THE JIGSAW COLLABORATIVE METHOD WITHIN THE

ONLINE COMPUTER SCIENCE CLASSROOM

Maria Kordaki and Haris Siempos

Department of Computer Engineering and Informatics, Patras University, 26500, Rion Patras, Greece

Keywords: Online learning, Jigsaw, Computer Science Education, Collaborative learning, LAMS.

Abstract: This paper presents an innovative description of the Jigsaw collaboration method within the context of open

source e-learning ‘Learning Design’-based systems such as LAMS, with special reference to the learning of

essential issues in Computer Science. These issues include: (a) the wide range of computer technology used

in daily life and the consequences of such utilization, (b) the variety of computer systems serving different

tasks, (c) the dynamic evolution of information technology in our times. The innovative implementation of

the Jigsaw method within LAMS is based on the fact that (a) the tasks assigned to the expert groups

consisted of various investigative activities within the real world -where computers are used- and not merely

the study of various learning materials as is usually proposed (b) for the design of the whole collaborative

activity, the intuitive ‘learning design’-based online tools provided by LAMS were used.

1 INTRODUCTION

E-learning has been widely acknowledged as a

promising approach in education, providing flexible

opportunities for learners to overcome time and

space constraints on their learning, to enjoy virtual

communication and collaboration throughout the

world, to perform various and new types of

interactions, and to encourage new forms of learning

(Harasim, Hiltz, Teles & Turoff, 1995; Van Eijl &

Pilot, 2003; Pallof & Pratt, 2004; Roberts, 2005; van

Diggelen and Overdijk, 2009). Most importantly, e-

learning demands careful planning of all learning

activities deemed necessary during a lesson or a

course. In fact, within e-learning contexts, teaching

cannot be performed as a spontaneous activity but as

a conscious and carefully-planned procedure.

Research in e-learning points out that involving

learners in online collaborative learning activities

could provide them with essential opportunities,

such as: motivation for active engagement in their

learning (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996), to extend

and deepen their learning experiences, to try new

ideas and improve their learning outcomes

(Picciano, 2002; Pallof & Pratt, 2004), to trigger

their cognitive processes (Dillenbourg, 1999), to

enhance their diversity in terms of the learning

concepts in question (Johnson and Johnson, 1994) as

well as to interact socially and develop a sense of

community and of belonging online

(Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker,

2000). On the whole, computer-supported

collaborative learning has been recognized as an

emerging paradigm of educational technology

(Kosschmann, 1996). Despite this, many teachers

remain unsure of why, when, and how to integrate

collaboration into their teaching practices in general

as well as into their online classes (Panitz, 1997;

Brufee, 1999).

To this end, it is worth differentiating

collaborative from cooperative learning situations.

In cooperative settings, the task is split into subtasks

and each participant is responsible for solving a

portion of the problem at hand, while in

collaborative situations, the participants are mutually

involved in shared activities; they must coordinate

their efforts if they are to solve problems together. In

cooperative settings, learners usually produce

separate solutions, whereas in collaborative learning,

constructing a shared solution is essential (Liponen,

2002). To encourage teams to achieve effective

collaboration some amount of structuring may be

necessary (Lehtinen, 2003; Lipponen, 2002). One

way to structure collaboration is through the use of

computer-supported collaborative design patterns. A

pattern is seen as something that will not be reused

directly but can assist the informed teacher to build

up their own range of tasks, tools or materials that

Kordaki M. and Siempos H. (2010).

THE JIGSAW COLLABORATIVE METHOD WITHIN THE ONLINE COMPUTER SCIENCE CLASSROOM .

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education, pages 65-72

DOI: 10.5220/0002810800650072

 SciTePress

can draw on a collected body of experience

(McAndrew, Goodyear & Dalziel, 2006).

The idea of using specific collaborative patterns

could be well integrated into ‘learning design’-based

e-learning environments. A 'learning design' is

defined as the description of the teaching-learning

process that takes place in a unit of learning, e.g. a

course, a lesson or any other designed learning

event, such as a specific collaboration structure

(Koper & Tattersall, 2005). An important part of this

definition is that pedagogy is conceptually

abstracted from context and content, so that

excellent pedagogical models can be shared and

reused across instructional contexts and subject

domains. Specifically, best pedagogical practices

can be reflected in the formation of ‘design patterns’

which are context free and could be shared and

reused across instructional contexts and essentially

assist online learning. The key principle in ‘learning

design’ is that it represents the learning activities

that need to be performed by learners and teachers

within the context of a unit of learning. In the

context of “learning design’, the role of

collaborative design patterns is to indicate clearly

the flow of collaboration activities using specific

collaboration structures.

