From distance education to virtual communities of practice: the wide range of possibilities for using the Internet in continuous education and training.

'Open distance learning,' 'permanent education' and 'inservice training' are just some of the terms that are frequently used today to indicate what has become a specific need in many professional areas: continuous education and training.

It has become clear that gaining a university degree or participating in further education courses should be seen as the starting point for a long-term learning path, one that is under the direct control of the learner.

In this light, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can play a key role, offering resources that open up new opportunities for managing and actively participating in the learning process. It is no coincidence that, in recent years, researchers have devoted increased attention to the systematic use of computer networks for in-service training and, more generally, continuous education. In this respect, a number of possible approaches have been conceived, developed and tested.

Drawing on observations and results from numerous experiences already conducted in this field, this article pursues a two-fold objective: to propose a taxonomy of possible methodological approaches, and to examine the specificity and conditions surrounding the application of these approaches.

The aim is not so much to produce a new categorization of distance education applications as an alternative to the traditional, three-generation model (Nipper, 1989), but rather to propose a complementary categorization that addresses only network-based education and training (Trentin, 1997a). Accordingly, we will consider the whole range of possible options, from using the network to deliver structured learning material to running online courses based on collaborative learning strategies.

Using the Internet in distance education and training has often been considered as a quick and cheap way of reaching potential beneficiaries of an educational product. From this perspective, the network is seen mainly as a delivery channel.

However, the real educational value of the Internet lies not so much in substituting the telephone or mail service, but rather in the potential to bring about new forms of distance interaction. This is done through the creation of virtual classrooms that allow participants to take part in the learning process from their home, workplace or school. In this sense, the network is seen not only as a means for transmitting material, but also, and more importantly, as a "setting" for establishing a teaching/learning process that features high levels of interactivity among all the actors involved -- earners, tutors, experts, etc.

In the second part of this article, this very level of interactivity will form the basis for discussion about the applicability conditions of the various approaches covered in the proposed taxonomy.

SELF-LEARNING AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

To better understand the various possibilities for using network technologies in continuous education and training, it is worth outlining the ways in which the learners can draw upon these tools to meet educational needs.

Accordingly, an initial distinction can be made between:

1. using the network to access educational material; and

2. using the network to create virtual environments based on interaction within fully fledged learning communities (Palloff, & Pratt, 1999).

This categorization gives a hint about the diverse teaching/learning strategies that can be implemented. Strategies in the former category are actually forms of 'individual learning,' while those in the latter are fully-fledged 'online learning' strategies managed either by the course provider or the learning community involved. See the case of the so-called "communities of practice" (Wenger, 1998).

Before proceeding with analysis of these two macro-categories, two points need to be made. First, like all categorizations, the one proposed here has a certain degree of inflexibility, particularly in the schematic distinction between learning based solely on individual use of learning material and collaborative learning. These are clearly not mutually exclusive options, and some middle ground exits between them. For example, collaborative learning involves individual study of learning material that can easily be delivered on the Web. The reason for making the distinction here is the need -- explored in greater depth later on -- to draw attention to how the differing interactivity levels of these two approaches bring about an impact on the effectiveness and applicability of these approaches.

The second point regards the use of the term "online." It is not intended to indicate merely that a computer network supports the education process, but also, and more importantly, that the process is underpinned by a network of relationships that link the participants to the process itself. These relationships help the community to collaborate together in pursuit of a specific learning goal. So the network should be seen primarily as a network of individuals rather than merely a computer network for distance communication between those same individuals (Trentin, 1999).

But let's carry on from where we left off: our initial categorization.

SELF LEARNING USING WEB-BASED MATERIAL

First, we ought to define what sort of material we are talking about. Is it anything whatsoever that may be accessed on the Web, or material that has been structured especially for educational purposes with the aim of reaching specific educational goals?

Metaphorically speaking, the first case is like going to a library and browsing through the books on a particular topic, while the second is more akin to taking a correspondence course.

Let's try to shed some light on these two aspects.

Learning by browsing the Web

As we know, the Web is an enormous archive of digitally stored information. When we browse through it, we find material on a wide variety of topics that may be of interest to people in various fields and professions.

At this point, the question that arises is: can we learn by browsing freely through the Web? Some learning undoubtedly takes place, in the sense that a learning process is activated when we come across new information and seek to make sense of it in terms of our own, pre-existing knowledge structure.

Actually, the generally accepted term used for such cases is 'incidental learning' (Mealman, 1993). Browsing information on the Web, however, is not in itself a guarantee that something new will be learned: if this happens, it does so incidentally.

