LINKING CONVERSATIONS AND TASK OBJECTS IN

COMPLEX SYNCHRONOUS CSCL ENVIRONMENTS

Jacques Lonchamp

LORIA, Nancy University, Campus Scientifique, BP 239, 54506 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy Cedex, France

Keywords: CSCL, collaborative learning, linking, referencing, sticky annotated snapshot, sticky note, intermediary

object.

Abstract: In CSCL systems, linking conversations and task objects is essential for establishing joint attention and

constructing shared meaning. This paper proposes an application-independent linking mechanism, well

adapted for expressing complex inter-tool links as required by the most recent synchronous CSCL

environments. The sticky annotated snapshot concept and its more classical derivatives, sticky note and

persistent graphical pointer, are described together with their implementation. Preliminary use experiences

are discussed which show, in addition to normal linking usages, a somewhat unanticipated way of using

sticky annotated snapshots as fully-fledged intermediary objects during creative processes.

1 INTRODUCTION

An important requirement for effective collaborative

learning is the combination of communication with

shared work artefacts (Suthers and Xu, 2002). Most

synchronous Computer-Supported Collaborative

Learning (CSCL) environments include two distinct

spaces of interaction. The task space is the place

where students “do things”, by creating and

manipulating task objects, i.e., elements of the

shared artefacts. The communication space is the

place where dialogue-based interaction takes place:

students mainly “talk of what they do”. In this space,

communication is mostly textual. As pointed by

Dillenbourg (2005), from a theoretical point of view,

this distinction between communication and action

is shallow because the task space is clearly also a

communication space (each action from a participant

conveys a message to the others) and because

participants manipulate verbally task concepts in the

communication space. Even more confusing, in

some specific cases, the task space mediates the

construction of a discourse structure (Suthers et al.,

1997), (Baker et al., 2003). However, from a

practical point of view, these spaces are in general

physically dissociated. This separation raises several

practical and theoretical issues for CSCL tool

designers and researchers (Dillenbourg, 2005). This

paper considers the issue of linking conversations

and task objects in synchronous CSCL

environments. Such links are essential for

establishing joint attention and constructing shared

meaning (Stahl et al., 2006).

The linking problem becomes more and more

difficult as CSCL tools become themselves more

and more complex. Early environments provided a

single tool in each space: in most cases, some shared

graphical editor in the task space and a chat tool in

the communication space (Baker and Lund, 1996),

(Soller et al., 1999), (Constantino-Gonzáles and

Suthers, 2002). Simple solutions, described in

section 2, are available for linking a textual

contribution to a specific element of a graphical

representation and for referencing a graphical

element in a textual production. The most recent

synchronous CSCL environments provide several

tools in each space (Avouris et al., 2004), (Pinkwart,

2003), (Lonchamp, 2006). Therefore, the linking

problem encompasses both intra and inter-space

linking. Complex references (i.e., with several

sources and/or targets) have also a higher probability

to occur. Moreover, an application-independent

linking mechanism is important for accommodating

a wide range of textual and graphical tools. The

sticky annotated snapshot (SAS) concept proposed

in this paper, together with its more classical

derivatives, sticky note and persistent graphical

pointer aim at satisfying these requirements.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows.

Section 2 introduces the linking problem and shows

281

Lonchamp J. (2007).

LINKING CONVERSATIONS AND TASK OBJECTS IN COMPLEX SYNCHRONOUS CSCL ENVIRONMENTS.

In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Society, e-Business and e-Government /

e-Learning, pages 281-288

DOI: 10.5220/0001270202810288

 SciTePress

why existing solutions are insufficient for complex

synchronous CSCL systems. Section 3 defines the

principles of the generic solution proposed for

solving the linking problem and describes its

implementation. Section 4 discusses preliminary use

experiences and emphasizes a somewhat

unanticipated way of using SAS as fully-fledged

intermediary objects during creative processes.

2 THE LINKING PROBLEM

Links can be categorized into three classes.

(1) 1 to 1 links, relating a communication act to a

task object or the opposite, two communication acts

(in the same or in different tools), or two task objects

(in the same or in different tools).

(2) 1 to many links, relating a communication act to

a set of task objects or communication acts (in the

same or in different tools), a task object to a set of

communication acts or task objects (in the same or

in different tools).

