Breaking the Glass Ceiling- A Mixed Methods Study using Watkins and Marsick’s Learning Organisation Culture Model

Introduction

As rightly pointed out by Mr. Nehru, the first prime minister of India, “When women move forward, the family moves, the village moves, and the Nation moves.” Nevertheless, women are subjugated, dominated and exploited both at the work place and at home. Business organisations in the 21^st century have increasingly recognised the role of their women workforce and the contributions they make to business success. It is clear that organisations can be competitive only if they identify, develop, and retain the best talent in their workforce, and that includes women. Particularly, women in Indian organisations are at a crossroads: they are attempting to forge the new horizon of tomorrow by understanding and widening knowledge that generates administrative and/or management competencies. Empirical evidence suggests that the number of women directors on Indian corporate boards is very much behind men and the initial thresholds are higher for women to achieve success (e.g., Banerji, Mahtani, Sealy & Vinnicombe, 2010 ; Kurup, Chandrashekar & Muralidharan, 2011 ; Srinivasan & Pallathitta, 2013). Thus, it is imperative for organisations to create workplaces where a proper policy framework is in place to improve women’s access and opportunities. The World Economic Forum released an online repository of information in March 2012 highlighting company best practices that can help close economic gender gaps. The preface of the 2013 report suggests a few types of changes, including cash transfer programmes, equal access to credit and financial services, parental leave, affordable childcare facilities, innovative hiring processes, redesigned career paths, and meaningful mentoring programmes (The global gender gap report, 2013). To engage in these change initiatives organisations must adopt tools and techniques to identify and enable women to overcome the challenges they face at three levels: individual, group, and organisational.

Empowering women professionals from all walks of life is essential and encompasses many components, none of which can be considered in isolation. It is almost universally acknowledged that higher education institutions (HEIs) play a fundamental role in the progression of advanced knowledge economies (e.g., Secundo, Margherita, Elia & Passiante, 2010). Nevertheless, today HEIs, like many other institutions, operate in a volatile and dynamic environment in which they need to respond and adapt swiftly to the changes in the environment (e.g., Bates, 1997; Levine, 2000; Middlehurst & Woodfield, 2007). This is because of a paradigmatic shift from non-profit institutions to for-profit organisations that call for a more entrepreneurial mode in leading the higher education institutions (e.g., Gibb, Haskins & Robertson, 2013; Altmann & Ebersberger, 2013). According to Terry (1995), empowerment research agrees that the conditions under which teachers work is often accompanied by too much isolation, which denies them a sense of efficacy, success, and self-worth. Further, previous studies have shown that gender exerts an influence on organisational changes that are characterised by learning at work. Thus, this study sets out to explore the effects of learning organisation culture that impacts the empowerment of women in higher education institutions based on two aspects: knowledge performance and financial performance.

Theoretical Background

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study is the integrative model of learning organisation culture as developed by Watkins & Marsick (1993, 1997, 1999). The framework consists of seven distinct but interrelated action imperatives (dimensions) that demonstrate how institutions become learning organisations. They are:

• 1. Create continuous learning opportunities.
• 2. Promote inquiry and dialogue.
• 3. Encourage collaboration and team learning.
• 4. Establish systems to capture and share learning.
• 5. Empower people toward a collective vision.
• 6. Connect the organization to its environment.
• 7. Provide strategic leadership for learning.

The first dimension, “Create continuous learning opportunities,” considers organisational systems and structures to be designed so that learning is embedded into work; this can be construed as learn-at-work phenomena where people learn on the job through ongoing education and training. The second dimension, “Promote inquiry and dialogue,” instigates the assessment of critical reasoning and feedback systems in the organisational learning culture. The third dimension values collaboration and team learning for the mutual benefit of the stakeholders involved. The fourth dimension deliberates the system design that stimulates transformation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge for the learning to be shared. The fifth dimension encourages the people in the organisation to work together with a collective vision to achieve the goals and objectives of the organisation. The sixth dimension involves the decision making process that connects the organisation to its environment. Lastly, the seventh dimension evaluates the leadership initiatives for learning and growth. Thus this model integrates two main organisational constituents, the key components of organisational change and development: (i) people and (ii) structure.