However, the possibility of learning by Web browsing should not be underrated, especially where continuous training and lifelong learning are concerned. In this context, the ability and inclination to cater autonomously for one's own learning needs is fundamental.

Given the importance of this factor, a great deal of care should be taken in using the Web's wealth of information. While it is possible to seek information and knowledge freely, using the Web sensibly and profitably -- at least as far as learning is concerned -- means learning how to locate the most appropriate information sources, deciding whether they are authoritative or not and putting the information gained to good use. Users who lack these abilities risk wasting a good deal of time and energy for little return.

Learning using structured material

Now let's look at the case of Web material organized into a fully-fledged course, whether in print or multimedia form (Dillon & Zhu, 1997). What we are dealing with here is an educational plan, and so those accessing and interacting with this material find themselves in an entirely different situation from when they simply browse web information without a. declared educational purpose.

As we shall later see in greater detail, this type of approach is similar to that adopted in correspondence education. The only difference is that, instead of receiving the material at home, it is up to the learner to retrieve it from a specific web site. In this case, the Web is used more as an express postal service than as a real learning environment.

It ought to be pointed out, however, that those offering courses based primarily on 'individual learning' are making more frequent use of distance support. This is usually done via tutors, who give the individual learner guidance in the use of the material and the choice of study path. In a way, we might say that the aim is to create moments of 'assisted learning.' Nevertheless, the process as a whole still hinges on the mediation of the material, which needs to be designed and produced with individual learning in mind. This means that the role of the material is not just to convey content but also to clarify the aims and structure of the course (Khan, 1997). Essentially, nothing can be implicit when dealing with distant students. At any moment in the course, they must be capable of understanding exactly where they are, the aims of the activities being set, and the progress they have made in mastering the course contents (Rowntree, 1994).

In other words, the task of creating a distance course destined for individual study entails much more than just scanning pre-existing material and making it available on a net server in a more or less orderly way.

TELE-TEACHING AND ONLINE EDUCATION

At first glance, the two strategies ("tele-teaching" and "online education") do not appear to differ greatly but there is actually a fairly marked distinction between the two.

First let's take a look at "tele-teaching."

Here, teaching activity is explicitly performed via ICT using a one-to-many type of communication dynamic. On one side we have the teacher, often delivering the lesson in a text-based or multimedia conference, and on the other side we have the students. While the learners can ask questions and interact among themselves, it is the teacher who remains the hub of the communication wheel.

Online education, in the truest sense, is quite different. Learning takes place because the educational activity is structured such that interaction among participants leads to the collective growth of the group.

In such a context, the task of the teacher lies in designing, setting up and running an educational environment that is based on the learners' collaboration and exploits their desire to take the reins. So, the teacher acts not so much in a direct and explicit way, but rather as a facilitator for the participants.

Essentially, the network is used not as a surrogate for reproducing traditional strategies -- for example, tele-learning, distribution of learning material, etc. -- but rather for adopting new pedagogical approaches that draw on the functions and dynamics of computer mediated communication (CMC). In this way, the foundations for fully fledged 'network pedagogy' will be laid (Haughey & Anderson, 1998).

COMPUTER NETWORKS AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

The spectrum of possible applications of network technology in collaborative learning processes is a fairly wide one. Seeking once again to apply a rough classification, we can outline two general categories in which the network is seen respectively as:

* an environment supporting development of the learning activity ('online education') or a part thereof ('mixed' or 'online/onsite education'), under the guidance of the course provider; and

* a tool that fosters the creation of so-called 'communities of practice' (Wenger. 1996). Through interaction on an equal footing among all community members and the socialization of knowledge, these communities aim to undertake new learning based on self-managed collaborative processes.

Online education

In its truest sense, online education combines aspects of traditional distance learning -- individual study and possible remote connection with tutors -- with substantial interaction between participants (teachers, students and experts), a characteristic typical of face-to-face teaching (Harasim, 1990). However, there are no face-to-face events in online education, apart from an induction meeting.

Participants in online courses are organized into learning groups, which not only helps to overcome individual isolation, but more importantly, exploits each member's previously gained knowledge for the growth of the group as a whole. This method is particularly suited to adult education, where swapping personal experience about the topic under discussion can play an essential role in collective development (Eastmond, 1995).

Communication within virtual learning groups is largely carried out via computer conferencing: exchanging messages on a pre-structured series of themes -- the course phases (Trentin, 1998).

