New Learning Environments and the Virtual Classroom
Stacy Gomes
Abstract
With increasing capabilities of technology for learning, there is a
rise in new learning opportunities using the Internet. I present facts
about the increasing significance of new learning communities. 'Learning
Communities' are intellectual or educational relationships forged through
repeated contact within a specified boundary or place (e.g., conference,
chat line, MOO) that are symbolically delineated by shared aims,
aspirations or beliefs, that are not bound by geographic proximity. This
paper presents data on the changing learner and the characteristics of new
learning environments, including examples, constraints and outcomes. In
addition, this paper presents why new learning environments support
increasing learner interaction and recommends viable suggestions for their
success.
The images of new learning environments depict learners virtually
collaborating to achieve shared goals. The nature of learning and teaching
is rapidly changing due, in part, to increasing interaction from more
accessible telecommunication networks. As providers of learning, we need to
look at the changes in the who, what, where, when and how of learning. New
options for distance education are driving the shift from learning
communities constrained by physical proximity towards virtually
unrestricted learning possibilities based on intellectual proximity. These
learner centered environments increase dialogue, critical thinking and
interaction at many levels, through various modes. The required technology
is already available and current initiatives focus on increasing efficiency
and usability. This paper discusses the significance of increasing
interaction through synchronous and asynchronous learning. In addition I
offer a conceptual framework to guide the development of learning
communities and suggest six recommendations for successful implementation
and management.
Even though I provide an explicit working definition of learning
environments for this paper, the application of a learning environment is
changing as I write. It doesn't take too many trips on the Internet to
realize that there is a wealth of information ready to be extrapolated by
the inquiring user. Interactive chat rooms, news groups and mail services
are providing means for information transfer and subsequent learning
previously unattainable. New technology is the catalyst for the paradigm
shift in learning environments and arguably the most important tool in the
disassembly of the closed classroom. An excerpt taken from a paper
published on the Internet about lifelong learning stated the following:
"Communications technology is transforming the way we live by
connecting us with information and each other. The National
Information Infrastructure (NII) promises every business,
government agency, hospital, home,library, and school in the
nation access to voice,data,full motion video, and multimedia
applications. The impact of these capabilities on learning --
for the children, for higher education students, and for
lifelong learners -- will be substantial
(A Transformation of Learning, 1994)."
Electronic communication tools are creating global communities;
computing and networking are shattering and reshaping individual jobs and
entire industries. I am not suggesting that these new learning environments
can work for everyone. What is significant is that the increasing
opportunities for learner interaction between the subject, peers,
instructors or experts from the field, through telecommunications, are now
changing the outdated requirement for physical proximity.
Introduction
This paper presents data on the changing learner and the characteristics of new learning
environments, including examples, constraints and outcomes. In addition, this paper
presents why new learning environments support increasing learner interaction and
recommends viable suggestions for their success.
The United States is undoubtedly the world's post-secondary superpower. We have
3,700 colleges and universities, 14.4 million students and 833,000 faculty (Finn &
Manno, 1996). Higher education is a $213 billion a year industry. The number of
institutions has increased by 85% since the introduction of state and national policies like
the 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education that commits the state to providing
educational opportunity to all qualified students. Higher education has been one of our
nation's bright and shining star exports, adding about $7.1 billion a year to our GNP.
However, the scales are tilting against us with 54% of Americans believing higher
education needs a "fundamental overhaul" (Finn & Manno, 1996). Are we losing
sight of our purpose and who our audience really is? While there is a need for a new
range of learning possibilities across the board, the changing definition of learning, the
changing learner and the new characteristics of learning environments provide increasing
opportunities for higher education in particular.
With the increasing capabilities of the internet for learning, the upsurge in new
learning opportunities using the internet abounds. There is an image of new learning
environments that depicts various vignettes. We think of learners virtually collaborating
on shared goals. We envision experts in the field offering suggestions from afar,
mentoring and guiding students within these environments. There are grade school
children, high school students, college students and graduate students. We imagine many
scenarios but none that reflect the traditional classroom with the teacher at the front of
the class and the students all sitting quietly facing forward. In fact, all of these visions are
accurate, because virtual learning environments combine many of these features into
supportive and dynamic, learning communities.
