Supporting Educators to Design Collaborative Learning Scenarios

Edmar Welington Oliveira

and Marcos Roberto da Silva Borges

Departament of Computer Science, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil

TECNUN, University of Navarra, Donostia/San Sebastián, Spain

Keywords: Collaborative Learning, Learning Scenarios, Learning Design.

Abstract: Collaborative learning (CL) processes are not always effective and the inadequate design of CL scenarios is

one of the main causes of its unsuccess. Designing CL scenarios is a complex task, since it involves countless

requirements and constraints that affect learning process and, hence, the learning outcomes. Consequently,

CL scenarios are usually inappropriately structured. This study is particularly interested in the complexities

inherent to the process of designing CL scenarios. Its objective is to propose a framework, composed of a

conceptual metamodel and a computational tool, in order to support/guide educators throughout the process.

The proposed framework was evaluated through a case study with 22 professors of a federal university. The

results showed that with the framework it is possible to expose educators to design parameters in a way that

they can effectively and systematically be specified.

1 INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing interest in providing learners

with collaborative learning (CL) scenarios in order to

support them acquire and develop their knowledge

and skills (Isotani et al., 2013). However, the simple

fact of putting learners working together does not

ensure effective learning (Weinberger et al., 2009).

Studies

stressing the potential of such scenarios show

that the chance for having meaningful and also lasting

learning diminishes considerably when they are not

appropriately designed (Isotani et al., 2010). In fact,

the inadequate design of CL scenarios is one of the

main causes of unsuccessful group learning (Strijbos

et al., 2004; Dillenbourg, 2002).

Designing CL scenarios is a complex task, since

it involves countless requirements and constraints

(King, 2014). Well-designed CL scenarios must be

structured based on learners’ learning characteristics

and needs, and considering the necessity of guidance

for

learners’ actions and interactions. Moreover, they

must be structured in a way that enables educators to

perform monitoring, analysis and evaluation of the

learning process accurately – mainly considering the

learner,

individually. In a broader sense, the difficulty

is to transform all aforementioned issues into

elements that structure a scenario. Therefore, due to

the complexities inherent to the process of designing

CL scenarios, educators do not perform a thorough

planning. The process is particularly challenging for

(but not limited to) novice educators – since, in most

cases, they do not have all necessary knowledge and

experience (Isotani et al., 2013). Consequently, such

scenarios are improperly structured (Barkley, 2014;

Höver and Mühlhäuser, 2014).

In this paper, the research problem refers to the

lack of adequate design of CL scenarios. The goal is

to provide

an infrastructure able to guide and support

educators in the process of designing such scenarios.

A design framework was implemented as a proposed

solution to the presented problem. A case study was

carried out in order to evaluate the framework.

The following sections initially discuss some

approaches to structuring collaborative learning

scenarios. Then, in section 3, a set of design

principles is presented – defined in

order to guide

educators when designing CL scenarios. Section 4

presents some results of our previous research.

Section 5 presents the framework, describing its

content and implementation. Section 6 presents the

evaluation of the framework, carried out through the

aforementioned case study. The results are presented

in section 7. Finally, section 8 presents the

conclusions of this study.

Oliveira, E. and Borges, M.

Supporting Educators to Design Collaborative Learning Scenarios.

DOI: 10.5220/0010458700950103

In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021) - Volume 2, pages 95-103

ISBN: 978-989-758-502-9

2 APPROACHES TO DESIGNING

CL SCENARIOS

Many approaches have been proposed in order to

support educators in structuring CL scenarios. One of

them refers to the concept of collaborative scripts.

Conceptually,

a collaborative

script (CS) corresponds

to a set of instructions related to how members of a

group work should interact, collaborate and solve a

specific problem (O’Donnel and Dansereau, 1992).

So, a CS is a collaborative instructional scenario that

organizes the activities and actions inherent to the

learning process.

Another approach, specifically within the CSCL

community, consists of CSCL patterns (an initiative

particularly aimed at the reuse of artefacts – i.e.,

practices, techniques etc.). Formally, a pattern is a

strategy of organizing information about a common

problem

and its solution, enabling it to be repeatedly

used. CLFP

patterns (Hernández, 2006) are examples

of collaborative learning

patterns. Specifically, they

aim to

document techniques to organize the sequence

of collaborative activities included in CL scenarios.

