1

Pedagogical Sustainability of Network-Based Distance Education in

University Teaching

Draft of:

Trentin G. (2007). Pedagogical Sustainability of Network-Based Distance Education in University

Teaching. In E.P. Bailey (Ed) Focus on Distance Education Developments, Ch. 4 (pp. 79-106). Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, USA.

Guglielmo Trentin

Institute for Educational Technology, National Research Council, Italy

ABSTRACT

The economic and organizational aspects have always been considered one of the key

elements promoting the sustainability of network-based Distance Education (NBDE).

However, it is known that to guarantee appreciable quality in DE, these elements should

not come before those more specifically related to the pedagogical dimension of DE. It has

been shown by now that whenever this happens, the choice of pedagogical approach is

generally conditioned and channeled towards a DE based primarily on the individual (and

passive) study of educational materials. Despite usually being considered cheaper, the

content-driven approaches almost always curb the quality of the learning process since they

deprive it of its other important key dimension, namely social interaction.

If the social dimension of learning is to be fostered in DE, then the network should not

merely be seen as a means of distributing educational materials but mainly as a resource

that is able to facilitate distance interaction with both teachers and other students within

online learning groups.

Adopting such approaches though rarely contributes towards a reduction in training costs,

and in some cases it can actually bring about an increase.

To understand in what direction future research on DE should be developed, its role

therefore requires a clearer definition in the more general context of university education.

In other words, is it a question of methodology aimed mainly at reducing costs and

resolving issues related to management/logistics or is it more a question of an approach that

2

can increasingly enhance the social learning dimension - and then the quality of the

learning process- even in DE, thanks to the support of network technology?

The aim of this chapter is to provide an answer to this dilemma. Thus, firstly the main

dimensions regarding a feasible evaluation model of the sustainability of NBDE will be

discussed. Then the pedagogical dimension will be dealt with, supporting the thesis that

this is the keystone for real sustainability of quality NBDE in the context of university

education.

For this purpose, with reference to an experimentation carried out within the University of

Turin on the use of Networked Collaborative Learning (NCL), examples will be given of a

possible pedagogical approach for integrating individual study and online collaborative

learning, developing considerations both on the pedagogical sustainability of the method

and on the related management/logistics aspects.

INTRODUCTION

From a study carried out by the Institute of Business Education and Educational

Management of the Swiss University of St. Gallen [Seufert and Euler, 2003], it emerges

how the theme of sustainability is central for the diffusion process of NBDE in university

teaching. However, what has a bearing on the sustainability of NBDE? Which reference

models should teaching innovation processes based on NBDE follow in order to sustain

itself, expand and at the same time enhance the quality of learning?

With regard to Euler e Wilbers [2002], while discussing the stabilization stage of an

innovative process, they write:

“ … a foreign body is getting implemented in a system. Either it adapts and will not be

regarded as alien or it will continuously be identified as a foreign body and be eventually

rejected from the system.”

It therefore follows that the more sustainable an innovation process is, the more it has

those characteristics to integrate itself effectively and efficiently in the institutional context

of reference. How though can the transition be facilitated from an occasional use of NBDE

to its formal integration among an institution’s standard practice?

3

A possible reference model for the sustainability of NBDE

Drawing on some studies in the field [Seufert and Euler, 2003; Trentin, 2004a; Attwell,

2005], derives a possible reference paradigm for the sustainability of NBDE which is

described here below. The aim is to highlight the main dimensions along which a reasoned

argument on the sustainability of NBDE can be developed. The proposed model identifies

at least 6 closely and mutually interrelated dimensions (Figure 1).

Figure 1 – The six-dimension model for the sustainability of NBDE

The Economic Dimension – It refers to all the aspects related to the optimization of

resources at stake that range from development to practice costs, as well as to those for

subsequent reinvestments. However, a cut oriented drastically towards economic questions

may run the risk of leveling down other dimensions and above all impede substantial

changes regarding pedagogical improvement.

The Pedagogical Dimension – It focuses on the added value and the pedagogical

potentialities introduced by media use in order to promote the sustainability of NBDE with

regard to the quality of the teaching/learning processes. Moreover this includes the

possibility of using specific functionalities of the technological platforms to improve the

monitoring process of the learner’s state of progression during most of the learning course

4

in order for a summative and formative assessment [Bloom, 1971; William and Black,

1996; Trentin, 1997].

The Professional Dimension – It regards identifying the key figures needed for the design,

development, delivery and management of NBDE, as well as methods for their training.

The professional dimension also includes issues concerned with formal recognition and

appreciation of these figures, as well as strategies for a generalized cultural growth of

training professionals towards the educational use of information and communication

technologies (ICT).

The Organizational Dimension – It refers to creating the organizational conditions

(adaptation and development of structures and processes) to actually be able to integrate

NBDE methodologies in the standard practices of the organization in order to

‘institutionalize’ them. An NBDE initiative conceived as an isolated project – not

integrated within the institution and where its maintenance cannot be guaranteed – has the

remotest chance of surviving in the long run. Hence the need for an adequate organizational

development within the reference context.

The Technological Dimension – It is concerned with aspects related to the functionality

and stability of an adequate technological infrastructure capable of adapting to the

requirements of both the context and the individual user. This dimension very often meets

difficulties with regard to the sustainability of NBDE, in particular when investments in

hardware/software resources are over-estimated. In these cases, it results in over-absorbing

those resources which could be intended for other purposes, such as human resources

development (especially tutors and qualified project managers). It is not unusual even

nowadays to note how the technological aspects are played up, at an institutional level and

at a level of individual project, often to the disadvantage of the pedagogical dimension.

The Socio-Cultural Dimension – It refers to the socio-cultural changes required for a wide

diffusion of NBDE. From this point of view, the key idea seems to be that of sensitizing

individuals to self- management of the learning process, also as an effect brought about by

an organizational culture that considers NBDE as an integral part of working practice.

5

Although all six dimensions carry crucial weight regarding the sustainability of NBDE,

two of them in particular catch the attention of those responsible for the educational

projects: the pedagogical dimension and economic dimension, which are often in contrast.

The ‘teaching vs. cost’ dilemma

Close scrutiny leads to two still open questions regarding the process of introducing

NBDE to university education:

NBDE has not brought about significant changes in the way of carrying out training and

it is so far mainly anchored on initiatives based on financed projects and/or on pilot or

even personal actions;

many projects started with great enthusiasm and qualitatively solid basis have been

abandoned when their funding ran out.

Fundamentally, situations are rare where the right conditions are created for the survival

of NBDE in terms of teaching methodology innovation and positive feedback based on

sustained costs and returns on investment (tangible and intangible).

This would seem to mean that, without any public or private sponsors, those same

methods and technologies lack the capability of self-sustainability; or else that the quality

of much of the NBDE supplied by those financial backings is and has been so poor as to

consider, after the initial experiences, that the costs in terms of finance and human

resources cannot justify the use of such methods: in other words, their sustainability.

In actual fact, it is precisely the mirage of cutting training costs, often the real sole reason

that urges the educational use of ICT, that would appear to be the prime cause for the

development of a ‘hardly sustainable’ NBDE. Indeed, when the economic dimension

predominates the others, the result is almost always a DE with a low quality profile on the

pedagogical level. Consequently, DE with such a poor quality profile has the counter-effect

of the user becoming skeptic or even repulsed (individual users but also entire institutions).

