A physical learning environment generally integrates courses, resources (libraries), formal
communication (boards) and informal communication (cafeteria, ...), an administration, ...
Similarly, a virtual learning environment integrates a variety of tools supporting multiple
functions: information, communication, collaboration, learning and management
The
very idea of environment includes this notion of integration. This is clear in virtual
campuses (see definition on page 3). Because of their broad scope, they have to fulfill
administrative functions: managing who is registered to which courses, collecting
assessment notes to count credits, ... Virtual places have to reproduce most functions which
can be found on a real campus: registration, assistance, leisure & fun, ... The integration of
technologies is also present in smaller learning environments, for instance when a teacher
sets up a page for a course that includes key pointers, a chat, a QUIZZ, a space to share
drafts, ...
The word integrated refers to fairly different realities. There is a technical and a pedagogical integration, and both of them may vary in degree. The WEB technology has increased technical integration. At the lowest degree of integration, different pieces of software can be placed on the same Web page. For instance, there is a small Authorware programme running in the upper part of the page and a synchronous communication frame in the bottom of the screen in which the student can ask questions. The integration is here restricted to the fact that the two applications appear in the same window (versus in two different windows). Nevertheless, it is already interesting to design such a structured interface and not simply to ask the user to start multiple applications and configure the screen.
A higher degree of integration is reached when applications share or exchange data
structures. Examples:
• If the student press ‘help’ in the Authorware programme or if the programme itself
finds out that the student needs help, it opens up the chat and automatically sends to
the teacher a request for help and a summary of what the student has done so far in
the environment.
• If the student enters an answer that the Authorware standard pattern matching
techniques cannot parse, the message is passed to the mailer, which asks the teacher
to provide feedback
.
These examples show that the technical integration supports the pedagogical integration. For instance, the designer has not to choose between self-instruction and tutoring, but decides to use both, self-instruction as the basis and tutoring when it is necessary.For instance, microworlds have often been criticised for a lack of coaching and information. We can now have a chat within the microworld plus a rich hypertext (local and/or with pointers to Internet). For many years, the field of educational technology wad divided into schools of thoughts, e.g. Logo versus CBT. Now, that the designers can select the best ofeach approach, that using one technology does not exclude another one, the debate between these schools of thought will hopefully be re centred to understanding which types ofinteractions are relevant for which learning objectives.
