Even if it is true that with these interactive technologies we can confirm that the principles are more attainable, we can also affirm that traditional distance learning, could and should pursue them. And distance education theorists have always defended this standpoint.

It is instructive to observe how, the same institutions that were (through their teachers and managers) attacking, or at least ignoring, the distance learning undertaken by other institutions with the same legal category, are now exhibiting the advantages, possibilities and wonderful pedagogic principles of the new ways of teaching and learning. They ignore, more or less deliberately, that those same principles were also present in the more conventional, less virtual, distance learning they so much criticised. Here is a summary of those principles.

• Its openness has always been defended by advocates of distance learning. We have already mentioned that distance learning diversifies and opens up the choice of courses to satisfy actual training needs and offers the possibility of teaching a number of courses from the same institution, without any serious problems with regard to the number of students. This is also a valid characteristic in terms of offering a service to a dispersed population. The openness of this way of teaching and learning therefore is not something new arising from the advent of Internet.
  
  
• Flexibility seems also to have been discovered with the new virtual teaching systems. The possibility of accessing information where and when desired has been mentioned since the very first articles about the subject. Wasn't there any space, time and learning pace flexibility when students consulted their good (and sometimes bad) printed texts, wherever they were and they wanted to, and without the need of a wireless connection, electricity or batteries?. The same can be said about audio or video means of study. What about interactivity, couldn't students contact the teacher at the specified times through the telephone in the same way that a chat session is held now?, or is it that distance learning students couldn't send to or receive a letter from the teacher or fellow students at any time and any place?, or couldn't the same thing be done by fax?
  
  
• Education access democratisation has always been one of the basic objectives for the creation of distance training institutions and programmes. We admit that the Internet has meant a democratisation in the access to information and, through education, to knowledge, but it can't be said that education access democratisation is a distinctive characteristic of Internet because it was already a characteristic of more conventional distance teaching. Furthermore, we mustn't forget that in opposition to that democratisation there is a digital divide between citizens, industries, regions, countries with greater or lesser possibilities of accessing these technologies.

Socialisation and interactivity. Collaborative and co-operative learning, what Perkins (1997) calls peer education, has been promoted recently, in prestigious distance training institutions that were started in the 1870's through conventional technologies such as the telephone, the mail and audio conferences, and especially through tutorial sessions and the creation of working groups of students living in proximity to each other. Virtual environments (the interactivity through telematic means) can make interaction more immediate, easy and frequent. But interactivity via other means and models already existed. The activity principle must be inherent to any educational proposal undertaken. In conventional distance learning it was a relevant principle that can now be promoted by the use of advanced technological tools. The student as an active subject in his own teaching process is more of a protagonist in distance learning than in face to face learning. This protagonism is maintained and probably increased in virtual training environments.

• The pedagogical principle of individualisation, along with the two previous principles, advocated by the Escuela Nueva at the end of the XIX century, was already a clear bet for the more conventional distance learning. Virtual education may contribute to its promotion but it certainly has not discovered it. Freedom and independence in study or, if we prefer, the possibilities and advantages of self-learning, were present and highlighted in non-virtual distance learning. A negative reading of this article would lead us to individualism, which is deplorable in any type of educational model, Isn't over dependence on Internet developing substantial loneliness and sociability problems?

• The motivation or fascination computers produce, as a way of learning easily using a means that attracts and stimulates, is not new. In face to face teaching there were already some resources: maps, drawings, laboratory tools, acetates. Radio, television, audio, video, the attractive printed texts in many distance learning programs, were already a stimulus for study.

But if we take a step forward and look into current theories or principles, we can observe that the foundations were solid before Internet. Some think that constructivism has been born of the Internet and viceversa. Wasn't there constructive learning before the studies carried out by Pavlov and Skinner? The same could be said about the rest of learning theories. All these are different approaches related to the teachers vision about how students can better learn. There's no doubt technology can increase the advantages of some approaches in respect of others, but nobody can deny that the use of the most advanced technology allows the continuity of the old learning theories. We would like to emphasise which constructivist principles can (and must) be applied in face to face learning environments, non-Internet distance learning environments and, obviously virtual environments.

If we tried to summarise the characteristics of these teaching and learning methods and highlight which ones are inherent or have been promoted with the inclusion of the new technologies in this type of education, we might end up with the following table.

(*) Key:
T.D.L. - Traditional Distance Learning
W.B.L. - Web-Based Learning
X - Feature is typical of both types of distance learning
0 -Feature is not found in the type of distance learning
- Feature is not very common
+ Feature is common or very common

It is clear that fundamental and definite features of distance learning are present in both models, and in some cases have been strengthened. Other characteristics that are not conceptually substantial, although they may be relevant for this way of teaching and learning, are equally highlighted in the previous table.

The change in the pedagogic model does not lie therefore in the use of the new technologies, this change will always depend on the training, intention and decisions of the teacher and pedagogue and not on that of the computer expert or specialist. The latter is doubtless responsible for the success of a web-based method, but the technologies themselves will never guarantee success. And very often they are going to offer technology that we, as pedagogues, don't require or that don't fulfil our needs and expectations. What is the use of having state of the art software if the contents offered are weak, full of mistakes, without a didactic structure or not adequate for the learner's level, needs or experiences?

Rather than considering a radical change in the theoretical foundations that are the basis for these co-operative and active teaching and learning strategies, we should emphasise Internet's capacity to allow access to a great amount of information, although a big part of its content is mediocre, or even deplorable. So, Internet and the new technologies can promote better quality learning but they can never guarantee it. In the same way that the use of more basic, cheaper and less sophisticated technology can achieve good quality learning. We should not forget therefore, the need to search for efficiency in the various programmes, or in other words, the cost/efficiency ratio.

So, what is changing then? We understand that the new technologies contributions change the teaching/learning strategies, the methodology, the resources and their organisation, the communication systems, the distribution of educational materials, possibly the efficiency, but not always the effectiveness, the possibilities of access and the democratisation and universalisation of access, which already meant a big advance in respect of conventional distance learning.

But leaving aside more or less substantial or radical changes, the reality is that the technologies alluded to at the start of this article are in place and from an educational perspective offer great possibilities of achieving quality learning. These technologies will, doubtless, make us restate or redefine the organisation and planning of educational processes, the design and development of training materials, the assessment process and tools, the horizontal and vertical relationships etc. (Gisbert 2000). For this reason, we will dedicate the rest of this article to the consideration of some of the risks the massive use of the new technologies implies, as well as the ways of taking maximum educational advantage of them.