A Framework for Designing Collaborative Tasks in a
Web-Environment
Dina Goren-Bar and Tal Goori
Department of Information Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Sciences
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P
.O.Box 653, Beer-Sheva, 84105, Israel
Abstract. We present a framework that considers both the collaboration
activities as well as the tools involved combining the artifact and process
oriented approaches of knowledge engineering. Following the framework
stages, we designed an Asynchronous Learning Network with a collaborative
environment that enables structured collaboration between group members.
Hundred and fifty (150) university students divided into teams of ten members
each performed two collaborative tasks within a university course. As a
preliminary evaluation we classified the messages sent by students within the
discussion forum. Feedback on uploads increased significantly in the second
assignment indicating that students besides performing their own task also took
part in other group’s tasks creating a cooperative group that produced a
collaborative outcome. We discuss the suitability of the framework for the
design of Collaborative Environments for knowledge sharing and raise a few
topics for further research.
1 Background
The field of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) focuses on how
computers support learning processes performed by a group of people working on a
given task. The needs and demands for collaborating with peers & colleagues that are
located distance apart are increasing. Hence, it is an important goal for any
educational institution to improve the students’ performance in collaborative
situations.
In the latest years we have witness the growing amount of implemented CSCL
envi
ronments. However, only a few are based on defined frameworks that support the
development of CSCL. Most groupware frameworks or toolkits attempt to cover a
variety of domains, thereupon not being able to provide the most suitable solution for
a specific domain. The domain of education in particular, requires specific
mechanisms to address issues such as theory of learning, culture, evaluation and those
related specifically to teaching-learning collaborative processes [1]. Littleton and
Hakkinen [2] state that lately the interest in the field of collaborative learning has
shifted away from considering just the outcomes and products of collaborative work,
towards analyzing interactions as a mean of gaining insight into the processes of
collaborative learning. The aim of such analysis is to identify what constitutes a
productive collaborative activity.
The term co
llaboration implies that people engage together on a given task.
Collaborative learning may be defined as situations in which particular forms of
interaction among people are expected to occur, which would trigger learning
Goren-Bar D. and Goori T. (2005).
A Framework for Designing Collaborative Tasks in a Web-Environment.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computer Supported Activity Coordination, pages 118-127
DOI: 10.5220/0002561301180127
Copyright
c
SciTePress
mechanisms, but there is no guarantee that the expected interaction will actually occur
[3]. Collaborative learning involves cognitive and social-interaction processes. In fact,
collaborative learning is not one single mechanism: peers do not learn because they
are two, but because they perform some activities (reading, building or predicting)
that trigger specific learning mechanisms (induction, deduction, compilation and
others). Collaborative learning includes the activities/mechanisms preformed
individually, since individual cognition is not suppressed in peer interaction. In
addition, the interaction among subjects generates extra activities (explanation,
disagreement, mutual regulation, etc.) that trigger extra cognitive mechanisms
(knowledge elicitation, internalization, reducing cognitive load and others) [4].
The advantages of collaborative learning in higher education encourage teachers
and researchers to implement collaborative learning in virtual environments.
Regardless the adopted approach many studies attempted to measure the effects of
web collaborative learning. Lehtinen et al. [5] state that there is ample evidence to
suggest that Web-based collaborative learning has significant advantages in
comparison with the face-to-face (FTF) traditional approach as well as with the
individual Web-based learning approach. He quotes a long list of experiments from
the last decade that seem to corroborate the assumption that Web-based collaborative
learning raises academic performance. Other advantages include: a dramatic increase
in (high education) student participation rate Nachmias et al. [6]; enhanced student
satisfaction from the educational process, combined with higher motivation and
involvement; better combination of self-reflection and interaction among students [7]
and developing group spirit and a sense of belonging to a community among
individual learners – one that is missing in individual on-line learning methods [8].
