0229590_C6FC0_solomon_negash_michael_e_whitman_amy_b_woszczynski_handbook

E-Learning Classifications

e-learning group, while Questions 2 and 9 were slightlyhigherforthetraditionalclassroomgroup.

Self-efficacyratingsbetweenthetwogroupswere not found to be significantly different.

The first hypothesis (H1) stated that students who tend to choose the e-learning environment wouldhaveahigherlevelofcomputerself-efficacy.

This hypothesis was not supported by the data, which indicates that the two groups had similar levels of self-efficacy. Further analysis of the dataindicatedthatfactorsotherthanself-efficacy determined the students desire to participate in the synchronous hybrid e-learning. In the two classes where synchronous hybrid e-learning was offered almost all respondents (94%) stated they were already on campus for another class just before/after this one and did not have time to drive home for the online class and therefore chose to attend the face-to-face format.

Satisfaction responses for the research groups are shown in Table 9. The two research groups of synchronous hybrid e-learning and traditional face-to-face classroom did not show differences in satisfaction.

The second hypothesis (H2) stated that students in the traditional classroom setting would report higher levels of satisfaction when the subject level is complex. This hypothesis was not supported by the data. The Chi-Square test indicated that the two groups were not significantly different (χ2=2.714, p=.438).

When asked whether they would take another e-learning class, 91% of the respondents indicated

Table 9. Satisfaction responses for research groups

they would by selecting a 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents said they did not regret enrolling in this online class, and 83% said they would recommend this online class format to their friends.

asynchronous and synchronous differences

Fourofthesixclassifications(TypeIII,IV,V,and

VI) involve some form of e-communication. The keydifferentiatorfore-communicationamongthe fourclassificationsisthemodeofcommunication

(i.e., asynchronous or synchronous). Asynchronous communication is commu-

nication that is “time-delayed or time-deferred computer mediated mode of delivery” (Seng &

Al-Hawamdeh, 2001, p. 238). In an asynchronous environment, the sender and receiver do not have to be present at the same time for communications to occur. Examples of the mode of delivery in asynchronous communication are e-mail and threaded discussion boards (Seng & Al-Ha- wamdeh, 2001). Synchronous (real-time) communication on the other hand is communication that takes place concurrently. In a synchronous environment, the sender and receiver have to be present at the same time in order for communication to take place (e.g., video-conferencing) (Seng & Al-Hawamdeh, 2001).

Piccoli et al. (2001) identify five student challenges when using an asynchronous e-learning environment:

Satisfaction with the class	Synchronous hybrid		Traditional
	e-Learning			classroom
1=Very Dissatisfying	0	0.0%	0		0.0%
2=Somewhat Dissatisfying	0	0.0%	1		2.6%
3=Undecided	1	6.0%	1		3.0%
4=Somewhat Satisfying	4	22.0%	16		41.0%
5=Very Satisfying	13	72.0%	21		53.8%
Total	18		39

E-Learning Classifications

1.Difficulty managing the high degree of control: In traditional classrooms the instructor provides direction and structure. Asynchronous e-learning environments availahighdegreeofcontrolforparticipants, however, participants are challenged when managing the high degree of control in the absenceofinstructordirectionandstructure. In a synchronous e-learning environment on the other hand, students are able to participate in a familiar strategy that consists of instructor direction and structure.

2.Overburdened by the shift of responsibil- ityandcontrol:Inanasynchronouse-learn- ing environment the instructor is not present at the time of instruction access. When a concept is not clear, learners are unable to ask the instructor questions in real-time. In a synchronous e-learning environment however, the instructor is present at the time of instruction delivery and learners can ask questions in real-time.

3.Feeling isolated: Asynchronous learners access instruction material independent of the instructor and classmates and learners do not engage in real-time interaction and therefore may feel isolated. Synchronous learners, in contrast, can see the instructor and fellow students at the time of instruction delivery by connecting via a webcam to the synchronous e-learning environment, thereby reducing feelings of isolation. A participant in our pilot study commented by saying, “With the live video and audio connections I feel like I am in the [traditional] classroom.”

