Researchers have defined eLearning as a means of providing and delivering education. One recent definition of eLearning is ‘an approach to teaching and learning, representing all or part of the educational model applied, that is based on the use of electronic media and devices as tools for improving access to training, communication and interaction and that facilitates the adoption of new ways of understanding and developing learning’ (Sangrà et al. 2012).
SECTION 2.2: ELEARNING
Many researchers have proposed critical success factors for eLearning and all agree that the three main dimensions of eLearning and distance education are the following:
• Learners, • Instructors, and
• eLearning technologies.
For example, Selim (2007) investigated these three main dimensions along with university support. He proposed 13 factors in eLearning technology that are related to the quality of the eLearning systems. Menchaca and Bekele (2008) introduced a conceptual framework with five dimensions of success factors including eLearning technology dimension. In the eLearning technology dimension they identified asynchronous and synchronous features as well as availability and usability of the eLearning system. Alhabeeb et al. (2017) explored learner characteristics, instructor characteristics, support, instructional design and learning systems that influence the implementation and acceptance of eLearning systems in Saudi Arabia. Thus, although most researchers have addressed critical success factors of eLearning systems, their findings differ with respect to the quality of eLearning systems. For instance, reliability and usability were identified by Selim (2007) while Alhabeeb et al. (2017) investigated the acceptability of eLearning systems. Thus, all of the qualities of eLearning systems are yet to be covered and measured within the eLearning system dimension. The following subsections discuss eLearning systems, sustainable eLearning, and sustainable eLearning systems, that are the main focus of this research.
2.2.1 eLearning systems
An eLearning system can be defined as an educational solution to deliver knowledge, facilitate learning and improve performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources, cf. (Ghirardini 2011, Richey 2008). eLearning systems, such as Black- board (Bb) and Canvas, provide innovative services for learners, instructors, and institutions in the learning process. Instructors can create modules to organise course content by weeks or units. A course’s content can have discussions, assignments, quizzes and learning materials, so that learners will engage in the learning process either on campus or off it.
Mridha et al. (2013) stated that in developing countries such as Bangladesh, particularly in rural areas, eLearning systems allow educational equity for people who cannot afford to pay for private tutors. Likewise, Stepanyan et al. (2013) provided examples of how technological affordances might assist with new approaches for learners to learn. One popular example of an eLearning system is a Learning Management System (LMS) that includes a discussion board, virtual classroom, collaboration features and instructor- and learner-led courses. As per Dagger et al. (2007), there are two LMS types from the development perspective:
• Proprietary commercial LMS, e.g., Bb and Desire2Learn (D2L); and • Open-source LMS, e.g., Moodle and Canvas.
2.2.2 Sustainable eLearning
Several researchers have discussed sustainability success factors for eLearning as a new quality domain. Sridharan et al. (2010) examined three main dimensions of critical factors: pedagogical strategies, supporting technologies and management technologies. The longevity of eLearning systems and the protection of natural resources were not included. Also, Gunn (2010) analysed multiple issues that are faced with respect to 65 sustaining eLearning initiatives. Thus, critical success in sustaining eLearning involves different stakeholder perspectives; a major problem in many cases is that nobody is considered to be responsible for sustaining eLearning. Thus, if there is an initiative to have sustainable eLearning, its success will depend on one or a few individuals who might be powerful leaders to introduce strategic initiatives. This factor was recognised by Mahaux (2013), who argued that participation could support sustainability in software development; thus, the more that participants engage, the more sustainable are eLearning systems.
Robertson (2008) defined sustainable eLearning as ‘eLearning that has become normative in meeting the needs of the present and future’, and discussed a notion activity theory that has organisational, technical and pedagogical features of eLearning to achieve sustainability. However, the environmental sustainability dimension, such as energy consumption and its emission, was not included or explored. Littlejohn and Shum (2003) suggested that the reuse of course materials and the support of importing and exporting learning resources may sustain eLearning systems. In addition, Kanwar et al. (2010) considered that national governments and educational institutions in developed countries should support open education programmes in developing countries by sharing knowledge, proposing a transnational qualification, building capacity and developing a relevant policy on copyright. Although open education and reuse of resources could sustain educational resources, Kanwar et al. did not consider how to sustain eLearning systems from the technical and environmental sustainability perspectives.