There are numerous existing learning approaches. Hiltz & Benbunan-Fich [9]
distinguish between the different types. The passive approach to learning assumes that
students learn by receiving and assimilating knowledge individually, independently
from others [10, 11]. On the contrary to the passive approach, the active approach
presents learning as a social process, which takes place through communication with
others. In between the passive and active learning is the interactive approach
described by [11] and Alavi [12] who claim that the student acquires knowledge by
formulating ideas into words and these ideas are built upon through reaction and
response to others. Collaborative learning is defined as a learning process that
emphasizes cooperative efforts among faculty and students. It stresses active
participation and interaction by both, students and instructors [11, 13]. The
collaborative learning approach is considered an interactive approach. It can be
treated as a method that encourages students at various performance levels to work
together toward a common goal [14]. Harasim [15] indicates that collaborative
learning is fundamentally different from the traditional direct-transfer or one-way
knowledge transmission model in which the instructor is the only source of
knowledge or skills. In collaborative learning, instruction is learner-centered rather
than teacher-centered and knowledge is viewed as a social effort, facilitated by peer
interaction, evaluation and cooperation. Therefore, the role of the teacher changes
from the transferring of knowledge to students to being a facilitator in the
construction of the student's own knowledge[9].
Collaborative learning can be characterized by the level of collaboration as its
being exercised during the learning process. The continuum ranges between students
sitting together, on one pole, and autonomous collaboration groups, on the other. In
this study we have defined cooperative groups that implement different tasks, linked
to each other that generate a one collective outcome, made of different parts.
119
The synchronous environment is mainly used for lecturing or training tasks.
Harasim et al. [16] reviews a variety of on-line CL models based on the group
interactions enabled such as seminars, students workgroups and learning circles, peer
learning groups and networked classroom. All the models include a certain
involvement of a controller/tutor and all are based on peer interaction. Since
synchronous environment imposes the time constraint of being together at the same
time on the net, it is usually complemented by an asynchronous environment. The
Asynchronous Learning Network (ALN) is a teaching and learning environment
located within a Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) system designed for
anytime/anyplace use through computer networks.
Any web collaboration environment enables interactions between learners and
tutor through (mostly asynchronous) web based tools. Defining the web collaborative
learning environment through the tools included is known as the tool based approach.
Among the prevalent web-based collaborative learning tools, Clark [7] describes the
following: e-mail, forum, private conference, gated conference (also described as a
question and answer protocol), video and internet conferencing (chat).
Another approach classifies collaborative learning environments into document-
centric or session-centric. Systems based on the document-centered approach focus on
the management of documents and objects respectively. These documents and objects
are classified (e.g. task, address, date etc.) and access rights (i.e. write and read
permission) are assigned. Electronic mails can be considered a special case of
document management. These systems usually offer the users a number of different
views on the data collection dependent on the object's attributes. Some of these
systems support special co-ordination tasks such as defining dates for group meetings
or task delegation among group members. Besides context-neutral tools (such as
Lotus Notes or Microsoft Exchange, that must be adapted according to customers
requirements) there are systems developed especially for the purpose of learning (so-
called web-based training systems for computer-based distance learning). Tools that
are based on meeting-focused concepts (session centric approach) concentrate on the
support of synchronous communication at different locations [17]. Services normally
allow textual, graphical and audio information exchange. Typical functionalities are
text chat, audio and video communication, multi-user graphic programs, and
application sharing.
We have presented in this section prevalent approaches to web–based collaborative
learning and research support for its advantages. However, we cannot deduce from
the research, which is the most effective approach to the design of web collaborative
learning environments. This is due to the fact that all these studies are embedded in
very specific contexts, rely on different research methodologies and the collaborative
approaches implemented strive towards different aims. The question is not just how to
implement collaborated activities via the web medium in the educational domain, but
rather when one comes to implement a collaborative activity what are the tools that
should be used to evaluate the success of the collaborative process. Furthermore, how
do we measure success and effectiveness?
A collaborative e-learning framework should enable a systematic approach for the
development of web based collaborative learning environments including the
technological, educational and social processes involved. The present study is a first
step towards defining a general framework that will enable to characterize a
collaborative learning process within an electronic environment.
120
2 Defining a General Framework for Collaborative E-Learning
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines framework as a supporting
structure around which something can be built or a system of rules, ideas or beliefs
that is used to plan or decide something
. TEPCEL is an acronym for Technological,
Educational and Process oriented Collaborative E-Learning Framework. It is
composed of five stages: (1) objectives definition, (2) collaborative features settings,
(3) collaborative assignment definition, (4) collaborative tools definition and (5)
evaluation (see Figure 1). Each stage is characterized by a set of attributes that enable
the design and later evaluation of the collaborative learning environment. The first
four stages refer to the design process while the fifth is the evaluation process. Since
the evaluation is performed during the implementation process (formative evaluation)
as well as after the implementation has finished (summative evaluation) there is no
point in defining a separate implementation stage.