1. Changing Learner
As providers of learning we need to look at the change in who is doing the learning,
what is being learned, when they want to learn, where they want to learn and how they
want to learn it. No longer are the 18-22 year old, full-time, residential, undergraduate
students the majority. In the United States they constitute less than one-fourth of all
students in higher education (Twiggs, 1994). The "new majority" are adult students, who
are primarily part-time and non-residential. Our current system was developed to serve
the previous population and is based on old assumptions about teaching, which splinter
under the strain of trying to meet the demands for the new majority. This model is a relic
of the past and is no longer the only option for consumers of education. The existence of
affordable telecommunications with the capability of offering instruction to anyone,
anytime, anywhere is giving impetus to the changes in who, when and where students
learn. Are institutions for higher education willing to pursue alternative methods of
instruction to meet the consumer needs of this new majority? Will commercial industry
step in and reap more of the benefits of this $213 billion a year market?
1.1 Who is Doing the Learning.
Nationwide undergraduate enrollment projections will increase over 50% in the next
decade. The California Post-secondary Education Commission bases its projections on a
student flow model of first-time freshmen and transfer students based on anticipated
demographic information (Breneman, Estrada, & Haywrad, 1995). What is
significant about these figures is they focus on the population of incoming
undergraduates and ignore measuring the new majority supply side of market demand.
Predicting this increase is anyone's guess and will only add to the projected increase of
50%. This projection is based on predicting student enrollments, current trends and
implications of policy decisions. The increasing numbers, and needs, of changing learner
places more emphasis on offering alternative learning options for more learners, using
less resources with less physical space to do the job.
1.2 What is Being Learned.
The nature of learning and teaching is rapidly changing due
to the integration of telecommunications networks. This
trend is most evident in the rising interest in on-line
education which is offered primarily through computer
mediated communications. A non-traditional student
interested in lifelong learning must tackle concerns about
time distance, and money. On-line learning offers these
students one alternative. These students, however, will be
more successful if they are self-motivated. Simply
transferring traditional print base instruction to the
internet is not effective. Learner interaction with
content, peers and instructor is necessary to
achieve optimal results. Distance learning is an effective
and appropriate manner in which to provide interaction
(Schrum, 1995). Researchers are still looking at the issues
associated with the development of this new educational
paradigm that affect adequate interaction. Learners are
attracted to the new flexibility of distance learning that
telecommunications affords them. By overcoming the
distance between learners and teachers, a broader range of
educational opportunities can be provided. Requirements
for success in today's society include preparing learners to
think critically and reason, practice self-motivation to
continue learning, independently through life. Virtual
learning communities foster this goal of continuous,
independent learning.
1.3 When They Want to Learn.
We are also experiencing changes in when students learn. The American Society for
Training and Development estimates that by the year 2000, 75 percent of the workforce
will need retraining (Twiggs, 1994). For most of the U.S. population, lifelong learning is
becoming a necessity. As we think about teaching and learning issues, how many of our
colleges and universities continue to view their primary business as residential
undergraduate education for recent high school graduates? How many of our faculty have
considered the implications of a society in which continuous learning is the norm?
Virtual learning communities do require many things such as access to a computer
and modem, but what they do not require is the student, or professor to be in a certain
place, at a certain time. With a virtual community a student can read e-mail at 2:00 a.m.
If a student has a brainstorm at an irregular time, they can post a message while it is still
fresh in their mind. Time appears to have a different meaning in computer mediated
communications. A conversation thread can take place as quickly as if in person, or a
participant who reads e-mail or news infrequently can revive a topic that was first
initiated several weeks prior.
1.4 Where They Want to Learn.
We are witnessing changes in where students learn. No longer confined exclusively to
the classroom, credit-bearing learning now occurs in workplaces, from the office to the
factory floor to submarines under the sea; in malls; in hotel rooms; and in the home.
Enabled by the power of information technology, classroom learning now extends
beyond a single campus to distant sites across the town, across the state, and across the
country. How many of our institutions understand this profound shift away from the
concept of the university as a place? How many of our faculty are thinking about new
pedagogies that reach out to students, wherever they are?
The idea of "place" also changes. If the interesting and exciting discussions are taking
place in virtual communities, then what "place" is that? Are virtual learning communities
less important because they are not part of a classroom? The sense of where the
information resides and where students can take it from changes. Virtual communities
can create a vast laboratory for students to experiment in, making resources and people
available that otherwise would not be. This lack of place in time gives students a broader
view of the topic.
