Design Patterns for Collaborative Games Supporting

Evaluating Collaborative Learning Processes

Cesar Collazos

, Carina González

and Luís Guerrero

Department of Systems, Universidad of Cauca, Popayán, Colombia

Department of Engineering of Systems and Automatic, and Computer Architecture,

University of La Laguna, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain

University of Costa Rica, San Ramón, Costa Rica

Abstract. Several researchers in the area of collaborative work take the quality

of the group outcome as a success criterion. Nevertheless, recent findings are

giving more importance to the quality of the collaboration process itself. This

paper presents a set of patterns the main objective of which is to evaluate and

monitor the collaborative learning process. Also we describe a software tool we

have implemented based on these set of patterns and how the patterns proposed

have helped us to evaluate and monitor the collaborative learning processes.

1 Introduction

If the collaboration process is improved, the quality and quantity of topics learned by

the group could be increased. As Ewing mentions, it is necessary to know more in

detail the process that occur when a group of people is trying to solve a problematic

situation in a collaborative way [1]. It is necessary to provide a support for the design

of educative activities, and to have a set of appropriate elements for the development

of educative frameworks, especially those environments that support monitoring and

evaluation of collaboration processes. This paper presents a set of patterns that pro-

vide guidelines to design the necessary evaluation mechanisms for supporting the

collaborative learning processes. Next section briefly describes the model we pro-

pose, describing some of the analysis patterns we have proposed. Then a software

tools based on games we have implemented. Finally we present some conclusion and

further work.

2 Our Proposal

In order to improve the process of collaboration it is first necessary to evaluate this

process with a certain degree of accuracy so that different learning processes taken on

by diverse groups of apprentices can be contrasted. Based on this premise, next sec-

tions present a system of patterns which includes aspects of the design of collabora-

Collazos C., González C. and Guerrero L..

Design Patterns for Collaborative Games Supporting Evaluating Collaborative Learning Processes.

DOI: 10.5220/0004600500340046

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Interaction Design in Educational Environments (IDEE-2013), pages 34-46

ISBN: 978-989-8565-65-5

 2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

tive activities, as well as of the evaluating and monitoring process. These patterns

characterize the most common situations when collaborative learning activities are

used. Thirteen patterns compose the analysis pattern's system: activities, group of

apprentices, facilitator, apprentice, positive interdependence, nature of the task,

shared objects, coordination, integration, conflicts and making decisions, evaluation,

process outcome, and feedback.

2.1 Activities Pattern

Defining the CSCL activities, it is necessary to specify the group of people, the re-

quired conditions of collaboration, the nature of the activity, the type, and the mecha-

nisms that provide positive interdependences and coordination.

Name of the Pattern: Activities.

Problem: Not all the activities executed by the group are CSCL activities.

Context: In collaborative environments, diverse activities are proposed so students

can achieve the desired results, that is, acquire knowledge through the development

of a collaborative task.

Description: The designed activities specify the work the members of the group must

perform during the collaborative task. Such activities can be designed with methods

that promote a collaborative learning environment using computer tools, such as the

environment proposed by Gallardo et al. [2].

Solution: Plan the activities in order for the students to change from an individual

perspective to a group one. That is, move the group of students from an exploration

and analysis scheme to a scheme of sharing information, discussion and consensus.

The activity must be designed so that the only way to solve it is through the collabo-

ration of all the members of the group. Therefore, its design has to imply elements

that will guarantee positive interdependence and good collaboration schemes. It is

necessary to specify and clearly define the activity, describing its nature, type, people

in charge, and desirable conditions of collaboration.

2.2 Group of Apprentices Pattern

The roles inside the collaborative learning groups must be carefully defined.

Name of the Pattern: Group of apprentices.

Problem: Being a member of a group is not sufficient to promote good learning in-

teractions.

Context: In CSCL activities, groups of people are associated to the functions under-

taken to execute a particular activity.

Description: Specify the roles of the participants in a collaborative activity. It is

important to differentiate the role of the Facilitator and that of the Apprentices. What

needs to be done in this component is to analyze how to define or identify effective

mechanisms that can help in the selection and distribution of the work teams. The

importance of the definition of roles in collaborative environments resides in that

different users possess different levels of knowledge, as well as access to different

information sources.