Where possible, this kind of technology is combined with videoconferencing (Kaye, 1994). However, this tool entails high costs where reasonable levels of communication quality are sought. For this reason, videoconferencing is not yet widely used.

The teaching strategy most commonly adopted is collaborative learning (Slavin, 1990), (Light & Mevarech, 1992) backed up by support from a team of tutors, who variously play the role of moderators in discussions, facilitators in exercises and organizers of group work (Berge, 1995).

Mixed education (online/onsite education)

"Pure" online educational strategies are not always easy to apply for several reasons. One is that some subjects are not particularly well suited to network communication. Another is that course participants might not be used to the particular communication dynamics of courses that are almost entirely based on written interaction (Mason, 1993).

Hence, there is a need for mixed onsite/ online strategies that include complementary phases of face-to-face teaching and online work.

The term 'mixed' (or 'online/onsite') education is used to indicate a form of educational process that draws on specific aspects of both face-to-face teaching (classroom lessons) and online education -- discussion, assisted distance exercises, project work (Benigno, & Trentin, 1999).

Mixed education features a three-stage cyclical process: traditional face-to-face teaching; a self-study phase usually based on the reading of articles and books; and an online phase centered on discussion, exercises and collaborative work.

One aspect of running mixed courses that should not be overlooked is the strong complementary nature of face-to-face and distance activities. For this reason, course designers must strike the right balance between the two phases, ensuring that one integrates properly with the other and vice versa. In other words, face-to-face activities should not merely be limited to seminars or lectures, but ought to set the scene for the upcoming distance activities, clarifying objectives, tasks, schedules and expected results.

By the same token, distance activities should be planned to constitute a useful, if not indispensable, part of the upcoming face-to-face meeting. For example, they might be used as an opportunity for initial brainstorming on the topic to be discussed in the classroom. In this way, a number of benefits are gained. Preliminary individual reflection is fostered through the task of writing to others. And, the exchange of initial ideas helps make the most of available meeting time because, once the meeting is underway, everyone can immediately join in the discussion.

While this may seem obvious, it is quite an important matter, especially when considering that the time factor is often critical in adult education.

Communities of practice

The concept of 'communities of practice' (Wenger, 1998) has been pioneered by the Institute for Research on Learning (IRL) (1), a spin-off of the Xerox Corporation in Palo Alto, CA.

In cooperation with the IRL, Xerox executives launched a study to observe how employees actually did their jobs. What evolved was the notion of 'communities of practice,' defined as follows:

"At the simplest level, they are a small group of people who've worked together over a period of time...not a team, not a task force, not necessarily an authorized or identified group...(in order to) perform the same tasks...or collaborate on a shared task...or work together on a product. They are peers in the execution of real work. What holds them together is a common sense of purpose and a real need to know what the other knows." (Brown, & Gray, 1995) (2)

The communities of practice approach is based on the following assumptions: (3)

1) Learning is fundamentally a social phenomenon. People organize their learning around the social communities of which they are members. Schools are powerful learning environments only for individuals whose social communities coincide with the school.

2) Knowledge is integrated in the life of communities that share values, beliefs, languages, and ways of doing things. These are called 'communities of practice'. Real knowledge is integrated in the doing, the social relations, and the knowledge and expertise of these communities.

3) The process of learning and the process of membership in a community of practice are inseparable. Learning is inseparably entwined with membership in a community. It is what allows us to be a member and adjust our status in the group. As we change our learning, our identity -- our relationship to the group -- changes.

4) Knowledge is inseparable from practice. It is not possible to 'know' without 'doing.' By doing, we learn.

5) Empowerment -- the ability to contribute to a community -- creates the potential for learning. Circumstances where we are engaged in real action that has consequences for both the community in which we are a part and us create the most powerful learning environments.

There are at least two situations in which collaborative learning can gain from the establishment of a community of practice:

* the need for follow-up to a course of whatever form -- whether conducted face-to-face or at a distance -- through self-help among course alumni; and

* the need to create communities of professionals based on the concepts of 'knowledge sharing'/'knowledge management' (Cortada, & Woods, 1999).

The community of course alumni

Training courses, especially face-to-face courses, are not always long enough to guarantee the complete acquisition of the knowledge and skills dealt with. Indeed, in many cases, it would be more accurate to speak of 'informative' rather than 'formative' training.

Take residential courses, for example. In the space of a few days, it is difficult, if not impossible, to transfer the skills that participants need for autonomous application of their newly acquired knowledge within their particular professional field. And the more methodological that the course content is, the more unlikely the chances of success in this regard.