Therefore, without rejecting the importance of the economic dimension, the outlook

especially in university education should be revised

6

including above all if, when and under which conditions the adoption of NBDE methods

brings actual added value to the teaching/learning process, enabling for example

innovative routes and strategies which cannot otherwise be implemented with

‘conventional’ methods and technologies;

establishing how much one is prepared to invest in an NBDE that is not necessarily

cheap (sometimes actually more expensive than a traditional model) when, though, the

adoption of this method guarantees higher quality than a traditional-type educational

model.

To understand in what direction future research on DE should be developed, its role

therefore requires a clearer definition in the more general context of university education.

In other words, is it a question of methodology aimed mainly at reducing costs and

resolving issues related to management/logistics or is it more a question of an approach that

can increasingly enhance the social learning dimension - and then the quality of the

learning process- even in DE, thanks to the support of network technology?

THE PEDAGOGICAL DIMENSION

It has been mentioned that the pedagogical sustainability of NBDE is closely related to

the added value and to the new possibilities that the educational use of ICT can offer

teaching/learning processes. One imagines, for example, using more stimulating and

interactive study resources (simulation environments, adaptive computer-based tests,

intelligent tutoring systems, pedagogical agents, etc.), new forms of interaction and

cooperation (also at a distance) among the users of a very same training course, different

ways of relating to teachers/tutors during individual and/or collaborative study, the use of

integrated multimedia learning environment and so on.

In view of these possibilities, it is therefore worth reflecting on how sustainable the

extensive use of teaching/learning processes is pedagogically, fully knowing how it

sometimes even implies radical changes in teaching, be it pedagogical or organizational,

especially if compared with more traditional approaches.

7

Hence, the pedagogical sustainability of NBDA is developed through a clear

understanding of the various ways of intending and proposing the educational use of ICT

and on how these can bring about important changes and/or improvements in the

teaching/learning process. In other words: how can NBDE really make the difference?

It recurrently emerges from international debate on this issue [Attwell, 2005] which

predominant characteristics are considered necessary for a pedagogical sustainability of

NBDE. In short, the use of ICT in DE should foster (Rusten, 2003]:

learner-centered processes – imply that teachers take on new roles, namely that of

facilitating the students in playing an active part in their learning process, by

formulating questions, inquiring, experimenting, collaborating and enhancing new

knowledge and understanding;

individualized instruction – differences in individual knowledge, styles and pace of

learning are not usually accommodated in a traditional classroom. As a result, students

often demonstrate low retention rates of what is said and done in the classroom. Besides

having a negative influence on their performance, it produces a habit of mechanical rote

learning and consequently a lack of enthusiasm towards studying. Current learning

models show that individualized, project-based instruction can reverse these negative

effects and contribute to greater student and teacher satisfaction and motivation;

higher-order cognitive skill – new curricula, teaching and pedagogical practices, are

needed that enable students to develop and refine critical thinking skills;

learning processes based on reflection and creativity – in education there is the need to

create learning environments that enable students to acquire and use information that

helps them understand their world so that they can in turn generate/acquire new

knowledge;

active inquiry, research, and analysis - students must learn to formulate critical

questions, identify, acquire, and organize information from different sources, and

analyze and make judgments about collected information;

learning processes based on social interaction and collaborative, artifact/project-based

development - students must become able to study and work cooperatively in groups, on

8

projects and across the different disciplines, constructing new knowledge using a variety

of both electronic and print resources, working just as one does when tackling real-

world and work problems;

lifelong learning processes - learning takes place before, during, and after any formal

education, beyond the classroom, and through a variety of means [Cross, 2006]. Thus,

the sustainability of NBDE will also be evaluated in terms of the education of the user

both in the individual use of these resources and services and in the capacity to become

autonomous in providing for the personal own continuous education in the specific

contents domain, once the ‘formal’ e-learning process has been completed or if the

scaffolding represented by the professional community one belongs to were to disappear

[Trentin, 2008].

learning relevant to professional/real world – education must provide information,

knowledge, experiences and skills that are relevant to the everyday world in which

students live and work;

technological literacy - digital technologies have now penetrated most work

environments. So, the lack of technical literacy and skills, already at the learning process

stage, is a serious handicap for the modern economy.

Importance of social aspects

Although learning is actually an ‘individual’ process of personal knowledge growth and

development, it is important that it does not remain an ‘isolated’ process even when

managed online. Even more so in university education where there is a strong need for

direct discussion among learners and teachers and where there is a very wide range of

possible teaching strategies (especially interactive) that can be adopted by teachers to

facilitate their students’ learning process. Over two decades ago, in his work entitled

‘Megatrends’, John Naisbitt [1984] advocated that one of the keys to the success of DE

would be by marrying ‘high-tech’ with ‘high-touch’ i.e. marrying the sophisms of

technology with contact between people who, in this case, include teachers, students,

experts, etc.

9

Besides, technology has never been the main obstacle to teaching innovation based on

ICT [Naisbitt, 1984]. Fundamental concerns almost always arise from understanding the

role of the human component within the processes based on technology and from how to

better understand the potentialities and limits of networked interaction for the benefit of DE

processes.

The collaborative and communicative dimension

A prevailing attitude considers NBDE to be an inadequate, reductive solution to in

presence lessons, as it is regarded limiting on the socio-emotional level.

It is nonetheless true that if NBDE continues to be interpreted primarily, or merely, as a

strategy for delivering e-content at a distance, it will inevitably enhance its reputation as

being a cold, unnatural, artificial teaching strategy. In other words, it will still be regarded

as second-rate quality compared to in presence teaching.

The introduction of interactivity in NBDE is clearly no guarantee that it will increase the

quality of the teaching process, since a great deal depends not only on the way in which

distance communication technologies are used but also on how the dynamics of interaction

are activated and managed.

Online interaction, in particular, is distinguished by its own communicative characteristics

which usually entail highly intense relational dynamics and connoted by a strong sense of

social participation [Kiesler et al., 1984; Gunawardena, 1995]. Mediated interaction

introduces social and emotional dimensions which are no less involving than those

generated by direct contact, even though their development follows a different logic from

that of presence. In other words, distance and interpersonal communication technologies

are able to produce new forms of ‘presence’ which are even more extensive and meaningful

than the sense traditionally given to this term [Kreijns and Kirschner, 2004].

Playing on these aspects has always been a prerogative of online education [Harasim,

1990] and particularly Networked Collaborative Learning (NCL) which in some specific

cases provides higher quality educational environments to in presence teaching, by

benefiting from the cooperative and community elements [Trentin, 2000].

However, care should always be taken when combining networked teaching use with

cooperative learning strategies.

10

Although it cannot be denied that cooperative/collaborative learning strategies, as already

mentioned, marry effectively with the educational use of networked technologies, not all

learning situations necessarily benefit from collaborative group interaction: imagine, for

example, very large classes, unmanageable content via network communication (often

asynchronous and text-based), the suitability of the collaborative strategy for the declared

teaching objectives for the course or some parts of it, etc.

Having illustrated this key point, we will now deal with the way specific communication

technologies effectively combine with the NCL paradigm.

