COLLABORATION TRENDS DURING ACTION RESEARCH IN
AN E-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR DEVELOPING AND
ACQUIRING EFFECTIVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
Janis Kapenieks
Distance Education Study Centre, Riga Technical University, Azenes str. 12, Riga, Latvia
Keywords: e-Learning, Collaborative learning, Action research.
Abstract: The present article is devoted to the experience of teaching a bachelor level business course at the Riga
Technical University using the action research approach during student group work in an e-learning
environment. The objective of the article is to identify the main trends of collaborative work in an e-learning
environment: what effect the students’ involvement in the action research method which is based on
creating personal knowledge via reflection has on acquiring the course (1); how to measure and assess the
students’ creativity (2); how collaboration within the group influences the development of knowledge and
creativity (3). The methods of statistical and qualitative analysis as well as systemic content analysis of the
students’ work are used in the article. The research allowed identifying several new trends which help to
improve the effectiveness of e-learning.
1 INTRODUCTION
With the advance of information and communication
technologies (ICT) the e-learning methods assume
greater importance in educational practices. The
integration of the latest discoveries of contemporary
pedagogical science into e-learning is essential but
has not been properly investigated. The present
article analyses the research results of the
effectiveness of a comparatively new learning
method — action research — in e-learning project-
based (PBL) group studies. Research on the
formation of collaboration and interaction among the
students, on the influence of the method on student
motivation and the quality of the learning process
has been described. The basis of mastering the
subject is reflection leading to a discourse.
The discussion method, as en effective tool for
getting the learners to think constructively while
interacting with the rest of the group, creates an
environment in which the students gain knowledge
not only from the instructor and the study materials
but also from each other. (Geidžs, 1998). This type
of learning is based on social interaction. At the
beginning one or more challenging questions are
substantial for promotion of the discussion. The
method stimulates the learners to discuss the basic
questions and guides to a logical conclusion. A
student’s ideas trigger other students’ reaction
expressed via reflection. In its stead, it causes the
reflection of the author of the idea (Geidžs, 1998)
Distributed cognition expresses a wider notion of the
sum of individual cognitive processes. A group
sometimes successfully solves problems which no
individual member of the group can solve since the
ideas of the participants of a discussion are formed
in their interaction. (Salomon, 1997).
The discussion method is integrated into the
collaborative learning – based on the model that
knowledge can be created within group where
learners actively interact by sharing experiences and
have asymmetry roles (Mitnik 2009). They engage
in common tasks and interdependence. It has several
positive aspects in addition to creating and acquiring
new knowledge: it helps to discard prejudices, to
enhance participation and the ability to express one’s
views and to improve the student’s record in relation
to his/her cognitive skills (Shachar, 1994).
Acquiring the ability to collaborate requires a
relevant learning environment which has to promote
the study process and comply with J, Dewey’s
criteria (Dewey, 1997; Hansen, 2002) : it has to be
simple (acknowledging previously acquired skills
and values) purified (stimulating the wish to listen to
others), well-balanced (promoting individual
179
Kapenieks J..
COLLABORATION TRENDS DURING ACTION RESEARCH IN AN E-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR DEVELOPING AND ACQUIRING EFFECTIVE
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
DOI: 10.5220/0003298901790186
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2011), pages 179-186
ISBN: 978-989-8425-49-2
Copyright
c
 2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

development in collaboration with other people),
stabilizing (furthering the harmonization of
knowledge based on the interconnectedness of all
life areas).
Collaborative learning methods are sometimes
criticized for posing several risks. They are the
following:
• Transfer of potentially faulty knowledge.
• The possibility of conceiving group work as fun
and not as search for truth.
• Excessive mutual dependence.
• The possibility of avoiding participation or, on
the contrary, of dominating the discussion.
• The tendency to accuse each other in
incompetence (Geidžs, 1998).
The learning process can be paralyzed by
uncritical groupthink or by the initiatives of the
group leader.
The objective of the research paper is to get to
know how action research as e- learning method
promotes learner’s creativity and creation of
personal knowledge. It was tested, how group
discussion in e-learning environment influences
forming of roles in the group. During research
suitability of e-learning environment for action
research as the learning tool was tested.