Solution: For the collaborative activity to be successful, it is essential to clearly de-

fine the tasks to be undertaken by each one of the members of the activity. It is neces-

sary to define coordination policies in order to provide different interface mechanisms

to each type of user for effective decision making. In a Collaborative scenario, alt-

hough the phrase team cognition suggests something that happens inside people’s

heads, teams are very much situated in the real world, and there are a number of ac-

tivities that have to happen out in that world for teams to be able to think and work

together. This is not just spoken communication. Depending on the circumstances,

effective team cognition includes activities such as using environmental cues to estab-

lish a common ground of understanding, seeing who is around and what they are

doing, monitoring the state of artifacts in a shared work setting, noticing other peo-

ple’s gestures and what they are referring to, and so on [4].

2.3 Facilitator Pattern

The facilitator plays a key role in the collaborative learning activity. The whole learn-

ing activity depends on this person.

Name of the Pattern: facilitator.

Problem: In a collaborative learning context, someone is responsible for the success

of the activities.

Context: The facilitator plays a key role in the design and execution of collaborative

learning activities. He/she must structure the activities and must be able to monitor

the group process.

Description: The facilitator is the person in charge of: defining the initial work con-

ditions, planning the activity and their objectives, defining the conditions of success,

among others. In general, the facilitator is the one who creates interesting learning

environments and activities that link the new information to the previous knowledge

providing opportunities for the collaborative work and offering the apprentices a

variety of real tasks. The facilitator must have the ability to determine when and how

to intervene.

Solution: For an effective decision making process inside the groups, it is essential to

define coordination policies. Making effective the collaborative learning process

requires following certain guidelines and defining certain roles inside the group.

However the sole definition of these guidelines and roles do not guarantee that the

learning will be done in the most efficient way. It is necessary to define a collabora-

tion scheme that allows the instructor to know when and how to intervene in order to

improve the collaboration process. The facilitator is responsible to define the groups

and the roles.

2.4 Apprentice Pattern

The apprentice is the most important element in the collaborative learning activity.

The whole learning activity is centered on a group of apprentices.

Name of the Pattern: apprentice.

Problem: In a collaborative learning context, someone must obtain certain

knowledge or some kind of skill.

Context: The apprentice is the person who must be subject to interact with other

students in order to acquire the knowledge the collaborative activity proposes.

Description: The apprentice has a key role in the development of the collaborative

activity. He/she is responsible for the completion of the activities that will achieve the

goals and for the solving of the problems define by the Facilitator. His/her main ob-

jective is the cooperative gathering of knowledge about a problematic situation.

Solution: The different roles of the apprentices must be specified during the collabo-

rative activity. Each group member must be assigned a role, which can actually be

executed. The roles must not be fixed; the roles of the apprentices must be rotated

while the activity is ongoing because the exchange of roles is very positive in collab-

orative learning activities [8].

2.5 Positive Interdependence Pattern

Positive interdependence is the heart of collaborative activities. These interdepend-

ences define the collaboration process and transform group work into teamwork.

Name of the Pattern: positive interdependence.

Problem: In a collaborative learning activity just putting people around the activity

does not imply a collaboration activity among people; it is necessary to structure the

activity incorporating elements like positive interdependence.

Context: Positive interdependences are a fundamental aspect in the Collaborative

Learning scenarios, unfortunately there is a lack of support in order to determine the

best way to include them in those kinds of scenarios.

Description: As Johnson et al. [9] mention, the essence of a cooperative group is the

development and maintenance of positive interdependence among team members.

Being a member of a group is not sufficient to promote higher achievement; there has

to exist positive interdependence among all the group members. It is a key feature

that has been emphasized by scholars concerned primarily with promoting students’

academic achievement and cognitive development [10].

Solution: Design activities that permit to foster different kinds of positive interde-

pendencies among members of the group [11]. High positive interdependence within

a cooperative group means the group members feel personally responsible for con-

tributing their efforts to accomplish the group goals. They are also aware there are

negative consequences when failing to do one’s own part. Johnson et al., have de-

fined 9 types of positives interdependencies (goal, role, outside enemy, resource,

identity, reward, fantasy, task, environmental)[9], therefore, specify the task including

the larger part of the positive interdependencies.

2.6 Nature of the Task Pattern

The characteristics of the task in some way define the degree of interaction that can

exist among the group members.

Name of the Pattern: Nature of the task.

Problem: In a collaborative learning activity the lack of information about the objec-

tives, the rules and the collaboration environment can result in that a given task not be

properly undertaken.

Context: In a computer supported collaborative learning environment, the purpose of

the proposed tasks must be that a group undertakes them as a collaborative effort.