2.2.3 Sustainable eLearning systems
To define a sustainable eLearning system, we have to specify and analyse the corresponding sustainability requirements. Many studies focus on the sustainability of eLearning systems, but they usually cover only a single aspect of sustainability. For example, many researchers have studied individual dimensions (Kanwar et al. 2010, Kruchten 2015), while other scientists have discussed the economic dimension (Downes 2007, Koohang and Harman 2007), and the social dimension (Littlejohn and Shum 2003). The environmental dimension of eLearning system sustainability was analysed by Dong et al. (2009) and Roy et al. (2008).
To provide a sustainability profile for an eLearning system, Stewart and Khare (2015) em- ployed the Sustainability Circle Framework, developed by the Global Compact Cities Programme for the urban sustainability profile of a particular city or region (James 2014). This framework has four domains including, ecology, economy, culture and politics. Each domain has seven sub-domains to assist in assessment through the completion of a survey having seven questions for
SECTION 2.2: ELEARNING
Education
Sustainability
Software and Requir ements Engineering Sustainability in Education Educational Software Sustainable Software Sustainable eLearning
Figure 2.1: Research field
each domain. The assessment is conducted on a nine-point scale that ranges from 1 being critical to 9 labelled vibrant. The framework is based on the colours of traffic-lights with critical marked red and vibrant marked green (James 2014). The authors proposed this method to generate a clear graphical representation of the sustainability profile for eLearning systems (Stewart and Khare 2015). Even though this adoption framework could rank the specific nuances in the economic dimension, it needs to be reformulated to fit eLearning development. For example, collaboration, which is part of the individual dimension, is not included. Moreover, the sustainability requirements may identify and follow sustainable SE to cover all the five dimensions and to be standardised with other software domains.
Sustainability is a very complex research area, and although there may be five aspects identified, they overlap and interact. Ideally, they should not be separated and have to be tackled together under one umbrella because of the overlapping aspects as well as to provide a ‘big picture’. For example, providing eLearning systems with sustainable eLearning processes and without reducing energy consumption could lead to increase in the electricity costs. This could encourage educational institutions to increase tuition fees for covering costs. Learners might be affected and the high cost will cause them to drop courses when they cannot afford. For these reasons, we cover all aspects of sustainability in eLearning, systems as illustrated in Figure 2.1, to include high-level sustainability requirements. To provide an example, Figure2.2 presents a short extract of a specification of non-functional requirements on eLearning systems. This demonstrates the variety of the possible requirements and the corresponding dimensions. As illustrated, SUS-1 is related to environmental sustainability; SUS-2 belongs to technical sustainability dimension; SUS-3 is a human sustainability; SUS-4 is considered as social sustainability; and SUS-5 must be an economic sustainability where a user can calculate the costs of running and developing courses and their profits.
Each aspect of sustainability affects others and many studies tackle either one or two aspects of sustainability. The impact of eLearning systems on sustainability can be identified and recognised during RE activities (elicitation, analysis, specification and validation) where there is a commitment to treat sustainability as a first-class concern (Becker et al. 2016). For instance, during requirements elicitation, stakeholders could be involved in defining the long-term scenarios to predict the potential effects of sustainable eLearning systems.
4. Nonfunctional Requirements 4.3 Quality requirements specification 4.3.1 Sustainability
SUS-1 eLearning systems shall run on green data centre,
SUS-2 eLearning systems shall share learning content with other eLearning systems and social networks, SUS-3 eLearning systems shall provide extension for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for anyone to
enrol,
SUS-4 eLearning systems shall allow collaboration on a document to use real-time co-authoring, and SUS-5 eLearning systems shall calculate the return on investment formula for curriculum development and
implementation, and power consumption per business transaction.
Figure 2.2: An extract of a specification of non-functional requirements on eLearning systems