The IMS Learning Design (LD) specification

aims to represent the design of units of learning in a

semantic, formal and machine-interpretable way

(LD, 2003). Various examples of e-learning

environments close to the LD specification have

been mentioned in the literature. However, authoring

using LD is not a simple task for teachers as they are

familiar with neither the use of the tools provided

nor the underlying concepts of the LD modeling

language to be taken into account when planning

educational activities. However, involving teachers

in not only the implementation but also the design

of their teaching sessions is considered essential

(Griffiths and Blat, 2005). To this end, the essential

role of suitably-designed tools in supporting teachers

in their mindful and appropriate ‘learning design’

has been acknowledged by many researchers (Lloyd

& Wilson, 2001; Babiuk, 2005; Kordaki, Papadakis,

& Hadzilakos, 2007; Kordaki & Daradoumis, 2009).

It seems clear that teachers need high level tools to

understand learning design and it is likely that tools

specialized for a particular pedagogic context will be

easier to use (Griffiths & Blat, 2005). To this end, it

is worth noting that the type of editor that classroom

teachers usually need should be similar to authoring

environment provided by LAMS (Dalziel, 2003),a

well-known integrated e-learning system that

effectively supports the idea of ‘learning design’.

Recently, a number of collaboration design patterns

have been constructed using the tools provided by

LAMS (Kordaki & Siempos, 2009; Kordaki,

Siempos & Daradoumis, 2009).

Especially when it comes to Computer Science

(CS) Education, educators have adopted a rather

deficient approach to ‘learning design’ in general

(Kalyva, & Kordaki 2006; Kordaki, Papadakis, &

Hadzilakos, 2007) and in ‘collaborative learning

design’ in particular (Kordaki, Siempos &

Daradoumis, 2009), possibly because CS Education

is a recently-developed scientific discipline. In truth,

CS teachers require more specific support in their

learning design practices, such as specific tools and

good examples of lesson plans. Thus, CS teacher

encouragement and support for learning design is

clearly needed. Taking into account all the above,

we have attempted to form the ‘Jigsaw’

collaborative method (Aronson, 1971; Aronson,

Blaney, Sikes, Stephan & Snapp, 1978) as a

collaborative design pattern within the context of

LAMS to construct a sequence of learning activities

for essential issues in CS such as: (a) the wide range

of computer technology used in daily life and the

consequences of such utilization, (b) the variety of

computer systems serving different tasks, (c) the

dynamic evolution of information technology in our

times. Such a sequence of online collaborative

learning activities for the learning of CS concepts -

using the Jigsaw method within LAMS- has not yet

been reported.

In fact, this paper contributes to the Jigsaw

method being used: (a) to support students in

performing investigations in the real world rather

than dealing with specific text-based learning

materials, as has been the case in other studies (b)

within LAMS and (c) to support sequences of online

collaboration activities for the learning of the

aforementioned issues in CS.

In the following section of this paper, the

essential features of LAMS are briefly presented and

followed by a description of the Jigsaw collaboration

method. Then, a sequence of online collaborative

learning activities using Jigsaw-within-LAMS with

special reference to the aforementioned issues in CS

Education is demonstrated. Finally, the design of

this sequence is discussed and conclusions and

future research plans are drawn.

CSEDU 2010 - 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education

2 A FEW WORDS ABOUT LAMS

AND JIGSAW

2.1 LAMS

LAMS (Learning Activity Management System;

http://www.lamsfoundation.org/) is an open source

tool for designing, managing and delivering online

collaborative learning activities. In fact, LAMS

offers a set of predefined learning activities, shown

in a manner comprehensible to teachers, that can be

graphically dragged and dropped in order to

establish a flow chart of sequence of activities.