1.5 How They Want to Learn
Finally, increasingly we know more about how people learn. Our growing
sophistication about the nature of learning points inevitably to the virtues of
individualized learning and to the creation of customized learning environments that
accommodate the diverse learning styles our students possess. Giving students options
increases motivation, which increases the amount of invested mental energy (AIME)
(Salomon, 1983).
1.6 New Tools for Learning.
We also have new tools available to assist us
while we learn. Steve Ehrmann of the
Annenberg/CPB (Corporation of Public
Broadcasting) project has pointed out that we
live in a world richer in information and in the
tools for using information than most of us can
exploit because we lack the skills to use them.
New visualization tools give us capabilities in
addition to text in order to imagine, to analyze,
to communicate. Powerful creative tools are
available to produce newsletters, design homes
and offices, create music. Electronic
communication tools are creating global
communities; computing and networking are
shattering and reshaping individual jobs and
entire industries. Are our colleges and
universities preparing graduates not only to
master these tools but also to enable them to
acquire the higher-order thinking skills needed
to use the tools effectively? How many of our
faculty can use these tools skillfully themselves?
2 Trends
The required technology is already available for the shift to new, unbound learning
environments. Current initiatives focus on increasing the efficiency and usability of this
technology. Several major trends are taking place in the telecommunications arena.
One major trend is the move to digitize telecommunications networks. This move is
occurring through all parts of the telecommunication infrastructure. Digitization provides
a marked increase in the quality of the signal being transported. Other reasons for the
move to an all digital network are:
Improved quality through regeneration
Ease of multiplexing
Lower cost associated with the use of digital logic and memory chips
Ease of signaling and encryption
Another trend is the use of machine-based intelligence within telecommunications
networks. A good example of this is the use of computers to create virtual or software
designed instruction. Furthermore, telecommunications in the information infrastructure
must have the following attributes:
Convenient and equitable access
Affordable workplace and home access
High sped transmission capability
Easy use and technical simplification
Security
High standards of content and portability. (Gallagher & Hatfield,
1989).
Telecommunications and new technologies provide opportunities in research and
connectivity to alternative methods of learning that is virtually limitless. Some evidence
suggests that this type of learning may be more effective than traditional instructional
methods in building complex problem solving capabilities, lifelong learning skills and
learning to learn motivation.
For over a century there have been many attempts to break out of the traditional mold
and forge a more holistic approach to providing education and learning to an
ever-growing population. Harasim, Hiltz, Teles & Turoff (1995) describe three
current modes of using telecommunication networks to support learning. The first,
adjunct mode, uses networks to allow students to communicate with instructor and other
students outside the class or office hours. Adjunct mode extends interaction, allows
submission or exchange of assignments and enables group collaboration. Adjunct mode
is typically optional for students although it may be formally integrated into the
curriculum. Mixed mode is the second mode and is fully integrated into the curriculum
and constitutes part of the course grade. In mixed mode a significant portion of the class
is conducted by e-mail or computer conferencing. The third, on-line mode, serves as the
primary environment for the course discussion, assignments and interactions. Face-to-
face meeting may be offered to introduce curriculum or students to each other, but aren't
essential based on time and travel constraints. All modes can be considered a symbol
system that allows learners to interact and share goals and values.
Distance education is driving the shift from a learning community encompassed by
physical proximity to a community that is virtually unrestricted in interactive learning
possibilities. The previous view that teaching is a transfer of knowledge from one vessel
to another is quickly giving way to an emerging and learner centered model.
3 New Learning Environments
Physical proximity does not make a community. As far back as 1916, Dewey
recognized that a book or letter may institute a more intimate association between human
beings separated thousands of miles apart than the association that exists between people
living under the same roof. A post by Caroline Ferguson (1994) to Communet, a
conference devoted to on-line community and community building, reflects this need for
intimate associations. "We are social creatures and long for contact: I don't think it
matters that contact is via phone, Net, or face-to-face if it promotes and reinforces
understanding, action and human connections."
Ideologically, the new electronic or networked communities appear to emphasize
associations of shared belief in the principles of free speech, individualism, equality and
open access, the same symbolic interests that define the character of American
democracy (Fernback & Thompson 1995). Rheingold (1993) argues that electronic
communities have flourished in part due to a public lament over the disappearance of
informal public spaces in real life (IRL). The move towards communities that are based
on intellectual and emotional proximity rather than physical proximity are increasing. We
believe the increase may represent new post-modern options of interaction for the new
majority based on shared aims, aspirations and beliefs. We will argue that a very
important reason for the flourishing new electronic learning communities is based on the
previously unavailable options for synchronous and asynchronous interaction. The ability
to find motivating support in an on-line community will drive those with like interests
towards these new communities.
