THE USE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLS TO SUPPORT
THE COORDINATION OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
Marcelo Augusto Rauh Schmitt
Instituto Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Liane Margarida Rockenbach Tarouco
CINTED, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Keywords: Collaborative learning, Coordination, Project management, CSCL.
Abstract: Coordination plays a fundamental role in collaborative learning. When collaboration is supported by
computers, automatic coordination mechanisms must be deployed. This paper aims to study the possibility
of transfering project management tools commonly used in work contexts to learning contexts. We propose
a coordination model that makes the change of area feasible, and that favours learner’s autonomy. Two case
studies were carried out and a new tool was built in order to test the hypothesis. The results of the current
research suggest that project management tools are viable alternatives to automatic coordination support, as
long as they are used under a proper paradigm.
1 INTRODUCTION
There is a general agreement that collaboration
among students and teachers is an essential
instrument in the learning process. According to
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. and Smith K.,
(2007), cooperative learning is an accepted
instructional procedure and it is used worldwide in
all levels of education. The same authors sustain that
“cooperation, compared with the competitive and
individualistic efforts, often results in higher
achievements, long term retention of what is learned,
critical thinking, creativity in solving problems and
more willingness to persist”. Although there is still
some controversy about the words “collaboration”
and “cooperation” (Resta and Lafarriere, 2007), in
the present paper, the expression “collaborative
learning” is used to describe learning which happens
with intensive participation of students who interact
with each other and with the teacher for construction
of knowledge. According to Dillenbourg, Baker,
Blaye and O’Malley (1995), in collaboration the
focus is on the mutual engagement of participants
and in cooperation the focus is on the division of
labor. To the authors, cooperation is achieved by
splitting the task into independent sub-tasks, while
in collaboration there is a division into intertwined
layers. Therefore, collaboration is a term that better
defines the active participation of students. But it
should be noted that, sometimes (Johnson, Johnson
and Smith, 2007), authors use the term cooperation
to refer to the same type of process.
The theoretical foundation for advocating the
benefits of collaboration in learning can be found in
the traditional studies of Vygotsky (Vygotsky,
1998). According to the Russian researcher,
collaboration among peers is an essential action for
learning, as it expresses the heterogeneity that exists
in groups and helps the development of strategies
and skills to solve problems due to the cognitive
process implicit in interaction and communication.
Social interaction is a way to access a wide source of
data used as a basis for anyone to develop and learn.
Based on Vygotsky, it is possible to state that an
individual performs better when he works with more
prepared ones. His definition of the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) highlights the value
of collaboration. He defines ZPD as the distance
between the actual level of development, which is
identified as the capacity of independently solving
problems, and the level of potential development,
identified as the capacity of solving problems with
aid. Social interaction is, therefore, a way to learn
345
Augusto Rauh Schmitt M. and Margarida Rockenbach Tarouco L..
THE USE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE COORDINATION OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING.
DOI: 10.5220/0003474203450352
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CeLS-2011), pages 345-352
ISBN: 978-989-8425-50-8
Copyright
c
2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
and develop. Learning is favored by a collaborative
environment. Teacher’s mediation, as well as
interactions with other colleagues through the
learning environment, has positive impact for a
better use of the student ZPD. What was only a
potential level of development can more easily be
achieved. Morishima et al. (2004) summarize the
benefits of using a collaborative learning
environment through the expressions “learning by
teaching” and “learning by observation”.
Considering that collaborative learning brings
benefits to the cognitive process, it is natural to use
information technologies in order to support
collaborative activities. The study field that
researches the use of computer systems to support
collaborative learning is commonly known as
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL). Over the years, several researchers have
been devoted to this subject and a variety of
disciplines are related to the issue: psychology,
sociology, education. In addition to these disciplines,
one central point of research in CSCL is technology.
For Järvelä, Häkkinen, Arvaja and Leinonen (2003),
the purpose of CSCL is to support students so that
they can learn efficiently. According to Suthers
(2006), CSCL has an obligation to design
technology that effectively supports collaborative
learning. According to Soller, Martinez, Jermann
and Muehlenbrock (2005), the current focus of
research is the identification of computational
strategies that positively influence group learning.