The TEPCEL framework enables to design synchronous as well as asynchronous
collaborative learning environments. It combines several approaches including the
tools, outcome and process, document centric, and session centric approaches into one
integrated framework. This kind of integrated approach is crucial since many studies
have shown the importance of each approach in collaborative learning. Choosing just
one approach may lead to limited results.
For each stage, TEPCEL provides a set of attributes with possible values. For each
attribute (O) denotes that one value should be selected and (O+) denotes that at least
one attribute should be selected. There is no intent to provide a finite set of attributes
and values. Both may be updated to enable TEPCEL to be an evolving framework for
the design and evaluation of collaborative e-learning activities. Stages 1-5 provide a
detailed description of the attributes per each stage of the TEPCEL framework
(Figure 1).
Fig. 1. TEPCEL FRAMEWORK Outline
Stage 1 - Objective Definition
This stage defines the goals for collaboration. The following attributes should be
defined.
1-a. The cause for the CL process – (O) Voluntary or mandatory (decided by some
authority).
1-b. Expected Collaborative Outcome – (O) Different outcomes; Each participant
completes his part; One collective outcome made up of the different parts; The
same outcome - the product of mutual effort.
Stage 2 - Collaborative Features Settings
The second stage defines the collaborative features for both the personal attributes
and the assignment settings. Personal attributes will be gathered using assessment
tools that will be defined as part of the framework.
121
2-a. The size of the CL group – (O+) The number of group’s members, number of
subgroups and its members.
2-b. The duration of the CL process – (O) Number of days, weeks or months.
2-c. Document/Session-centric – (O+) Focus on the management of documents and
objects (asynchronous) and/or meeting-focused concepts that concentrate on the
support of synchronous communication at different locations.
2-d. The nature of learners in CL process – (O+) Learners characteristics such as
type of learners (full/part time, profession, status in the organization).
2-e. The aspects of the learners – (O+) Personal traits relevant to the CL process
(behavioral (i.e.: likes to learn alone/in groups), emotional (confident), cognitive
(learning style), informational (level of computer knowledge).
Stage 3 - Collaborative Assignment Definition
The third stage defines the collaborative assignment content, educational approach
and format.
3-a. The subject of the CL process – (O+) The main subject matter learnt, practice
acquired or issues or problems discussed.
3-b. Educational approaches – (O) Networked Classroom as Course Enhancements,
Online Course Delivery, Distance Education and Open Learning.
3-c. Group Type - (O) Sitting Groups, Work groups, Cooperative groups,
Autonomous collaboration groups
3-d. The motivation sources of the learners in the group – (O+) External motivation
such as final grade, pass mark, prize; Internal motivation such as research work
selected by the students, competition (with no prize or mark assigned but some
kind of recognition such as publication at website or mention in class).
3-e. The nature of the outcomes(s) of the learning process – (O+) Conceptual
understanding or knowledge on the discussed topics, some shared capacity or
consensus (such as a solution to a problem or a list of recommendations), a
written document or an object (program, prototype or product).
Stage 4 - Collaborative Tools Definition
The fourth stage defines the set of collaborative tools to be used within the
environment.
4-a. Available tools and technologies – (O+) The following is a proposed list of
available tools and technologies that enable web collaborative processes. A non-
exhaustive list of the proposed technological tools for the collaborative
environment may include: conference call (phone), email, message board,
discussion forums, news groups, ICQ, FAQ pages, instant messaging, shared
virtual scheduling systems, text chat, audio chat over the Internet, video
conferencing, application sharing, web based training software, FTP, download
function and upload function [17].
Stage 5 - Evaluation
5-a. Timing of evaluation - (O+) During the process (formative evaluation), at the
end of the process (summative evaluation).
5-b. The intensity of the CL process – (O+) Number of meetings, their frequency and
their length for synchronous collaboration; Number and type of messages for
asynchronous collaboration.
5-c. Evaluation criteria - (O+) Student participation rate; student satisfaction from
the educational process; student satisfaction from the social collaborative
122
process; Student's feeling of belonging to a community; academic performance;
group spirit; student's perceived learning efficacy (for example by adapting the
instruction procedure to the learner’s individual learning style).
5-d. Evaluation type - (O+) Quantitative or Qualitative.