Computer conference systems and NCL

In networked collaborative interaction, the use of asynchronous communication

environments (typical of computer conference systems) fosters the allocation of

communication times [Kaye, 1992].

In a traditional classroom the teacher takes up most of the time dedicated to

communication. If and when any discussion takes place, it is often dominated by one or just

a handful of students while the rest keep quiet (the most reflective, the shy ones, those

unable to maintain concentration, etc.)

During an NCL course many more students have the opportunity to participate in the

discussion, and the number of contributions within the group is more equally distributed.

On the other hand, it should be noted how asynchronous interaction is synonymous with

expansion of communication times and therefore ineffective for all those activities which

have to be carried out quickly, such as making a swift collaborative decision within a

group. In this case, you can opt for synchronous communication (voice or text-based chat,

video, graphics, etc.) The same mode may also be employed for student-teacher interaction,

at times in combination with a whiteboard to provide students with faster and clearer

explanations than with mere text-based interaction via a forum.

The advantages of asynchronous communication

The adoption of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) based on asynchronous

communication in computer conference means benefiting from a broader domain than

11

‘presence’ lessons for collaborative learning and teaching [Harasim, 1990]. Let us now

draw our attention to a range of salient characteristics:

the asynchronous and text-based nature of the medium enables participants to exercise

greater control over time, space and nature of the interaction; they can give an

immediate response, take their time to reflect or even access distant or local informative

resources before responding;

asynchronous communication requires participants to concentrate and reflect on

contributions, thereby facilitating the learning process for all students;

the length of time available for each intervention increases; in fact, during an in presence

lesson, the time available for discussion runs out and has to be resumed among all

participants, instead, in an online course, anyone can decide when to intervene and how

actively to be involved in the interaction. Furthermore, this provides further

opportunities for collaboration and interpersonal relationships;

by combining computer conferencing systems (CCS) with the principles of NCL, the

teaching process can actually be tailored to the needs of each individual student or

learning group. Such a unique possibility should not be overlooked and calls for a

profound rethinking with regard to the concept of a set program;

the running of computer conferencing can play a significant role in diminishing the

traditional authority the teacher generally exercises over the student. Besides, the

teacher performs a different role in NCL and is increasingly involved in instructional

design and becomes more of a pedagogic facilitator of learning.

Having dealt with the type of added value that communication technologies can bring to

the DE processes, we will now turn to a case study demonstrating how a teaching/learning

process can be implemented by focusing on the social interaction fostered by the use of

network-based technologies.

12

NCL APPROACH IN UNIVERSITY TEACHING: A CASE STUDY

The case study reports an experience of the application of NCL in a university course held

since 2002 at the Political Science Faculty of the University of Turin.

The goal of the course (TEL&HRD - Technology Enhanced Learning & Human

Resources Development) is to focus on the methodological, technological and management

aspects of the use of ICT to support professional growth processes based on the use of both

‘formal’ and ‘informal’ e-learning in the management and sharing of organizational

knowledge via groupware technologies. The course was attended by students who had

taken a three-year degree in Humanities and Economics (an average of 15-20 students per

course). It should be noted that the Italian university system envisages two degree levels: a

three-year degree that leads to the so-called ‘short degree’ followed by a two-year

specialization.

The methodology adopted

The course envisages only two face-to-face meetings: one induction meeting and one

intermediate meeting held in the last one or two weeks of the course, in addition to the one

dedicated to the final examination.

As Figure 2 shows, the methodology adopted features a three-stage cyclical process:

traditional face-to-face lesson; a self-study phase based on the reading of articles and

books, the use of multimedia learning materials, etc.; and a collaborative interaction for the

development of essays, problem-solving and self-help.

individual

learning

collaborative

interaction

face-to-face

lesson

Figure 2 - The cyclical free stages processes adopted

The distance interaction (above all asynchronous) with the teacher and the other students,

is organized in one or more learning groups. In order to participate effectively in online

13

activities, particularly in those based on collaborative learning, students should meet the

following requirements: be computer literate, have access to Internet, use e-mail regularly,

and be willing to interact at a distance and guarantee at least one contact every two days in

the communication environment chosen for the management of the course community.

Course materials

In addition to a basic textbook, several other materials are put onto the Web for students:

a guide to the course; some articles and book chapters for individual study; a list of sites on

the specific course topics; a series of PowerPoint slides produced by the teacher and a

specific bibliography. As can be seen, no ad hoc materials are produced for the course. The

main idea is to use a core of support materials as an initial approach to the subject and then

provide ample space for the study and in-depth examination of the topics through

collaborative group-work and by browsing the web for further documentary resources.

In other words, given the rapid obsolescence of the course contents, in addition to a pool

of basic materials required to initiate the study of the topics, the course provides an

opportunity for the students to develop their autonomy by seeking out information and

knowledge sources linked to the specific content area. This enables them to tackle further

individual study alone both during the course and, later, during the process of continuous

education that now characterizes most fields of work. From this point of view, the quality

of a training course will also be increasingly evaluated on its capacity to leave the students

with a legacy of competencies to keep their knowledge base acquired during the course up-

to-date and enhance it [Ravet, 2003; Trentin, 2005].

Breakdown of course activities and role of the teacher

The course lasts 7-8 weeks although, before the induction meeting, 2 pre-course ‘warm-

up’ weeks are actually envisaged to inform the students about the course structure and

resources (see Figure 3).

14

Figure 3: Timetable of the course TEL&HRD

The ‘warm-up’

The main purpose of the ‘warm-up’ is to gradually introduce the students to the course

and to the running of it. This phase takes place in the two weeks leading up to the official

start of the course. During this period, students have to contact the teacher via e-mail to

receive the password in order to access the CCS (in this case, a First Class system) chosen

for managing distance interaction and to familiarize themselves with its main functions.

The choice of using a CCS to run the course is due to the strong communicative

connotation of NCL and therefore the need to organize flexible and highly structured

communication settings.

Online conduction of the course

Many of the activities that are proposed in an NCL course are based on networked

collaborative interaction: from self-help in supporting members of the group in difficulty to

the involvement in fully-fledged collaborative learning activities. Although students are

increasingly accustomed to using ICT (for study as for other uses), they have rarely had the

chance, however, to follow university courses based on networked collaborative activities.

For this reason, during the course examined in this chapter, a gradual approach was chosen

and different communication strategies were employed with the learning group. The

teacher initially started with simple 1-to-1 interactions with individual students and then

moved towards more complex full-scale networked interaction (many-to-many), typical of

NCL. By gradually increasing the intensity of networked social interaction between the

members of the learning group, the group usually evolves through the following three

stages [Brounstein, 2002]:

15

dependence on the teacher/tutor;

independence, when each student tries to assert their own personal thoughts, feelings

and actions;

interdependence, when others are regarded as a resource to achieve their own goals as

well as those of the entire group.

To foster this transition, with the aim of quickly reaching those conditions which can

guarantee that collaborative learning processes are activated, the teacher should act as a

suitable online facilitator.

Teaching activities and related communication strategies

With reference to the timetable in Figure 3, we shall now see how the teacher managed

the students' gradual approach to NCL.