(3) Many-to-many links, relating a set of elements

(communications acts and/or task objects) to another

set of elements (in the same or in different tools).

In class (1), several techniques are available for

linking a communication act to a task object:

– deictic references, using spatially indexical

references (e.g. “the blue object on the right”) or

temporally indexical references (e.g., “your last

object”),

– deictic references using non-persistent

mechanisms supporting gestural deixis, such as

telepointers (Hayne et al., 1994), ephemeral

graphical gesturing (e.g. pointing by drawing an

arrow which fades away after a short period of time)

(Dongqiu and Gross, 1999), highlighting of objects

when the cursor pass over them or when they are

clicked (Suther et al., 2003),

– deictic references using persistent mechanisms,

such as persistent graphical pointers with unique

identifiers that can be pasted near task objects, and

the explicit graphical linking mechanism provided

by Concert-chat (Mühlpfordt and Wessner, 2005).

This last solution allows direct access from a

communication act to the appropriate part of the

artefact and direct access from some artefact area to

the concerned discourse contributions, while both

parts remain separated on the screen.

Linking a task object to a communication act is

mostly performed with communication acts

embedded (anchored) into the task space, such as

“sticky notes” (Fidas et al., 2001). The message is

put next to the object, making the deictic reference

of this particular text evident.

Links between communication acts are frequent

within chat tools. Textual referencing by repetition

(quoting elements of an earlier posting), textual

referencing by position (“the third line of the second

paragraph”), and explicit referencing of the author

name are the most frequently used techniques (Nash,

2005). Communication act numbering is another

possible solution for links within a single chat tool.

The explicit graphical linking mechanism of

Concert-chat can also be used between

communication acts.

Linking between task objects is possible through

graphical annotating within a single artefact: objects

can be linked with arrows, underscoring, boxing,

and circling (Giordano and Mineo, 2005).

Embedded communication acts can also reference

one (or several) other task object(s) by using deictic

or textual referencing.

There are fewer mechanisms for one to many

links of class (2). The graphical linking mechanism

of Concert-chat has been extended for multiple

designations of task objects or communicating acts.

Anchored annotations can take the form of anchored

discussion threads (Trahasch and Lauer, 2005)

which allow linking a task object to a set of

communicative acts.

Finally, many to many links of class (3), can

only be specified by complicated textual

descriptions or by graphical annotations when they

are associated to a single artefact.

As most CSCL environments provide a textual

communication space, textual referencing is always

possible. But some techniques that are common in

spoken discourse have a greater potential of leading

to ambiguity and misinterpretations in synchronous

textual communication (Nash, 2005). It is the reason

why most CSCL systems provide additional

specialized linking mechanisms. In the context of

complex CSCL environments, what is needed is a

simple application-independent mechanism which

provides most of the previous possibilities and can

deal with the most complex situations, i.e., many-to-

many inter-tool links.

3 THE SAS CONCEPT

3.1 Requirements

A participant should be able to link any source

element (or complex set of elements) to any target

element (or complex set of elements) appearing in

WEBIST 2007 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

282

any textual or graphical tool of the environment

(both in the task space and in the communication

space). The mechanism should be persistent for

supporting latecomers (and inattentive participant) in

their comprehension of the missed part of the

session and for allowing ex-post analysis after the

session has ended. The mechanism should allow

some kind of threaded communication rooted into a

link, for supporting argumentative discourses.

3.2 Design Choices

In the more complex case of many to many links

between elements displayed in different tools,

graphically annotating a snapshot of the

environment is the only solution that is fully generic:

participants can use arrows, boxes, circles, braces,

underlinings, or any other graphical notation,

complemented with textual notes. This is the basic

idea behind the sticky annotated snapshot (SAS)

concept.

A SAS is anchored somewhere by right-clicking

with the mouse at any visible position of any tool of

the environment. A SAS editor is then launched

which allows drawing on a re-centred snapshot of

the whole environment. A small camera icon playing

the anchor role is inserted at the mouse location and

labelled with the name of the author followed by a

sequentially increasing integer (e.g., suzan3). By

double-clicking the icon any learner can see the

annotated image in a read-only SAS viewer.

Snapshot creation is also possible in the viewer, for

commenting the original annotated snapshot, leading

to a form of threaded discussion. Embedded

snapshots have a composed name reflecting their

inclusion path (e.g., suzan3-peter2). When stored, a

SAS cannot be changed. The author (and actors

playing the moderator role) can hide its icon, the

snapshot remaining stored for further analysis and

session replaying.