4.Experiencing anxiety: Participants who experience anxiety at the time of instruction delivery in synchronous e-learning environments are able to get immediate assistance through audio and video communication. This feature, however, is not available to participants in asynchronous environment where there would be a time delay in getting access to help.

5.Difficulty in time management: Asynchronous learners have to manage their instruction access time, primarily because thereisnofixed-timeforinstructionaccess. The flexible “anytime” access in an asynchronousenvironmentcreatestimemanagement challenges, whereas synchronous (or face-to-face)environmentshavefixed-time where learners sign up withprior knowledge about the time constraints, thus there are no new time management challenges.

Inourexperiencewithsynchronouse-learning environment courses, there was no indication that our students encountered these challenges.

Synchronous virtual learning environments are not without issues, they pose their own learner challenges too. Some of these challenges are:

1.Technology investment: Learners in both asynchronous and synchronous e-learning environmentsmusthaveaccesstocomputers and all learners in our pilot study indicated that they had computer access at home. In our classes learners were required to use a headset (a basic headset costs about $10.00). Our department purchased basic headsets (bulk rate of $6.00 per headset) and provided them to students who wished to use them as loaners. In our classes, video from the instructorwasalwaysavailable,butstudents had the option to install a Webcam on their end (a basic Webcam costs about $40.00) to view the class in session. Investment for a university includes individuals with expertise to support real time communication and investment in a high speed Internet connection (Seng & Al-Hawamdeh, 2001).

2.Technology glitches: Instruction delivery, online real-time, may be interrupted due to technology glitches including LMS system errors and system connectivity errors, such as video frames freezing while being transmitted over the Internet and audio breaking

up and becoming distorted (Seng & Al-Ha- wamdeh,2001).Thesechallengesareunique to the individual setup. In an asynchronous format the student is responsible for dealing with the issues. In a synchronous format, because the instructor is leading a “live” class session the instructor is responsible for delivering instruction content and is also responsible for the delivery medium. When audioreceptionforonelearnermalfunctions it distracts, if not interrupts, other learners as well. In our situation, when a lack of bandwidth delayed communication, we asked learners to disable their video. On someoccasionstheinstructorvideowasalso disabled to overcome bandwidth shortages. In some instances, we encountered echo problems with audio; this often happened when one or more participants were not using headsets. In these cases we shifted to a walkie-talkie mode where everyone turned off their audio except the person actively speaking.

3.Virtual presence: Participants have to be in a location where they have access to a computer and a high speed Internet connection in order to participate in the synchronous classrooms. This may pose a challenge for students who are taking other classes on campus or are away from their equipment (Negash & Wilcox, 2007).

4.Technical expertise: Participants, both instructorsandstudents,needtobecomfortable with computers, they may also need to have some level of technical know-how in order to conduct or participate in a synchronous e-learning environment.

hybrid/blended e-learning

Blended and hybrid e-learning formats are used interchangeably in thischapter. Inblended/hybrid e-learning instruction, delivery combines presence and no presence and the type of presence can

E-Learning Classifications

be physical or virtual. The blended/hybrid format can be one of the three combination formats:

•Asynchronouse-learning(nopresence)with face-to-face (physical presence)

•Asynchronouse-learning(nopresence)with synchronous (virtual presence)

•Synchronous (virtual presence) with face- to-face (physical presence).

The amount of face-to-face time in a blended/ hybrid format varies greatly from institution to institution.Someinstitutionsconductthefirstand last class sessions of a semester course with presence and conduct the balance without presence. Other institutions hold 25% of the classes with presence and the other 75% without, while others conduct 50% of the class with presence and the balance without. Still there are some institutions that conduct their courses with 100% presence through a combination of physical and virtual presence.Whiletherearenostandardsprescribing the proportion of presence/no-presence or physi- cal-presence/virtual-presence in blended/hybrid e-learning environments, it would be useful to develop a standard that serves all stakeholders including instructors, learners, and institutions (Ranganathan, Negash, & Wilcox, 2007).

To date the research discussion on e-learning, for the most part, has been with respect to asynchronous format. In the debate over the value of asynchronousvs.traditionalface-to-facecourses, the promise of the hybrid model for e-learning has largely gone unnoticed and is just now starting to garner some attention from academics across a variety of disciplines (Brunner 2006).