During the research, the students of the Business
course discussed their business ideas developing and
acquiring personal knowledge in an internet
environment. This discussion was supervised and
promoted by an e-learning consultant. An interview
and polls revealed the teacher’s and the students’
views on the effectiveness of the learning method
and the students’ attitude to it. The analysis of the
content of the students’ discussion text revealed the
degree of the students’ involvement, motivation and
creativity. The quantitative parameters of mastering
the course were also analyzed.
2 ACTION RESEARCH AS THE
LEARNING METHOD
One of the collaborative study methods is action
research. It is based on J. Dewey’s philosophy
created at the end of the nineteenth century (Dewey,
1997) and further advanced by K. Lewin’s (Lewin,
1946). B. Dick analyses the development of the
action research theories up to 2007 (Dick, 2009).
Action research concerns ideas and their application
in helping to improve practice by systemic
reflection. It comprises 5 steps in one learning cycle
(Rust, 2006):
• Objective – the necessity of improvement
(making the commitment).
• The creation of the living theory – questions
and answers (designing a study).
• Making sense of experience – data and analysis.
• Complementing the living theory – better
questions (beginning again).
• Improving the practice.
An important aspect in the creation of the action
research theory concerns the theory creation
methods – the creation of Grounded theory, offered
by B. Glaser and A. Straus (Glaser, 1967).
Performing any action people usually make
predictions, i. e., they have a theory. Usually it is
informal and relies on the results of actions. The
Grounded theory is a systemic high quality research
method creating theories from data and not from
hypotheses which may seem to contradict scientific
methods. Practical theories differ from scientific
theories at least in three ways. First, practical
theories are often viewed as instruments or tools.
Secondly, practical theories are openly heuristic
since they use notions and instruments and allow
different interpretations of one and the same
situation. Third, practical theories envisage actions
that may improve the existing situation (Kevin
Barge, 2008).
J. Whitehead evolved Grounded theory approach
by creation of a basic method of the living theory
approach in education. (Whitehead, 2009). The idea
is based on the potential of the individual to provide
personal unique explanations to educational ideas
that influence him/her in the learning process. The
living theory approach is essential in action research
and is based on phenomenology, i. e., subjective
perception, practices and reaction. It creates
reflection on which the living theory is based. Basic
and living theories are practical theories. The
understanding that is created by the theory may help
in improving practical activities.
In recent years, several research projects have
supported that the action research approach is an
effective means of motivating the students and
encouraging them to participate (Herington 2008), as
well as stimulating self-education (Keiny, 2008). We
know from experience that an individual perceives
information better if he/she is solving real life
situations (Kapenieks, 2008). In the process of
creating personal knowledge, action research
encourages those persons who feel excluded and
insecure. By its critical reflection of practices
including a review of one’s own views, value
systems and tacit considerations dialogic action
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
180

research attracts people (Maurer, 2010).
Involvement into a discourse - dialogue, leading to
an assessment of rival views allows one to make
better judgments as a basis for action, taking into
account the existing perspectives, motivations and
arguments which are supplemented in the next
discourse (Boyer, 2006) It has been proved that
students who use the action research component in
their studies are willing to continue research work
more often than other people (Kenneth, 2010).
With the advent of modern information and
communication technologies in education, the
question arose how to use them in collaborative
learning. The computers provided the possibility to
exchange ideas by e-mail, gave an easy access to
information sources and the possibility to create a
new collaborative environment for studies. Internet-
based Learning Management Systems (LMS) give
the possibility for teachers and administrators to
supervise the study process, to organize the course
activities and unified assessment systems and
compare the relevant courses with parallel courses
and the courses of the previous years. Interactive
learning is sustainable learning, centering on the
students’ current needs (Purg, 2009). The
development of the ICT makes it possible to realize
G. Salmon’s five-step model in collaborative e-
learning (Salmon, 2002) .