5-e. Subjects of evaluation – (O+) The individual learners; the group of learners,
5-f. Who determines the type of evaluation? – (O) Decided by the tutor/evaluator,
Decided by the tutor/evaluator after consultation with the learners, Decided by
the learners themselves.
5-g. Who decides on the evaluation criteria? – (O) Criteria are given/dictated by
external circumstances; the tutor dictates criteria; the tutor dictates criteria based
on dialogue and consultations with the learners; the learners themselves decide
criteria.
5-h. Patterns of interactions amongst the learners - (O+) Division of labor,
hierarchical or symmetric relationships, roles, interdependence, negotiation,
autonomy of the individuals.
The framework attributes and tools described above enable to define and compare
many different environments. They also enable to test the influence of different
attributes in a specific environment over time. In the next section we present a case
study implementing TEPCEL framework.
3 TEPCEL Framework – A Case Study
We have implemented a web collaboration asynchronous environment based on
TEPCEL framework in an undergraduate course for Information Systems Engineering
students. The course population consisted of 150 students divided up into 15 groups.
Each group was further divided up into 5 dyads. The students had to complete a
collaborative task, consisting of two assignments; each assignment was divided into 5
tasks. Each dyad of students selected one of the 5 tasks based on the principle: “first
come first served”.
The registration to the groups was conducted as follows: During the process of
registering to the course website each student was required to select a teammate.
Each new dyad was assigned automatically to the next group that was being formed.
Every five dyads formed a new collaborative group. The students were unable to
control their collaborative group belonging. As a result in some of the groups the
members became acquainted only during the collaborative assignments.
Each group was provided with a private workspace with asynchronous capabilities
that contained the following:
A list of all group members
A list of five tasks
Collaborative Assignment description
A threaded asynchronous discussion forum
Upload capabilities for draft files and for final assignment submissions
An automatic email mechanism that sent notifications to the group members each
time a file upload operation was performed by one of the dyads requesting for
feedback.
The group members used the forum to discuss topics that referred to the
collaborative assignments and to add feedback on uploaded files. In both assignments,
there was no content intervention by the course instructor. Each discussion forum was
123
a private workspace and was independently managed by each group, based on
students’ initiative. We have instantiated each one of the TEPCEL attributes in our
case study. A full description of all the attributes is beyond the scope of this paper.
As mentioned, the collaborative activity was compound of two assignments. Each
assignment was divided into five different tasks related to each other. The expected
outcome per each assignment was one collective outcome, made up of 5 different
parts. Each group had to plan the task, and divide the work among the participants. At
the end of each assignment we have analyzed the collaborative interactions within the
discussion forum and provided feedback to each group.
Assignment 1 - The objective of the first assignment was experiencing with the
phases of a software project life cycle. This type of assignment enabled us to
implement 5 different tasks related to each other and produce one collective outcome.
Each group received a description of a requested system that was based on multi-
modal technology. The implementation of each phase was assigned to one dyad as a
task. The first dyad was responsible for performing the exploration phase during
which they were required to perform a literature review by searching for relevant
articles, existing enterprise systems, track faults within existing tools based on
existing publications and provided a detailed report based on their findings. The
second dyad gathered and analyzed the user requirements based on the literature
review of the first dyad and performed a limited user requirements survey. The third
dyad was in charge of the design and functionality of the prototype system. The forth
dyad defined and performed the system usability evaluation based on Nielsen’s
usability parameters [18]. The last dyad prepared a comprehensive presentation that
summarized all parts and presented it to the class in a face to face session. During the
assignment, the students collaborated by using the proposed workspace. They have
submitted documents to the website by using the upload capabilities and provided
feedback and suggestions on their group-mates products by using the discussion
forum tool.
Assignment 2 - The objective of the second assignment was to create an interactive
lesson on the web. The assignment was divided into 5 related tasks. Each dyad was in
charge on the implementation of one task. In addition, it was clearly emphasized by
the course instructors that the group members are expected to collaborate. The first
dyad was responsible for searching for relevant references and contents to be used
when creating the interactive lesson content. Based on the literature review the second
dyad was in charge of writing the contents and designing the lessons’ WebPages. The
third dyad developed a quiz to evaluate student's learning performance in that lesson
and implemented the DB to store the students' lesson’s data. The fourth dyad was in
charge of the development, integration and implementation of the website. The last
dyad planed and preformed functional and usability evaluation testing.
