 123-131.