AMU-PORTAL The Vocational Multimedia Learning Environment -project, funded by the ESR, began on the 1st of October 2000 and lasted the 31st of December 2002. The produced learning portal (AMU) has been tested during the training modules (10). During the training students became familiar with the most important areas of new media and they also have participated in wider evaluation of the project, as users of the portal The portal is divided into three sections: The courses offered, Coursenet learning platform. and instructional material database DESIGNING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT - LEARNING-THEORETICAL PREMISES Discussion of the relationship between learning environment designing and learning-theoretical paradigms has been rare. Koschmann (1996) identifies four models for the development of learning-theoretical paradigms in IT-based learning; three of which he defines as past paradigms and the fourth as the future model, as new paradigm. The paradigm of computer-supported collaborative learning is based principally on the principles of social constructivism. The creation of knowledge is understood as a social process. This means that delving into practical problem solving, among other things, will manifest itself as a central method of action in the learning process (cf. Lave & Wenger 1991). Computer- supported collaborative learning may be seen to represent the transitory stage of learning-theoretical paradigms, because it draws the social and cultural contexts of learning and the learning environment to the focal point, instead of the learning individual The prevailing learning-theoretical mainstream's development is often briefly summarised as a transition from behaviourism to cognitivism and constructivist learning concepts.. Constructivism , based on cognitive psychological views of learning, has generated a number of interpretations and emphases, among which the concepts of radical and social constructivism are the most prominent. Pragmatic constructivism is also mentioned. From the point of view of practical application to learning, radical and social constructivism seem to drift more apart from one another than one would expect, based on their common epistemological background. As is known, constructivists invariably interpret reality as an outcome of individual perception and personal construction that is essentially built on existing knowledge structures. (von Glasersfeld 1999a and 1999b). The differences between the various schools of constructivism are clearly expressed in their theoretical views that define the possibility of dividing responsibility during the construction process. For example, when striving to build a learning environment to support learning in an optimum manner, a pure radical constructivist interpretation, or a social constructivist interpretation will correspondingly lead to clearly deviating outcomes. (Randhawa & Coffman 1978; Kozma 1991; Epskamp 1995; Schmidt 1998; Murphy et al 2000). EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS When looking for a general term to distinguish the various tools and software items that are used to design the structural parts of Internet-based learning environments (platforms), I encountered a wide variety of terms ( e.g. Britain & Liber 1999; Hazari 1998; McCollum 1997; Atkinson 1997). The majority of these terms defines the tools they refer to, or defines the software items as tools for the production of courses or even learning environments. In any case, it appears that this is a question of learning environment design tools. As internet-based learning has become widely adopted, its application possibilities have increased the need for the tools and software provision and development. Their applicability for the intended purpose has been assessed on various occasions using various criteria. I shall not introduce a specific set of criteria in this connection. Instead, I shall bring up a couple of pedagogically interesting observations. Firstly, one may point out that, almost without exception, the criteria are focused on assessing information technological features. As for the tools' properties, their applicability to course management and course economy has been raised among the features to be assessed. The second observation concerns the assessment criteria that emerge from the theory of learning. To put this briefly: the assessment criteria are few. Even those that can be distinguished frequently represent only a rather superficial interpretation of constructivism. The greatest problem with an emphasis of criteria like this is not their 'false' division but the fact that their use is endangered to drift in a direction where it will be controlled by pedagogically secondary criteria. From the point of view of learning the creation of really relevant environments this would then be 'a lucky chance' to a large extent. The enrichment of learning environments provides new opportunities to combine the various structural elements of learning environments into diverse entities. With this development, the learning-theoretical basics of a learning environment will be derived from application- related and situation-dependent theoretical elements. This also means that there is no reason to look for a specific interpretation or model as a standardised principle for the design of a (internet-based) learning environment. In the real world of internet-based learning environments, the learning environment interpretation that is centred on the tools collaborative learning justifies the question: Can the basic viewpoint of learning environment design primarily be information technological, managemental, or economic? And to what extent should matters, i.e. learning - which inevitably is at stake here - be observed from a pedagogic perspective? The strength of (information) technological structures and their multi-faceted construction process has, understandably, overshadowed the pedagogic perspective. REFERENCES Atkinson, R. (1997). Course server software for online teaching. Http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/teach/guide/res/examples/cours e-server.html (10.5.2001) Britain, S. & Liber, O. (1999). A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments. JISC Technology Applications. University of Wales. Bangor. Epskamp, K. (1995). On Printed Matter and Beyond: media, orality and literacy. CESO. The Hague. Glasersfeld von, E. (1999a) Knowing without Metaphysics: Aspects of the Radical Constructivist Position. Karl Jaspers Forum. Target Article 17. Glasersfeld von, E. (1999b). Einführung in den radikalen Konstruktivismus. In: Wazlawick, P. (Hrsg.) Die erfundene Wirklichkeit. Wie wissen wir, was wir zu wissen glauben. Piper. München. (11. Aufl.) Hazari, S. (1998). Evaluation and Selection of Web Course Management Tools. http://sunil.umd.edu/webct . (10.5.2001). Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm Shifts and Instructional Technology: An Introduction. In: Koschmann, T. (ed.). CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Lawrence Erlbaum. Mahwah. 1-23. Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research. 61. 179-211. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press. New York. McCollum, K. (1997). College Sort Trough Vast Store of Tools for Designing Web Courses. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Information Technology. October 21. Murphy, P et al. (2000). Down with E-reading ? Scientific American. October (20). Randhawa, B. & Coffman, W. (1978). Visual Learning, Thinking and Communication. Academic Press. New York. Schmidt, S. (1998). Medien: Die Kopplung von Kommunikation und Kognition. In: Krämer, Sybille (Hg.): Medien - Computer - Realität. Wirklichkeitsvorstellungen und Neue Medien. Suhrkamp. Frankfurt. 55-72.