In line with these patterns, there are the

collaborative learning techniques

(CoLTs). Barkley et

al. (2014) present several of these techniques,

describing them as artefacts that provide instructions

for engaging the learners in CL processes.

Another approach consists of instructional

design

models, defined as a set of activities (previously

sequenced) to be followed by educational designers for

the design of CL scenarios. Most of the existing models

have

similar elements, varying in the number and/or

terminology of their phases. ADDIE (Jonassen et al.,

1999) is an example of an instructional design model.

Despite several approaches, all of them have

limitations. Regarding collaborative scripts: (a) there

is no reference model for their specification; and (b)

there is also a

lack of guidance about how educators

should specify the script elements. The limitations of

collaborative patterns are: (a) they have instructions,

activities etc. predefined – therefore, imposing a

limitation in relation to

their flexibility (be

structured

according to educators’ needs and intentions), and (b)

there is a considerable number

of patterns (thus,

imposing on educators the need to know several

patterns in order to be able to choose those that best

suit one’s needs). Finally, regarding the design

models, it is observed that (a) they do not include

specific rules, guidelines and

instructions (they only

present general guidelines – thus, not defining how

the activities they establish should be carried out).

Collaborative learning flow patterns

Due

the

complexity of designing CL scenarios,

computational tools capable of supporting it become

essential. Challco et al. (2016) performed an analysis

of some of these tools. Despite the diversity of tools,

there are also limitations in them. In fact, in general,

they (a) do not

provide any guidance to the educators

(i.e. how the design process should be carried out),

and

(b)

they are restricted

specific

models, limiting

their flexibility. Therefore, it is observed that all the

aforementioned approaches have limitations related

to the ability to guide and support educators through

the design

process, as well as

to their flexibility.

3 DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Although there are many proposals to the problem of

inadequate design of CL scenarios, all of them have

limitations (mainly

regarding the support provided to

educators when carrying out a design). Due to these

limitations, and considering our interest in providing

educators with proper support/guidance, we directed

efforts in a previous study (Oliveira and Borges, 2019)

towards identifying the (most) relevant elements to the

design process. From these

elements, a set of

twelve

design principles was specified

(i.e. recommendations

with

the purpose of guiding educators throughout the

process), presented in table 1.

Table 1: Design principles.

Considering the learning objective (work), it is

recommended that its specification occurs not only at

the level of the entire work and its phases, but also at

the level of its activities. In fact, when the

objectives

are defined for the work activities, learners have the

chance to better manage their achievement. Besides, it

is possible for the educator to carry out assessment and

monitoring processes in a more precise way, and also

to have a clearer perception about the specific purposes

of these activities.

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Regarding the learners' learning objectives, it is

recommended that they be specified for the learners

(individually). In this way, enabling the educator to

monitor and assess the learning of each learner in a

more precise way.

Regarding the formation of group, in

order to

avoid inappropriate composition of groups, the

active

participation of the educator is recommended (with

the educator taking responsibility for the process or

guiding the learners through it).

Regarding the specification of activities, it is

recommended that they be defined with a high level

of granularity (i.e., more specific activities). This not

only facilitates the specification of their parameters

(objectives, deadlines etc.), but also enables the

educators to perform assessment and/or monitoring

processes more accurately.

Regarding the suitability of activities, although

it is important to design the activities according to

the

characteristics

of groups or classes (educational

needs, level of knowledge etc.), it is recommended

that they be designed considering individual learners’

characteristics and needs.

Regarding the division of activities among group

members, the active participation of the educator is

recommended in order to avoid that the process

occurs improperly (for

example, learners being

responsible for activities they consider easier)

unequally (i.e., few members being responsible for

most of the tasks).

Concerning the collaborative process, it is also

recommended that educators guide it. This

understanding is based on the premise that learners

working in

groups in a free collaboration

environment

not

always provide satisfactory results; in general,

they do not have an accurate understanding of the

collaborative process, neither of how to behave and

learn in environments that

employ

it.