The action research method used for knowledge
creation in e-learning group studies has not been
investigated. As in fulltime studies this method is
effective, the author of the present paper investigates
whether it is a motivating factor in acquiring
knowledge and how the participants in the group
motivate one another. The method allows the teacher
to motivate the students and get involved in group
work. There is reason to foresee that a group
working in an asynchronous way in an internet
environment will not create distinct group leaders
and the contribution of each group member will be
lager and the group will be more homogeneous in
comparison with face-to-face groups. It can be easily
checked. As the action research method was based
on creating the living theory, it was expected that the
students’ creative activities would be influenced by
the success achieved by their group mates.
3 PARTICIPANTS AND THE
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
The participants of the research were the bachelor
students of the Riga Technical University whose
curriculum includes the Business course which is not
their basic subject. The course was supervised by a
teacher but the work in the e-learning environment
was conducted by an e-learning consultant. In
coordinating the action research, the Riga Technical
University e-study portal „ORTUS” was used. It
relies on the open source MOODLE software. The
students receive instruction on the assigned tasks
and can download the study aids and assignments as
well as assignment templates or upload the tasks
fulfilled. Action research was carried out in the
environment of Google documents . Figure 1
illustrates the algorhytm of learning by the action
research. Filling in a form, the students had to
answer questions which were summarized and
recorded in an MS Excel sheet. The e-study
consultant divided the students into groups and
ensured each student’s access to the sheet of his/her
group for corrections or viewing the results. In the
sheet, the students complement one another’s ideas,
summarize them in the living theory and view the
teacher’s corrections and assessment. This
environment gives the students of the whole group
the possibility to work on the common sheet as well
as provides easy communication between the group
members and the consultant by e-mail which is used
also for motivating the students.
214 Riga Technical University bachelor level
first year students from 10 academic groups of the
Faculty of Electronics and Telecommunications
participated in action research of whom 177 students
performed 2 cycles of creating the living theory, but
148 students participated in all the 3 cycles. On
completing the course, 100 students voluntarily
participated in a poll on the course.
On the whole, the target group was responsive;
they asked questions both during the classes and sent
them by e-mail. During the study cycles, the teacher
sent them reminders about the assignments, each
time triggering a rise in student activity. Increased
activity was observed also shortly before the end of
the course. The content analysis of group work was
carried out by selecting the first 75 students’
performance (chosen from 15 groups) in cycle 1
applying no special selection criteria.
4 INVESTIGATION OF GROUP
WORK IN THE
E-ENVIRONMENT
Knowledge creation was divided into learning cycles
according to consecutive themes. The Knowledge
acquirement spiral in Figure 2 reflects the learning
strategy. It is based on the systemic constructivist
COLLABORATION TRENDS DURING ACTION RESEARCH IN AN E-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR
DEVELOPING AND ACQUIRING EFFECTIVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
181

Figure 1: Algorythm of the e-learning by the action research during the learning cycle.
Figure 2: Continuity of learning by action research in the Business course.
approach which pays attention to three important
discursive practices: (1) the construction of meaning,
(2) positioning and (3) the performance.
Each learning cycle begins with the
identification of the problem to be solved. In each
learning cycle the living theory is created on the
basis of group communication within the framework
of action research. It is further developed in the
following cycle (Figure 2).
The theory creation is based on reflection and
assessment depending on personal views, experience
and interests. In the theory creation process, the
student’s interests and views change which is
recorded at the beginning and end of each cycle.
Communication with other individuals introduces
different experiences in the theory leading to
discourse. At the end of the learning cycle, the living
theory is analyzed and corrected, if necessary. The
teacher’s and consultant’s role is substantial during
the correction period.
The students in groups of 4 to 6 persons
participate in 3 action research cycles. Before
learning cycle 1 during the introductory lessons, the
students get acquainted with the main notions and
interconnections. The students found some exciting
business success stories and learn more about them.
Then the students choose their own business idea of
an enterprise and create its development plan.
Before action research, the students are
introduced into the course in an face-to-face class in
which the objectives of the course are defined and
basic information provided. The problems and
questions to be solved in cycle 1 are also defined. At
the beginning of the learning cycle, the student’s
interests, motivation for taking the course,
experience and views are clarified.
Learning cycle 1 starts with the student’s
answers in the Google documents environment form
to questions on the planning of the balance sheet (the
revenues and expenses) of his enterprise. Some of
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
182

the questions to be answered in the first cycle are the
following:
• What kinds of income do you expect to
receive in your enterprise?