Module 1 (Overview) – Module 1 involves students working individually. Their activity

consists in studying material made available by the teacher on the CCS, and in acquiring

the necessary skills to carry out independent network searches for information, documents

and sites specialized in the contents covered by the course. Communication takes place in a

forum dedicated to the module via which the teacher explains in detail what students are

expected to do, suggests how to do web searches (providing some sites to start from and a

set of key words to use with search engines) and is readily available to help the students

complete their assigned task.

The communication architecture is teacher-centered: despite a 1-to-1 interaction with

individual students, the teacher communicates via forum so that questions and answers are

actually read by the whole learning group.

During the initial phases of the course it is interesting to observe how students often tend

to ask the teacher questions using private communication channels (in our case the internal

messaging system of the CCS). On the whole, when students have questions they consider

naïve or off topic, they prefer turning just to the teacher rather than posing them in the

forum where everyone would receive them. In these cases it is the teacher’s task to

16

gradually cut the umbilical cord by shifting private communication into areas set aside for

group interaction, thereby limiting personal messages to those of a purely private nature.

Module 2 (e-Learning and LCMS) – Besides the individual study on the themes of e-

learning, Module 2 envisages an exercise designed to explore a Learning/Content

Management System (LCMS). In addition to the teacher’s usual explanation of the task, the

forum dedicated to the module acts as a self-help space for the learning community

particularly for the exercise planned. This is effectively the first occasion created by the

teacher to let students experiment a form of networked collaboration, however bland it may

be.

The communication architecture here is a one-to-many: a student in difficulty can ask

members of the group for help who will answer in 1-to-1 mode but always via the forum. In

this situation, the teacher intervenes only when the learning group is unable to find its own

solutions to the problems of individual members.

Module 3 (NCP and KM) – This module focuses on the study of the dynamics of sharing

the knowledge that develops within the Communities of Professionals (i.e. Communities of

Practices) while interacting via the network. It envisages an exercise on a specific

groupware system that the students must analyze to then produce a brief user's guide in

pairs using personal messages. This is actually their first experience of co-writing a text, at

least in the framework of the course they are attending.

Communication in this case is private, student-student and the teacher intervenes only

when the pair makes an explicit request for help on the module forum. This type of

interaction entrusts a great sense of responsibility to each member of the pair. While the

presence of a ‘lurker’ in a work group can, in fact, not have a significant impact on the

overall carrying out of the task assigned, pair work places more responsibility on each

person towards the other to carry out the task or not [Rafaeli et al., 2004].

Module 4 (Roles and key functions) – At this point in the course students have become

reassuringly familiar with the various network interaction strategies and are therefore ready

to move on to collaborative group activities using many-to-many communication. The

17

theme of Module 4 reverts to the roles and key functions in both ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ e-

learning and in professional communities of practices. The students are expected to

collaborate and produce an essay together based on an outline provided by the teacher. To

carry out the task, they can use a series of readings available in the course online archive

together with whatever may be found on the Internet concerning the specific topic. To

stimulate their study, the group is required to draw up a brief summary for each of the

sections given in the outline, as well as a conceptual map illustrating the links between the

main concepts explored during their study.

The module lasts three weeks and is indicated in the course guide as demanding ‘high

intensity interaction’, which means at least one connection with the virtual class per day.

Given that collaborative work of this kind cannot be envisaged for a group of 15-20

students, the co-construction is divided into two phases.

Phase 1 (Sub-group interaction) – In the first two weeks, the students are divided into sub-

groups (4-5 people), a leader for each of them is nominated and a private sub-

forum is assigned (Andromeda, Altair, etc. in Figure 4). Each sub-group

undertakes the task of producing a version of the essay to deposit (after 2 weeks)

in the main forum dedicated to the module (Module 4 main forum in Figure 4).

Figure 4 – Forum and sub-forum structure for interaction in Module 4

18

The teacher is available on the same main forum to respond to the sub-groups’

requests for support (submitted only by the leader), but is not present in the sub-

forums.

Phase 2 – (Plenary group interaction) - In the third and last week of interaction, all the

students gather together in the main forum of the module to compare and discuss

their essays. By collaborating and merging the work of the various sub-groups,

they narrow their work down and produce a single version of the essay

requested. During this group work, the teacher acts as a facilitator whilst one of

the students moderates over the discussion and edits the written document being

produced.

In both phases, therefore, a networked communication architecture is adopted (many-to-

many) where the teacher plays a supportive rather than a pro-active role.

Module 5 (Evaluation and ROI) – Module 5 tackles the issues of evaluation in e-learning

processes and professional online communities, touching, even if marginally, on questions

related to the return on investment (ROI) in ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ e-learning. The

teaching strategy adopted in this case is based on individual study of material suggested by

the teacher and a later group discussion to stimulate debate around the topic. This

discussion develops over two weeks and is organized as a ‘round table’.

As in the case of Module 4, the communication architecture is ‘networked’, but this time

the teacher acts as the moderator and therefore assumes a pro-active role towards the

learning group.

Communication ‘overload’ on the teacher

It would be interesting at this point to reflect on the ‘communication overload’

(understood as work load due to intense interaction with the students) put on the teacher on

the basis of the different teaching strategies adopted during the course. This can be

observed in Figure 5, which indicates the percentage of messages sent by the teacher in the

various forums out of the total messages generated by the learning group.

19

Figure 5: Percentage of messages sent by the teacher in the various module forums

As can be seen and may be expected, the more the teacher plays a pivotal role, the greater

the personal workload. There is a shift from 63% in Module 1, where the teacher is the only

point of reference for each student, to 3% and 6% in Module 4 where the teacher merely

supervises the process.

It is interesting to observe the percentage found in Module 2, where, it should be

remembered, self-help among students was stimulated during a technological-based

exercise. Here, the small number of messages from the teacher (19% of those present in the

module forum) highlights a certain liveliness among the students in providing reciprocal

help to solve the problems linked to the use of the LMS considered in the exercise. It is, in

fact, increasingly common to find students attending learning groups who are fairly skilled

in the use of ICT. This is a great resource for teachers to exploit and, if well managed, can

help reduce their workload.

Figure 5 shows how the trend rises once again during the last module of the course, where

the teacher chairs a thematic discussion. However, the percentage of messages is fairly

limited (17%) since, in the final phases of the course, the group is up and running smoothly

enough so as not to require too much effort on the part of the teacher to hold their attention

and keep the interaction lively.

20

Lastly, a way of reducing the communication overload on the teacher is by writing the

messages very carefully to launch online learning activities (both individual and

collaborative), i.e. messages giving a detailed explanation of the activity proposed in terms

of educational objectives, organization, timing, resources to use for it, role of students and

teacher; in short, everything that can lead to a successful outcome. In fact, if closer

attention is paid to providing a thorough description of the task to be performed, then the

teacher has less need to intervene and help the students carry out the activities. This allows

the teacher to use the time gained to focus interaction more on course contents and his/her

professional know-how. Just like teaching in the traditional classroom, this is one of the

many lessons that can be learnt only through direct experience in online teaching.

Use of synchronous communication

Activities based on synchronous communication (text or voice chat) were not envisaged

in the course. However, the students used them, especially during collaborative work to

optimize decision-making times and to seek quick advice on what to do. To this end, both

private chat facilities and chat-rooms were made available for each learning sub-group.

Synchronous communication was used very rarely to interact with the teacher. Use was

primarily made in combination with the whiteboard (Skype together with Unyte) to provide

explanations to students in the fastest and clearest way compared to what could be done

with pure text interaction via forum [Ligorio, 2001].