In a display, the most recent SAS has a specific

colour (red) which distinguishes it from previous

(yellow) instances. As this last snapshot can be

included into other ones, SAS including the most

recent snapshot have an intermediary colour

(orange).

Two derivates of the sticky snapshot concept are

also proposed for simpler cases.

(1) A sticky note (embedded textual annotation) is

managed as a SAS having a text-only content. The

graphical editor and the graphical viewer are

replaced by a textual editor and a textual viewer. An

envelope icon is associated to sticky notes. Long

textual annotations are difficult to read when they

are drawn on a snapshot. Sticky notes constitute a

better alternative for textually commenting or

reacting to an annotated snapshot. They are also

useful in the classical situation of a textual

communication act linked to a single task object.

(2) A persistent graphical pointer is managed as a

SAS with no content. A plain arrow icon is

associated to persistent graphical pointers.

Figure 1 shows the SAS editor during the

creation of a simple annotated snapshot (launched

through a contextual menu available in all panels

where an annotation can be created). In this

example, Suzan, Jack and Mary use Omega+

environment (Lonchamp, 2006) customised for an

object-oriented design course. The task space

provides a read-only textboard and a shared

graphical UML class diagram editor. The

communication space provides a regular chat. The

three participants are collaboratively transforming

the wording of a situation into a UML class schema.

Figure 1 shows Suzan’s reaction to the last initiative

from Jack. She creates a SAS linking a relationship

in the proposed schema with a word in the problem

definition justifying why she disagrees (1 to 1 link

between the diagrammer and the textboard). When

saved, her SAS named Suzan1, is anchored in the

class schema. The coloured (red) button panel on top

of the SAS editor helps for distinguishing the editor

from the actual CSCL environment and provides a

set of whiteboard-like functionalities. As graphical

annotations are drawn on a transparent overlay, it is

possible to erase drawings and texts in the SAS

editor without altering the underlying snapshot.

Figure 2 shows the SAS Viewer launched by

Jack by double-clicking on suzan1 icon (on top of

Jack’s client). For avoiding confusion, editors and

viewers have a differently coloured button panel.

Figure 3 shows, in a SAS viewer launched by

Suzan, a threaded conversation example. First jack

has answered Suzan’s criticism with a SAS named

suzan1-jack1. In this SAS, Jack has sketched a

solution with a freehand drawing and an additional

comment. Mary has reacted with a sticky note,

named suzan1-jack1-mary1, in which she agrees

with Jack’s solution.

This sticky note is shown in the note viewer. In

all viewers, the ‘Close all’ button helps for closing

with a single action a set of stacked viewers. In SAS

viewers, snapshots have a slightly degraded

rendering. So it is easy to distinguish visually

between icons that are part of the snapshot (e.g.,

suzan1 and suzan1-jack1 in Fig. 3) and bright ones

that can be clicked (e.g., suzan1-jack1-mary1).

LINKING CONVERSATIONS AND TASK OBJECTS IN COMPLEX SYNCHRONOUS CSCL ENVIRONMENTS

283

Figure 1: The SAS editor.

Figure 2: The SAS viewer.

WEBIST 2007 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

284

3.3 Implementation

The SAS concept and its derivatives are

implemented into Omega+ synchronous CSCL

environment (Lonchamp, 2006). Omega+ is a

generic framework which applies “model-based

genericity” to the four dimensions of collaborative

learning: the situation, the interaction, the process,

and the way of monitoring individual and group

performance. These four aspects are explicitly

specified in a set of models (process, protocol,

artefact, and effect model) that serve as parameters

for the generic framework which is designed to

model systems that are flexible and can be tailored

to a wide range of users, communities, goals and

contexts. Omega+ client looks like a classical dual

space CSCL system (Dillenbourg, 2005), as shown

in Fig.2, with a communication space on the right

part and a task space on the left part. The chat (in the

upper part of the communication space) is either a

regular chat or a protocol model-driven chat. An

information panel (in the middle part of the

communication space) allows displaying textual or

graphical information, in particular model-generated

individual and grouping performance measures. The

task space may contain up to three tools as requested

by the executing process model definition. Tools are

either predefined editors (shared text editor, shared

whiteboard) or shared graphical editors customised

by artefact models. Omega+ is implemented in

Java/Swing.