• What criteria will you apply for choosing
your target clientele and who will they be?
• Please characterise the geographic,
demographic, professional and social
segmentation of the market.
• Please characterise the aims for setting the
prices.
Their answers were automatically summarised in
a MS Excel table by Google application tool.
Students were divided into groups of four to six in
the order of filling in the questionnaire form. Each
group worked in on MS Excel document; each
student created their own living theory in
cooperation with two group mates. The group
mates complement one another’s views in this
environment and each of them summarizes his
discursive opinions in a general conclusion - his
living theory. The e-learning consultant evaluates
each student’s performance and corrects it, if
necessary. He/she also follows the learning process
and motivates the students for work in face-to-face
classes and by e-mail. In cycles 2 and 3 of action
research, each student using a similar procedure
develops his/her living theory on drawing up the
balance sheet and the tax policy of his/her enterprise
trying to ensure the most effective business success.
As a result, each student develops his/her own
reference system for the assessment of the content
and the vaster implications of the Business course
building personal knowledge and attitudes and
developing personal interests and views.
5 RESEARCH
5.1 Research Method
To characterize the influence of group work on
creating and acquiring knowledge, the students’
reflective records in the e-learning environment
during the course on Systemic Content Analysis
(one semester) were used. At the end of the course, a
student poll was carried out in which they had to
evaluate the benefits of action research in acquiring
knowledge, the contribution of the group, the
importance of communication and motivation.
Statistical analysis of the data obtained was made.
The teacher conducted an interview aimed at
comparing the activity of the students’ participation,
motivation and performance with those of the
previous years when no action research in an e-
learning environment was used in the course.
5.2 Parameters
To define learning efficiency, the following
parameters were used as a result of content analysis
of the students’ opinions and commentaries:
• Discourse – the number of new ideas
expressed in complementing the peer
performance and creating the living theory.
We may attribute creativity to discourse since
the result is something new which in our case
are the new ideas expressed by the students.
The discourse in which the students
complement their group mates’ ideas
corresponds to the criteria of creative
thinking since it is created by thinking of
“what might happen” and not of what has
already happened (De Bono 1985) .
• Student performance – the number of
procedures in cycle 1 of action research. The
procedures involve filling in the MS Excel
sheet, expressing one’s views to a group mate
on a definite theme, recording the general
conclusions – the living theory. The
maximum number of procedures in cycle 1 is
12.
• The number of discursive ideas in the
living theory reflects the number of the
student’s own ideas and the number of his
group mates’ complementary ideas that
he/she has included in his/her living theory.
This parameter has been incorporated into the
discourse.
• Assessments – the assessment of the
student’s performance according to the
themes which correspond to the learning
cycles as well as the final assessment at the
end of the course.
• To characterize the activity of participation,
the order in which tasks are commenced has
been used among all students (the number of
the group) and among the students of one
group (the sequences of starting work).
On completing the course, a student poll was
conducted in which the students were asked to
evaluate the contribution of action research to
acquiring knowledge, the performance of the group
and the significance of communication and
motivation. They evaluated usability of e-learning
environment as well.
COLLABORATION TRENDS DURING ACTION RESEARCH IN AN E-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR
DEVELOPING AND ACQUIRING EFFECTIVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
183

6 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
It was expected that the participation of the group
mates in the development of the living theory and
the views expressed by them would contribute to the
knowledge gained by individual students. Figure 3
shows the students’ assessment of the benefit of
other students’ participation.
Work in the group influences the students’
activity and motivation. 62 % (62 students) stated
that they had benefited from the ideas contributed by
their group mates and 24 % (24 students) approved
of summing up their and their group mates’ ideas
into the living theory.
As a result of developing the living theory,
communication in an e-environment obtained the
character of a social network. As the students came
from different academic groups they did not know
one another. 28 % (28 students) got acquainted with
their group mates when they were discussing the
course assignments.
Figure 3: Benefit from group mates’ contribution.