So what then, are the inherent advantages to these new ways of learning? What do they
provide for students and teachers? How do they affect the educational experiences? Is it
effective? What do learners want from these new learning environments and how can we
accommodate these needs? Levin (1995) states there must be enough perceived mutual
benefit to make the costs involved worthwhile. We can look at these new learning
communities in two ways. On one side is what learners put into them and on the other, is
what they get out of them. Rheingold (1993) characterizes three "collective goods" as
benefits in economic terms: knowledge capital, social capital and communion. It appears
that the key to new learning communities is the human interaction that foster knowledge
capital, social capital and communication through the virtual space and time allotted to
the group.
The increasing funding opportunities for new learning environments through national
and private initiatives are evidence that there are more stakeholders in this arena than the
increasing numbers of the new majority. Stephen Ehrmann, Program Officer for
Interactive Technologies for The Annenberg/CPB Projects, and his colleagues saw the
trends towards the use of multiple technologies and created a funding program called
"New Pathways to a Degree: Using Technologies to Open the College" (1990). The
guidelines asserted that learners require:
Access to courses and academic services that are available at convenient times
and places,
resources at least comparable to what they would find if they were full-time
students on campus --- including stimulating teachers, collections of rich primary
and secondary source materials, and laboratory experiences,
opportunities to discuss ideas and exchange homework and other materials with
professors and students,
and a coherent and substantial array of courses that enables them to move
efficiently toward a degree.
Keeping in mind that this was the early 1990's
and his experience with funding programs,
Ehrmann predicted they would receive about 70
proposals and most of them would not be good.
What is significant is how wrong he was. The
reviewers received 243 proposals, representing
well over 10% of all the colleges and
universities in the United States. It appeared
90% of the applicants were poised, ready and
capable of using the money to create programs
that would meet the four criteria listed above.
This is only one indication that users and
creators of these new learning environments are
anxious to have learning more available in
multiple formats that support alternative
learning styles.
3.1 Management of New Learning
Environments
Networked learning environments are expanding rapidly. Teachers and students are
using these networks to conduct exciting new collaborative activities. Until very recently,
there has been no conceptual framework to guide the implementation, management and
assessment of these networked environments. James Levin, at the University of Illinois at
Urbana Champagne, (1995) has developed some research based guidelines that can guide
future research and evaluation for this new educational medium. He believes his research
can provide guidance for hitting what is currently being viewed as a moving target, that
is, what Erhmann (1990) describes as interactive technologies, and what we describe as
new networked based learning environments.
3.1.1 Management
Several different groups have provided guidelines and taxonomies for the
educational use of networks. Levin presents five general features that span the
different research:
Structure: The first element of structure is the notion that a
social structure is important for supporting network interactions. Social structure is
determined by the nature (architecture) of the network and in part by the goals and
constraints of the participants. Levin points out that interaction on electronic
networks is very different in some ways from more conventional interaction, and
thus requires modified and in some cases totally new social structure to support it.
Process: Network activity is episodic, unfolding over time
through a series of different phases. The general steps of the process are, the
initiation phase, a phase for educational activity, and a wrap-up phase. What is
significant in each phase is the changing role of the learner. Unless learners are
aware of the changing interactions, they may be disappointed in their expectations of
the timing and the nature of the interactions.
Mediation: Another key commonalty in these environments are active,
effective moderators that initiate and sustain interaction within the community. The
role of mediation in learning has been a central construct in recent Vygotskian
theories of learning (Vygotskii, 1978) . Interaction over networks tend to stretch out
over time, which also makes the importance of mediation and mediators easy to see.
Levin's research indicates that most failures of attempts to build a successful
networked learning environments are due to the lack of appropriate mediation at the
appropriate times in the unfolding interaction process.
Community-Building: Most successful attempts at creating
new learning environments focus on steps to build a sense of community among
participants. One important often overlooked point about community building is that
it takes work on the part of all involved, and for that to occur, there has to be some
perceived benefit to those involved to form a community for overcoming technical
difficulties, costs in time, or monetary costs.
Institutional Support: Finally the need to imbed educational interaction
within an institutional structure that will support and sustain the interaction over
time. Use broader institutional structures that already exist or those that can be
created by modifying existing structures to support the scaling up of increasing use.