There are three main activities in collaborative
learning: cooperation, communication and
coordination (Singh, 1989; Fuks, Gerosa, Raposo
and Lucena, 2004). Without coordination there is no
guarantee that tasks will be done in the proper way,
at the right time and with necessary resources (Fuks
et al., 2004). Coordination is an essential part of
collaboration and students need to devote some
effort to it (Janssen, Erkens, Kirschner and
Kanselaar, 2010; Moguel, Tchounikine and Tricot,
2010; Anaya and Boticario, 2009; Wang and Woo,
2010). Stahl (2004) argues that CSCL systems
should be designed, among other things, to support
the collaboration and to structure its coordination.
Kim and Kim (2008) state that learners need
adequate support for the coordination of
collaboration. To Hesse (2007) the need for a
coordinating structure appears to be even more
urgent in computer-mediated settings than in face-
to-face ones.
Because coordination plays an essential role in
collaboration and collaborative learning
environments must provide solutions to that subject
(Hesse, 2007; Wang. and Woo, 2010), the usage of
project management tools was studied. Those tools
have been used for many years in the Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) context,
which has a different focus than CSCL Stahl (2006,
page 287). Nevertheless, we believe that CSCL
research can take advantage of that technology.
The main question of this study is: “Can a
project management tool, initially created to benefit
cooperative work, contribute to the coordination of
collaborative learning?” In order to test the
hypothesis, a coordination model was defined and
two case studies were carried out.
2 COORDINATION MODEL
It is possible to coordinate the learning process
through collaboration scripts, which are educational
models that can structure collaborative learning,
outlining the sequence of activities of a group.
Roles, phases and activities may be defined
(Dillenbourg and Hong, 2008). However, the use of
scripts brings with it the risk of restricting
collaboration (Dillenbourg, 2002) and the
effectiveness of scripting is a highly contested
matter (Stahl and Hesse, 2010). Heinze and Procter
(2006) conclude that either unguided or very
structured collaboration are not satisfactory in a
community of practice. It is clear that some balance
has to be established. The same idea is corroborated
by Schneider (2009).
Although a certain degree of freedom is
important for learning communities to develop,
activities with highly interdependent tasks are not
well coordinated only by social protocol (Fuks et al.,
2004). Explicit coordination mechanisms are
necessary. Avouris, Margarita and Komi (2003) also
support that idea in a study about the use of
conceptual maps as collaborative learning
environment. They conclude that the use of explicit
coordination mechanisms make students argue at the
meta-cognitive level of the activity and externalize
their strategies, a fact that helps them deepen their
collaboration, and lead to improved learning.
When students collectively construct knowledge,
it is fundamental to organize what will be realized.
Besides the teacher, pupils themselves coordinate
their activities. Carell, Herrman, Kienle and Menold
(2005) sustain that while teachers are responsible for
defining the task, a collaboration plan has to be
developed by the students themselves. When
students collaborate in a project, even when the
ultimate goal is defined by or negotiated with the
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
346
teacher, steps to achieve such goal are, usually,
elaborated by members of the group. Sub-tasks and
deadlines are established. The process is reviewed
and new directions are taken at some moments.
Without planning, collaboration does not happen and
the final objective is not achieved.
The definition of sub-tasks allows students to
picture more abstract steps and to refine them in a
top-down way of thinking. Collaboration is a
cyclical process (Fuks, Raposo and Gerosa, 2003)
and this kind of top-down definition of tasks reveals
this constant renegotiation that leads to the
establishment of new tasks. Those mechanisms
should not be viewed as a limitation of the
collaboration process since the scheme of
collaborative work done by those who are
collaborating facilitates the attainment of the desired
goal. De Graaf, De Laat and Scheltinga (2004) go
further in the idea when they argue that there is no
need for students to work collaboratively during all
the stages of a collaborative task. Tasks can be
subdivided and integrated later.
A non-script approach does not imply the
absence of structuring. The basic premise is that
students, along with the teacher, define a
collaboration schema appropriate to the specific
context and they organize their activities based on it.
In order to use a project management tool to support
coordination of collaborative learning it is necessary
to define a coordination model that produces
collaboration and that is compatible with such tool.
Concerning activity planning and control, project
management tools have four main elements: the
project, the tasks associated with it, the team
members and the team leader (figure1).
Figure 1: Class diagram of project management tool in
CSCW context.
Activity organization consists in defining the
project, with goals and deadlines; defining tasks
necessary to execute the project, which also have
associated goals and deadlines; and controlling
execution. The ultimate purpose of teamwork is to
build a product and the team leader has a
preponderant coordination role (figure 2). The
project is not a group construction. It is a
corporation choice or a boss decision. Not even task
definition is a collaborative activity; it is done by the
leader who may consider some suggestions.