4 Evaluation
The evaluation aims to demonstrate the assessment of the case study performed
according to TEPCEL framework. We measured the level of group collaboration
within the ALN in the two assignments. We expected that the level of collaboration
will increase in the second assignment as a result of acquired experience in the first
collaborative assignment. We defined three dependent variables:
124
1. The quantity and quality of interactions. This dependent variable was assessed by
the number of messages per type. All the messages in each private forum were
recorded in a data base at the web server. We classified the discussion forum
messages into one of the five following categories that were defined during the
content analysis of the discussion forums: (1) Not Relevant - messages not related to
the assignment, such as jokes or messages related to other courses. (2) Collaboration
support/request for assistance (3) Encouragement (4) Updates on activity (5)
Feedback on upload – messages that provided feedback on the form, presentation, or
content of the files uploaded to the collaborative private workspace (6)
Administration Messages – after each upload, an event driven agent sent an automatic
email to the group members notifying them that a file was uploaded by a certain
student, and requested for feedback. The classification of the messages was performed
manually by doing log file analysis.
2. Number of uploads per group – The environment enabled the students to upload an
unlimited number of working files to the private collaborative workspace. At the due
date each dyad uploaded their final submission file to be graded by the course staff.
The number of uploads per group was computed automatically by the system.
We expected that students will collaborate more in the second collaborative
assignment. We performed Student's paired t-Test, with a one-tailed distribution
comparing the two assignments. It is clear that messages types between the two
assignments differ in one dimension only: feedback on uploads. The number of
messages dealing with comments on uploads (message type 5) increased significantly
in the second assignment (p= 0.023). In addition we may see a close to significant
decrease in requests for assistance (p= 0.060). This result may indicate that when
students collaborate better, they give more feedback on uploads and request less
assistance. This result should be studied further.
5 Discussion
The main goal of this study was to define an integrated framework for the design and
evaluation of collaborative e-learning environments. We described a case study that
implemented a web collaborative environment according to TEPCEL framework. The
evaluation aimed to demonstrate the assessment of the case study performed
according to TEPCEL framework.
The evaluation was intended to verify that collaboration took place within the
collaborative environment designed according to TEPCEL framework. This
preliminary evaluation intended to test face validity of the framework, meaning that
the framework indeed helps in the design of collaborative learning environments.
Further evaluations should compare a collaborative environment designed with
TEPCEL with a control environment (collaborative environment designed according
to another model) and test the collaboration enabled by both collaborative virtual
environments.
The results of the preliminary evaluation on a case study of two collaborative
assignments indicate that TEPCEL helped in designing the collaborative e-learning
environment for knowledge share. Furthermore, we found significant increase in the
interactions about the material uploaded by students in the second assignment.
Unfortunately, the order of the assignments could not be counter-balanced, it was
defined according to the course schedule. There could be other reasons for the
125
difference between the assignments in terms of feedback on uploads: a different task,
a different time period, the students just may be more experienced with the
environment.
Our assumption was that messages classified as “feedback provided on upload”
indicate the level of collaboration as students not only perform their own task but
either they take part in other group’s tasks and therefore create a cooperative group
that produce a collaborative outcome.
The assignments included a variety of Harasim et al. [16] on-line CL models:
Learning Partnership and Dyads (which are recommended as an introductory step for
students in acquiring online CL skills), Students Workgroups (a task with a distinct
pre-defined division of labor, roles, timeline and decision making process within the
group), Team presentation and Teaching by the Learners (an important motivational
factor for collaboration) and Peer Learning Groups (which enabled the students to
complement each other’s weaker points by asking for assistance and advice on
various tasks, mainly used in the first assignment).
The collaborative environment was designed according to the TEPCEL framework
parameters. TEPCEL is indifferent to the electronic available tools. It will track the
interactions done within the diverse tools. However, collaboration is not only
depended on the tools and the activity models. In order to design successful
collaborative tasks we should relate to the social interactions which take place during
the assignment's development. Another approach stresses the importance of personal
attributes on the success of the collaboration within ALN environment [19]. TEPCEL
relates to the personal attributes as one of the parameters being defined or tested (as
pre-defined or evaluated). In our study, students expressed their need for a tutor or
leader, a person who is in charge of the assignment timeline. We have noticed that
during the second assignment numerous groups have nominated a group chair and
defined timeline for each task by themselves. One of the groups that received a low
grade on the first assignment due to low collaboration of its members decided on
corrective action during the second assignment.