On the client side, SAS descriptions (name, type,

location, visibility …) are stored into a class named

RootPanelWithSAS which inherits from JPanel and

serves as content pane for the Omega+ client. The

display area of each tool where annotated snapshots

can be created (class X) is transformed into a class

XWithSAS which inherits from class X and just

redefines the painting method. This painting method

calls a method of RootPanelWithSAS which repaints

all the currently visible SAS. The mouse listener

associated to X has to be changed (or created). In

case of a right button click, a method which displays

the contextual menu is called. For a SAS creation, a

graphical editor (instance of an internal class

SASEditor within RootPanelWithSAS) is created

and the resulting annotated snapshot is transmitted to

the server where it is stored. The creation

notification (i.e., the snapshot description) is

broadcasted by the server to all the connected

clients. When a SAS is hidden a notification is also

sent to the server and broadcasted to the clients. A

Figure 3: A threaded conversation.

LINKING CONVERSATIONS AND TASK OBJECTS IN COMPLEX SYNCHRONOUS CSCL ENVIRONMENTS

285

visibility boolean attribute in the SAS description

indicates if the SAS is visible or not. In case of a

double click with the left button, the designated SAS

is found, its image is retrieved from the server and

displayed into a viewer (instance of an internal class

SASViewer within RootPanelWithSAS). The

method which receives from the server notifications

of events occurring on other clients is also located in

RootPanelWithSAS: it can add locally a new SAS

description or register that an existing SAS is

hidden. The annotated snapshot is transformed into a

string (Base64 coding) in the RootPanelWithSAS

class, so transmission to the server, storage in the

server, transmission to connected clients, and

latecomers’ management can reuse the existing

mechanisms provided by the chat server. By this

way, any existing java CSCL system including a

chat component can be easily “SAS-enabled”: all

complex methods are located into the

RootPanelWithSAS class that can serve as content

pane for its client window.

4 FIRST USE EXPERIENCES

Our first use experiences show that the sticky

annotated snapshot concept is used as expected in

situations where complex messages with multiple

references are needed. Two typical examples are

described in section 4.1. A somewhat surprising and

interesting usage has appeared during creative

processes with SAS playing the role of fully-fledged

intermediary objects. Two examples are discussed in

section 4.2.

4.1 Complex Referencing

A first example of complex referencing is a SAS

created by a participant during a textual debate and

anchored into her own chat posting. The chat

production summarizes a set of ideas previously

proposed by several other participants which are

circled into the attached snapshot. This example of 1

to many link among communication acts well

illustrates the frequently observed distribution of a

message between a SAS and a companion chat

message, taking advantage of both textual and

graphical expressiveness.

The second example is taken during a pyramid

collaborative learning process (Asensio et al., 2004)

for designing UML class schemas. A group of four

students compares two schemas they have

previously constructed independently as two dyads.

During this phase of the process, Omega+ is

configured with three class diagram editors: the first

two for displaying dyads’ solutions (in read-only

mode) and the third one for constructing the

reunified group solution. As anticipated,

similarities/differences descriptions are mainly

expressed with annotated snapshots. The more

complex ones are embedded into chat contributions

and use the explicit spatial referencing capabilities

of SAS (with lines explicitly relating elements). In

simpler cases, the implicit spatial referencing

capability is used: the SAS is anchored into one of

the graphs, its location implicitly defining the source

element; only the target element is explicitly

designated (pointed, underlined, circled) in the

snapshot. Similarly, simple comments and positive

or negative evaluations are generally expressed

thanks to sticky notes anchored within the graphs or

within snapshots.

4.2 Intermediary Objects

Intermediary objects are defined as ephemeral and

shared representations appearing during

collaborative design processes which serve as

mediators to discussion and reflect some

transformation or translation of the designed artefact

(Vinck and Jeantet, 1995) (Boujut and Blanco,

2003).

During the collaborative production of an UML

class schema by a dyad using Omega+, one

participant has spontaneously produced in a

snapshot an analysis of the possible candidate

classes by underlying the more relevant terms in the

problem wording appearing in the text editor

(resized for occupying most of the screen). This

analysis has raised a discussion with the other

student through chat postings and a child SAS where

two candidate terms were crossed out with a short

explanation in a companion sticky note. The first

snapshot has all the attributes of an intermediary

object: ephemeral and spontaneous, shared, serving

as mediator for a discussion and involving a

transformation from a state of the product into a

subsequent state (Boujut and Blanco, 2003).