This paper employs this framework as the conceptual framework because of its relevance in assessing the organisational learning culture for individual and organisational performance. It was seen that the model promulgates the empowerment of women in higher education institutions, which emphasizes three key components: (1) continuous learning (2) knowledge performance and (3) financial performance

Rationale and Research Questions

A systematic literature review establishes the link between the learning organization culture (LOC) and empowerment in learning organizations (Snell & Chak, 1998; Van Grinsven & Visser, 2011). For instance, Snell & Chak (1998) examined using case studies of two blue-chip companies that were cited as learning organizations and illustrated a framework that may be used to assemble data for use in testing hypotheses in more empirically- grounded studies of empowerment in learning organizations. It is further found that there are several studies pertaining to analysing the effects of LOC in the higher education sector (Watkins, 2005; Jeffery, 2008; Bui & Baruch, 2012; Ali, 2012). However, in the Indian higher education context, only limited studies deal with understanding the influence of learning organization culture on women’s empowerment and performance (Patnaik, Beriha, Mahapatra & Singh, 2013). On the other hand, the assessment of academic performance has gained significant attention over a period of time as these evaluations help administrators, policy makers, funding agencies, employers, staff, parents, and students in making various decisions. Therefore, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:

• 1. To what extent is the learning organization culture associated with knowledge performance in Indian HEIs as perceived by their women staff?
• 2. To what extent is the learning organization culture associated with financial performance in Indian HEIs as perceived by their women staff?
• 3. What is the association between the study variables after controlling for demographic variables?

The first two research questions are analysed using mixed methods research methodology and the last research question is analysed using Hierarchical Multiple Regression (HMR) analysis. There are many methods and performance indicators to measure knowledge and financial performance variables in HEIs (Pollard et al., 2013); however, this paper is based on perceptual study. This is because accreditation agencies and administrators are interested in understanding the perceptions of the staff and other stakeholders involved in order to have a people-centric approach in the management of HEIs (Peterson, 2007).

Methodology for Qualitative Analysis

This paper employs mixed methods research to evaluate the impact of learning organisation culture on the performance of women staff in Indian higher education institutions. It has been argued in previous studies that mixed methods research results in superior research because of its methodological pluralism or eclecticism (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Hence a sequential mixed methods research design using case study method is employed to gather and analyse qualitative data.

Methodology for Quantitative Analysis

Findings of Qualitative Analysis

CASE 5:

Ms. Jennifer works as a Professor in a prestigious arts college in a metropolitan city. She has been associated with her college for the past 23 years. She says,

‘I find my college supportive for both learning and un-learning initiatives. My experience has taught me that un-learning is as important as learning is for change management. This helps in gaining new knowledge.’

The above five cases are the excerpts from the interviews conducted with the women faculty members and the summary of all the interviews are tabulated in table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of the data from in-depth interviews

Results and Findings of Quantitative Analysis

Findings

Factor analysis attempts to bring inter-correlated variables together and thus provides an empirical basis for reducing all variables to a few factors. Hence, factor analysis is employed in this study. Previous studies have shown that reliability of factor analysis is also dependent on sample size (Field 2005). In order to check whether the sample is adequate, the result of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO-test) measure of sampling adequacy is used. If the value of KMO is greater than 0.5, then the sample is considered to be adequate. The result of KMO-test is found to be 0.817. Further, with statistically significant x²(1378) = 6489.253, p < 0.001, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is done for reducing the variables into few factors. Factor analysis is done using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation selected during the analysis, in order to procure the simplest dimensional solutions. Acceptable minimum absolute magnitude for an item loading is 0.50. The analysis shows that all 53 items of learning organization culture, knowledge performance, and financial performance items are clearly loaded on five factors. The factors were named as individual level (Factor 1), team/group level (Factor 2), organizational level (Factor 3), knowledge performance (Factor 4), and financial performance (Factor 5). The five underlying factors account for a total variance of 74 per cent for the entire 53 items loaded (table not shown). Furthermore, the reliability of various dimensions of learning organization culture, perception of knowledge, and financial performance were all at an acceptable range, with Cronbach alpha ranging from 0.75 to 0.92. In addition, there was a significant and positive correlation of the factors of learning organization culture, perception of knowledge, and financial performance with a correlation value ranging from r = 0.65 to 0.87, p < 0.001 (Table 2). Further, the nature of the correlations evidently supports the concept of a positive relationship among the constructs.