The choice of limiting chat interaction between students and teachers was due essentially

to two reasons: to accustom the students to group interaction, thus optimizing the

circulation of questions and answers; to avoid a further situation in which the teacher is at

the centre of the communication with a subsequent increase in workload in terms of

network interaction. Furthermore, private 1-to-1 communication forces the teacher to report

on the forum anything significant that emerges from private exchanges with students, to

ensure that it is shared among the other students and not merely left in the hands of

individuals.

21

Face-to-face meetings

As mentioned, the course envisages two face-to-face meetings (both lasting 3 hours): an

induction and an intermediate meeting (Figure 3).

The ‘induction meeting’ aims to create the best conditions for facilitating increased

participation in the successive distance learning activities. On the whole, it envisages four

steps dedicated respectively to:

the socializing of participants;

the presentation of the course, the chosen educational methodology to implement it

effectively and the final evaluation criteria;

questions on the CCS chosen for group interaction (already dealt with during the warm-

up phase) and the possible solutions to any technological hitches met by students;

the stipulation of a ‘teaching pact’ between teacher and learning group where reciprocal

commitments are established.

The ‘intermediate meeting’ has a different framework and is structured into 3 main steps:

some feedback on previous distance activities where the teacher provides answers and

clarifications based on both the students’ direct questions and his or her own

observations made while following their work at a distance. This is the suitable moment

to give thorough explanations to those queries which could not be dealt with fully due to

the technological constraints;

a discussion regarding the assignments completed by the students in the previous

modules;

introduction to the subjects covered by the last course module and an explanation of how

the final examination will be held.

Monitoring and evaluation

During delivery, the course is monitored to gather useful information for both quality

management and to assess learning and the level of students' involvement in course

activities. The three key elements on which the evaluation is based are:

22

the process designed by the teacher to run the course and then those followed by the

students for their online learning activities;

the products developed individually by students or in collaboration with others;

the level of learning of course contents (meeting the educational goals set).

In this way, monitoring is designed mainly for both the formative evaluation and the

learning evaluation.

Formative evaluation

Formative evaluation produces information which teachers can use for teaching

improvement. Various forms of monitoring are directed toward the formative evaluation

[Bloom, 1971; Wiliam and Black, 1996]. In particular, course monitoring aims to observe:

the difficulties students face carrying out the set activities in order to intervene and help

them;

whether the allocated length of time for each learning module is suitable or not and, if

necessary, modify it ad hoc;

the need to integrate supplementary material with the main course archives;

how often students connect to the system, urging those who are absent for a few days to

re-establish contact with the group and suggesting how to keep up with the rhythm of

the course, especially when professional and/or personal problems might hinder their

progress;

the mistakes made by the students during the various activities (exercises, problem

solving, discussions, etc.) so as to intervene with explanations and teaching support.

In this regard, it should be noted that the ‘teaching pact’ stipulated at the beginning of the

course clarifies that the evaluation of what the students produce (essays, solutions to

exercises and problems etc.) is not taken into consideration when giving the final mark but

is only used by the teacher to give appropriate feed-back. Network activity may actually be

interpreted as a workshop where one also learns through mistakes.

23

However, what does have an impact on the final mark (and therefore affects the final

evaluation) is the level of each student’s participation in the various online activities,

monitored essentially according to two parameters:

the completion or not of individual activities;

the level of contribution to group-work.

In the first case, monitoring is fairly simple (of the ‘done/not-done’ type). In the second

case, it is based instead on the messages produced and on peer-evaluation [Earl, 1986;

Foundation Coalition, 2002].

The messages are analyzed in a fairly straightforward manner with the messages produced

by each student divided into two categories: on the one hand, those that make an effective

contribution to group-work, and on the other, all the remainder. Three times more weight is

given to the former than the latter which are considered mere indicators of social presence

[Hew and Cheung, 2003].

On the other hand, peer-evaluation consists in asking each member of the group to judge

(with a secret vote from 0 to 5) the effective contribution of the other group members (or

sub-group members) to collaborative activities. This evaluation is actually requested only

in Module 4, which envisages the collaborative production of an essay, first in a sub-group

and then in the full group. The reason for adopting peer-evaluation is because the teacher

cannot fully monitor the entire collaborative process, above all when the students interact

offline about the task in hand: between one lesson and another in different courses, in

university study rooms or at home with fellow students.

Learning evaluation

As in all university courses, a mark must be given to each student in the end. In our case,

obviously, the method of evaluation adopted takes into account that the NCL-type course

and is therefore based not only on the result of the final examination (held face-to-face as

required by the university) but, as already mentioned, also on what students have done in

the online activities. In particular, marks are assigned according to the following criteria:

a) the level of participation and contribution in distance collaborative activities;

b) the level of competence reached in the course topics which can be established by

evaluating each student’s contribution to online discussions;

24

c) the result of the in presence written exam, which consists in an essay assessing the

students' mastery of and ability to apply the knowledge acquired during the course;

d) the oral examination (not compulsory) that can be used to improve the total mark

reached in the previous points (a) + (b) + (c).

Student reactions

It would now be interesting to ‘listen’ to some students’ comments gathered from an end-

of-course questionnaire completed anonymously before the final examination and discussed

with them afterwards.

The questionnaire, divided into 4 sections (methodology, network interaction, course

material and timing) mainly consists of open questions to give the students more freedom

to express their opinions about the course. Consequently, here following, there will not be

so much a quantitative analysis of the feedback than a brief summary of what the students

expressed.

Remarks below are taken from a sample of about 60 students who ‘attended’ the different

editions of the TEL&HRD course.

On the methodology

89% of students stated that the course methodology was generally experienced as an

almost absolute novelty. The profiling questionnaires show how, on the whole, just a few

students had actually acquired some previous experience of attending NCL courses (8%)

and only a small percentage (ever-increasing, though, in recent years) had had the chance to

use other DE approaches focused mainly on the autonomous use of e-contents (18%).

What stimulates them the most is perceiving themselves as leading actors in the

construction of their own knowledge, under the attentive guidance of a teacher who is felt

to be less distant and more collaborative than often perceived in a classroom.

One aspect that is considered positive and at the same time potentially critical lies in a

teaching/learning process without any time and space constraints. They very much

appreciate being able to organize their participation in each stage of the course according to

their own rhythms. On the other hand, they acknowledge that this imposes precise self-

management on each individual in conciliating personal, work and study commitments with

25

participation in sometimes very intense online activities, and herein lies the potential

critical point of the approach.

On the network interaction

The ‘discrete’ presence of the teacher is much appreciated during group interaction (3.9

average on a scale of 0-5), even when not intervening in the forums directly. This

perception is certainly favored by the ‘history’ function of the CCS used and accessible to

all students. This function makes it possible to visualize the list of all those who have read

each message present in the forum and thus also intercept the ‘silent presences’ of both the

teacher and lurkers.

In addition to the possibility of asynchronous interaction with the teacher, the students

would also like to involve him/her in some ‘live’ group event, even though they

acknowledge that this imposes times that are not always compatible with the commitments

and habits of the various participants.