Distance courses are certainly no exception here. The most critical moment arrives following the conclusion of a course, when individual participants attempt to apply what they have learned, relying totally on their own resources. Mastering the main course contents does not necessarily mean being able to put that knowledge into action (4). When the first difficulties arise, the sense of isolation that is always lurking in the background can lead to demotivation, often resulting in the squandering of the educational and economic resources that have been invested in the student.

Hence, the strong need exists for online support to provide continuity between training and transfer activities. These may either be a scheduled part of the course or activated spontaneously by the participants themselves (Trentin, 1997b).

In the former case, it is the course provider who is responsible for offering online support during the transfer phase. In the second case, support stems from self-help among the participants themselves. This means the creation of a community of course alumni who keep in touch after the conclusion of the course. In this way, when it comes to applying their new learning, they are able to help one another by socializing about the problems faced and, more importantly, the solutions reached and application strategies.

Communities of professionals

In the case of course alumni, the establishment of a community of practice takes place after the course has concluded. By contrast, when it comes to online learning based on the concept of 'knowledge sharing,' groups of professionals are formed in a spontaneous manner for the purpose of enriching skills and/or knowledge through collaborative strategies.

Hence, the formation of these two types of community differs greatly, as does the reasons that encourage members to take part in them.

For course alumni, aggregation in communities of practice is encouraged by the resonance created by the common experience that the participants have shared in during the course. For professional groups, however, motivation comes from the realization that sharing experience and knowledge offers an excellent opportunity for collective growth. In this case, the sole driving force for joining the community is interest in the topic under discussion: members may be spread over a wide geographical area and might not necessarily belong to the same organization or sector.

What is more, the members of these communities of practice do not just share in and benefit from the experience of others, but are called upon to develop 'best practices' together (Kimmerling, 1993).

The evolution and spread of the Internet has and will continue to foster the establishment of communities of practice within small- and medium-sized enterprises. In this sector, there is often reluctance to invest in formal training -- felt to be expensive and ineffective -- and companies are more inclined to opt for on-the-job training courses, which offer greater flexibility and continuity (Trentin, 1996).

A TAXONOMY OF POSSIBLE APPROACHES TO THE USE OF THE INTERNET IN CONTINUOUS EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The discussed categorization of the different approaches in using the Internet in distance education and training can be summarized in the diagram below.

One aspect that arises from the diagram is the level of interactivity featured in the approach chosen for managing the learning process: this is very low in approaches based solely on individual use of learning material and considerably higher in those that also embrace collaborative learning.

For this reason, it is worth examining the relationship between the level of interactivity involved in the various approaches shown in Figure 1 and the conditions for applying those approaches effectively.

The rest of this article will now be dedicated to in-depth exploration of this particular aspect.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING STRATEGY, LEVEL OF INTERACTIVITY AND NETWORK RESOURCES

First, it should be pointed out that what is meant by "interactivity" is mainly interpersonal communication, and not just interaction with learning material. Sometimes, a distinction is made between 'web-based education' and 'online education,' considering the former to be based primarily on materials and the latter mainly on interactivity among the actors in the process (Rowntree, 1995). In this article, we prefer to distinguish between education based on material structured for individual study at a distance -- conveyed on the Web but also by other means -- and education that is chiefly based on interaction among the actors in the process -- managed in a number of ways, one of which may be the Web.

It thus becomes interesting to study the relationship linking learning strategy, level of interactivity and online services for supporting distance activities.

For simplicity's sake, we shall refer to the three most common situations:

* individual learning -- the participant downloads material from the Web and uses it autonomously, without any form of assistance from the course provider;

* assisted learning -- the participant downloads material from the Web -- or receives it by ordinary mail -- and uses it autonomously, but can also call for assistance from a tutor; and

* collaborative learning -- the participant draws on educational support material, structured or otherwise, and takes part in collaborative activities, interacting on a par with fellow students, tutors and teachers.

* As Figure 2 shows, when shifting from an individualized approach at one end of the scale to a collaborative approach at the other, the level of interpersonal interaction rises sharply. As the need for interpersonal communication increases, there is a strong tendency to use network services for that purpose -- e-mail, computer conferencing and videoconferencing. We can also see that, in the individualized approach, network services are used primarily for accessing information and learning material made available by the course provider.