Figure 2: Use case diagram of project management tool in
CSCW context.
Clearly, this model may fit into a cooperative,
but not into a collaborative work. It corresponds
simply to a division of labor regulated by the boss.
The team does not elaborate a plan of collaboration
and the leader is much more than a facilitator.
Considering that students should regulate the
coordination of collaborative learning – defining
tasks, deadlines, objectives and control points –
working like this is inadequate. However, this
coordination model, which leads to a cooperative
work, is not enforced by the tool. It is the common
way to use project management applications.
To be coherent with criteria like interaction,
participation and autonomy levels, such coordination
model must not be reproduced in collaborative
learning. Project management tools need to be used
under a new paradigm. A new coordination model is
proposed. The proposed model has four main
elements: the project, the tasks, the team members
and the team leader. Team leader is replaced by
teachers and team members by the students. A
project is coordinated by one or more teachers, it
belongs to a group of students and it has one or more
tasks associated (figure 3).
The leading role played by the boss is replaced
by the guiding role played by the teacher, and tasks
are not communicated to the students, but built by
them (figure 4). Students suggest different paths that
will conduct to knowledge building and the teacher
regulates such paths. The autonomy level of learners
will be dynamically determined. As there is no
universal balance, the coordination model must
allow a flexible role adjustment. There is a
THE USE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE COORDINATION OF COLLABORATIVE
LEARNING
347
predefined coordination schema that allows users to
create different collaboration schemas.
Figure 3: Class diagram of project management tool in
CSCL context.
Figure 4: Proposed use case diagram of project
management tool for CSCL context.
By claiming that students should have active
participation in project definition, we are not
affirming that they will define the content to be
learned or the skills to be acquired. The teacher has
the responsibility to define learning objectives and
most suitable activities to accomplish the final goal.
Students may propose different activities and the
teacher has to decide if they will lead to the intended
goals. Figure 5 corresponds to a state diagram of that
interaction. The teacher's role is to stimulate
discussion and to evaluate whether the proposed
project will allow students to actually reach the
overall objective. From the definition of an activity
by the teacher, students are encouraged to create a
project. The teacher assesses whether the project
fulfills the goals. If students are not capable of
proposing meaningful project the teacher may
intervene in the process. Some groups make better
use of autonomy than others.
After defining the project, tasks must be detailed.
Figure 6 presents the state diagram of the task class.
Students create a collaboration model specific to
their learning context. It is the teacher's role to verify
if the created model is really a collaborative model.
Figure 5: Proposed project state diagram for CSCL
context.
Sometimes, it is necessary to redefine tasks.
It is also important to control task execution.
Again, students and teachers perform that activity
together.
Figure 6: Proposed task state diagram for CSCL context.
3 CASE STUDIES
Two case studies were carried out in order to
analyze the use of a project management tool
according to the proposed model to support
collaborative learning. Both studies were conducted
in a post-secondary course that prepares apprentices
to work as computer programmers.
In both experiments, students had to use a project
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
348
management tool in order to coordinate their
activities in a distant PHP Programming Language
discipline. At the end of the discipline, students
should be able to develop computer programs using
PHP. The students already had the necessary
background to easily learn a new programming
language because that discipline was offered in the
last semester of the course.
To study the use of a computational tool in
collaborative learning it is essential that students and
teacher work under this paradigm. Discipline
assessment was based on projects that should be
realized by groups of two to five students. Group
members were chosen by the students with no
intervention of the teacher. They should interact
among themselves and with the teacher while
implementing a system using PHP. The definition of
the system was a group responsibility. The teacher
controlled if the project would create collaboration
and would permit the achievement of the discipline.
3.1 Case Study I
3.1.1 Method
In the first experiment, students were supposed to
coordinate their activities using the eGroupware
(http://www.egroupware.org) project management
tool. Fifty students of a remotely taught
programming language (PHP) discipline participated
of the study. The majority (82%) had no experience
with PHP.
Moodle (http://www.moodle.com) was used as a
Learning Management System (LMS). That was not
a challenge for the students because they were used
to the learning environment. Most of the course
disciplines make use of Moodle as a manner of
supplying learning objects, defining tasks and
communicating with students either synchronously
or asynchronously. All fifty students were
accustomed to that environment.
Students should use eGroupware to establish
objectives, phases, deadlines and responsibilities, as
well as to control project progress. The teacher
should use it to track activities and intervene when
necessary.