About the development monitoring, although

is essential to monitor the development of the work

and its phases, it is recommended that it is carried out

at the activity level (making it possible to obtain more

precise information that is essential to the

management of the process, by both learners and

educator).

Regarding the

learning monitoring, it should be

performed through careful observation. Besides, it is

important to previously specify goals, analysis points

etc. In addition, it should be done at the level of the

learners, so that the educator is clear about the

individual evolution of each one throughout the

educational process.

As to the

activities guidance, it is recommended

that educators support/guide learners to accomplish

the activities, since in general they do not carry out

collaborative tasks in an adequate way. It is assumed

that poor learner guidance during a learning process

is significantly less effective than a specifically

designed guidance. Therefore, the educator should

guide learners on the organization/management of

their actions during the development of activities –

thereby, supporting them to achieve the learning

objectives.

It is also recommended that educators provide

support material. Although it is important that the

material assists students in the development of the

work (and its phases), it is recommended to provide

materials that assist students in the development of

each task – thus, helping them in a more specific way.

Regarding the assessment of learning, although

it is important that it is carried out at the level of the

groups, as well as based on the final results developed

by them, it is recommended that

it is carried out at the

student level (individually) and throughout the work

development.

3.1 Analysis Framework

In order to enable the analysis of the design of CL

scenarios implemented by educators in an

instructional environment, an analysis framework –

based on the aforementioned design principles – was

developed in our previous work. For each design

principle, three alternatives were specified (a, b and

c); for

each one, a valuation score was defined, with

the scores “0” (does not meet the principle), “0,5”

(partially meets the principle), “1” (fully meets the

principle). Table 2 presents a piece of the developed

framework.

Table 2: Part of the analysis framework.

Supporting Educators to Design Collaborative Learning Scenarios

4 CL SCENARIOS DESIGN: AN

ANALYSIS

The aforementioned framework was used to analyze

the results of an exploratory study, also presented in

our previous work. The objective was to analyze the

adherence of the design carried out by educators to

the 12

design principles. The study observed whether

and how educators of higher education (particularly,

in the computer science domain) design group work

scenarios while teaching undergraduate courses.

Personal and semi-structured interviews were

conducted with 30 professors from the computer

science department of a federal university. The

sample was composed of 27 professors with doctor’s

degree and 3 with master’s degree. Regarding the

teaching experience (in years) in higher education, 6

professors had less than 5 years, 7 had between 5 and

10, 5 had between 11 and 15, 8 had between 16 and

20, 2 had between 21 and 30, and 2 had more than 31.

Of the 30 educators, 22 answered they use group

work practices while teaching an undergraduate

course. Thus, according to their answers to the

interview, a score (“0”, “0,5” or “1”) was obtained for

each of the 12 design principles. For each educator,

the scores were added up, obtaining a total score,

which represents the level of adherence of the design

implemented by the educator. In order to assess the

level of adherence, a classification score (presented in

Table 3a) was defined. Table 3b presents the

educators’ classification. The 22 educators are

identified as P1 to P22.

Table 3: Educators’ design adherence.

The results show that, of the 22 educators, 18

implement an insufficient design; 3 implement a

regular design; and 1 educator implements a design

whose adherence level is null. It was also observed

that of a possible maximum score of 12, the best-

evaluated educators achieved only 4.5. The results

expose a set of deficiencies regarding the design of

group work scenarios implemented by the 22

educators. In fact, they do not specify several of the

important elements to the design process. The results

reinforce the necessity of providing educators with

useful and proper support/guidance when designing

CL scenarios, helping them to both understand these

elements and specify them.

5 DESIGN FRAMEWORK

Considering

that

the

proposal

this

study is to guide

and support educators to appropriately design CL

scenarios, the solution consists of a design

framework, which is composed of (i) a design

metamodel and (ii) a computational tool. The first one

refers to a structure that conceptualizes the domain of

CL scenarios design, based on the design principles

mentioned in section 4. The second one consists of a

computational infrastructure to support the

metamodel, making possible its use by the educator

when carrying out a design. Basically, the workflow

consists of specifying the elements of the metamodel,

according to the educator's instructional intentions,

generating a particular CL scenario that expresses

them.

5.1 Design Metamodel

The design metamodel includes a set of basic

concepts – which characterize the basic structure of a

group work –, and a set of concepts based on the

design principles. Figure 1 presents it.