Description: Specifies the characteristics of the collaborative activity. The character-

istics of the task in some way define the degree of interaction that can exist among the

group members. The collective development of an activity requires the integration of

all participants, and therefore, it is necessary that the apprentices be very aware of the

steps that are needed to be followed to achieve the objectives and of their role within

this process.

Solution: When defining the nature of the task, the following aspects must be taken

into consideration: (a) Period of collaboration. (b) Setting of collaboration (c) Type of

activity (d) Rules. (e) Nature of Collaborators (f) Goals. (g) Conditions of collabora-

tion.

2.7 Shared Objects Pattern

Shared objects represent the space where the participants exchange information and

represent any important element in CSCL scenarios.

Name of the Pattern: Shared objects.

Problem: In a collaborative learning activity it is very important to understand the

activities the other members of the group are performing. This aspect in many cases is

considered as the group awareness.

Context: Collaborative learning environments allow students to work together, shar-

ing virtual spaces where to interact.

Description: Shared objects represent the space where the participants exchange

information. These environments cannot reproduce all the actions that take place in a

space of face-to-face interaction. That is why collaborative learning environments

must provide the means to facilitate the necessary information for effective decision

making in a problematic situation. Awareness is a concept related to the mechanisms

that guarantee that people can understand or be aware of the process itself and of the

interaction among all the participants of a given activity.

Solution: The notion of what is going on within the group as a whole represents a

true collaborative learning concept. Thus, it is necessary to provide a representation

of the group members within the working space, so all of the group can have the

following information:

o Where are the other members of the group?

o What are the other members doing to complete the task?

o What have the other members done?

o What will the other members do to solve the task?

2.8 Coordination Pattern

In a collaborative setting it is important to define mechanisms to organize the work

that must be performed among the group members.

Name of the Pattern: Coordination.

Problem: In collaborative learning environments, that have an educational objective,

coordination must serve as help to define the types of work, allowing all members to

have access to the shared knowledge or carry out the collaborative activities.

Context: Coordination is a term used to describe a number of actions or mechanisms

available in a shared environment, whose objective is to manage the interdependence

among the participants.

Description: Coordination is related to the support, the definition and the execution

of the group and individual tasks. In defining the tasks, procedure rules are estab-

lished. In executing the tasks, assistance is required not only in terms of instruments

but also regarding information and concepts. There are many cooperative systems that

provide guidelines for the structuring of social interactions within the context of

shared spaces [12].

Solution: The environment must allow the establishment of rules of cooperation and

of procedures among the individuals, guaranteeing that all participants share the

knowledge or are committed to the collaborative task. The environment must provide

assistance to the participants in the sense that to develop a task also implies to ac-

quire, share or work in the construction of some type of knowledge. According to

Johnson et al., another aspect of the coordination has to do with in the ways of main-

taining the group stimulated, such mechanisms that incentive participation and com-

munication [13]. Guidelines must be provided that serve as help mechanisms and

which directly observe the actions that are taking place within the group; analyzing

and interpreting actions, messages and all kinds of situations that happen with the

idea of providing the necessary information for adequate decision making.

2.9 Integration Pattern

In a collaborative setting it is important to define mechanisms to provide cohesive-

ness aspects to the work performed among group members.

Name of the Pattern: Integration.

Problem: In collaborative learning environments non integrated groups do not fully

reach their objectives.

Context: The means used by the individuals to integrate into a group will character-

ize their relationship. In integrated groups, people tend to act in a coordinated way.

Description: Integration can be measured by the degree of cohesion to operate in a

coordinated way. The first step for the integration and establishment of common

goals is a mutual understanding among all group members. An integrated group is

one in which its members are committed to work and feel responsible for the group.

Solution: To provide mechanisms that facilitate understanding of the group’s objec-

tives and the means to keep participants of the collaborative activity informed of the

objectives of each activity and their responsibility towards it.

2.10 Conflicts and Making-decisions Pattern

Conflicts are very important in CSCL scenarios in order to assimilate the shared

knowledge within a group.

Name of the pattern: Conflicts and making-decisions.

Problem: In the context of collaborative learning environments, a negotiation is an

auxiliary mechanism related to the Coordination that forces apprentices to make deci-

sions about the execution of some tasks, which in turn forces them to elaborate a

solution for a proposed problem, thus promoting learning.