There is no standard definition of a “hybrid course”(Brunner,2006;DeNeui&Dodge,2006). The definition adopted here is one “in which a significantportionofthelearningactivitieshave been moved online, and time traditionally spent in the classroom is reduced but not eliminated”

(Garnham & Kaleta, 2002, p. 1). Also somewhat unclear, is how much time in a hybrid course is

E-Learning Classifications

actual face-to-face and how much online (Brunner, 2006; Ranganathan et al., 2007).

Hybrid/blended models have started to gain attention because they offer the opportunity to apply the best features of online education and those of the traditional classroom to active independent learning (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002, p. 1). Brunner (2006) outlines the strengths of a hybrid model as: “1) student performance and retention increase,

2) time and flexibility for students is greater, 3) colors on the teaching palette multiply, 4) depth of community enhances the learning environment, 5) the breadth of ‘interaction’ is enlarged, 6) it allows for a gradual transition from face-to-face to online learning, 6) expectations are higher”

(pp. 230-233).

Web, Gill, and Poe (2005) found that students’ online discussions may enhance learning in case methods when taught using a hybrid approach. In a study conducted to compare traditional and technology-assisted instruction methods in eight sections of a business communications class, where live vs. hybrid formats were compared, an improvement in writing skills was found in students who participated in the hybrid course, particularly for those whom English is a second language (Sauers & Walker, 2004). McCray (2000) found courses which combine online learning with the traditional classroom can help students to become more engaged in rich classroom interactions by appealing to different learning styles through variety in content delivery.

In theological education, Delamarter and Brunner (2005) investigated hybrid models and found that student satisfaction and learning outcomes were higher for the students in hybrid courses than those in both asynchronous and face-to-face classroom settings.

limitations

The sample size for the pilot study discussed above consisted of 63 responses, which is rela-

tively small; therefore the collection of additional data to further validate the findings is a natural extension of the study. The results of this pilot study may also be limited to the specific courses examined and for this reason the study may not be generalizable to other courses, universities, or environments.

futuRe ReseaRch diRection

Additional research needs to be undertaken to gain a clearer understanding of the different e- learning classifications and a broader study to understandtheeffectivenessofeachclassification. Further,acomparisonbetweentheclassifications is needed.

In the study, we found similar self-efficacy levels between users of e-learning format and face-to-face format; this may be because all the students in the courses either majored in computer science or information systems and this was a group that had more exposure to computers. A broader study evaluating students from noncomputer majors would be useful to provide further understanding of whether a higher level of technical skill is required for individuals participating in e-learning formats.

In the pilot study we found similar levels of satisfaction between students who chose the face-to-face and e-learning formats. This too presents an area that needs further examination in a broader study.

conclusion

There is a tendency to characterize all e-learn- ing modalities as if they are identical. In reality, learning outcomes, workload, success/failure rates, and pedagogical needs differ among the different modalities. Recognizing these differences is an important first step in understanding the effectiveness of e-learning environments. We

conclude by highlighting some general issues with e-learning:

•Instructor workload: Teaching in an e- learning environment requires training and experience. Training and experience developed in a traditional face-to-face format do not easily translate into e-learning success. A professor with expertise in a subject area can probably walk into a traditional classroom and teach the course content with little preparation. The same expert professor, however, may not be able to achieve instant success in the e-learning environment just because the professor has been successful in a face-to-face setting. Teaching in an e- learning environment takes a considerable amount of time and effort. In the authors’ experience, an e-learning format requires as much as 2-3 times more preparation time than a similar face-to-face class given the same level of content expertise, not to mention the increased level of interaction and communication with students.

•Student workload: Workload issues are not limited to instructors as e-learning formats also increase student workload. Studentsoftenassumethate-learningclasses require less time and are therefore easier than traditional face-to-face classes. On the contrary, e-learning formats require more time. E-learning formats inherently shift some of the learning responsibility to the student, and as a result, student workload in this environment increases when compared to the workload in a traditional class.