The design metamodel is composed of 14

concepts – or macroelements. The basic structure of

a group

work (project) comprises the macroelements:

Project, Section, Practice and Module. According to

the metamodel, a project

is composed of modules

(topics explored in the project) and sections, in which

practices (development of learning activities) are

performed by learners. Practices can be sequenced

and/or related by the educator through an activity

structure.

Learners or groups perform practices, and

learners can play specific roles. Learning objects can

be used in order to support the execution of practices.

Monitoring

activities

can

specified

monitor

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Figure 1: Design metamodel.

practices or sections. Evaluation activities can be

defined to enable the assessment of practices or

sections. Educators can assist the development of

practices or sections through support activities.

Contingency activities correspond to actions/tasks to

be performed as a result of some specific condition

identified by the educator, through a monitoring or

evaluation activity.

The definition of the aforementioned elements was

based on the design principles. As an example, the

macroelements proposed in order to meet the Learning

Objective (project) principle were: Project, Section and

Learning Activity. All of them comprise parameters

that enable the educator to specify the general

objectives of the work, the objectives of its sections

and the objectives of each learning activity. Figure 2

shows the parameters of the Project macroelement.

Figure 2: Parameters of the project microelement.

Besides the basic

parameters (light gray), Module

and Section macroelements integrate the

Project

macroelement, indicating that a project has modules

and sections.

For the specification of the design metamodel,

XML language was used. It provides a free and

practical strategy for the definition of information, as

well as its

representation in hierarchical structures,

adding semantic levels capable of conferring

significant power of expression. The option for XML

also considered the fact that it is a technology-

independent language – therefore, there is no need of

a specific software to read and interpret XML files. A

fragment of the XML Project macroelement is

presented in figure 3.

Figure 3: XML Fragment of the project microelement.

5.2 Computational Tool

The computational tool aims to provide support for

the use of the design metamodel, guiding the educator

with regard to the analysis and specification of its

elements. Therefore, the development of the tool was

carried out in order to support the educator in

specifying the 12 design principles.

The tool provides a set of functionalities, grouped

in 6 categories: create (create/register elements in a

project), edit (complement and/or modify information

of elements registered in the project), view (visualize

information of elements registered in a project and

relationships between elements), include (class of

actions that enables educators to relate elements; for

instance, include learning object in a section), assign

(relate elements in a project – for instance, assign role

to learners) and delete (class of actions that enables

the educator to delete an element of the project or

“disconnect” related elements).

For the development of the tool, object oriented

programming paradigm and PHP programming

language were adopted. Regarding the architecture,

Supporting Educators to Design Collaborative Learning Scenarios

the tool was structured as a monolithic Web

application, using a multilayer architecture. Figure 4

presents a screen (in Portuguese) of the tool related to

the creation of practices.

6 FRAMEWORK EVALUATION

The evaluation aimed to analyze the CL scenario

design process carried out by educators in their face-

to-face undergraduate courses (in the computer

science domain). The purpose was not to evaluate if

the design supports the educator in conducting the

learning process or if it promotes learners’ learning.

Actually, the goal was to evaluate the perception of

educators regarding the guidance and support

provided by the framework and the adherence of the

design implemented by them to the design principles.

Although it is important to analyze the effectiveness

of the design in supporting educators in conducting

the learning process, as well as fostering the

development of learners’ learning, these are issues to

be addressed in future works.

This study adopted the case study as research

methodology. According to Yin (2015), a case study

consists of an empirical investigation that studies a

contemporary phenomenon in depth and in its real-

world context. The case study is presented as the

preferred method in situations in which it is necessary

to answer questions such as "how"

or "why", when the

researcher has little or no control over the

investigated event and when the focus of the study is

a contemporary phenomenon.

Particularly, our study proposes to investigate

how the design of collaborative learning scenarios

can be carried out to promote its adherence to the

design principles. In addition, given the

characteristics of the event of interest, the researcher

has no control over it. In fact, the study focuses on

investigating real situations of design of CL scenarios

by educators. In this context, considering that design

is a task inherent to the educator, as well

as the

environment in which he/she is inserted, the

researcher has no interference or control over the

studied event.

