Because computer mediated communications is language (specifically, written word) dependant, it is subject to the constraints of low/high context cultural patterns <a href="#morse46">[46]</a>. As indicated earlier, the role of language is to carry meaning, and interpretation is an integral part of culture. Language is one means of establishing context among participants of a particular culture group. In low context cultures, language must be specific and well defined, to provide the contextual definition in which to interpret the communication. On the other hand, in a high context culture language may be vague, lacking the specificity of the low context culture, as the environment within which communication takes place clarifies the specific meaning of language <a href="#morse36">[36,</a> <a href="#morse41">41]</a>. Thus language plays a key role in the communication process. A key issue determining the success of computer mediated communication is the encoding/decoding by which that communication is done. Given that computer-mediated communication is a textual (electronic) rather than a visual (face-to-face) medium, meaning must be carried by the language itself rather than relying on the environmental context as the means of communication and/or interpretation. Given this relationship, because the language of communication is English, low context communication is presumed, thus perhaps disadvantaging those whose cultural background relies on high context communication.

Interestingly, low context participants concentrate on the participation environment, while high context participants concentrate on their individual work/effort and/or skills in the discussion.

Noticeably however, the responses indicate that cultural background directly influences the priority of perceived benefits received and challenges posed from the same asynchronous communication network. The perceptions are based on learning patterns which are developed as part of a participants’ ethnic/cultural development, and are potentially challenged by participation in an asynchronous communication network, which of itself is implicitly culturally based. Further, high context participants in an asynchronously delivered seminar, while assured of higher quality participation through an offline ability to infer meaning through low context communications, are at least initially more likely to be disadvantaged by technology differences as well as the communications norms implicit in their cultural background.

Two major sets of affordances offered in online learning are not found in traditional learning. First, online, communication occurs not through a channel, but through a network. And second, communication flows not merely through a passive medium but through a computational environment.

The theory of distributed representation has a profound implication for pedagogy, as it suggests that learning (and teaching, such as it is) is not a process of communication, but rather, a process of immersion. Put loosely, it suggests the idea of teaching not by telling or even demonstrating but rather through the creation (or identification) of an environment into which a learner may be immersed.

The very intent of ISD, however, is its weakness – namely making explicit intended learning and planning clear, concise approaches to achieving intended outcomes. Clearly defining learning assumes “things won’t change” (content, nature of interactions, changes in related disciplines which impact the information being discussed) between the point of design and the point of learning. This may work for many fields – especially where change is not significant – but models which neglect the adaptive nature of learning and the emergent structure of interactions are less appropriate to today’s work environments than they were in the past.

<p>As stated, instructional design needs to make two substantial changes:</p> <blockquote> <p>1. Stop seeing learning design as a task that occurs in advance of the intended learning, and begin to see it as a part of the learning process itself<br> 2. Begin to focus more on the context of learning (designing environments of learning) and less so on the intended content of the learning activities (course, workshop, or program)</p></blockquote>

Community and context are the two critical factors in developing e-learning environments.