At the end of the discipline, all groups presented
their finished projects to all colleagues and to the
teacher. Afterwards, they answered a questionnaire
about the experience. The first four questions were
intended to investigate if the project management
tool contributed to the occurrence of collaboration
and to identify its positive and negative aspects. The
last question was meant to identify whether students
had any kind of restriction against collaborative
learning that could lead to bad results not related to
the project management tool.
3.1.2 Results
Only 16% of students would have preferred to do the
project individually. And the reasons appointed by
those students were:
Difficulty of organization;
Lack of participation of colleagues;
Loss of autonomy.
The case study was thus performed with a group
of students prepared to learn the discipline content,
used to computer tools and without significant
objections to collaborative learning. It is important
to notice that the first two items are related to
coordination issues.
Although students were stimulated to
continuously use the project management tool, its
use did not correspond to the expectations. Only five
out of twelve groups used the software to plan and
refine their projects. Even those groups used
eGroupware more as a tool to present the
development of the project to the teacher than as a
method to coordinate group work. No more than
36% of the students reported frequent use of the
tool, but 90% considered it useful. The main aspects
that were considered positive were the possibility of
structuring and organizing all activities and
monitoring the project. These are coordination
activities.
The reason for low usage was not, therefore, the
lack of usefulness of the project management
tool. The most important reasons for not having a
continuous use of the tool were the difficulty, the
interface and the use of other tools (72%). The fact
that these were computer science students, combined
with a set of suggestions given by them to improve
the system (table 1), lead to the conclusion that the
project management tool should be integrated with
other communication tools and, preferably, should
be part of an environment already known by the
student.
Table 1: Students' suggestions to improve eGroupware in
CSCL context.
Suggestion Occurrences Percentage
Interface 20 57%
Training 5 14%
forum tool 3 9%
version control tool 2 6%
e-mail alerts 2 6%
communication tools 1 3%
link with other tools 1 3%
chat tool 1 3%
THE USE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE COORDINATION OF COLLABORATIVE
LEARNING
349
Coordination, communication and cooperation must
all be integrated to produce collaboration. The use of
a single tool to manage one aspect of collaboration
was not reasonable for the students. They did not fail
to coordinate their activities. They found solutions in
other tools that they knew before and that
incorporate email, instant messaging and forums.
This case study also revealed the difficulty of
performing a deeper analysis of the collaborative
process without proper logs. A corporate project
management tool stores definitions, phases,
deadlines, responsibilities. However, to analyze
collaborative learning process one needs to observe
the students' proposals, discussions, changes of ideas
and even the teacher's interventions. This kind of
monitoring is essential for CSCL research and is
also important for the assessment of activity
progress. A project management tool for educational
purposes must have mechanisms to make the whole
process more visible. If in the world of work the
most important thing is the final product, in
collaborative learning the most important thing is the
process of knowledge construction, and that process
has to be logged.
3.2 Case Study II
3.2.1 Method
Aiming to avoid the limitations faced in the first
experiment, a project management tool integrated
with Moodle LMS was developed. In this paper, that
tool is referred to as CLPMtool (Collaborative
Learning Project Management Tool). CLPMtool is a
project management plug-in for Moodle that
explicitly implements the coordination model
proposed in section 2. It also aggregates a Gantt
Map, a forum and a chat for the group in the same
interface (figure 7).
The second experiment was carried out with eight
students divided into three groups. Like in the first
experiment, students were supposed to learn
Figure 7: Screen of CLPMtool.
the PHP programming language, and most of them
(six) had no experience with the language. The same
procedures used in the first experiment, regarding
project and task definitions, were used in the second
one. Besides the questionnaire answered by students,
data were collected from CLPMtool logs. The
following actions were registered by the system:
Project Description View;
Project Description Edition;
Project Status Update;
Task Creation;
Task List View;
Task Status Update;
Task Deletion;
Gantt Map View.
All these logs are related to coordination
activities. The user may be organizing (edition,
update, creation and deletion) or controlling (view)
the development of collaborative work. Therefore,
the observation of those events allows identifying
how the tool contributes to the coordination of
collaborative learning.
3.2.2 Results
All four groups used CLPMtool and all students
found the tool useful. They considered it beneficial
to organization, control and communication. Table 2
presents a summary of logs generated by CLPMtool
during the experiment.
Table 2: Access made by students and teacher to the
CLPMtool in case study II (S =Student, T=Teacher).