Context: During the collaborative learning sessions, conflicts may arise among the

group members, creating problems in the execution of the tasks.

Description: Negotiating implies discussing and deciding. In this type of interaction,

people express their opinion and allow the others to accept it. This process implies

several cognitive mechanisms such as inference, logic, deduction, etc. [14]. The deci-

sion making process requires defining and analyzing different alternative solutions

proposed by the group members, identifying a number of possible alternatives for the

execution of a collaborative work. This process is important not just for the cognitive

development of the apprentices, but also for the acquisition of social skills. Conflicts

or disagreements arise from different perspectives that bring about verbal interactions

in order to resolve the conflict. Social factors can help the group find a solution.

There is a greater possibility of this happening due to differences than because of the

need for a solution to an intense conflict. The verbal interactions generated during the

resolution are what promote learning [8].

Solution: Stahl says that collaboration requires divergence (stating of ideas) and

convergence (negotiation, synthesis, and consensus) [15]. That is why the model must

be flexible to allow negotiating mechanisms where the participants can communicate

and participate in the making of decisions.

Communication. Define mechanisms to support communication among members of

the group, such as chat boxes, messages boxes, etc. Participation. The idea is to de-

fine scenarios, where members of the group have the same opportunities to participate

in order to solve the problematic situation. The complexity of the activities must be

designed in a way that the work performed by every member of the group at least

must be the same.

2.11 Evaluation Pattern

The evaluation must function as an instrument that gives possibility to the teacher to

analyze in a critical way the collaborative activity. Also, must provide the possibility

to detect the main weakness of a certain group, in order to define some mechanisms

to support them.

Name of the Pattern: Evaluation.

Problem: There are a growing number of experiences in qualitative evaluation in

CSCL environments [18]. However, there are some open-end questions regarding the

application of qualitative methodologies in the evaluation of real situations. The first

one is the high cost that these methods imply which can make it impossible for teach-

ers to apply who are already very busy with their present classroom activities. Addi-

tionally, it has become necessary to adapt qualitative methods to new space-time

situations and computer-aided interactive ways that appear while using CSCL envi-

ronments.

Context: Evaluation in collaborative learning involves a number of actions organized

with the purpose of obtaining information about the knowledge acquired by the ap-

prentices.

Description: Evaluation in collaborative learning involves a number of actions orga-

nized with the purpose of obtaining information about the knowledge acquired by the

apprentices.

Solution: In a collaborative learning environment, it is necessary to record all of the

activities that occur within the group when solving a problematic situation. All the

mechanisms that allow the recording of all the activities should be provide, so that

they can be reconstructed after performing an in-depth analysis of messages, actions

and all kinds of events that have occurred. Basically, every collaborative application

must save and share the data obtained by the users.

2.12 Process Outcome Pattern

A collaborative learning process is typically composed of several tasks that must be

developed by the cognitive mediator or facilitator

Name of the Pattern: Process Outcome.

Problem: In a collaborative activity a series of steps occur in order to reach the final

goal.

Context: In order to understand the collaborative process, it is necessary to define,

show and evaluate it.

Description: A collaborative learning process is typically composed of several tasks

that must be developed by the cognitive mediator or facilitator, and by the group of

apprentices, defining naturally two categories of tasks. In order to evaluate the coop-

erative learning process, we divide it into three phases according to its temporal exe-

cution: pre-process, in-process and post-process [19]. Thus, pre-process tasks are

mainly coordination and strategy definition activities and post-process tasks are main-

ly work evaluation activities. Both phases, pre-process and post-process, will be ac-

compli-shed entirely by the facilitator. The group members will perform the tasks

concerning the in-process phase, to a large extent. It is here where the interactions of

cooperative work processes take place. Thus, our interest concentrates in the evalua-

tion of this stage. In order to specify this division, we present the structure of a coop-

erative learning activity identified by Johnson & Johnson in [9].

Solution: A group of indicators have been defined that allow the evaluation, to some

degree, of the collaborative process [20]. These indicators are the following: (a) Ap-

plying Strategies (b) Intra-group Cooperation; (c) Success criteria review; (d) Moni-

toring; (e) Performance.

2.13 Feedback Pattern

All the collaborative activities require receive information about the work performed.

Name of the Pattern: Feedback.

Problem: In a collaborative activity it is necessary to define mechanism that permit

to understand the activities performed.

Context: In a collaborative learning environment the feedback that is given is essen-

tial for the success of a collaborative activity.