•Studentexpectations:Studentexpectations for faculty availability are different for e- learning than in a traditional classroom. Whenstudentscometotheface-to-faceclass they expect to see and talk to the professor. In e-learning environments, students often expect to get immediate response from the instructor anytime they log into the e-

E-Learning Classifications

learning medium, regardless of time of day. For example, when there are due dates for assignments or exams, the instructor may not check e-mail from students just prior to the due date and as a result last minute student questions may not get addressed. This can potentially create disputes around whether or not the student could have earned a higher grade had the student’s question been answered prior to the due date. Toavoid such problems the instructor has to setup a standard response policy in the course syllabus. For example, the instructor can state that electronic communications must allow for at least a 24 hour response time during weekdays and 48 hour response time during weekends.

Many of the difficulties reported by students whenusingasynchronouse-learningenvironment were not found in our synchronous e-learning experience.Thesedifficultiesincludeddifficulty managing the high degree of control, overburdened by the shift of responsibility and control, feelings of isolation, experiencing anxiety, and difficulty in time management.

This chapter has proposed and discussed six e-learning formats: e-learning with physical presence and without e-communication, e-learning without presence and without e-communication, e-learning without presence and with e-com- munication, e-learning with virtual presence and with e-communication, e-learning with occasional presence and with e-communication, and e-learning with presence and with e-com- munication. An empirical study comparing a blended/hybrid-synchronous e-learning format wasalsopresented.Basedonourstudy,webelieve e-learning classifications have different levels of effectiveness. The differences may be the result of differences between the asynchronous and synchronous formats. Synchronous formats may have the potential to provide solutions for some of the challenges faced in an asynchronous format.

0

E-Learning Classifications

We encourage researchers to further study the proposedclassifications,identifydifferencesand similaritiesoftheclassifications,andevaluatethe learning effectiveness of each classification.

RefeRences

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Research commentary: Technology mediated learning-a call for greater depth and breadth of research.

Information Systems Research, 12(1), 1-10.

Alavi, M., Marakasand, G. M., & Yoo, Y. (2002). A comparative study of distributed learning environments on learning outcomes. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 404-415.

Brunner, D. L. (2006). The potential of the hybrid course vis-a-vis online and traditional courses.

Teaching Theology and Religion, 9(4), 229-235.

Cogburn, D. L., & Hurup, D. (2006, April 13). The world is our campus: Synchronous collaboration software lets universities unite colleagues, students, and researchers from all over the globe.

Network computing for IT by IT (pp. 57-68). Retrieved August 6, 2006, from http://www. networkcomputing.com/showArticle.jhtml?artic leID=184428959&pgno=1

Dagada,R., &Jakovljevic,M. (2004). Wherehave all the trainers gone? E-learning strategies and tools in the corporate training environment. In

Proceedingsofthe2004AnnualResearchConference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries (pp. 194-203). Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa.

DeNeui, D. L., & Dodge, T. L. (2006). Asynchronouslearningnetworksandstudentoutcomes:The utility of online learning components in hybrid courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(4), 256-259.

Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002, March 20). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6), 1-3. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/ garnham.htm

Hodges, C. B. (2005). Self-regulation in Webbased courses: A review and the need for research.

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,

6(4), 375-383.

Maki, R. H., Maki, W. S., Patterson, M., & Whittaker, P. D. (2000). Evaluation of a Web-based introductory psychology course: I. Learning and satisfaction in on-line versus lecture courses.

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 32(2), 230-239.

Negash, S., & Wilcox, M. V. (2007). Synchronous hybrid e-learning: Teaching complex information systems classes online. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Information Resources ManagementAssociationConference,Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Piccoli, G., Ahmadand, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A researchframeworkandapreliminaryassessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401-426.

Ranganathan, S., Negash, S., & Wilcox, M. V. (2007). Hybrid learning: Balancing face-to-face and online class sessions. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the. Southern Association for Information Systems, Jacksonville, FL.

Sauers, D., & Walker, R. C. (2004). A comparison of traditional and technology-assisted instructional methods in the business communication classroom. Business Communication Quarterly,

67(4), 430-442.