Work in a group is sometimes difficult. Thus,
23% (23 students) found it hard to understand their
group mates’ theories and 34 % (34 students) had
difficulties in complementing the other students’
ideas. Psychological factors must also be taken into
account – 30 % (30 students) admitted they had been
afraid to hurt their group mates’ feelings by
expressing their ideas as their opinion could
influence the final assessment (though it was
announced beforehand it would not).
Analyzing the content of the students’ records,
the parameter characterizing their creativity was
determined as the number of discursive ideas
expressed by a student commenting on the answers
of two of his/her group mates’ business ideas
(Figure 4) and his/her own discursive ideas
contained in his/her living theory (including his/her
group mates’ recommendations).
Figure 4: Excerpt from a group’s common work sheet.
Figure 5: Average values of the students’ discourse in
relation to their final scores for mastering the course in a
10 point system.
Figure 5 reflects the average values of the
students’ discourse in relation to their final scores
for mastering the course in a 10 point system.
The chart shows the students’ creativity in
developing the living theory in relation to the quality
of mastering the course. When the students’
performance improved creativity increased.
However, the creativity of the students whose
performance was outstanding (assessed by 10
points) was slightly lower than the creativity of these
students who had scored 9 or 8 points. Perfect
performance does not always mean high creativity.
It testifies to the fact that innovative ideas do not
always come from excellent students, and this
applies also to business.
The students’ motivation was characterized by
the sequence of their involvement in group work and
the number of procedures performed. In order to
complete all the 12 procedures in each learning
cycle and apply for a consultation to the e-study
consultant, each student had to turn to the study
material in the e-learning environment at least 4
times. In each learning cycle, he /she was motivated
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
184

in face-to-face classes and by e-mail. Figure 6
reflects the change in the students’ performance
depending on the sequence of his/her involvement in
group work. ”0“– means that the students did not get
involved in the discussions of his/her group mates’
ideas at all during the course.
Figure 6: Students’ performance depending on the
sequence of the students’ involvement in group work.
”1“– means that these students were the first to get
involved in group work,”2“– they were the second,
etc.”0“– means that the students did not get involved in
group work at all during the course.
The chart shows that on the whole the students
had completed almost all the tasks (11-12) and as
expected the last students to complete the tasks were
somewhat superficial performing on the average 9
procedures out of 12. We may conclude that active
involvement in group work in an e-learning
environment is rather homogeneous in difference to
that of the face-to-face study groups. Homogeneity
is reflected also in the chart offered in Figure 7
which shows that the number of the students’
discursive ideas in the living theory is related to the
sequence of their involvement in group work.
Figure 7: Students’ creativity depending on the sequence
of their involvement in group work.
The chart shows that on the average the students’
discursive ideas do not depend much on the
sequence of the students’ involvement in group
work. It points to their independence which is rooted
in their motivation. The hypothesis that those
students who get involved in group work rather late
would be influenced by the ideas expressed by the
more active students and thus have more ideas was
not proved. The analysis of the content of texts
written by the students showed that they did not
have the tendency to repeat the ideas expressed by
their group mates but they often either approved of
them or rejected them. There were no distinct
leaders in the groups, each group member’s work
was individual and at the same time it was connected
with the performance of other group members.
However, from all the target groups 9 students (12
%) did not participate in the discussions.
The research also revealed the fact that the
homogeneity of the students’ discourse was not
dependent on the sequence in which the groups were
formed.
Figure 8: The average values by which the students assess
the contribution of their group mates to their performance
in a 1 to 5 point system.
It was confirmed by the answers of 100 students
to the question – How much was your work
influenced by the performance of your group mates?
The chart in Figure 8 shows that on the average the
contribution of group mates to a student’s work did
not depend much on the quality of mastering the
course – the final grade. In each grade group the
grade point average was given (”0“ refers to those
students who had not managed to complete the
tasks).
The teacher of the course assessed the students’
activity, motivation and the quality of mastering the
course comparing the data obtained with those of the
previous years. He noted that there was a marked
increase in the students’ interest and activity in
comparison with the previous years. The quality of
acquiring knowledge was considerably higher this
year.