TO INTERACT OR NOT TO INTERACT, THAT IS THE QUESTION

It is plain to see that choosing one approach over another means considering a series of elements, namely:

* the effective need to adopt active and collaborative learning strategies;

* the number of students (extensive vs. intensive courses);

* the expected quality level of the course; and

* costs and return on investment.

For simplicity's sake, we shall deal with these elements separately, while recognizing the mutual conditioning that exists between them.

Learning strategies and content

Barker, Frisbie and Patrick (1993) state that distance education systems, especially those based on ICT -- or rather, those that seek to make the most of the potential that networking offers for interactivity -- should not be restricted to the kind of individualized instruction typical of correspondence courses. Instead, they should be used for managing highly interactive groups, where greater emphasis is placed on the social aspect of learning to the benefit of the entire learning process.

Generally, those who study the application of ICT in distance education, although there are exceptions that should not be overlooked, share this position. For example, some content such as algebra makes it impossible for them to be adequately tackled using collaborative strategies. Similarly, those same strategies, while usually effective for reaching a given objective, may not be so when the target population is unaccustomed to group interaction or is unwilling to engage in such activities. What's more, on a simpler level, the participants may not be in a position to respect the strict deadlines that collaborative learning activities usually impose.

Extensive or intensive courses

Another factor that may affect the choice of approach is the size of the potential user population. For example, a small target population is one condition that favors the adoption of intensive processes -- strongly interactive, based on collaborative strategies and thus organized according to a precise timetable. Conversely, adopting the same approach for a large target population would definitely be unsuitable. It would be like using strategies such as group discussion, role-playing and collaborative production, etc., in an enormous classroom containing hundreds of students, all interacting with one another at the same time.

Hence, extensive courses call for activities based on the use of structured learning material and, therefore, rely on individual learning strategies.

However, where possible, it is also worth considering building an interactive environment around the pool of material designed primarily for individual use. This may take the form of an online workshop -- preferably for a set number of participants -- or, more simply, a help desk where participants can send in queries directly to the course provider about the activities under way or how to proceed. This latter facility provides 'vertical' communication -- individual participant and tutor -- that can only occasionally become 'horizontal' (among participants) given that many-to-many communication within large learning communities can be unmanageable, or at least educationally ineffective.

Course quality

Much has already been written about the relationship between interactivity and quality in training courses (Herman & Herman, 1995; Kirkwood, 1998; Trentin, 2000). The stress has been placed on how interactivity is often a determining factor for raising the quality of distance education: interactivity among participants for collaborative learning and interactivity between course beneficiary and provider for the purposes of course flexibility and tailoring.

Parsons (1979) states that any teaching service should allow the beneficiary (i.e., the end user) to co-produce the training activities together with the provider. This means that, where course quality is concerned, end users must be encouraged as much as possible to take an active part in setting the objectives and defining the contents, as well as in capitalizing on their professional experience to enrich the learning process.

The logical consequence would therefore seem to be that of hinging the learning process on strong interaction between all the participants involved.

All this would appear to suggest a strict link between quality and the capability to manage a learning process based on the active participation of all its beneficiaries. In the words of Branson and Buckner (1995), "quality is not so much a question of 'excellence' as a process intended to bring the actual effect as close as possible to the expected effect."

Quality as process management

Drawing from control systems theory, it is possible to identify two types of distance education system: 'open-ring' and 'closed-ring' systems. Open-ring systems (Figure 4) are based on evaluation of the correctness of the system's input and of the soundness of the system's overall structure.

This definition covers those distance education systems where the main focus is on the learning material to be studied individually (input) and the logistic support offered by the course provider (system structure).

The main characteristic of the closed-ring systems (Figure 5) is the capacity for timely self-regulation while in operation, thanks to the measurement of what is expected of the learning process and what is actually obtained. The key to this sort of systematic realignment is constant monitoring -- represented in Figure 5 by the measurement block -- aimed at formative evaluation of both the users and the whole process.

Online education systems fully encompass this suggestion. Indeed, they are based on intense interaction among all the components of the process, giving the tutors and, more generally, the training provider the opportunity for in-progress monitoring of the process. In this way, any necessary adjustments can be made to bring the course more closely into line with the stated objectives, in other words with the 'expected effect.'

Nevertheless, it ought to be pointed out that retroaction of some form or another is becoming an increasingly common feature, even in the case of distance courses based primarily on the use of structured material. For example, this is true in courses where participants are offered online support.

Costs and Return on Investment

Thus far, we have offered a 'cold' analysis of some of the key elements that govern the choice of distance learning approach: learning strategy, target population size and the conditions determining course quality. These have been examined from a methodological viewpoint, but in fact, the choice is often made on the basis of production and management costs.