During the next phase of the same process, when

dyads contrast their solutions, we observed an

attempt to build a similar kind of intermediary object

with an annotated snapshot relating with lines

similar elements in the two proposals, displayed side

by side in two editors, and circling some elements in

both representations because they did not have

counterparts in the other schema. Comments were

given in the chat posting where the SAS was

anchored.

WEBIST 2007 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

286

This practice can be better understood when

analysed in relation with the coordination approach

used during synchronous sessions for disallowing

anarchic interaction. In synchronous CSCL

environments floor control (FC) is important mainly

for user-oriented reasons: facilitating turn-taking,

mutual focus of attention, and maximum synergy

among users (Boyd, 1996). Omega+ provides a set

of global FC policies at the environment level,

specifying who can talk through the communication

space and who can act through the task space

(Lonchamp 2006a).

At one extreme, every participant can chat and

act freely (global free-floor policy). Confusion can

be reduced if students accept to “think aloud” and

“draw aloud” by commenting their intents, ideas and

actions. In this setting, sessions include generally a

large number of intertwined contributions with a

high production rate, in the usual chat-style.

Creating an intermediary object with a SAS is a way

to work in isolation for a moment, as the annotated

snapshot is only shared when it is saved. This

spontaneous individual production step allows

conducting some personal and more structured

reasoning. This corresponds to the idea of “near

synchronous working” (Mann and Garner, 2005) and

of a “personal reflective conversation space”, where

users can externalise, reflect, edit and develop their

own thinking prior to communicating conjecture to

the group (Schön, 1992).

At the other extreme, exclusive control policies

can be applied to the whole environment or to the

task space. By this way, only operations from the

current floor owner are allowed to cause changes to

the shared artefacts under construction. In this

setting, sessions are much slower. Participants have

often to wait and contributions are less spontaneous.

Creating an intermediary object with a SAS is a way

to bypass the lock and to contribute immediately to

the shared artefact, as annotated snapshots are not

controlled by the floor control mechanism. This

spontaneous parallel production step allows

conducting some immediate and “forking”

contribution with regard to the main controlled

stream of work.

In both cases, annotated snapshots used as

intermediary objects provide some interesting

flexibility with regard to the coordination policy.

5 CONCLUSION

The concept of sticky annotated snapshot is

presented in the first part of this paper as an

application-independent linking mechanism, well

adapted for expressing complex inter-tool links as

required by the most recent synchronous CSCL

environments. At a first glance this proposal may

appear as a quite straightforward extension of well-

known mechanisms such as sticky notes and

anchored communication threads.

However, preliminary use experiences have

shown an unanticipated impact of sticky annotated

snapshots on the core of the collaboration process

itself when they play the role of fully-fledged

intermediary objects during creative activities. These

intermediary objects are produced during unplanned

individual production phases which provide

interesting forms of flexibility with regard to the

coordination constraints that apply during the

synchronous session.

REFERENCES

Asensio, J., Dimitriadis, Y., Heredia, M., Martinez, A.,

Alvarez, F., Blasco,M., Osuna, C., 2004. Collaborative

Learning Patterns: Assisting the Development of

Component-Based CSCL Applications. In PDP’04,

Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-

Based Processing, IEEE Computer Society Press, 218-

224.

Avouris, N., Komis, V., Margaritis, M., Fidas, C., 2004.

Modelling Space: A tool for synchronous

collaborative problem solving. In ED-MEDIA’ 04, 16

World Conference on Educational Multimedia &

Telecommunications, AACE Press, 381-386.

Baker, M., Lund, K., 1996. Flexibly structuring the

interaction in a CSCL environment. In EuroAIED’96,

European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and

Education, Colibri Ed., 401-407.

Baker, M. , Quignard, M., Lund, K., Séjourné, A., 2003.

Computer-supported collaborative learning in the

space of debate. In CSCL’03, 5

International

Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative

Learning, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 11-20.

Boujut, J.F., Blanco, E., 2003. Intermediary Objects as a

Means to Foster Co-operation in Engineering Design.,

Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12, 205–219.