Turning to how the network presence of the various members of the virtual class is

perceived, here is an interesting observation made by some students:

“… in contrast to a classroom course, in which the physical presence is enough to demonstrate

participation in the lesson (whether active or passive), in the network, ‘visibility’ is defined by

other factors; first and foremost the active participation in the life of the learning community.”

Several students (47%) stated that they often use the ‘history’ function to see who, even

without intervening directly, follows interaction in the forums so as to give them an idea of

how many lurkers there are and how many do not access the forum at all (the same thing is

obviously done regularly by the teacher). It should however be said that few CCSs offer

this function and therefore, generalizing, a student who does not participate actively in the

life of the community is usually seen as someone who is ‘outside the classroom’.

On the course materials

Whilst, on the one hand, students recognize the effectiveness, completeness and

assortment of materials made available online by the teacher (4.1 average on a scale of 0-

5), on the other hand they complain about overload. What they generally suggest is having

more carefully selected materials to help them to identify more quickly the information

26

needed to pass the exam (typical attitude of students looking to get top marks with the least

effort!). Furthermore, they much appreciated the idea that their products (sitographies,

solutions to problems, short essays etc.) become part of the archive of material available for

students in future years for more in-depth study, comparison etc.

On the timing

As regards the amount of time devoted to taking part in such intensive courses, the

students (87%) feel that it is really a lot. However, most of them are aware that certain

types of knowledge and particularly skills could not be acquired more quickly. In other

words, they are clearly aware of the difference between mere knowledge of tools, methods

and dynamics and direct experience of them.

What is more, students criticized the pressure of deadlines for delivery of individual, pair

or group work. To illustrate this, one of them conjured up a very amusing image of the

situation:

“… sometimes I felt like a young Spanish lad running ahead of the bulls along the streets of

Pamplona during the San Fermin festival!”

Joking apart, students’ observations regarding the tight timing is constantly referred to in

all NCL courses. It should be realized though that slowing down the timing often

corresponds to a similar lapse in the students' concentration on the task, above all when

distance interaction mainly occurs asynchronously. However, it should not be overlooked

how there is a high chance that tight timing does not necessarily always have a positive

effect on the learning process. Several students (64%) noted, in fact, that the deadline

pressure (especially during collaborative work) sometimes diverted attention more to the

process (product development) than the final goal of the process itself: the learning of the

module contents. In reality, the type of activity proposed (consulting teaching material and,

above all, summarizing it as indicated by the teacher) implicitly helps to acquire new

knowledge [Feenberg, 1989]. In the students' opinion, what is needed is the occasional ‘pit-

stop’ to reorganize what has been learnt during both individual and collaborative study.

27

Considerations on the pedagogical sustainability of the approach

It is neither easy nor sudden to claim that when an NCL approach is used, as long as the

appropriate conditions are met, the students learn more or better than in a traditional

university classroom [Heckman and Annabi, 2005]. The difficulty lies mainly in being

unable to compare strategies (in presence and collaborative at a distance) which are

radically different, particularly with regard to the learning environment they offer the

students [Kuljis et al., 2003].

Clearly, what has been noticeable is the increased student stimuli and motivation largely

due to [Daradoumis and Marquès, 2000]:

feeling actively involved in the process of constructing their own knowledge;

feeling responsible towards the learning group;

having a significantly richer learning environment in terms of learning resources and

teaching support than the environment generally found in a university classroom;

perceiving the scaffolding offered by the group and the teacher;

feeling followed by the teacher with more continuity than in other teaching situations;

the different relationship that is established with the teacher.

Furthermore, what generally surprises them is the human warmth of certain online social

interactions, notwithstanding the fact that they occur within an apparently cold

technological environment.

Conditions for NCL applicability

NCL approach demands certain conditions are met for it to be implemented effectively,

which probably explains its limited use [Goodyear et al., 2001], such as:

the teacher’s willingness to redesign the course and also make substantial modifications

to the version conceived for face-to-face teaching;

the teachers’ and any tutors’ specific preparation in the planning of teaching activities

based on networked collaborative learning and in the forms of management of

networked group learning;

28

the pertinence of the collaborative strategy compared to the education objectives set for

the course or part of it;

the presence of small classes in which a ratio of 1/15 – 1/20 between teacher (and/or

tutor) and students can be ensured;

as an alternative to the previous point, the possibility, in the case of larger classes, of

arranging students into learning sub-groups;

the availability of suitable network services for group communication in which to set up

and structure the virtual space to host distance interaction between all actors in the

process (students, teachers, tutors, etc.), defining at the same time the rules both for its

management and use by the students;

the possibility for students to access the network frequently.

NCL requires investments

NCL approaches need resources to ensure acceptable quality levels. However, these are

focused less on technology and much more on human resources (the teacher and/or a tutor).

From the technological point of view, it is sufficient to have a system capable of managing

group communication and the repositories of materials. In addition, to embark on the initial

experiences (teaching with the NCL approach) there is no need for expensive or complex

CSCL systems (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) [Klobas and Renzi, 2003]: in

this sense, the straightforward and free social software made available by various Internet

portals have proven to be effective [Owen et al., 2006]

The real investment demanded by NCL lies in human resources, in their communication

skills and skills in managing events based on collaborative learning [Foster, 1999;

Williams, 2003]. Taking the professional knowledge and know-how of the teacher for

granted, the key point concerns training in the following areas [Shepherd, 2003]: the use of

computer conferencing, the typical dynamics of mediated communication, the particular

nature of networked social interaction, the planning of teaching activities based on

collaborative learning, the various strategies for managing them and the corresponding role

that the teacher (or tutor) must assume in the different cases, etc. [Fuller et al., 2000].

Whilst many of these areas can be learnt through seminars or specific training events

29

targeted at faculty members, many others can be acquired only through the direct

experience of online learning just like with face-to-face teaching.

The key point is whether and when it is worth investing resources in NCL. It is felt that

there are two main factors:

the conditions are met for it to be implemented (see the above section), such as the

pertinence of the method to reach the course objectives, the presence of not too

numerous classes etc.;

the right motivations of the teacher in applying the method, conviction in its educational

effectiveness and potential, the added value that it can offer beyond the acquisition of

the contents of the course subjects (which remains the primary objective), etc.

With regard to the second point, it should be underlined how the return on investment in

NCL must be estimated not only in terms of disciplinary learning but also from a broader

educational perspective [Macfadyen, 2004].

Return on investment in NCL

The adoption of collaborative teaching strategies, means systematically increasing the

time needed to deal with a given subject.

In this sense, if we were to make a judgment purely in terms of learning content, it would

be difficult to be positive as, taking the same topic, the time dedicated to networked

learning is certainly more than the time required by a more traditional approach.

It is therefore evident that the choice of adopting teaching strategies based on NCL must

be motivated by other factors besides those closely related to reaching the specific

disciplinary goal.

These include the acquisition of cross-disciplinary knowledge, methods of work and

study, etc. In other words, the effects of the co-operative process must be interpreted as a

whole, trying to identify what, from an educational point of view, has to be weighed up, at

least in terms of balancing the time invested in co-operation and management.

Yet, in concrete terms, what more can NCL offer to the student’s educational process?

To answer this question, the teachers who adopt NCL in their teaching tend to note a

series of added value elements [Trentin, 2004b] often referred to abilities and competences

30

that are increasingly required by the working world. The most noteworthy are reported

here.