When using LAMS, teachers gain access to a highly

intuitive visual authoring environment for the

creation of sequential learning activities. LAMS is

based on the belief that learning does not arise

simply from interacting with content but from

interacting with teachers and peers. The creation of

content-based, self–paced learning objectives for

single learners is now well understood in the field of

e-learning. However, the creation of sequential

learning activities which involve groups of learners

interacting within a structured set of collaborative

environments - referred to as ‘learning design’ - is

less common; LAMS allows teachers to both create

and deliver such sequences. In essence, LAMS

provides a practical way to describe multi-learner

activity sequences and the tools required to support

these. Furthermore, LAMS provides tools that

support various activities such as communication,

presentation of information, writing and sharing

resources, as well as posing and answering

questions. Nevertheless, Dalziel (2003) has

commented on the absence of tools supporting

broader ranges of collaborative tasks. In fact, despite

the availability of all the tools mentioned above,

sequences of learning activities for the performance

of the Jigsaw collaboration method within LAMS

for the learning of specific CS concepts have not yet

reported.

The said sequence of collaborative activities was

implemented using essential tools provided by

LAMS (http://wiki.lamsfoundation.org/display/

lamsdocs/Home). These tools are demonstrated in its

interface and are briefly presented below:

The Assessment tool allows sequence authors to

create a series of questions with a high degree of

flexibility in total weighting

The Chat Activity runs a live (synchronous)

discussion for learners

The Chat and Scribe Activity combines a Chat

Activity with a Scribe Activity for collating the chat

group's views on questions posed by the teacher

The Forum Activity provides an asynchronous

discussion environment for learners, with discussion

threads initially created by the teacher

The Forum and Scribe Activity combines a

Forum Activity with a Scribe Activity for collating

Forum Postings into a written report

The Mindmap activity allows teachers and

learners to create, edit and view mindmaps in the

LAMS environment. Mindmaps allow for the

organising of concepts and ideas, and exploring how

these interact

The Multiple Choice activity allows teachers to

create simple automated assessment questions,

including multiple choice and true/false questions

The Notebook Activity is a tool for learners to

record their thoughts during a sequence of activities

The Noticeboard Activity provides a simple way

to supply learners with information and content. The

activity can display text, images, links and other

HTML content.

The Question and Answer Activity allows

teachers to pose a question or questions to learners

individually, and after they have entered their

response, to see the responses of all their peers

presented on a single answer screen.

The Share Resources tool allows teachers to add

content to a sequence, such as URL hyperlinks,

zipped websites, individual files and even complete

learning objects.

The Submit Files Activity allows learners to

submit one or more files to the LAMS server for

review by a teacher.

The Survey Tool presents learners with a number

of questions and collects their responses. However,

unlike Multiple Choice, there are no right or wrong

answers.

The Wiki Tool allows authors to create content

pages that can link to each other and, optionally,

allow learners to make collaborative edits to the

content provided.

2.2 The Jigsaw Collaborative Method

The Jigsaw method was originally proposed by E.

Aronson (1971) at the University of Texas and the

University of California. Hundreds of schools have

Jigsaw-based activities in their classrooms with

much success (see http://www.jigsaw.org). Jigsaw

has been seen as a method that can support both

cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1992) and

collaborative situations (Silverman, 1995). Gallardo

(2003) also thought that this method could be well

situated within the constructivist framework of

learning. In addition, many researchers have

THE JIGSAW COLLABORATIVE METHOD WITHIN THE ONLINE COMPUTER SCIENCE CLASSROOM

proposed the implementation of this method within

the online context (Gallardo et al. 2003; Hernandez-

leo et all; Kordaki, Siempos and Daradoumis, 2009),

despite the fact that Jigsaw was originally proposed

for face-to-face education (Aronson & Patnoe,

1997). Specifically, the Jigsaw method is a

cooperative/collaborative learning strategy which

enhances the process of listening, commitment to the

team, interdependence and team work. Each member

of the team has to excel in a well-defined subpart of

the educational material, undertaking the role of

expert. The experts form a different group to discuss

the nuances of the subject and later return to their

teams to teach their colleagues. The ideal size of

teams is 4 to 6 members. Specifically, the

implementation of the Jigsaw method could be

realized through the following process: 1) Divide the

problem into sub-problems, 5) Create heterogeneous

groups, 3) Assign roles and material to each student,

4) Form group of experts, 5) Let experts study the

material and plan how to teach their colleagues, 6)

Let experts teach in their groups, 7) Assess students.