Another interesting factor is the improvement of the collaborative work from which
we can conclude that group collaboration requires training. It takes time for students
to get familiar with the collaboration concept. Collaboration is not just a tool or an
activity but either a process. The collaboration takes place within a technological
environment. Therefore, a careful design of the diverse attributes implemented in the
environment should take place. Also, a careful planning of the task should be done in
order to favor the collaboration between team members. TEPCEL is able to deal with
the different factors that influence collaboration through the definition or the testing
of the relevant parameters: groupings (groups and subgroups), initiative (for the
activity and the evaluation), roles, volume of interactions and its contents, outcomes,
various personal attributes and more. We found that TEPCEL enabled us to easily
characterize and analyze the collaborative process that took place during the
collaborative assignment. The linkages between the messages in the discussion forum
serve a role in the nature of the dialogue.
Future work will deal with the development of more measurements in order to
analyze the quality of collaboration that takes place within the web-based
environment.
126
References
1. Santoro, F.M.; Borges, M.R.S.; Dos Santos, N. An infrastructure to support the
development of collaborative project-based learning environments CRIWG 2000. Proc.
Sixth Int. Workshop on Groupware, IEEE CNF (2000) 78 -85.
2. Littleton K., & Hakkinen P. Learning Together: Understanding the Processes of Compurt-
Based Collaborative Learning. Collaborative Learning Cognitive and Computational
Approaches (1999).21-29.
3. Dillenbourg P & Self, J. Designing human Computer Collaborative Learning. In O’Malley
C. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, Vol 128 (1994)
246-263.
4. Dillenbourg, P. Collaborative Learning Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Oxford:
Pergamon (1999) 1-19, 81-102.
5. Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., & Muukkonen, H. Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning: A review, In H. Meijden, R. Simons, & F. de Jong
(Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning in primary and secondary education.
Report for the European Commission, Project 2017, University of Nijmegen.
www.kas.utu.fi/papers/clnet/ clnetreport.html (2000) 1-46.
6. Nachmias, R..Web-Supported Emergent-Collaboration in Higher Education Courses,
Educational Technology and Society, Vol. 3(3) (2000) 94-104.
7. Clark, J. Collaboration Tools in Online Learning Environments,
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/Vol4_issue1/Clark.htm (2000).
8. Hiltz, S. Collaborative Learning in Asynchronous Learning Networks: Building Learning
Communities,
http://eies.njit.edu/~hiltz/collaborative_learning_in_asynch.htm (1998).
9. Hiltz, S.R. and Benbunan-Fich, R. Supporting Collaborative in Asynchronous Learning
Network, invited keynote address for the UNESCO/Open University Symposium on Virtual
Learning Environment and the Role of the Teacher, New Jersey Institute of Technology.
http://eies.njit.edu/~hiltz/CRProject/unesco.htm (1997).
10. Johnson, D.W. And Johnson, R.T. Conflict in the Classroom: Controversy and Learning.
Review of Educational Research, Vol. 49 (1979) 51-70.
11. Bouton, C. & Garth, R.Y. (Eds.) Learning in Groups, New Directions in Teaching and
Learning, No. 14, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA (1983).
12. Alavi, M. Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1994) 159-174.
13. Bruffee, K. A. Background and history to collaborative learning in American college,
College English, Vol. 46, No. 7 (1984) 635-652.
14. Johnson, D.W. Student-student interaction: the neglected variable in education, Educational
Research, Vol. 10, N.1 (1981) 5-10.
15. Harasim, L. (Ed.) On-line Education: Perspective on a new medium, Praeger/Greenwood,
New York, NY (1990).
16. Harasim, A.; Starr, L.; Hiltz, R.; Teles, L. & Turoff, M.. Learning Networks: A Field guide
to Teaching and Learning Online. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA (1995).
17. Goren-Bar, D. & Koubek, A. (Eds.) User Processes in Collaborative Learning and Basic
User Requirements for INVITE [D2.1]. Report for the European Commission (2001) 50-55.
18. Nielsen, J.. Usability Engineering. AP Professional (1993) 23-37.
19. Benford, S.. Introduction to special issues on Human-Computer Interaction and
Collaborative Virtual Environments. ACM Trans. on Computer-Human Interactions, Vol. 7
(4) (2000) 439-441.
127