COLLABORATION TRENDS DURING ACTION RESEARCH IN AN E-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR
DEVELOPING AND ACQUIRING EFFECTIVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
185

Some criticisms of the method refer to the
subjective nature of the assessment of creativity by
method of content analysis. Novelty of ideas,
expressed by learners sometimes is hard to
distinguish.
7 CONCLUSIONS
A new method has been elaborated in the
investigation which allows evaluating the students’
creativity.
The method enables to conclude that group work
in an e-learning environment using the action
research as a learning method stimulates the
students’ motivation and increases the quality of
mastering the course. The investigation proved that
this method had several advantages in comparison
with face-to-face studies:
• Each student in the e-learning environment
works on an individual basis and his/her
performance is obvious and can easily be
assessed.
• In a discourse, creating and acquiring new
knowledge, the students are not shy to
express innovative ideas. They get
accustomed to accept and assess other
students’ ideas and include them in their own
statements.
• Action research e-learning groups are
relatively homogenous in respect to
performance
• The students’ creativity increases if the
student improves his performance and his/her
average score is 9 out of 10 points. Students
having a maximum score of 10 out of 10
points are less creative.
• The students’ creativity does not depend
much on the sequence of their involvement in
group work. Students whose involvement is a
little delayed create more discursive ideas.
Majority of students found the method as useful (83
%) and recommended it for application to other
courses as well (83 %)
REFERENCES
Boyer, N., Maher, P., Kirkman, S., 2006. Transformative
Learning in Online Settings : The Use of Self-
Direction, Metacognition, and Collaborative Learning.
Journal of Transformative Education 4(335).
De Bono, E., 1985. Six thinking hats, The McGuaig Group
Inc.
Dewey, J., 1997. Democracy and Education. New York,
Free Press.
Dick, B., 2009. Theory in action research. Action research
7(5): 5 - 12.
Geidžs, N. L., Berliners D. C., 1998. Pedagoģiskā
Psiholoģija, Riga, Zvaigzne ABC.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1967. The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago,
Aldine.
Hansen, D., 2002. Dewey's conception of an environment
for teaching and learning. Curriculum Inquiry 32(3):
267 - 280.
Herington, C., Weaven, S., 2008. Action Research and
Reflection on Student Approaches to Learning in
Large First Year University Classes. The Australian
Educational Researcher 35(3): 111-136.
Kapenieks, J., Jirgensons, M., 2008. Context sensitive m-
learning objects to correspond to content-level
requirements. Interactive Computer Aided Learning
ICL 2008, Kassel University Press.
Keiny, S., 2008. ‘Conceptual change’ as both
revolutionary and evolutionary process. Teachers and
Teaching: theory and practice 14(1): 61–72.
Kenneth, S., 2010., Action research as a sustainable
endeavor for teachers : Does initial training lead to
further action? Action Research 8(315).
Kevin Barge, J., Fairhurst, G., 2008. Living Leadership: A
Systemic Constructionist Approach. Leadership 4(3):
227-251
Lewin, K., 1946., Action Research and minority problems.
Journal of Social Issues 2(4): 34-46.
Maurer, M., Githens, P., 2010. Toward a reframing of
action research for human resource and organization
development. Action research 8(315).
Mitnik, R., Recabarren, M., Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A.,
2009. Collaborative Robotic Instruction: A Graph
Teaching Experience. Computers & Education 53(2):
330-342.
Purg, P., Zakrajšek, S., 2009). New technologies for
sustainable teaching and learning: A case study from
Slovenia on diminishing student workload and
increasing motivation throught ICT. Journal of
Teacher Education for Sustainability 11(2): 31-40.
Rust, F., Clark C., 2006. How to do action research in
your classroom. from http://www.teachersnetwork.org
/tnli/Action_Research_Booklet.pdf.
Salmon, G., 2002. E-tivities. London, Kogan Page.
Salomon, G., 1997.
Distributed cognitions: Psychological
and educational considerations. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Shachar, H., & Sharan, S., 1994. Talking, Relating,
Achieving: Effects of Cooperative Learning and
Whole-Class Instruction. Cognition and Instruction
12: 313 - 353.
Whitehead, J., 2009. Generating living theory and
understanding in action research studies. Action
Research 7(1): 85 - 99.
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
186