Through Jigsaw, the following goals could be

achieved: 1) Building of interpersonal and

interactive skills, 2) Ensuring that learning revolves

around interaction with peers, 3) Holding students

accountable among their peers, 4) Encouraging

active student participation in the learning process.

In the next section of this paper, the set of

collaborative learning activities for the learning of

the aforementioned essential issues in CS using the

Jigsaw-within-LAMS design pattern is reported.

3 DESIGN OF THE JIGSAW

ACTIVITY WITHIN THE CS

ONLINE CLASSROOM

The proposed Jigsaw online learning activity

consisted of the following seven phases: 1)

Introduction to the activity, 2) Original group

creation, 3) Creation of expert groups, 4) Back to the

original groups, 5) Group Report formation, 6)

Group Report presentation and 7) Assessment. The

implementation of these phases within the context of

LAMS is diagrammatically represented - as a

‘design pattern’ - in Figure 1. The presentation of

this collaborative pattern aims at supporting a

combination of synchronous and asynchronous

collaboration but this pattern could be used

exclusively for asynchronous collaboration by

substituting the “Chat and Scribe” function with the

“Forum and Scribe” function or vice versa to

support exclusively synchronous collaboration. The

description of the aforementioned phases is reported

in the following section.

Phase 1. Jigsaw: Introduction to the Activity

The main goal of this learning activity is to

encourage students to learn through performing

specific investigations of the following essential

issues in CS: (a) the wide range of computer

technology used in daily life and the consequences

of such utilization, (b) the variety of computer

systems serving different tasks, (c) the dynamic

evolution of information technology in our times.

Additionally, this learning activity aims to highlight

the value of collaborative learning as a modern

method of teaching.

In the context of these learning aims, students

have to investigate essential issues in computer

technology such as; the diversity of existing

hardware and software, the kinds of computer

networks available, the Internet, the social impact of

computers as well as their impact on commerce and

businesses. To perform these investigations, students

should be separated into expert groups according to

the aforementioned issues. To this end, the following

expert groups need to be formed: (a) the Hardware

Jigsaw Group (b) the Software Jigsaw Group (c) the

Network Jigsaw Group (d) the Internet Jigsaw Group

(e) the Social aspects of Computer Technology

Jigsaw Group and (f) the Business and Technology

Jigsaw Group.

To perform the aforementioned investigations

successfully, each of the aforementioned groups

have to collect data from various and significant

areas of life where computers are used, namely; (a)

financial organizations, such as accounting

departments and banks, (b) health caring

organizations, such as hospitals, (c) entertainment

areas, e.g. Internet cafés, and local TV and radio

stations, (d) education, such as schools and public

libraries, (e) commercial areas, for example a

supermarket or a car garage, and (f) welfare

organizations. In this phase of the Jigsaw activity,

students are informed - using a Notice board - about

the whole context of the activity, including its aims,

the specific issues of computer technology that have

to be explored during this activity as well as the

various places where they could collect appropriate

data to fulfil these learning aims. Students should

exchange ideas and clarify the aims and the whole

procedure of the activity using a whole-class Forum

or a whole class Chat-room.

CSEDU 2010 - 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Figure 1: A diagrammatic representation of the Jigsaw method implemented within LAMS.

Phase 2. Jigsaw: Original Group Creation

The students are assigned randomly – using the

Grouping tool - to 4 groups of 6 students. Initially

each group discusses – using a group chat-room or a

group forum - the issues presented in the

introduction, striving to form a commonly

acceptable framework of ideas. Each member of

each group should also decide which essential issue

of computer technology - from the aforementioned

issues – they prefer to investigate.

Phase 3. Jigsaw: Creation of Expert Groups

Next, every member of each group would gain

expertise on a specific issue of the proposed learning

activity through their participation in specific expert-

groups. Each expert group must visit the specific

areas of life mentioned in the ‘Introduction’ of the

activity where computers are used, to collect specific

data. In fact, each expert group has to fulfil a well-

defined task, as described in the next section.

Hardware Jigsaw Group. The experts in this group

should note the number and type of computers

(mainframes, servers, personal computers, PLC).