Seng, L. C., & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2001). New mode of course delivery for virtual classroom.

Aslib Proceedings, 53(6), 238-242.

Simon, S. J., Grover, V., Teng, J. T., & Whitcomb, K.(1996).Therelationshipofinformationsystems training methods and cognitive ability to end-user satisfaction, comprehension, and skill transfer:

A longitudinal field study. Information Systems Research, 7(4), 466-490.

additional Reading

Brown, B. W. (2002). Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles of Microeconomics.

The American Economic Review, pp. 444-448.

Delamarter, S. and Brunner, D.L. (2005). Theological Education and Hybrid Models of Distance Learning. Theological Education, 40(2).

Dodero, J. M., Fernandez, C., & Sanz, D. (2003). An experience on students’ participation in blendedvs.onlinestylesoflearning.ACMSIGCSE Bulletin, 35(4), 39-42.

Falch, M. (2004). A Study on Practical Experiences with using E-learning Methodologies and Cooperative Transnational Development Methodology. CTI Working Paper, no. 97, 2004, CenterforTele-Information,TechnicalUniversity of Denmark. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from http://www.cict.dtu.dk/upload/centre/cict/publications/working%20papers/ctiwp97.pdf

Fox, M. (2002). Keeping the blended promise.

E-Learning, 3(3), 26-29.

Hale, R. L., & Heiphetz, A. (2006). Rewind the teacher: A case for technology. Distance Learning, 3(4), 72-76.

Hardesty, B. S. (2007, January 5). E-learning: Successes and failures. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, B20.

Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2005). Education goes digital: The evolution of online learning and the revolution in higher education. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 59-64.

E-Learning Classifications

Kazmer, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Multiple perspectives on online learning. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 25(1), 7-11.

Knutsen, D., Knutsen, E., & Slazinski, E. (2003).

EmployingnewadvancesinIPvideoconferencing to enhance teaching and learning through the use of a hybrid distance learning course. Paper presented at the Conference On Information Technology Education, Lafayette, IN.

Lorenzetti, J. P. (2004). For quality and cost effectiveness, build a hybrid program. Distance Education Report, 8(21), 1-2.

Mansour, B. E., & Mupinga, D. M. (2007). Student’s positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online classes. College Student Journal, 41(1), 242-249.

McCloud, R. (2004). Does an online course work in computer science? Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19(5), 260-269.

McCray,G.E.(2000).Thehybridcourse:Merging on-line instruction and the traditional classroom Information. Technology and Management, 1, 307-327.

Mortera-Gutierrez, F. (2006). Faculty best practices using blended learning in e-learning and face-to-face instruction. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(3), 313-337.

Nelson, M., Bhagyavati, Miles, G., Settle, A., Shaffer,D.,Watts,J.,etal.(2005).Onlineteaching practices (both best and worst). Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 21(2), 223-230.

Olapiriyakul, K., & Scher, J. M. (2006). A guide to establishing hybrid learning courses: Employing information technology to create a new learning experience, and a case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(4), 287.

Reay, J. (2003). Blended learning: A fusion for the future. Knowledge Management Review, 4(3), 2.

E-Learning Classifications

Smith, P. W., & Lyons, K. A. (2004). E-learning basics:Essay.UserexperienceinthefirstARISE distributed classroom. eLearn, 2004(3), 2.

Sprague, D., Maddux, C., Ferdig, R., & Albion, P. (2007). Online education: Issues and research questions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 157-166.

Tabor, S. W. (2007). Narrowing the distance.

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 47-57.

Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94.

Vrasidas, C. (2004). Engineering e-learning systems (ELS): Issues of pedaogy and design in e-learning systems. Paper presented at the Symposium on Applied Computing Nicosia, Cyprus

Webb, H. W., Gill, G., & Poe, G. (2005). Teaching with the case method online: Pure versus hybrid approaches.DecisionSciencesJournalofInnovative Education, 3(2), 223-250.

Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Young, J. R. (2002, March 22). ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48, A33.

endnotes

1Marratech was recently acquired by Google (http://google.com)

2WebCT recently merged with Blackboard (http://blackboard.com)

3Camtasia Studio is a product specially designed for recording and publishing video presentations .