Access type
Hit number
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
S
1
T
2
S T S T
Project Description
View
35 11 100 46 64 37
Project Description
Edition
1 0 2 0 0 1
Project Status Update 0 1 0 3 0 1
Task Creation 5 0 3 4 0 3
Task Edition 14 2 26 14 14 4
Task List View 44 20 102 74 27 56
Task Status Update 6 6 13 8 3 3
Task Deletion 0 0 1 0 0 0
Gantt Map View 6 0 24 3 4 0
Total 111 40 271 152 112 105
Group 2 had more hits because it had four
members. Analyzing planning activities (project
description edition, task creation, task edition and
task deletion), it is possible to notice a difference of
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
350
autonomy among the three groups. Group 1 defined
its project and all its tasks, group 2 established the
project and three out of four tasks, and group 3 had
all the activities defined by the teacher. In order to
control the evolution of collaborative work, students
and teachers often accessed the task list.
Integrating a project manager tool with the
virtual learning environment made possible to
overcome the problems identified in the preliminary
study. CLPMtool logs demonstrate that students
effectively used the tool. Values related to task list
view, and even Gantt Map view, indicate that
students’ actions did not limit to produce the
requested planning like in the first experiment.
Students used CLPMtool to get situated and to
control the execution of collaborative process.
Logs also reveal the multiple collaboration
schemas produced by the coordination model. While
in the most autonomous group (group 1), the number
of teacher hits were less than half of students’, in the
less autonomous group (group 2), the number of
teacher hits overcame students’. The same
coordination model organized collaborative
activities with different equilibrium points between
students’ freedom and teacher’s guidance.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Coordination mechanisms must be deployed to
support collaborative learning. Software solutions
can help coordination especially with remote
students. Project managers found in corporate
environments, commonly used to organize
cooperative work, seems to be an important
alternative, but its use does not guarantee
collaborative activities. The coordination model
usually associated with such tools does not promote
collaboration. Therefore, the pure transposition of
project manager tools to an educational context is
not sufficient to ensure its utility: it must be applied
under a different paradigm.
We consider that the responsibility for
coordination is collective; students must be actively
involved in structuring their activities, under the
supervision of the teacher. Students should suggest
collaboration models according to each learning
context, avoiding the use of pre-formatted scripts.
Therefore, a coordination model that makes use of
the existing project manager taxonomy, but favours
collaborative work was proposed. That model does
not create a rigid collaboration scheme because it
does not establish how team members collaborate.
Instead, it defines the way students organize their
actions. A group of learners can structure their
work, with teacher’s guidance, in accordance with
its objectives, without limiting it to a particular
paradigm of collaboration. The coordination model
hereby presented permitted that groups with
different characteristics could create their own
collaboration schema.
The two case studies support the hypothesis that
a project manager can help collaborative learning
coordination through mechanisms that clarify
activity planning and monitoring. The two
experiments demonstrated that project management
software can be useful in coordinating collaborative
learning, as long as they are used under a paradigm
that promotes collaboration and that they do not
create an interface burden to the students.
Although CLPMtool is just an implementation of
the proposed coordination model, it proved to be a
valid alternative to promote collaborative learning
through Moodle VLE. Future works will try to
implement automatic mechanisms that will favor
and control the participation of all group members in
coordination activities.
REFERENCES
Anaya, A. R. and Boticario, F. G. (2009). Reveal the
Collaboration in a Open Learning Environment.
Methods And Models In Artificial And Natural
Computation (LNCS 2009 - part 1) , 5601, 464-
475.
Avouris, N.; Margaritis, M and Komis, V. (2003). Real-
Time Collaborative Problem Solving: A Study on
Alternative Coordination Mechanisms. Proceedings of
the The 3rd IEEE International Conference on
Advanced Learning Technologies. 86-90.
Carell, A.; Herrman, T.; Kienle, A. and Menold, N.
(2005). Improving the coordination of collaborative
learning with process models. In Koschmann, T.;
Suthers, D. and Chan, T. W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
CSCL 2005 (pp 18–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
De Graaf, R.; De Laat, M. and Scheltinga, H. (2004).
CSCL-ware in practice: goals, tasks and constraints. In
Dillenbourg, P. (Series Ed.); Strijbos J. W.; Kirschner,
P. A. and Martens, R. L. (Vol. Eds.), Computer-
supported collaborative learning: Vol 3. What we
know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher
education (pp 201-219). Boston, MA: Kluwer
Academic/Spinger Verlag.
Dillenbourg, P.; Baker, M.; Blaye, A. and O’Malley, C.