Technological education. This is perhaps the most obvious element, but is nonetheless

important. By learning with ICT aids and services, the students:

refine their own knowledge of and ability to use specific technologies;

interpret the technologies not only as the purpose of their learning but also (above all) as

a further means of support for their life long learning.

Education for co-operation. The method used to involve the students in collaborative

activities also becomes something that is learnt. In other words, the students learn what co-

operation means, in this specific case at a distance, through the use of technology.

The educational elements involved here are how to design, organize and run collaborative

activities, how to cope with deadlines, how to manage the material exchanged in the course

of the task, what format to adopt, etc.

Education for mediation/negotiation. An important skill that must be acquired quickly for

a co-operation process to be really effective is that of the mediation/negotiation of ideas

and proposals in the group, accepting willingly the proposals of others when these appear

better than one’s own for the work in hand.

This is a crucial educational goal. When giving your utmost to develop and propose your

own ideas within a group, it is no easy matter to acknowledge that those put forward by

other group members are better than your own.

Education for relations. When mediating/negotiating, it is necessary to know how to deal

with others. This means understanding the ways of interacting with others so that

dialogue/discussion becomes something more constructive (collaborative) and does not turn

into a fight or sterile bickering. Doing this face-to-face is an art ... doing it at a distance is a

refined art.

It is not enough to observe basic rules of politeness and netiquette: you also need to be

aware of the dynamics and the hidden traps involved in mediated communication,

especially when conducted in the written word.

Education for reasoning. In order to be able to mediate/negotiate in a group, especially

when wanting to explain one’s positions or ideas well, it is necessary to back them up

31

sufficiently and in detail. This is effective only if you have clear ideas about what to say

and what to do. The result is a strong stimulus for in-depth examination of the subjects

studied.

Capacity to relate to the world outside (of the class). The abilities mentioned above are

fairly typical of any collaborative task. Working in a network, however, one has to relate to

external entities that one may only know slightly (or nothing at all), such as the other

students, the teacher and/or tutors, documentation sources, etc. It is thus evident that in

some way a style (ethic) of behavior has to be acquired that is suitable to and in tune with

the virtual space that is being used.

Say-writing. 90% of the time, interacting at a distance (to mediate, reason, etc.) means

using written communication (email, computer conferencing, etc.). This constraint often

turns out to be a point in favor of practicing expressive skills

“… if I want the other person to understand me, it is a good idea to write what I have to say

clearly and unambiguously; the success of our collaboration depend on this.”

and skills in co-construction of artifacts (a document, a report, etc).

Comprehension, analysis and evaluation skills. Interaction through the written word also

brings into play the skill of understanding what is received from one’s correspondent and,

more in general, what is found in documentation sources on the Internet. As far as this last

aspect is concerned, it should be underlined how comprehension is not the only skill

stimulated (obviously guided by the teacher) by research on the web; we need to add the

questioning of sources, analysis of their authoritativeness and evaluation of the reliability of

the material found.

Multi-perspective observation. The chance to interact and compare enables students to

analyze the course content not just from their own viewpoint but also from that of other

members of the learning group. This often stimulates observations and reflections that

individual study alone would not benefit.

Interdisciplinary education. A shared characteristic of most experiences of NCL is of

finding space to take a step back from the single discipline studied in order to understand

and appreciate its links with others. It is a very effective way of providing education about

the complexity and interdependency of the various knowledge domains. This is often

32

encouraged by documentary research online that, even when based on key words referring

explicitly to the subject matter, lead to finding documents showing links to other

disciplinary domains.

NCL needs to change the traditional teaching approach

When adopting NCL, teachers must be willing to change their own approach to teaching,

shifting from a top-down model of transferring knowledge to a collaborative one [Fuller et

al., 2000; Paulson, 2002]. Teachers must therefore take on a less authoritarian role

(‘stepping down’ from the podium) and act more as an intellectual resource for the group as

well as a facilitator for the group's activities. Among other effects, this will help to play

down the teacher’s traditional authoritarian position in the classroom, providing an

unquestionable opportunity to enhance the teacher-student relationship.

Once this awareness has been heightened, the teacher will find an unexpected ally in the

network-based communication. Networked interaction actually has its own distinguishable

communication characteristics that usually entail very intense relational dynamics together

with a strong sense of social participation. Online group interaction introduces emotional

and participatory dimensions no less involving than those that can be generated by direct

contact, even though their development follows different rationales from face-to-face

contact. In other words, the course referred to in this chapter further confirms that stated by

[Leh, 2001] and, that is distance and interpersonal communication technologies can produce

new forms, that are even broader and more significant in terms of ‘presence’, in the literal

sense of the word.

CONCLUSION

Although in the last ten years there has been a gradual increase in projects on NBDE,

there are actually very few cases where they have brought about significant changes in

terms of stability and quality. This is rather goes against the expectations that, towards the

educational use of ICT, were created also on the wave of the more general diffusion of

technological novelties.

Consequently, to date the sustainable implementation of teaching/learning processes

supported by ICT still remains an open question. That is why in recent years experts in the

33

area have begun to initiate a lively, complex debate on what factors may be for and against

the sustainability of NBDE.

There appears to be some convergence in the argument that, to be sustainable, the NBDE

should:

offer, first of all, actual added value to education by introducing interactivity and

simulated environments;

foster - by organizing students into learning communities - collaborative study and

mutual support able to act as a backing for a new culture regarding the use of ICT in

informal learning processes (based precisely on the active participation in the online

professional communities) [Cross, 2006];

propose a use of the technology able to support specific teaching methodologies

effectively for specific disciplinary contexts: considering case studies in the medical

field, role-plays in the managerial sector and so on;

pay attention to how to develop teaching materials so that they are easily reusable in

different situations in order to cut time and costs creating them;

take initiatives aimed specifically at the sustainability of NBDE i.e. initiatives capable of

creating the necessary cultural, professional and infrastructural conditions (on an

institutional level and at the level of individual users), for a frequent use of NBDE

methods to manage entire courses as well as in an integrated way with the more

traditional classroom teaching.

In the attempt to offer a significant contribution to the debate underway, this chapter has

outlined a possible model for the sustainability of NBDE. The model highlights the

complex tangle of relations among the dimensions characterizing it, so that when one of

them is analyzed it is unthinkable to ignore the mutual influence it may have on the others.

Nevertheless, in university education, the pedagogical dimension is regarded as carrying a

crucial weight as here, more than in other contexts, the teaching quality is nonnegotiable

(least of all in economic terms) having to always guarantee high levels of disciplinary

learning anyway. This is definitely facilitated by adopting teaching strategies based on the

social interaction among the different actors of the learning process (students, teachers,

34

tutors). In the universities though, social interaction is often made difficult by logistic and

organizational problems and this is the reason for turning to network-based technologies as

a possible aid that can help partly recapture this dimension.

Thus, the interactive NBDE approaches have demonstrated to be very effective focusing

on the students’ central role and on collaborative learning strategies.

The adoption of such strategies, however, has some severe restrictions attached to it, such

as collaborative learning use pertaining to the educational objectives to be met and the

possibility of working with small classes.