This raises a problem: is it better to invest in a high-cost, interactive, flexible, tailored course or opt for the production of structured material designed for individual study with little or no user support?

Considerations regarding the relationship between interactivity and quality would tend to suggest the former option. Conversely, seen it terms of economy of scale, the choice should lie with the latter, namely, with courses addressing the highest possible number of potential users to offset the investment that high-quality learning material entails (Kirkwood, 1998), even though such material may be difficult to customize.

Figure 6 shows how the average cost per student changes according to target population size, both for intensive courses -- based on collaborative learning strategies -- and extensive courses -- centered more on autonomous use of structured material (Trentin, 2000).

As we can see, the average cost per student for extensive courses is initially much higher than that for intensive ones. However, as student numbers grow, the cost falls and then evens out. The high initial cost derives from the greater investment in the production of learning material, which is usually purpose-made.

Conversely, while the cost of intensive courses is initially lower, as student numbers increase, the average rises above that for extensive courses. Actually, this considerably undermines the economy of scale that extensive distance courses have always been thought to offer, and as a result, the cost breakdown becomes closer to that of face-to-face courses. Material production costs are low as wide use is made of pre-existing material, like articles and book excerpts, which has not necessarily been designed for distance education. Variable costs are high due to the presence of tutors, whose number grows with the number of students. Tutor costs remain high, irrespective of whether the strategy implemented is based on synchronous communication -- for example, videoconferencing and one-to-many interaction -- or asynchronous communication -- computer conferencing and many-to-many interaction. However, in the latter, case they are somewhat higher on average.

A possible contradiction in online education

While online education is commonly held to be potentially cheaper than face-to-face training, many studies have reached the conclusion that it may either be more expensive or more economical depending on how the course in question is designed, developed and delivered (Cukier, 1997). Indeed, the more flexibility, interactivity and student support, the more expensive the course becomes.

This apparent contradiction is especially striking when seen from the viewpoint of those who consider distance education to be a fast and economical way to provide "home delivery" of the educational product to its potential beneficiaries. In this light, the Web is seen primarily as a means of mass distribution.

Hence the point is this: why should one buck the trend and plan online courses that are similar in cost to comparable face-to-face ones. There is clearly only one answer: when the aim is to achieve higher levels of quality that would otherwise be unattainable with face-to-face courses, much less with traditional distance learning.

To understand the conditions under which a situation of this kind might occur, it is necessary to dispel the common belief that distance communication systems are only capable of delivering surrogate forms of traditional teaching/learning -- for example, tele-lessons, distribution of learning material, etc. In other words, there is a need for a radical shift of viewpoint and to start thinking in terms of fully-fledged 'network pedagogy', endeavouring to transform whatever looks at first sight like a medium-induced constraint into new opportunities for learning. Take as an example the use of written communication, which is understandably shunned in a multimedia permeated society. The written word appears to have gained a new lease on life in CMC, thanks to the adoption of the cycle 'reading-understanding-reflecting-expressing-exchanging views-discussing.' In this way, written communication supports greater and more conscious exploration of the subjects taught. This leads to higher quality learning and ensures an acceptable return on investment, even if the two factors are not always strictly correlated.

Therefore, the central question becomes deciding to what extent added interactivity will help raise the quality of a course, and then determining the financial impact of this decision on the course's overall cost. And again, having established that the course will greatly benefit from high interactivity, what is the extra expense one is willing to bear -- compared with a conventional distance education course -- for the sake of the expected higher return on investment, assuming it has been possible to define this return fairly precisely.

The problem is all the greater in cases where the main benefit is not exclusively economic and, therefore, more difficult to weigh in terms of investment costs. One example of this is in the field of in-service teacher training (Trentin, 1997b).

TO INTERACT OR NOT TO INTERACT: DESIGN IMPLICATIONS

If we exclude the upstream aspects of course designing, which are common to both extensive and intensive courses -- analysis of educational needs, definition of the student profile, prerequisites for course participation, structuring of objectives and contents -- the essential differences between designing a course based on structured learning material and an online course lie in:

* planning of educational activities;

* defining the kind of support the learner will be offered;

* defining evaluation/assessment methods and tools;

* implementing the courseware kit; and

* choosing the most suitable network services.

Planning the educational activities

By its very nature, an intensive process will focus more closely on social activity, where each participant plays a decisive role: the students discussing or jointly performing the required course tasks; the tutors in their capacity as moderators, facilitators or trainers.