These five features are a starting point towards effectively
managing networked based learning environments. If, as
Rheingold has suggested, the "collective goods" don't equal
or surpass the valuable items people invest in their
communities, which are money, time and emotion they will
go else where. So what makes a community a "great, good
place" to help build and sustain? Professor Paul J. Kelly of
Calumet College at York University suggests it is how the
community manages to both empower and protect its
members that makes a great, good place. Protection can be
for or from users, or system administrators. Ethical
behavior and netiquette are starting points while setting a
balance is also significant. If there is too much constriction
people will not participate, likewise if there is too much of
a free for all, you lose your structure.
3.1.2 Implementation
In his course Netropolitan Life (Kelly, 1995), Kelly describes the significance of network architecture on
structure of networked communities. He describes the changing nature of interaction between personal e-
mail, newsgroups, groupware, MUDS, USENET and IRC. Each of these media environments use different
communicative constraints based on synchronous or asynchronous interaction. Some structures allow real
time verbal gestures while others afford intricate and complex conversational threads among groups. These
different structural environments afford various forms of interaction that require different rules, or
netiquette, which eventually emerge to facilitate the functions of the community. Mitchell Kapor, co-founder
of Electronic Frontier Foundation refers to this as the politics of architecture (Kelly, 1995).
Kelly sees the factors which are responsible for facilitating a payoff between what people invest when they
participate in a community and the "collective goods" they receive as being divided into three categories:
administrative, social engineering and software. He offers a checklist that applies mostly to conferencing
structures but can be used as a guide for the development and use of just about any networked learning
environment.
Administrative
How will it be priced?
Who makes the rules?
How is privacy addressed?
Are there social sanctions?
Who builds worlds, rooms or starts threads?
Distributed or central control?
How many people can it support?
Social Engineering
Are there welcome wagons?
Is there social convening?
Is the atmosphere friendly and tolerant?
Is the community gender neutral?
Are there directories?
Software Features
Is your persona really you?
Is there a database?
Is the interface easy to learn?
How dynamic is the environment for interaction and creation?
How does the environment engage the user?
The benefits characterized by Rheingold as knowledge
capital, social capital and communion may need more
specific attention when looking at Kelly's factors. A
significant difference between Kelly's factors for successful
payoff and Levin's guidelines for educational networks is
that Levin's are specific to educational learning
environments while Kelly's categories are directed towards
more social communities. We should mention that
administrative, social engineering and software features are
fundamental starting points before moving on to structure,
process, mediation, community building and institutional
support.
3.1.3 Assessment
There are numerous advantages to using
networked learning communities to augment
course work. The biggest advantage is that
virtual communities are truly interactive. When
a student posts a message there is no way of
knowing what the responses will be like or if
there will be a response or not. There is also no
way to know how others will react to the posting
or who will respond. An expert in the field,
monitoring the discussion might suddenly
respond with their words of wisdom and can
change the whole tone of the direction of the
conversation. These responses from outsiders
also expose the students to a much broader view
than what they can expect in a standard lecture
class. Another advantage is that students learn
they must defend their ideas. When a student
submits a post detailing their ideas, the student
will be forced to think, defend the post and
answer questions from the community. Virtual
learning communities force recipients of the
message to think and react to what has been
written. These environments allow the students
to lead the discussion and express ideas.
Ongoing dialogue and debate within new
learning environments force individuals to
explicitly defend particular arguments. Jonassen
(1991b) states debate is one of the most
powerful, constructive ways towards developing
and evaluating critical thinking. Instructors can
apply Bloom's (1956) taxonomy for educational
objectives towards the levels of higher order
learning. Section 4.0, Outcomes of Learning
Environments, present more detail for
generating and evaluating learning outcomes.
4.0 Conclusions
In this paper we talk about the changing learner and their increasing need for
flexibility, equity, and more importantly interaction. The changing technology and
direction of learning are giving way to a more global and learner based model. Physical
proximity is not a criteria anymore. New learning communities promote and reinforce
understanding, interaction and human connections through intellectual, emotional and
social proximity.
There are many characteristics that define a learning community or environment.
Each environment is unique but does take into consideration some basic conditions of
learning in one form or another. This paper addresses the changing dialogue, affordances
and constraints of an environment, geographical considerations, admission and
participation. Several different groups have provided guidelines and taxonomies for the
educational use of networks. Paul Kelly (1995) and James Levin (1995) present general
features that span the different research: structure, process, mediation, community
building and institutional support.