Chapter II

Blending Interactive

Videoconferencing

and Asynchronous

Learning in Adult Education:

Towards a Constructivism Pedagogical

Approach–A Case Study at the University

of Crete (E.DIA.M.ME.)

Panagiotes S. Anastasiades

University of Crete, Greece

abstRact

This chapter focuses on the designing and development of blended learning environments for adult education, and especially the education of teachers. The author argues that the best combination of advanced learning technologies of synchronous and asynchronous learning is conducive to the formation of new learning environments, which, under certain pedagogical conditions, will adequately meet the special needs of adult students. Particular emphasis is given to the designing and development of a pedagogical blended learning model based on the principles of transformation adult theory and constructivism. This model implements advanced learning technologies in a pedagogical context, aiming at the formation of a collaborative blended learning environment, which will encourage critical thinking and reflection, providing the necessary conditions for a polymorphic distant education for teachers. Finally, we present a case study of a blended environment of teachers’ training designed by the Center of Intercultural and Migration Studies (E.DIA.M.ME.) at the University of Crete.

Copyright © 2008, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Blending Interactive Videoconferencing and Asynchronous Learning in Adult Education

intRoduction

Education is now playing the most important role in the Information Era (Anasstasiades, 2002a; Raptis & Rapti, 2004). In the modern world of globalisation and the Internet, knowledge constitutes the main productive element of economy (Tapscott, 1999). Although the pace of change in the working and social environment may influence evolution and renewal of all human activities positively, it does depreciate knowledge and skills to an unprecedented extent and contributes to the establishment of digital divide (Anastasiades, 2005a; Norris & Pippa, 2001; United Nations,

2003).Theinfluenceofageontheuseofinformationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICT)(Eastman & Iyer, 2004), the updating and enhancing knowledge, and skills of citizens in the emerging information society designate lifelong learning as an essential condition for their harmonious and productive integration into the new social and working conditions (Anastasiades, 2005b).

ICT form a new teaching and learning environment in all levels of education, mainly adult education.Educationalinstitutionsthroughoutthe world are designing and applying distant teaching environments, which take into consideration the specific needs of adult students and hope to provide flexibility regarding the location, time, and pace of learning (Anastasiades, & Spantidakis, 2006).

For many years, distance education (DE) was regarded as a technological and organisational entity according to prevailing technology-centered perceptions (Bates, 1995). This view led to the downgrade of the pedagogical aspect of learning and teaching (Massialas, 1989; Paulsen, 2003).

This chapter demonstrates the view that new technologies should not be considered as a neutral teaching medium (Lionarakis, 2006) but, instead, be implemented under pedagogical conditions aiming at the development of critical thinking (Brusilovsky,1999;DeBra,Eklund,Kobsa,Brusilovsky, & Hall, 2000; Kemmis, 1985; Kostoula

& Makrakis, 2006; Mezirow 1981) through their creative integration into the social and cultural context (Carr & Kemmis, 2002).

The contents of the chapter are as follows: Inthesecondsectionweprovidethetheoretical

frame of e-learning and describe the technologies of synchronous and asynchronous transmission and the blended learning environments. Emphasis is given to the pedagogical conditions of the designing Web-based learning environments.

The third section outlines the basic principles, methodology, and characteristics of the proposed pedagogical model, which is based on the rudiments of adult education emphasizing the transforming learning, the constructivism theory, and the fundamental principles of DE by American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC).

In the fourth section we analyse key issues of designing and developing an asynchronous learning environment, which are the basic characteristics, the functions, and designing models of an asynchronous learning environment, focusing on the designing principles and the phases of development.

The main issue of the fifth section is the designing and developing of synchronous learning environments. We describe the characteristics and the methodology of designing collaborative environments emphasizing interactive videoconferencing and live transmission of lectures via Internet.

Finally, in the sixth section we present a case study on the designing and developing of a blended Web-based learning environment, which has been applied for 4 years by the EDIAMME of the University of Crete and aims at the training of teachers around the world.

new technologies and distance education

The dynamic appearance of digital technology in therecentyears,theadvancedpotentialoftelecom-