Conversely, an extensive course will primarily aim at individual forms of activity such as autonomous study or exercise, possibly supported by a remote tutor.

Defining the type of support to offer students

The level of support provided within the course is closely linked to the type of activity proposed to learners. As seen above, extensive courses mainly rely on individual work, so learner support will be limited to a minimum and will be oriented towards counseling rather than actual tutoring.

Intensive courses are different. Since they are heavily reliant on strong interaction between all the components in the process -- students, tutors, experts, and so forth -- the level of support is much greater. Support is not only provided by the tutors, but also by the relationships formed within the learning community.

Defining methods and evaluation/assessment tools

As extensive and intensive courses differ in terms of educational activities and the level of participant interaction, it is obvious that evaluation methods will differ accordingly. Evaluation in extensive courses will mainly rely on analysis of the material produced by the learners and on tests and questionnaires. In intensive courses, the same tools may be complemented with an assessment of network discussion and individual contribution to collaborative work (Benigno & Trentin, 2000).

Implementing the courseware kit

As seen above, extensive processes are distinguished by the mediation of material that must be purposely designed and developed for individual use. This means that the courseware's purpose is not only to convey the contents but also to clarify the course objectives and structure and provide guidelines for its utilization.

Subsequently, developing a course which is destined for online delivery and that involves the mediation of certain materials is not merely a matter of transferring existing material into electronic format and arranging it more or less tidily on a network server. Actually, this might be the starting point for creating material for an intensive course. The tutors and teachers will then give guidance and advice on how the students are to exploit the material, which might not necessarily be structured and may include sets of articles, book excerpts and reports.

Choosing the most suitable network services

Clearly, extensive courses should favor services that provide access to information such as the Web and one-to-many communication systems -- broadcast messages, videoconferencing, etc. By contrast, intensive courses should look to interpersonal communication services that offer participants diverse communication patterns: one-to-one (tutor-learner); one-to-many (tutor - learners); and many-to-many (tutor <-> learners, learners <-> learners).

Typically, extensive courses depend primarily on the use of web pages, while intensive courses normally rely on computer conferencing systems.

CONCLUSIONS

This article has proposed a taxonomy of possible methodological approaches to the use of the Internet in continuous education and training for adults, ranging from the use of the network to deliver structured learning material to approaches based on collaborative learning strategies. At the same time, an effort has been made to provide hints for choosing the most suitable approach within a given educational context and in response to specific learning needs.

Figure 7 sums up the various approaches:

1. free use of the network to access unstructured material in order to pursue an explicit educational path -- the analogy made was with visiting a huge library;

2. use of structured learning material purposely designed for distance self-learning;

3. use of material structured for distance education (primarily self-learning) but including some support from the provider (counseling);

4. use of learning material which is not necessarily structured into an actual self-learning course, with support from the provider's tutors and teachers;

5. use of mixed approaches that include complementary phases of face-to-face teaching and online activities;

6. use of "pure" online approaches based on intensive, remote interaction among all the actors in the process (learners, tutors, experts); and

7. use of communities of practice approaches, leading to the formation of collaborative groups composed of, for example, course alumni or professionals who share experiences, knowledge and best practices for the purposes of collective growth.

Summarizing even further, the uses in points:

* 1 and 2 are typical of an 'individual learning' process;

* 3 and 4 of 'assisted learning';

* 5 and 6 of 'collaborative learning' based on a structured learning process;

* of 'reciprocal learning' based on the sharing of experiences, knowledge and best practice.

It is important to note that the level of interactivity among the actors in the process tends to increase when passing from approaches based solely on individual use of learning material to approaches that also embrace collaborative learning.

For this reason, the second part of the article has been dedicated to examine the relationship between the level of interactivity involved in the various approaches and the conditions for applying those approaches effectively. In particular, we have seen how the choice of approach is influenced by a number of factors:

* the actual need to set in motion active and collaborative learning strategies;

* the size of the target population (extensive vs. intensive courses);

* the quality level the course is expected to attain; and

* costs and return on investment.

Finally, we have also seen how the design of a 'course based on the use of structured learning material' -- extensive and not, if only slightly, interactive -- necessarily differs from the design of an 'online education course' (intensive and highly interactive), particularly in:

* planning of educational activities;

* defining the kind of support the learner will be offered;

* defining evaluation/assessment methods and tools;

* implementing the courseware kit; and

* choosing the most suitable network services.