They also have to categorize computer systems

according to their technical specifications; power

supply requirements and system restore capabilities.

Special care must be taken over the recording of the

peripheral devices and the degree of diffusion of

computer technology use in the modern working

environment

Software Jigsaw Group. The experts in this group

should identify the operating and application

software being used. In particular, they can focus on

special purpose software and research, if custom

tailored software is used, or commercial solutions.

They can also study the use of system security

software such as antivirus programs and firewalls.

Finally, they should mention the use of backup and

THE JIGSAW COLLABORATIVE METHOD WITHIN THE ONLINE COMPUTER SCIENCE CLASSROOM

data integrity software.

Network Jigsaw Group. The experts in this group

could categorize the networks according to their

topology (LAN, WAN, etc.), the number of

computers in the facilities, the chosen protocols and

the efficiency of network operation.

Internet Jigsaw Group. The experts in this group

should cope with issues such as possible reasons for

using the Internet, the available internet connection

bandwidth and its credibility.

Social Aspects of Computer Technology Jigsaw

Group. The experts in this group should interview

the employees, asking them questions about their

level of education, the evolution of their job after the

introduction of computers to the working

environment, the possible health concerns due to

long-term use of computers as well as the

effectcomputers and technology have had on their

interpersonal relationships.

Business and Technology Jigsaw Group. The

experts in this group should talk with Information

Technology professionals about the reason behind

the adoption of computer technology, the possible

gains in efficiency and productivity and the

transformations needed to the organization chart due

to the use of information technology. They should

also discuss the maintenance and the upgrading of

technological equipment.

The data collected by each expert group should

also be categorized using specific criteria and

questions they themselves have formed and those

suggested by their teacher. Here, the use of the ‘Data

collection” tool will be useful. To this end,

appropriate learning materials can be used for

further understanding of the experimental activity of

each expert group.

Besides data collection and processing, the

expert groups have to organize an interesting and

efficient teaching process to present to their base

groups. Sharing ideas about the appropriate teaching

process could be implemented through a chat-room

or forum for each expert group. There follows a

template of possible actions that can be followed by

the expert group students:

1. They should try to comprehend as much as

possible the deeper meaning of the data they have

collected and the materials they have studied. If

necessary, they could ask their teacher for help.

2. It is important to emphasize the value of

commenting on the key ideas of each specific issue

at hand.

3. They should research alternative and

interesting learning scenarios in order to provide a

pleasant teaching experience for their colleagues. To

this end, the teaching process can comprise a variety

of learning representations: e.g., photographs,

videos, simulations, charts. The experts should not

forget the importance of stimulating their

colleagues’ interest and motivating them to

participate in a constructive thinking process, the

result of cultivating discussion with the other

students.

4. Using a wiki, they should provide their

colleagues in their original groups with appropriate

presentations and activities that help them to absorb

and better comprehend the knowledge offered.

5. Using a wiki, they have to concentrate on the

knowledge acquired during their experimentation to

design a representative questionnaire reflecting the

critical and not the memorizing ability of learners.

Phase 4. Jigsaw: Back to the Original Group

Each expert, on returning to the original group,

should propose alternative ways to present the

knowledge she/he acquired during her/his

participation in the experimentation performed

within a specific expert group. Here, the members of

the original groups could be provided with some

essential activities, so that every student can

participate actively in the learning experience. Each

expert should also encourage her/his colleagues to

better comprehend the knowledge provided. Chat-

rooms or forums could be used by each expert to

teach their original groups.

Phase 5. Jigsaw: Group Report Formation

Each group has to prepare a presentation about the

total knowledge acquired during their learning

process. To form this report, the use of a wiki will be

useful. The use of the ‘Submit Files’ activity could

be used to sent the reports to the teachers

Phase 6. Jigsaw: Group Report Presentation

Here, it would be useful to provide students with

some recommendations as to how to prepare and

deliver a good presentation. Some useful guidelines

for the former are: (a) The presentation must begin

with the main idea of the subject, (b) only the key

points of the subject have to be presented, (c) On

every slide, only 4-5 key points should be presented,

(d) A uniform style of presentation must be followed

(unnecessary effects must be avoided since these

distract the learner from the key concepts), (e) The

duration of each presentation should be around 10

minutes (for synchronous presentation using a chat-

room) since there is always the danger the students

may get bored. There will be additional time to

further discuss the learning material.