Table 2.

Correlation between the study variables

Multiple linear regression method is used to assess how the perception of knowledge performance and financial performance contributes to the variance in learning organization culture. The results show that the perception of knowledge performance (beta = 2.935, t = 14.776, p < 0.001) and financial performance (beta = 2.583, t = 8.710, p < 0.001) together contributed significantly to the variance in learning organization culture (F: 3,546 = 234.14, p < 0.001). The “R” square value of 0.564 indicates that perception of knowledge performance, and financial performance accounted for 56.4 per cent of the variability in the perception of learning organization culture (Table 3).

Table 3.

Association between learning organization culture, knowledge performance and financial performance using multiple linear regression analysis

Additionally, to further analyse the contribution of variables in the study after controlling for demographic variables, Hierarchical Multiple Regression (HMR) analysis is used. The variables are entered in a set of two blocks, the first with the demographic variables and the second block consists of dimensions of learning organization culture, knowledge performance and financial performance. Since HMR output retained only the category of institutions, further analysis was carried out with only this variable. Thus, the method enables the researchers to understand the contribution of each factor even after controlling the demographic variables. The findings revealed that overall 48.4 percent contribute to financial performance and this is statistically significant. Particularly, the demographic variables alone accounts only for 1.9 per cent but the inclusion of organizational level variable, results in 40.2 percent variance. Further, the addition of knowledge performance (43.1 per cent) slightly improved the variance. Thus, the statistical contribution of the demographic variables, perception of learning organization culture, knowledge performance, and financial performance are analyzed by means of beta weights (Table 4).

Table 4.

Association between financial performance, learning organization culture and knowledge performance after controlling for demographic variables using Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis

Discussion

It is imperative to examine the unseen barriers in organisations that affect both organisational and individual performance. Organisations need to address the subtle gender bias that disrupts the learning cycle amongst women staff and help them break the psychological “glass ceiling.” The context must support and increase the likelihood that the organisation and its members will encourage women staff members to take up challenges and experiments. This will create safe “identity workspaces” to support transitions to bigger roles and anchor women’s development efforts to a sense of leadership purpose. It is evident from the qualitative study that the organisational learning culture has a considerable role in the knowledge and financial performance of the women staff in higher education institutions. For example, the case studies 1, 3, 4 and 5 exemplifies the impact of learning organisation culture on the staff members’ knowledge performance. It is seen from the responses of the staff that their institutions must provide a better environment in improving their knowledge. Similarly, the case study 2 focuses upon the financial aspect wherein the stress is for policies that provides remuneration in taking up additional work. Further, the summary table 1 of the case studies show that there exists medium level of satisfaction based on learning organisation culture amongst the participants, thus indicating that their institutions are still in the process of achieving learning organisation status. Thus the findings of this study with respect to gender analysis also support that universities are hardly learning organizations (White & Weathersby, 2005). The phenomenological research also indicates that the women perceive the learning culture embraced by their institution has an effect on their knowledge performance and financial performance both at the organisational level and individual level. At the organisational level, the weekly and monthly departmental level meetings promote inquiry and dialogues whereby suggestions and feedback are received from the staff members. Further, the institutions need to encourage team learning and systems-level thinking to nurture continuous learning amongst its stakeholders. It is also evident that the faculty members expect their institutions to become truly learning organisations by creating systems to capture and share knowledge. At the individual level, the respondents find it increasingly difficult to manage work life balance and change. It is found from this study that organisations have to become accommodating in their culture towards women teaching staff to give them time to improve their knowledge performance. It is also evident from this study that the women staff perceive better financial performance if the organisational culture is focussed towards learning irrespective of the category of institution they belong to. Finally, the dimension “Provide strategic leadership for learning” predicts the knowledge and financial outcomes both at organisational and individual levels and thus stresses the importance of good leadership in HEIs to cope with highly complex and rapidly changing environments.