5.0 Recommendations
1. Define the purpose for creating a learning environment. Is the interaction
a collaboration, course credit, exploration, or work related training etc...?
2. Use established institutional structures such as instructional support
units and university telecommunications to support needed asynchronous and/or
synchronous communication to sustain increasing interaction over time.
3. Conduct assessment of the existing instructional process.
4. Provide effective mentors/facilitators that will initiate and sustain
interaction, including mediation at the appropriate times, in the unfolding
community interaction process .
5. Define rules of admission and participation that encourage the identified
mutual benefit among the learners in the community.
6. Evaluate the results of the learning environment.
References
Bloom, B. J. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational
goals. D. McKay Co., Inc. New York.
Breneman, D. W., Estrada, L. F., Hayward, G.C. (September, 1995). Tidal Wave II:
An Evaluation of Enrollment Projections for California Higher Education. The
California Higher Education Policy Center. Technical Report 95-6. [On-line].
Available: http://www.policycenter.org/tidal/tidalc.html
Dewey, John. (1916). Democracy and Education; an introduction to the philosophy
of education. New York. The Macmillan Company.
Ehrmann, Stephen C. (1990). Looking backward: U.S. efforts to use technology to
transform undergraduate education. The Annenberg/CPB Projects. Learner
Online. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.learner.org/ed_strat/eval/ACPB_LookingBackward.html
Ferguson, C. (1994, April 9). Posting on Communet.
Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual communities: Abort, retry,
failure? [On-line] . Available URL:
http://www.well.com/user/hlr/texts/VCcivil.html. A version of this paper, entitled
"Computer-Mediated Communication and the American Collectivity: The
Dimensions of Community Within Cyberspace is available
Finn, C.E. Jr. & Manno B.V. (1996), Behind the curtain. Wilson Quarterly,
winter.
Gallagher L., Hatfield D. (1989). Distance Learning: Opportunities in
Telecommunications Policy and Technology. The Annenberg Washington
program Washington, DC.
Harasim, H. W. (June 1988). Collaborative Learning in a Virtual Classroom:
Highlights of Findings. New Jersey Institute of Technology. ERIC document
#ED305895.
Harasim, L. Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., & Turoff M. (1995). Learning Networks: A
Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. Cambridge, Mass. The MIT
Press.
Hiltz, S. R. (June 1988). Collaborative Learning in a Virtual Classroom: Highlights
of Findings. New Jersey Institute of Technology. ERIC document #ED305895.
Information Infrastructure Task Force and the Committee on Applications and
Technology. (1994).A Transformation of Learning: Use of the NII for Education
and Lifelong Learning. U.S. Government Printing Office.[On-line]. Available:
http://iitfcat.nist.gov:94/doc/Education.html
Jonassen. D.H. (September, 1991b). Evaluating constructivist learning.
Educational Technology 31, (9), 29-33.
Kelly, P.J. (1995).Architecture is politics. E-lecture. Netropolitan life.
Calumet College, York University. [On-line]. Available: http://www-
home.calumet.yorku.ca/pkelly/www/1920.htm
Levin, J.A. (1995). Organizing educational networks: Steps towards a theory of
networked-based learning environments. AERA 1995 proceedings. [On-line] .
Available: http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/guidelines/Levin-AERA-18Ap95.html.
Lin, X., Bransford, J., Hmelo, C., Kantor, R., Hickey, T., Petrosino, A., Goldman, S.,
& The cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1995). Instructional
design and development of learning communities: An invitation to a dialogue.
Educational Technology, 53 - 61.
Reingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic
Frontier. New York, Addison-Wesley.
Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in different sources of
learning material. Educational Psychologist, 18, 42-50.
Schrum, L. (1995, July). Online Courses: What Have We Learned? Paper
presented to the World Conference of Computers in Education, Birmingham,
England, United Kingdom. ERIC document #ED385245.
Twigg, C. A. (1994). The need for a national learning infrastructure. Educom
Review, 29 (4-6). [On-line] Available:
http://educom.edu/program/nlii/keydocs/monograph.html
Vygotskii, L. S. (1978). Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Stacy Gomes
Center for Research in Math and Science Education
San Diego State University
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/SGomes/SGomes.html
sgomes@mail.sdsu.edu