CSEDU 2010 - 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Some essential guidelines that can be given to

students about their actual online presentation are:

(a) Students have to be careful not to overstep the

time limit given, (b) The presentation slides are a

reference for further development of the subject and

not a paper for reading, (c) It is advisable to prepare

the presentation in front of their group, in order to

evaluate the time needed and obtain experience in

speaking in public, (d) It is very important to keep a

steady pace in presentation. The audience is not so

well informed as they are. (e) It is better to give less

information well-presented than large amounts that

are incomprehensible.

Online presentations could be performed by each

group, using a whole-class chat or forum. During the

online presentation, the teacher can initiate a

‘question and answer’ session to encourage experts

to present their area of study in greater detail.

Phase 7. Jigsaw: Assessment

Each student should be set a quiz after the end of the

learning activity, for purposes of assessment. The

students cannot help each other during the testing

process.

4 SUMMARY AND FUTURE

PLANS

This paper presented an online collaborative activity

- for secondary level education students - for the

learning of essential issues in CS, such as: (a) the

wide range of computer technology used in daily life

and the consequences of such utilization, (b) the

variety of computer systems serving different tasks,

in our times. The design of this collaborative

learning activity was based on the use of the Jigsaw

collaborative method in an innovative way, based on

the fact that (a) the tasks assigned to the expert

groups consisted of various investigating activities

within the real world - where computers are actually

used - rather than the study of various online

learning materials as is still proposed (b) for the

design of the whole collaborative activity, intuitive

‘learning design’-based online tools provided by

LAMS were used. To investigate the effect of this

collaboration activity, specific field research is

needed using a real online classroom.

REFERENCES

Aronson, E. (1971). History of the Jigsaw Classroom.

Retrived from The Jigsaw Classroom:

http://www.jigsaw.org/history.htm

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, G. & Snapp,

M. (1978). The JIGSAW classroom. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage Publications.

Aronson, E. & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom:

Building cooperation in the classroom. NY: Longman.

Babiuk, G. (2005). A Full Bag of "Tech Tools" enhances

the reflective process in Teacher Education. In C.

Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for

Information Technology and Teacher Education

International Conference 2005 (pp. 1873-1877).

Chesapeake/VA: AACE.

Brufee, K. A., (1999). Collaborative Learning: Higher

Education Interdependence, the authority of

knowledge. Baltimore MD: The John Hopkins

University.

Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing Learning Design: The

Learning Activity Management System (LAMS). In

Interact, Integrate, Impact. (pp.593-596). Proceedings

ASCILITE 2003, Adelaide, 7-10 December. retrieved

January 10, 2009, from

http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/doc

s/pdf/593.pdf

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean

by collaborative learning?. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.),

Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational

approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Pergamon.

Gallardo, T., Guerrero, L.A., Collazos, C., Pino, J.A., &

Ochoa, S. (2003). Supporting JIGSAW-type

Collaborative Learning. System Sciences, (p. 8).

Hawaii.

Griffiths, D., & Blat, J. (2005). The role of teachers in

editing and authoring Units of Learning using IMS

Learning Design. Advanced Technology for Learning,

2 (4), retrieved June 10, 2009, from

http://www.actapress.com/

Content_Of_Journal.aspx?JournalID=63.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995).

Learning Networks: a field guide to Teaching and

Learning Online. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M. M., Robins, J., and

Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development

among distance learners: temporal and technological

dimensions. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 6 (1). Online: http://www.ascusc.org/

jcmc/vol6/ issue1/haythornthwaite.html.

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1992). Positive

interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In R.

Hertz_Lazarowitz & N Miller (Eds.). Interacting in

cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group

learning (pp. 145-173). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Kalyva, G. and Kordaki M. (2006). Computer Science

Teachers’ Real Practices: a case study. In Proceedings

of International Conference on Information and

THE JIGSAW COLLABORATIVE METHOD WITHIN THE ONLINE COMPUTER SCIENCE CLASSROOM

Communication Technologies in Education (ICICTE),

Rhodes, Greece, July 6-8, 2006; pp.245-251.

Koper, R., & Tattersall, C. (Eds) (2005). Learning Design:

A handbook on modeling and delivering networked

education and training. Berlin: Springer.