The quantitative analysis employs DLOQ instrument to measure the learning organization culture. However, the questionnaire is modified to suit the context of the Indian higher education system. It is to be noted that the original questionnaire was more appropriate for business organizations. Hence the questionnaire is modified and validated using factor and Cronbach’s analysis. This results in only five factors to assess learning organisation culture, knowledge performance, and financial performance. This is because a few items do not load to their respective dimensions of learning organisation culture framework, and hence they are subsequently grouped contextually. Since the original version of DLOQ collects the data at the individual, team/group, and organisational levels, the grouping of the items is justified. The findings of this study indicate that only a medium level of characteristics has been reported by the respondents. The middle level scoring on all the items reveal that the perception of women academic staff about their institutions are that they are yet to achieve learning organization status. Further, it is argued that these educational institutions need culture, administration, and leadership to become truly learning organizations. Additionally, hierarchical multiple regression (HMR) analysis in this study indicates that there is a direct and positive relationship between the factors of learning organization culture, knowledge performance and financial performance even after controlling for demographic variables. This indicates that there is a strong association between the variables. Thus, this study supports previous research findings that established the association between constructs of learning organization culture and performance (Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, Howton, Baldwin & Danielson, 2002; Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Yang, Watkins & Marsick, 2004; Lopez, Peon & Ordas, 2005). Further, it is to be noted that the results reveal that the level of satisfaction depend on individual perceptions to the degree/ level of learning organisation characteristics present in a particular higher educational institution. This suggests that this model can be used in HEIs as a human resource development tool to establish measures so as to continually align learning to improve performance. The study thus implicates that it is imperative for universities to concentrate on human resource development (HRD) initiatives that demand a new view of leadership to champion and support learning (Senge, 1990b). This calls for new managerial roles for department heads and for deans of colleges and universities to devise strategies that promote well-defined learning organization culture, thereby empowering women to achieve their fullest potential at the workplace.

Conclusion

All organizations learn through their members, and there is an established link between individual learning and organisational learning (Kim, 1998). Since individual learning advances organisational learning, understanding the nuances of the mental models and learning enablers aid institutions to actively manage the learning process to make it consistent with the institutional goals, vision, and values. Mental models are the explicit and implicit understandings of the world held by the individuals, and they need to be aligned by the organisations through its learning strategies. This is possible by incorporating learning organisation culture in institutions through open communications, risk-taking and knowledge management. Thus, this study explored the subjective interpretation of women professionals in academia to understand the interplay of other aspects of life as well as the influence of their organisational environment in their careers. This was possible by using the learning organisation model as the conceptual framework to understand the internal environment in higher education institutions that foster empowerment in their female staff. The mixed methods research methodology adopted in this study is useful in obtaining data triangulation and thus the study is highly reliable.