6.1 Case Study

For this study, the approach of multiple case studies

was adopted, with multiple units of analysis defined

for them. The choice was appropriate since it makes

it possible to carry out a comparative analysis of the

cases, allowing a broad view of the studied

phenomenon.

The definition of the cases, as well as of the units

of analysis (or educators), was based on the results

obtained from the exploratory study carried out in our

previous research (Oliveira and Borges, 2019). For

this study, three cases were defined. Case 1 includes

the educators whose designs were not adherent to the

design principles (when compared to the results of

other educators). Case 2 comprises the educators

whose designs were moderately adherent. Case 3

includes the educators whose designs were adherent

to the design principles.

The definition of the units of analysis was based

on the scores (level of adherence) presented in table

3. Three units of analysis were selected for each case.

This number was based on Yin (2015) – according to

him,

in projects of multiple cases, it is necessary

Figure 4: Creation of a practice.

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

100

to have at least two individual units in each case. The

selected units are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Selected units of analysis.

The data collection protocol of the case study

comprises 3 phases. Phase 1 consists of analyzing the

results of the exploratory study (performed in our

previous research). Phase 2 consists of the design of

CL scenarios. Particularly in this phase, the educators

of cases 1, 2 and 3 use the proposed framework to

design CL scenarios. Before this phase 2, the

researcher

presented a workshop in order to explain

the case study as well as the computational tool to the

educators. All educators had six weeks to complete

the design. At the end of phase 2, the researcher

performed an analysis of the design carried out by the

educators in order to evaluate its adherence to the

design principles. Phase 3 consists of a personal and

semi-structured interview with each educator. The

purpose of this interview

was to analyze the

perception of the educators in relation to the use of

the proposed framework.

7 RESULTS

Table 5 presents the comparative results between the

3 units of analysis (P18, P19 and P22) in case 1.

These results show that all educators achieved a

higher level of adherence (total score) – when

comparing the scores related to the design without

using the framework and using it. Therefore, the

framework was able to support all educators in

carrying out a CL design more adherent to the design

principles.

Table 5: Adherence level comparison – case 1.

Table 6 presents the comparative results between

the 3 units of analysis (P14, P16 and P20) in case 2.

Similarly to case 1, all educators achieved a higher

level of adherence (comparing the scores associated

to the design without using the framework and using

it). Also for this case 2, the framework was able to

support all educators in carrying out a CL design

more adherent to the design principles.

Table 6: Adherence level comparison – case 2.

Table 7 presents the comparative results between

the three units of analysis (P2, P6 and P17) in case 3.

Similarly to cases 1 and 2, all educators achieved a

higher level of adherence. Therefore, the framework

was also able to support all educators in carrying out

a CL design more adherent to the design principles.

Table 7: Adherence level comparison – case 3.

Table 8 presents the comparative results among

the cases 1, 2 and 3.

Table 8: Adherence level comparison – cases 1, 2 and 3.

It is possible to observe, for all cases (1, 2 and 3),

an improvement in terms of adherence to the design

principles – when comparing the scores of educators

without using the framework and using it. For case 1,

the total score (sum of the scores of educators P18,

P18 and P22) increased from 2.5 to 18.5. For case 2,

Supporting Educators to Design Collaborative Learning Scenarios

101

the score increased from 7 to 19.5. For case 3, the

score increased from 10.5 to 19.5.

These results show that the framework had a

greater impact in case 2 (lower level of adherence)

and less impact in case 3 (greater level of adherence).

It is noted, therefore, that in the cases in which

educators presented more expressive difficulties in

terms of design (without the use of the

framework),

the proposed framework presented greater support

capability (to carry out a design more adherent to the

design principles). On the other hand, the lower this

difficulty for educators (analyzing the cases, as a

whole), the lower the support capability provided to

them by the framework.

Table 9 presents the results for two of the many

questions present in the interview carried out in phase

3 of the data collection protocol. Question "a" asked

the educator if the framework provides adequate

support for the design of CL scenarios. Question "b"

asked whether the educator, based on the experience

of using the framework, changed his/her perception

of how to design CL scenarios.

Table 9: Answers to (some) interview questions.