(1995). The evolution of research on collaborative
learning. In Spada, E. and Reimann, P. (Eds),
Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an
interdisciplinary learning science (pp 189-211).
Oxford: Elsevier.
THE USE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE COORDINATION OF COLLABORATIVE
LEARNING
351
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-Scripting CSCL: The risks
of blending collaborative learning with instructional
design. In KirschnerR, P. A. (Ed.), Inaugural Addres,
Three Worlds of CSCL. Can We Support CSCL? (pp
61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
Dillenbourg, P and Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of
CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5-
23.
Fuks, H.; Gerosa, M. A.; Raposo, A. B. and Lucena, C. J.
P. (2004). O modelo de colaboração 3C no ambiente
aulanet. Infomática na Educação: Teoria e Prática,
7(1), 25-48.
Fuks, H.; Raposo, A. B. and Gerosa, M. A. (2003). Do
Modelo de Colaboração 3C à Engenharia de
Groupware. WEBMIDIA 2003 - Simpósio Brasileiro
de Sistemas Multimídia e Web, Trilha especial de
Trabalho Cooperativo Assistido por Computador,
Salvador, nov 2003, 445-452.
Heinze, A.; Procter, C. (2006). Online Communication
and Information Technology Education. The journal of
information technology education, 5, 235-249.
Hesse, F.W. (2007). Being told to do something or just
being aware of something? An alternative approach to
scripting in CSCL. In Fischer, F; Kollar.; I; Mandl, H
and Haake, J. (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported
collaborative learning. Cognitive, computational and
educational perspectives (pp. 91-98). New York:
Springer.
Janssen, J.; Erkens, G.; Kirschner, P. A.
and Kanselaar, G.
(2010) Task-related and social regulation during
online collaborative learning. Metacognition and
Learning, doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9061-5.
Järvelä, S.; Häkkinen, P.; Arvaja, M. and Leinonen, P.
(2003). Instructional support in CSCL. In Kirschner,
P.; Strijbos, J. and Martens, R. (Eds.), What we know
about CSCL in higher education (15-29).
Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T. and Smith K., (2007). The
State of Cooperative Learning in Postsecondary and
Professional Settings. Educational Psychology
Review, 19(1), 15-29.
Moguel, P.; Tchounikine, P. and Tricot, A.
(2010)
Supporting learners' self-organization: An exploratory
study. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2, 123-133.
Kim H. and Kim, D. (2008). The effects of the
coordination support on shared mental models and
coordinated action. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39(3), 522-537.
Morishima, Y.; Nakajima, H.; Brave, S.; Yamada, R.;
Maldonado, H.; Nass, C. and Kawaji, S. (2004). The
Role of Affect and Sociality in the Agent-Based
Collaborative Learning System. In Andre E. et al.
(Eds) Affective Dialog Systems: Tutorial and Research
Workshop (ADS 2004). Springer-Verlag New York
Inc. New York, NY. 265-275.
Resta, P. and Lafarriere, T. (2007). Technology in support
of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology
Review, 19(1), 65-83.
Schneider, D. K. (2003). Conception and implementation
of rich pedagogical scenarios through collaborative
portal sites: clear focus and fuzzy edges. In:
International Conference on Open and Online
Learning (ICOOL), University of Mauritius. Retrieved
from: <http://tecfa.unige.ch/proj/seed/catalog/docs/
icool03-schneider.pdf>.
Singh, B. (1989) Invited talk on coordination systems. In
Organizational Computing Conference, Austin, TX,
1989.
Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing:
elements of a social theory of CSCL. In Dillenbourg,
P. (Series Ed.); Strijbos J. W.; Kirschner, P. A. and
Martens, R. L. (Vol. Eds.), Computer-supported
collaborative learning: Vol 3. What we know about
CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (pp
53-85). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic/Spinger
Verlag.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: computer support for
building collaborative learning. Cambridge, London:
The MIT Press.
Stahl, G. and Hesse, F. (2010). A prism of CSCL
research. International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 137-139.
Soller, A; Martinez, A; Jermann, P. and Muehlenbrock, M.
(2005). From Mirroring to Guiding: A Review of State
of the Art Technology for Supporting Collaborative
Learning. International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education. 15, 261–290.
Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for
intersubjective meaning making: a research agenda for
CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning. 1(3), 315-337.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). Formação Social da Mente. São
Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Wang, Q. and Woo, H. L. (2010). Facilitating coordination
in the collaborative learning process. 2nd International
Conference on Education Technology and Compute
(2010), 1, 1181-1185.
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
352