Boyd Jr., J.A., 1996. Floor Control in Synchronous

Groupware, PHD Thesis, The Ohio State University.

Constantino-González, M., Suthers, D., 2002. Coaching

Collaboration in a Computer-Mediated Learning

Environment. In CSCL’02, 4

International

Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative

Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates., 583-586.

Dillenbourg, P. & CSCL SIG of Kaleidoscope, 2005. Dual

Interaction Spaces. In Proc. CSCL’05 workshop

presentation. http://www.cscl2005.org/Workshops/

workshop5.htm.

LINKING CONVERSATIONS AND TASK OBJECTS IN COMPLEX SYNCHRONOUS CSCL ENVIRONMENTS

287

Dongqiu, Q., Gross, M.D., 1999. Collaborative Design

with NetDraw. In CAAD Futures’99, 8th International

Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design

Futures, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 213-226.

Fidas, C., Komis, V., Avouris, N., 2001. Design of

collaboration-support tools for group problem solving.

In PC HCI’01,Panhellenic Conference on Human

Computer Interaction, Typorama Publications, 263-

268.

Giordano, D., Mineo, S., 2005. A graphical annotation

platform for Web-based e-learning. In m-ICTE’05, 3rd

International Conference on Multimedia and

Information and Communication Technologies in

Education, Formatex Research Center, 1255-1260.

Hayne, S., Pendergast, M., Greenberg, S., 1994.

Implementing Gesturing with Cursors in Group

Support Systems. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 10, 42–61.

Lonchamp, J., 2006. Supporting synchronous

collaborative learning: a generic, multi-dimensional

model. International Journal of CSCL, 1(2), 247-276.

Lonchamp, J., 2006a. Floor control in complex

synchronous CSCL environments, WEBIST 2007.

Mann, P., Garner, S., 2005. The Role of Sketches in

Supporting Near-Synchronous Remote

Communication in Computer Supported Collaborative

Design. In CSCWD’05, 9th International Conference

on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design,

Springer Verlag 72-81.

Mühlpfordt, M., Wessner, M., 2005. Explicit Referencing

in Chat Supports Collaborative Learning. In CSCL’05,

International Conference on Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, 662-671.

Nash, C.M., 2005. Cohesion and Reference in English

Chatroom Discourse. In HICSS’05, 38th Annual

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences -

Track 4, Volume 04, IEEE Computer Society Press,

108.3.

Pinkwart, N., 2003. A Plug-In Architecture for Graph

Based Collaborative Modelling Systems. In AIED’03,

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence

in Education, IOS Press, 535-536.

Schön, D.A., 1992. Designing as reflective conversation

with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-

Based Systems, 5, 3-14.

Soller, A., Linton, F., Goodman, B., Lesgold, A., 1999.

Toward Intelligent Analysis and Support of

Collaborative Learning Interaction. In AIED’99, 9

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in

Education, IOS Press,75-82.

Stahl, G., Zemel, A., Sarmiento, J., Cakir, M., Weimar, S.,

Wessner, M., Mühlpfordt, M., 2006. Shared

Referencing of Mathematical Objects in Online Chat.

In ICLS’06, 7

International Conference of the

Learning Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

716-723.

Suthers, D., Girardeau, L., Hundhausen, C., 2003. Deictic

Roles of External Representations in Face-to-Face and

Online Collaboration. In CSCL’03, 5

International

Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative

Learning, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 173-182.

Suthers, D., Toth, E., Weiner, A., 1997. An integrated

approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the

classroom. In.CSCL’97, Second International

Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative

Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 272-279.

Suthers, D. Xu, J., 2002. Kukakuka: An Online

Environment for Artifact-Centered Discourse. In

WWW’02, 11th WWW Conference, ACM Press, 472-

480.

Trahasch, S., Lauer, T., 2005. Scripted anchored

discussions of e-lectures. In E-learn’05, 10th World

Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,

Healthcare, and Higher Education, AACE Press,

2436-2443.

Vinck, D., Jeantet, A., 1995. Mediating and

Commissioning Objects in the Socio technical Process

of Product Design: a conceptual approach. In D.

Maclean, P. Saviotti and D. Vinck (eds.) Designs,

Networks and Strategies, COST Social Science

Series, 2.

WEBIST 2007 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

288