Description: Feedback allows one to identify the weak points of each group with

intention to improve them. After analyzing the collaborative process, some of the

most important weaknesses in a work group can be determined in order to improve

them, establishing new mechanism that involve developing new collaborative activi-

ties that enable to focus specifically on the weakness in a group.

Solution: In a collaborative learning environment all the necessary means should be

provided so that the people evaluating can determine accurately how and when to

intervene. Once the collaborative process analysis has been done, the environment

should provide the information needed about the weak points of the

group. Underlying nearly all-collaborative learning experiences is a distinctive set of

assumptions about what teaching is what learning is, and what the nature of

knowledge is.

In the following section we present a developed software tool, taking into account the

Patterns previously described.

3 Example: Memonet

This game is based on the classic “Memorize Game”, which goal is to find the equal

pair within several covered cards (Figure 1). This is repeated successively until there

are no covered cards remaining.

Activities: The goal of the game is that four people try to find four equal cards from

an initial set of ten different cards.

Group of Apprentices: This game is played by four persons selected in a random way.

Facilitator: There is a person who is in charge of the activity design and will be the

responsible of the monitoring and evaluation of the activity.

Apprentice: All players have the same set of cards but ordered in different ways. A

person draws one card each time. So, they need to collaborate in order to solve the

problematic situation.

Positive Interdependences: There is a Positive Resource Interdependence, because

every member of the group has only 25% of the total information to solve the prob-

lematic situation.

Fig. 1. MemoNet user interface (in Spanish).

 Nature of the Task: (1) Period of collaboration: it is expected the activity will be

performed in a session of 2 or 3 hours. (2) Settings: The game is played in a dis-

tributed fashion, with communication allowed through a chat tool. (3) Type of ac-

tivity: Problem-solving. (4) Rules: Players are given very few details about the

game. Participants while playing must discover the rest of the rules. They also

have to develop shared strategies to succeed. (5) Nature of collaborators: peer-to-

peer interaction. (6) Goals: the software presents a strict goal positive interde-

pendence because team members need each other to succeed. The only way to

reach the goal is through the team collaboration where the participants can define,

communicate and negotiate different strategies in order to solve the problematic

situation. (7) Conditions of collaboration: Computer-mediated collaboration.

 Shared Objects: There is a space where the player places his name to be able to

connect himself to the server. It provides a virtual shared environment in which

the participants can solve the problematic situation in a collaborative way.

 Coordination: All players have the same set of cards but ordered in different

ways. A person draws one card each time. So, they need to collaborate in order to

solve the problematic situation. The card is removed when the four players have

found it. The game continues until all cards are uncovered.

 Integration: When a user clicks on a card, this one turns and appears as it is de-

picted in figure 2. If it is un-selected two events could occur: if no success, all the

cards will be given back: if success, the cards will disappear from the screen.

 Conflict and Making-decision: Because each participant has a partial view of the

game, the player must interact with his/her peers in order to solve the problematic

situation. In this way participants need to collaborate.

Evaluation: The application records every message sent by any member of the

group. Along with the message, it registers the time of occurrence and sender. The

tool also registers the start and finish game time.

Outcomes: Use of strategies, intra-group cooperation, checking the success crite-

ria, monitoring and the ability of providing help.

Fig. 2. Teacher’s user interface of MemoNet.

Feedback: Figure 2 illustrates the teacher interface. In the chat area it is also clearly

possible to watch all the messages sent by the players. Players can send a message to

any of her peers or to all of them. Also we can observe in the data area the letter se-

lected by each player in the last play. Messages sent by the teacher to the players are

written on an independent window. They appear to the receiver as mechanical alerts

of the program to a particular fact.

4 Conclusions and Further Work

Understanding the collaborative process of learning in groups is an interesting re-

search field. In the case of collaborative activities, performing a task well implies not

only having the skills to execute the task, but also collaborating well with teammates

to do it. This complexity offers opportunities to develop tools and techniques for

improving collaboration. One way to evaluate the effectiveness of a group is through

monitoring and observing the interaction between their members while working. In

order to achieve predefined collaborative learning objectives it is necessary to design

a group process that allows to monitor it and to evaluate it. It is also necessary to

understand how the apprentices work and they learn. If the group work process is

improved, the quality and quantity of the group learning will be increased. In this

paper we try to describe mechanisms for supporting the design of collaborative learn-

ing activities, and to show a set of appropriate elements for the development of edu-

cative frameworks, especially environments that support monitoring and evaluation of

collaboration processes.