References

• Abrahamsson, L., (2001), Gender-based learning dilemmas in organizations, Journal of workplace learning, 13(7/8), p298-307. [https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620110411085]
• Alexiou, A., (2005), A tale of the field: reading power and gender in the learning organization, Studies in continuing education, 27(1), p17-31. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370500056372]
• Ali, A. K., (2012), Academic staff's perceptions of characteristics of learning organization in a higher learning institution, International Journal of Educational Management, 26(1), p55-82. [https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541211194383]
• Altmann, A., & Ebersberger, B. Eds, (2013), Universities in Change: Managing Higher Education Institutions in the Age of Globalization, New York : Springer.
• Banerji, A., Mahtani, S., Sealy, R., & Vinnicombe, S., (2010), Standard Chartered Bank: Women on Corporate Boards in India 2010, Retrieved from https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/5274.
• Bates, A. W., (1997), Restructuring the University for Technological Change, Retrieved from http://cclp.mior.ca/Reference%20Shelf/PDF_OISE/Bates_Restructuring%20University.pdf.
• Blackmore, J., (2002), Globalisation and the restructuring of higher education for new knowledge economies: New dangers or old habits troubling gender equity work in universities?, Higher education quarterly, 56(4), p419-441. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00228]
• Blackmore, J., (2003), Tracking the nomadic life of the educational researcher: What future for feminist public intellectuals and the performative university?, The Australian Educational Researcher, 30(3), p1-24. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216795]
• Bui, H. T., & Baruch, Y., (2012), Learning organizations in higher education: An empirical evaluation within an international context, Management Learning, 43(5), p515-544. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611431212]
• Davies-Netzley, S. A., (1998), Women above the Glass Ceiling Perceptions on Corporate Mobility and Strategies for Success, Gender & Society, 12(3), p339-355. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243298012003006]
• Deem, R., (1998), 'New managerialism' and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), p47-70. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0962021980020014]
• Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., Howton, S. W., Baldwin, T. T., & Danielson, C. C., (2002), The Relationship between the Learning Organization Concept and Firms’ Financial Performance: An Empirical Assessment (and Invited Reaction), Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), p5-29.
• Field, A. P., (2005), Discovering Statistics using, SPSS, London: Sage.
• Garratt, B., (1987), The Learning Organization: and the need for directors who think, Aldershot: Gower.
• Gibb, A., Haskins, G., & Robertson, I., (2013), Leading the entrepreneurial university: Meeting the entrepreneurial development needs of higher education institutions. In A. Altmann & B. Ebersberger (Eds.), Universities in Change, p9-45, New York: Springer.
• Grummell, B., Devine, D., & Lynch, K., (2009), The careless manager: Gender, care and new managerialism in higher education, Gender and Education, 21(2), p191-208.
• Hernandez, M., & Watkins, K., (2003), Translation, Validation and Adaptation of the Spanish Version of modified Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire, Human Resource Development International, 6, p187-196.
• Ismail, M., Rasdi, R. M., & Wahat, N. W. A., (2005), High-flyer women academicians: factors contributing to success, Women in Management Review, 20(2), p117-132. [https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420510584454]
• Jeffery, J., (2008), "Institutions of Higher Learning and Learning Organizations: An Annotated Bibliography." Prepared for the Teagle Foundation, Retrieved from: http://www.teaglefoundation.org/Resources/Additional-resources#sthash.73MwTL1d.dpuf.
• Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J., (2004), Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come, Educational researcher, 33(7), p14-26. [https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014]
• Kim, D. H., (1998), The link between individual and organizational learning, strategic management of intellectual capital, p41-62. [https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-9850-4.50006-3]
• Kurup, A., Chandrashekar, S., & Muralidharan, K., (2011), Woman power in Corporate India In conversation with Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, Chairperson & MD, Biocon ltd, IIMB Management Review, 23(4), p223-233. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2011.08.006]
• Levine, A. E., (2000), The future of colleges: 9 inevitable changes, The Chronicle of Higher Education, pB10-B11.
• Lopez, S. P., Peon, J. M., & Ordas, C. J. V., (2005), Organizational learning as a determining factor in business performance, The learning Organization, 12(3), p227-245. [https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470510592494]
• Lumby, J., (2009), Performativity and identity: mechanisms of exclusion, Journal of Education Policy, 24(3), p353-369. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802669284]
• Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E., (2003), Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: The Dimensions of Learning Organizations Questionnaire, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, p132-151.
• Middlehurst, R., & Woodfield, S., (2006), Responding to the Internationalization Agenda: Implications for Institutional Strategy and Practice, York: Higher Education Academy.
• Moilanen, R., (2001), Diagnostic tools for learning organizations, The Learning Organization, 8(1), p6-20.
• Patnaik, B., Beriha, G. S., Mahapatra, S. S., & Singh, N., (2013), Organizational learning in educational settings (technical): an Indian perspective, The Learning Organization, 20(2), p153-172. [https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471311303782]
• Peterson, G. F., (2007), A case study of the perceptions of faculty, administrators, and staff regarding the development of a “culture of evidence” at two Texas community colleges, Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
• Pollard, E., Williams, M., Williams, J., Bertram, C., Buzzeo, J., & Drever, E., , (2013), How should we measure higher education? A fundamental review of the Performance Indicators, Part One: The Synthesis Report, Bristol, UK: Higher Education Funding Council for England, Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/18967/2/2013_ukpireview2.pdf.
• Power, J., & Waddell, D., (2004), The link between self-managed work teams and learning organisations using performance indicators, The Learning Organization, 11(3), p244-59. [https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470410533003]
• Reay, D., (2004), Education and cultural capital: The implications of changing trends in education policies, Cultural trends, 13(2), p73-86. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0954896042000267161]
• Secundo, G., Margherita, A., Elia, G., & Passiante, G., (2010), Intangible assets in higher education and research: mission, performance or both?, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(2), p140-157. [https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931011039651]
• Senge, P. M., (1990a), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York: Doubleday.
• Senge, P. M., (1990b), The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations, Sloan Management Review, 32, p7-23.
• Snell, R., & Chak, A. M. K., (1998), The learning organization: learning and empowerment for whom?, Management Learning, 29(3), p337-364. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507698293005]
• Srinivasan, V., & Pallathitta, R. G., (2013), Building the Women Directorship Pipeline in India: an exploratory study, IIM Bangalore Research Paper (427), Available from SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=2346109.
• Sta Maria, R., & Watkins, K., (2003), Perception of learning culture and concerns about the innovation on use of innovation: A question of level of analysis, Human Resource Development International, 6(4), p491-508.
• Terry, P. M., (1995), Empowering teachers as leaders, In National Forum Journal, University of Memphis.
• The global gender gap report, (2013), Retrieved from, http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2013.
• Van Grinsven, M., & Visser, M., (2011), Empowerment, knowledge conversion and dimensions of organizational learning, The Learning Organization, 18(5), p378-391.
• Vincent-Lancrin, S., (2008), The reversal of gender inequalities in higher education: An on-going trend, Higher education to 2030, 1, p265-298.
• Wageman, R., (1997), Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams, Organizational Dynamics, 26(1), p49-61. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(97)90027-9]
• Watkins, K. E., (2005), What would be different if higher educational institutions were learning organizations?, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(3), p414-421. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422305277179]
• Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J., (1993), Sculpting the learning organization Lessons in the art and science of systematic change, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J., (1997), Dimensions of the learning organization, Warwick, RI: Partners for the Learning Organization.
• Watkins, K., Marsick, V., (1999), Looking again at learning in the learning organization: a tool that can turn into a weapon, The Learning Organization, 6(5), p207.
• White, J., & Weathersby, R., (2005), Can universities become true learning organizations?, The Learning Organization, 12(3), p292-298. [https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470510592539]
• Yang, B., (2003), Identifying Valid and Reliable Measures for Dimensions of a Learning Culture, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), p152-162. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422303005002003]
• Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J., (2004), The construct of the learning organization: dimensions, measurement, and validation, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), p31-56. [https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1086]
• Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, J. J. F., (2004), Can E-Learning Replace Classroom Learning?, Communication of the ACM, 47(5), p75-79. [https://doi.org/10.1145/986213.986216]