Note:

(1.) http://www.irl.org/ (Institute for Research on Learning)

(2.) http://www.agilityforum.org (Next-Generation Manufacturing)

(3.) http://ss.uno.edu/ss/theory/ComPract.html (University of New Orleans, Social Studies Resources)

(4.) This is one of the main concepts underpinning communities of practice, namely the inseparability of knowledge and practice.

REFERENCES

Barker, B., Frisbie, A., & Patrick, K (1993). Broadening the definition of distance education in light of the new telecommunications technologies. In K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance education: new perspectives (pp. 231-240). London: Routledge.

Benigno, V., & Trentin, G. (1999). Online/onsite education: The EDIT course for educational use of telematics. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(3), 347-361.

Benigno, V., & Trentin, G. (2000). An approach to the evaluation of online courses. International Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(3), 259-270.

Berge, Z.L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22-29.

Branson, R.K., & Buckner, T. (1995). Quality applications to the classroom of tomorrow. Educational Technology 35(3), 19-22.

Brown, J.S., & Gray, ES. (November, 1995). After reengineering: The people are the company [Online]. Fast Company, 1. Available: http://www.fastcompany.com/online/01/people.html

Cortada, J.W., & Woods, J.A. (1999). The knowledge management yearbook: 1999-2000. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Cukier, J. (1997). Cost-benefit analysis of telelearning: Developing a methodology framework. Distance Education, 18(1), 137-152.

Dillon, A. & Zhu, E. (1997). Designing Web-based instruction: A human-computer interaction perspective. In B.H. Khan (Ed), Web-based instruction (pp. 221-224). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Eastmond, D.V. (1995). Alone but together Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Harasim, L.M. (1990). Online education. Perspectives on a new environment. New York: Praeger.

Haughey, M., & Anderson, T. (199B). Networked learning: the pedagogy of the Internet. Toronto, ON, Canada: McGraw-Hill.

Herman, J.L., & Herman, J.J. (1995). Total quality management (TQM) for education. Educational Technology 35(3), 14-18.

Kaye, A.R. (1994). Co-learn: An ISDN-based multimedia environment for collaborative learning. In R.D. Mason & P.D. Bacsich, (Eds.), ISDN Applications in education and training (pp. 179-200). London: The Institute of Electrical Engineers.

Khan, B.H. (Ed.) (1997). Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Kimmerling, G. (1993). Gathering best practices. Training and Development, 47(3), 28-36.

Kirkwood, A. (1998). New media mania: Can information and communication technologies enhance the quality of open and distance learning? Distance Education, 19(2), 228-241.

Light, P.H., & Mevarech, Z.R. (1992). Cooperative learning with computers: an introduction. Learning and Instruction, 2(3), 155-159.

Mason, R. (1993). Written interactions. In R. Mason (Ed.), Computer conferencing: The last word. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Beach Holme, Ltd.

Mealman, C.A. (1993). Incidental learning by adults in a nontraditional degree program: A case study. Presented at the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Columbus, OH. Available: http://www.nl.edu/ace/Resources/Documents/Incidental.html

Nipper, S. (1989). Third generation distance learning and computer conferencing. In R. Mason & A.R. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Palloff, R.M. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parsons, T. (1979). Organisation and clients. Bellevue, WA: Merrill.

Rowntree, D. (1994). Preparing material for open distance and flexible learnig. London: Kogan Page.

Rowntree, D. (1995). Teaching and learning online: a correspondence education for the 21st century? British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 205-215.

Slavin, R.E. (1990). Co-operative learning: theory, research, and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Trentin, G. (1996). On-line education and in-service training. Proceedings of the International Conference "Lifelong learning for the information society" (pp. 44-48), Genoa, Italy.

Trentin, G. (1997a). Logical communication structures for network-based education and tele-teaching. Educational Technology, 37(4), 19-25.

Trentin, G. (1997b). Telematics and on-line teacher training: The Polaris project. International Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(4), 261-270.

Trentin, G. (1998). Computer conferencing systems seen by a designer of online courses. Educational Technology, 38(3), 36-43.

Trentin, G. (1999). What Does 'Using the Internet for Education' Mean? Educational Technology, 39(4), 15-23.

Trentin G. (2000). The quality-interactivity relationship in distance education. Educational Technology, 40(1), 17-27.

Wenger, E. (1996). Communities of practice: the social fabric of a learning organization. Healthcare Forum Journal, 39(4), 20-26.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

GUCLIELMO TRENTIN, INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, GENOA, ITALY

E-MAIL: [e-mail]