Several conditions regarding group work have been investigated, such as the

composition of the group, individual pre-requisites, characteristics of the task at hand,

and the context of collaboration. Thus, it is important not only to consider the design

of the structure of the collaborative environment and the sum of activities that define

the collaborative task, but also to understand the process of collaboration that takes

place when developing a collaborative activity. One way to understand this process is

through modeling it. On the other hand, one of the most important aspects in evaluat-

ing a collaborative learning process is defining clear criteria for evaluating such pro-

cess. An improvement in the collaboration process should provide higher quality

about the learned knowledge. Based on this premise, this paper presents a set of pat-

terns that include aspects related to designing collaborative learning activities, as well

as for evaluating and monitoring such processes.

References

1. Ewing, J., & Miller, D., A framework for evaluating computer supported collaborative

learning. EducationalTechnology and Society, Vol. 5, No.1, pp.112-18, 2002

2. Gallardo, T., Guerrero, L., Collazos, C., Pino, J., & Ochoa, S., Supporting JIGSAW-type

Collaborative Learning. Proc. Published by IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos,

CA, USA. Hawaii, January, 2003.

3. Dillenbourg, P., What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg(Ed) Col-

laborative-Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, pp.1-19, Oxford: Elsevier,

1999.

4. Hutchins, E. (1996) Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

5. Gutwin, C., and Greenberg, S. (2004) The Importance of Awareness for Team Cognition in

Distributed Collaboration. In E. Salas and S. M. Fiore (Editors). Team Cognition: Under-

standing the Factors that Drive Process and Performance, pp. 177-201, Washington:APA

Press

6. Kagan, S., Cooperative Learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning,

1992.

7. Collazos, C., Guerrero, L., Llaña, M., & Oetzel, J., Gender: an influential factor in the

collaborative work process. ICNEE, pp.7-11, Lugano, Switzerland, 1992.

8. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blake, A. & O’malley, C., The evolution of research on collab-

orative learning. In Spada, H. and Reimann, P. (Eds.), Learning in Humans and Machines:

Towards an interdisciplinary learning science. pp-189-211. Oxford: Elsevier, 1995.

9. Johnson, P. M., & Tjahjono, D., Improving software quality through computer supported

collaborative review. Proceedings of ECSCW’93, pp.61-76, 1993.

10. Slavin, R., Madden, N. & Stevens, R., Cooperative learning models for the 3 R's. Educa

tional Leadership. Vol. 47, No.4, pp.22-28, 1990

11. Collazos, C., Guerrero, L., Pino, J., A Computational Model to Support the Monitoring of

the Collaborative Learning Process. Advanced Technology for Learning 1(3), pp. 174-180,

2004.

12. Farnham, S., Chesley, H., Mcghee, D., & Kawal, R., Structured Online Interactions: Im-

proving the Decision-Making of Small Discussion Groups. In: Proceedings of Computer-

Supported Cooperative Work-CSCW´00, pp. 299-308, Philadelphia, USA, 2000.

13. Johnson, D., Johnson, E., & Smith, K., Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivi-

ty, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.4, School of Education and Human Devel-

opment, George Washington University, 1991.

14. BARROS, L., Support to Distributed Environments for Cooperative Learning (In Portu-

guese). PhD. Thesis, COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1994.

15. Stahl, G., Reflections on WebGuide: Seven Issues for the Next Generation of Collaborative

Knowledge Building Environments. Proceedings of Computer Supported for Collaborative

Learning, Stanford, USA, pp. 600-610, 1999.

16. Delvin, K., & Rosemberg, D., Language at work: analyzing communication breakdown to

inform system design. CSLI Lecture Notes, No.66, 1996.

17. STAHL, G., Supporting knowledge negotiation in virtual classrooms. Technical Report,

College of Information Science & Technology. Drexel University. 2002.

18. Wassin, B., Guribye, F., & Morch, A., Project DoCTA: Design and use of collaborative

tele-learning artifacts. Bergen: Pedagogisk Informasjonsvitenskap, Univesitetet i Bergen,

2000.

19. Collazos, C., Guerrero, L., Pino, J., & Ochoa, S., Evaluating collaborative learning pro-

cesses. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2440, Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, pp. 203-

221, 2002.

20. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T., Dennis Adams, Mary Hamm, II Edition, The Handbook

of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. David Jonassen Editors, pp.

1017-1045, 1996