With respect to this last point, it should be mentioned that, with some appropriate devices,

it can equally be used with large classes. For in the face of large numbers which apparently

would not enable online collaborative interactions, there may be the possibility of arranging

self-managed virtual study groups anyway (i.e. not teacher-led). In this case the teacher

may choose to:

have only the group leaders as online interlocutors (see the running of Module 4 of the

case study presented in this work), thereby significantly reducing the number of possible

online interlocutors in distance study;

use (without necessarily commenting on them online) the results of group-work for both

a formative evaluation of the class and as suggestions for discussions and clarifications

during the next face-to-face classroom lesson (if the course is not completely done at a

distance).

Besides the logistic and organizational solutions of teaching, the crucial point for the

sustainability of NBDE lies in the teachers’ cultural growth towards a new pedagogy that

permanently englobes among its tools and methods also those based on the educational use

of communication technologies.

It is therefore time to engage in a deep reflection in this direction. Besides, as some

authors say [Hense et al., 2001], this could provide the opportunity for a broader analysis of

the general problems related to education and learning. It is not without reason that the

same authors compare NBDE to a sort of ‘Trojan horse’ that, by stimulating research into

how to use the new technologies effectively to the benefit of teaching/learning processes, it

35

leads to a more general reflection on the very same processes and on the way to innovate

and improve them qualitatively. Thus, NBDE may have the potential to play a role in

establishing a new culture favoring and supporting the learning processes.

REFERENCES

Attwell, G. (2005). E-learning and sustainability. EdTechPost: Technology for Learning,

Thinking and Collaborating. Retrieved form:

http://www.ossite.org/Members/GrahamAttwell/sustainibility/attach/sustainibility4.doc

Bloom, B.S. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brounstein, M. (2002). Managing Teams For Dummies. New York, NY: Hungry Minds

Inc.

Cross, J. (2006). Informal Learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publications.

Daradoumis, T., & Marquès, J.M. (2000). A methodological approach to networked

collaborative learning: design and pedagogy issues. In M. Asensio, J. Foster, V.

Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on

Innovative Approaches to Lifelong Learning and Higher Education through the Internet,

72 - 77.

Earl, S.E. (1986). Staff and peer assessment–measuring an individual’s contribution to

group performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 11(1), 60-69.

Euler, D., & Wilbers, K. (2002). Selbstlernen mit neuen Medien didaktisch gestalten. In D.

Euler & C. Metzger (Eds.), Hochschuldidaktische Schriften, cap. 1. St.Gallen: Institut

für Wirtschaftspädagogik (quoted by Seufert and Euler, 2003).

Feenberg, A. (1989). The written world: on the theory and practice of computer

conferencing. In R.D. Mason and A.R. Kaye (Eds.) Mindweave: communication,

computers and distance education, cap. 2. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Foundation Coalition (2002). Peer assessment e peer evaluation. Retrieved from:

http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/brochures/2002peer_assessment.pdf

36

Fuller, D., Norby, R.F., Pearce, K., & Strand, S. (2000). Internet teaching by style:

Profiling the on-line professor. Educational Technology & Society 3(2), 65-72.

Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J.M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences

for online teaching: a special report. Educational Technology, Research and

Development 49 (1), 65-72.

Gunawardena, C.N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and

collaborative learning in computer conference. International Journal of Educational

Telecommunications 1(2/3), 147-166.

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

Praeger.

Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in

online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication 10(2), 15-28.

Hense, J., Mandl, H., Kruppa K., & Gräsel, C. (2001). Concept, realisation, and evaluation

of SEMIK. Proceedings of WCCE’01, 777-786.

Hew, K.F., & Cheung, W.S. (2003). Models to evaluate online learning communities of

asynchronous discussion forums. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 19(2),

241-259.

Kaye, A.E. (Ed.) (1992). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. Berlin:

Springer-Verlag.

Kiesler S., Siegel J., & McGuire T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-

mediated-communication. American Psychologist 39(10), 1123-1134.

Klobas, J.E., & Renzi, S. (2003). Integrating online educational activities in traditional

courses: University-wide lessons after three years. In A.K. Aggarwal (Ed.) Web-Based

Education: Learning from Experience, pp. 415-439. Hershey, PA: Information Science

Publishing.

37

Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P.A. (2004). Determining sociability, social space, and social

presence in (a)synchronous collaborative teams. Cyberpsychology and Behavior 7(2),

155-172.

Kuljis, J. Lees, D.Y., & Devedzic, V. (2003). Supporting e-learning with a distributed,

virtual, collaborative learning environment. International Journal of Computers &

Applications 25(1), 42-49.

Leh, A.S.C. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and social presence in a distance

learning environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 7(2),

109-128.

Ligorio, M.B. (2001). Integrating communication formats: synchronous versus

asynchronous and text-based versus visual. Computers and Education 37(2), 103-125.

Macfadyen, L.P. (2004). A handbook of best practices in the integration of learning

technologies into higher education. The Maple Centre, University of British Columbia.

Naisbitt, J. (1984). Megatrends: ten new directions changing our lives. New York: Warner

Books.

Owen, M., Grant, L., Sayers, S., & Facer, K. (2006). Social software and learning. Opening

Education, Futurelab. Retrieved from:

http://www.futurelab.org.uk/download/pdfs/research/opening_education/Social_Software_report.pd

f

Paulson, K. (2002). Reconfiguring faculty roles for virtual settings. The Journal of Higher

Education 73, 123-140.

Rafaeli, S., Ravid, G., & Soroka, V. (2004). De-lurking in virtual communities: a social

communication network approach to measuring the effects of social and cultural

capital. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences, 10-15.

Ravet, S. (2002). E-learning and knowledge management. The Newsletter of the Prometeus

Network, 20. Retrieved from: http://www.prometeus.org

38

Rusten, E. (2003). Using computer in schools. Digital opportunities for development.

Retrieved from:

http://learnlink.aed.org/Publications/Sourcebook/chapter4/Computers_in_Schools_modelofuse.p

df

Seufert, S., & Euler, D. (2003). Sustainability of eLearning innovations: findings of expert

interviews. Retrieved form: http://www.scil.ch/publications/docs/2003-06-seufert-euler-

sustainability-elearning.pdf

Shepherd, C. (2003). Training the e-trainer. E-learning's greatest hits. Retrieved from at:

http://www.fastrak-consulting.co.uk/tactix/Features/etrainer.htm

Trentin, G. (1997). Computerized adaptive tests and formative assessment. International

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 6(2), 201-220.

Trentin, G. (2000). The quality-interactivity relationship in Distance Education.

Educational Technolog 40(1), 17-27.

Trentin, G. (2004a). Towards a real sustainability of e-learning. Proceedings of E-learning

& sustainability, ENI Foundation “Enrico Mattei”, Giune 2004. Retrieved from:

http://www.altrascuola.it/article.php?sid=951.

Trentin, G. (2004b). Networked collaborative learning in the study of modern history and

literature. Computers and the Humanities 38, 299-315.

Trentin, G. (2005). From ‘formal’ to ‘informal’ e-learning through knowledge management

and sharing. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society 1(2), 209-217.

Trentin, G. (2008). E-learning and teaching quality. International Journal of Instructional

Media 35(1), printing.

Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: a basis for distinguishing

formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research

Journal 22(5), 537-548.

Williams, P.E. (2003). Roles and competencies for Distance Education programs in higher

education institutions. The American Journal of Distance Education 17(1): 45-57.