The results show that, for question "a", all

educators answered that the framework provided

moderate to high support and guidance in order to

assist them in specifying the design elements – that is,

in designing CL scenarios. Similarly, for question

“b”, all educators answered that the experience of

using the proposed framework was able to change

their view regarding how to design CL scenarios, in a

positive way. For all these educators, the framework

made it possible to specify several design elements

that they did not consider when planning their group

work scenarios.

8 CONCLUSIONS

Careful planning is essential to the effectiveness of

collaborative learning processes. However, the

planning process of CL scenarios is complex;

therefore, they are usually inappropriately and

inefficiently structured, making it difficult for

students to achieve learning objectives.

Previous studies indicate the need to provide

educators

with useful and proper support and

guidance, exposing them to parameters and processes

that should be accounted in the CL scenarios design

process. In this study,

it was investigated how

educators perform designing of CL

scenarios

while

teaching an undergraduate course in the computer

science domain. A design infrastructure was

developed and evaluated through a case study with 22

professors of a federal university.

The results showed that the framework was able

to support and guide all educators in carrying out a

collaborative learning design more adherent to a set

of design principles (a set of recommendations with

the purpose of guiding educators throughout the CL

design process).

As future work, it is intended to analyze whether

and how the framework is able to support educators

in conducting the learning process. Moreover, it is

proposed to investigate the impact of the framework

on learners’ learning.

REFERENCES

Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., K., Cross, K. P. (2014)

Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for

College Faculty. 2

Edition. Jossey-Bass, San

Francisco.

Challco, G. C.; Bittencourt, I. I.; Isotani, S. (2016).

Computer-based systems for automating instructional

design of collaborative learning scenarios: a

systematic literature review. International Journal of

Knowledge and Learning, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 4.

Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of

blending collaborative learning with instructional

design. Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL?

Heerlen: Open University Nederland, 61–91.

Hernández Leo, D. et al. (2006). Collage: a collaborative

learning design editor based on patterns. Educational

Technology & Society, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 1, 58-71.

Höver, K. M., Mühlhäuser, M. (2014). Can We Use S-BPM

for Modeling Collaboration Scripts? Communications

in Computer and Information Science. 174-187.

Isotani, S., Mizoguchi, R., Isotani, S., Capeli, O. M.,

Isotani, N., Albuquerque, A. R., Jaques, P. (2013). A

Semantic Web-based authoring tool to facilitate the

planning of collaborative learning scenarios compliant

with learning theories. Computer & Education, 63,

267-284.

Isotani, S., Mizoguchi, R., Inaba, A., Ikeda, M. (2010). The

foundations of a theory-aware authoring tool for CSCL

design. Computers & Education, v. 54, n. 4, 809-834.

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

102

Jonassen, D. H.; Tessmer, M.; Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task

analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

King A. (2007). Scripting Collaborative Learning

Processes: A Cognitive Perspective. Fischer F., Kollar

I., Mandl H., Haake J. M. (eds) Scripting Computer-

Supported Collaborative Learning. Computer-

Supported Collaborative Learning, v. 6. Springer,

Boston, MA.

Oliveira, E. W.; Borges, M. R. S. (2019). How Educators

Design Group Learning Scenarios in Higher

Education? 18th International Conference on

Information Technology Based Higher Education and

Training, Magdeburg.

O’Donnel, A. M.; Dansereau. (1992). Scripted cooperation

in student dyads: a method for analyzing and enhancing

academic learning and performance. In: Herts-

Lazarowitz, R.; Miller, N. (Ed.). Interaction in

cooperative groups: the theoretical anatomy of group

learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 120-

141.

Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G. (2004).

Designing group based learning: six steps to designing

computer-supported group based learning. Computers

& Education, 42, 403–424.

Weinberger A., Kollar I., Dimitriadis Y., Mäkitalo-Siegl,

K., Fischer F. (2009). Computer-Supported

Collaboration Scripts. Balacheff N., Ludvigsen S., de

Jong T., Lazonder A., Barnes S. (eds) Technology-

Enhanced Learning. Springer, Dordrecht.

Yin, R. K. (2015). Case study research: design and

methods. 5

edition.

Supporting Educators to Design Collaborative Learning Scenarios

103