Kordaki, M., Papadakis, S. and Hadzilacos, T. (2007).

Providing tools for the development of cognitive skills

in the context of Learning Design-based e-learning

environments. In T. Bastiaens and S. Carliner (Eds),

Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in

Corporate, Government, Healthcare & Higher

Education (E-Learn 2007), October, 15-19, Quebec,

Canada, USA, pp.1642-1649, Chesapeake, VA:

AACE.

Kordaki, M. and Daradoumis, T. (2009). Critical Thinking

as a Framework for Structuring Synchronous and

Asynchronous Communication within Learning

Design-based E-learning Systems. In T., Daradoumis,

S., Caballe, J.M., Marques and F., Xhafa, (Ed.),

‘Intelligent Collaborative e-Learning Systems and

Applications’, Studies in Computational Intelligence.

Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 83-98.

Kordaki, M. and Siempos, H. (2009). Encouraging

collaboration within learning design-based open

source e-learning systems. In J. Dron, T Bastiaens and

C. Xin (Eds) Proceedings of World Conference on E-

Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare &

Higher Education (E-Learn 2007), October, 26-30,

Vancouver, Canada, USA, pp. 1716-1723,

Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Kordaki, M., Siempos, H. and Daradoumis, T. (2009; to

appear). Collaborative learning design within open

source e-learning systems: lessons learned from an

empirical study. In G. Magoulas (Eds), E-

Infrastructures and Technologies for Lifelong

Learning: Next Generation Environments, IDEA-

Group Publishing.

Koschmann, T. (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an

emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

LD (2003). IMS Learning Design. Information Model,

Best Practice and Implementation Guide, Version 1.0

Final Specification IMS Global Learning Consortium

Inc., retrieved June 30, 2009, from

http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/.

Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative

learning: an approach to powerful learning

environments. In E. de Corte, L. Verschaffel, N.

Entwistle, & J. van Merrieboer (Eds.), Powerful

learning environments: Unravelling basic components

and dimensions (pp. 35–54). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-

supported collaborative learning. In Gerry Stahl (Ed.),

Computer support for collaborative learning:

Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 72–81).

Proceedings of the Computer-supported Collaborative

Learning 2002 Conference. Hillsdale/NJ: Erlbaum.

Lloyd, G. & Wilson, M. (2001). Offering Prospective

Teachers Tools to Connect Theory and Practice:

Hypermedia in Mathematics Teacher Education.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9 (4),

497-518. Norfolk/VA: AACE.

McAndrew, P., Goodyear, P., & Dalziel, J. (2006).

Patterns, designs and activities: unifying descriptions

of learning structures. International Journal of

Learning Technology, 2(2-3), 216 - 242.

Palloff, M.R., & Pratt, K. (2004). Learning together in

Community: Collaboration Online. In 20th Annual

Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning,

August 4-6, 2004, Madison, Wisconsin, Retrieved on

Sept. 30, 2009, from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/

conference/Resource_library/proceedings/04_1127.pdf

Panitz, T. (1997). Faculty and Student Resistance to

Cooperative Learning. Cooperative Learning and

College Teaching , 7 (2) Winter, 1997.

Picciano, A.G. (2002). Beyond student perception: Issues

of interaction, presence and performance in an online

course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,

6(1), 21-40.

Roberts, T. S. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative

learning in higher education: An introduction. In:

Roberts, T. S. (ed). Computer-supported collaborative

learning in higher education. Idea Group Publishing,

Hershey, pp 1–18.

Scardamalia, M., & C. Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer

support for knowledge-building communities. In T.

Koschmann (ed.) CSCL: Theory and practice of an

emerging paradigm, (pp.249–268). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Silverman, B.G. (1995). Computer Supported

Collaborative Learning (CSCL).Computers Education,

Vol. 25 (3), 81-91.

Van Eijl, P. & Pilot, A. (2003). Using a virtual learning

environment in collaborative learning: Criteria for

success. Educational Technology, 43(2): 54–56.

Diggelen, W.V. & Overdijk, M. (2009). Grounded design:

Design patterns as the link between theory and

practice. Computers in Human Behavior (2009),

doi:10.1016/ j.chb.2009.01.005

CSEDU 2010 - 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education