The JuxtaLearn Process in the Learning of Maths’ Tricky Topics

Practices, Results and Teacher’s Perceptions

Sara Cruz

, José Alberto Lencastre

, Clara Coutinho

, Rui José

, Gill Clough

and Anne Adams

Institute of Education, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal

Centro Algoritmi University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800-058, Guimarães, Portugal

Institute of Educational Technology, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, U.K.

Keywords: Threshold Concepts, Tricky Topics, Technology-enhanced Learning, Creative Video Editing.

Abstract: This paper presents a study developed in the framework of a training course for teachers of STEM areas on

the JuxtaLearn process. This process, divided into eight steps, aims to improve student understanding of

threshold concepts by planning, editing and sharing creative videos in CLIPIT. CLIPIT is an online platform

for collaborative learning designed to support the JuxtaLearn process. We describe the training of eight

teachers, and the subsequent supervision of one of them, a math teacher, made to understand how the

JuxtaLearn process was applied with her students. We collect qualitative data through the observation of the

teacher's work. Also, quantitative data through initial and final quizzes applied to the students, to understand

their level of understanding of the tricky topic, automatic records on CLIPIT and a satisfaction

questionnaire applied to the eight teachers to assess the ease of use with the CLIPIT. The results show that

teachers were able to put into practice the eight steps of the JuxtaLearn process and suggest that students’

engagement in creating creative videos helped them in overcoming tricky math topics.

1 INTRODUCTION

The use of video editing as an educational approach

in the school environment has raised considerable

interest, due to the opportunity of collaborative

construction of knowledge by students (Lencastre et

al., 2015). The JuxtaLearn Process uses an approach

built on creative video making by students,

collaborative learning and reflection to enable

teachers and students to overcome the barriers

presented by Threshold Concepts. By engaging

student curiosity in difficult-to-learn STEM subjects

(science, technology, engineering and mathematics),

JuxtaLearn supports students along a creative

process to a deep and thorough understanding of

topics that have been identified by their teachers as

particularly problematic (Adams et al., 2013; Adams

and Clough, 2015; Adams, Hartnett, and Clough,

2015).

In this paper, we use the term Tricky Topic to

refer to these Threshold Concepts, because they are

complex concepts identified by teachers we worked

with based on their professional practice and may

not correspond to the Threshold Concepts already

documented in the literature according to Meyer and

Land (2006). For more info about Threshold

Concepts and Tricky Topics, please confer Cruz et

al. (2016).

This study reports on the application of the

Juxtalearn process as part of a teachers' training

course. Teachers were tutored in the application of

the JuxtaLearn process and would then use the

process with their students. As part of this study we

wanted to evaluate the application of the Juxtalearn

process in these real contexts. To support the

Juxtalearn process, including the sharing of videos

by students, the Juxtalearn project developed the

CLIPIT, a learning collaborative platform

[http://clipit.es/uminho/] (Llinás et al., 2014). We

also wanted to understand how teachers used the

CLIPIT and the extent to which video editing has

helped to improve the learning of Tricky Topics of a

group of students.

We divided this text into five sections. In

section 2, we present a framework for the

JuxtaLearn project and the CLIPIT platform. Section

3 describes the adopted methodology and the

procedures for data collection. In section 4, we

present the data collected, the CLIPIT tools that

assisted the teacher in JuxtaLearn process and we

show the main reflections on the work carried out. In

section 5 we present the conclusions and suggestions

for future work.

Cruz, S., Lencastre, J., Coutinho, C., José, R., Clough, G. and Adams, A.

The JuxtaLearn Process in the Learning of Maths’ Tricky Topics - Practices, Results and Teacher’s Perceptions.

DOI: 10.5220/0006327503870394

In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) - Volume 1, pages 387-394

ISBN: 978-989-758-239-4

387

2 BACKGROUD

2.1 The JuxtaLearn Process

The JuxtaLearn process consists in eight steps

(Figure 1) and is user-centred.

Figure 1: The JuxtaLearn Process.

In step 1 (Identify), the teacher identifies the Tricky

Topics based in his/her previous experience with

students. Each Tricky Topic can be divided into

smaller Stumbling Blocks.

In step 2 (Demonstrate), the teacher creates one

or more Standard Teaching Activities (STA) around

the Stumbling Blocks.

In step 3 (Interpret), students perform a

diagnostic quiz to determine their level of

understanding about the Tricky Topic.

In step 4 (Perform), students create a storyboard

to explain the Tricky Topic. This is followed, in step

5 (Compose), by the process of video editing and in

step 6 (Share), by sharing those videos.

The goal of step 7 (Discuss), is to promote

discussion among students, allowing the social

construction of knowledge and promoting the

consolidation of the concept.

In step 8 (Review), students return to the quiz

from step 3 to re-assess their understanding of the

Tricky Topic. The comparison between the results

obtained before and after the video creation provide

a strong evidence of the level of understanding

developed as part of the learning activity.

2.2 The CLIPIT Platform

The CLIPIT platform was developed to support the

collaborative activities of the Juxtalearn process.

CLIPIT offers two separate interfaces, one for

students and the other for teachers. Teachers can

access to three interactive tools: (i) Tricky Topic

Tool, (ii) Problem Distiller Tool, and the (iii) Quiz

Tool. The student can access the information

provided by the teacher, share materials with

colleagues, communicate with classmates and/or the

teacher through forums or internal email.

The Tricky Topic Tool was designed to help

identifying Tricky Topics and break them down into

Stumbling Blocks, using examples from practice to

illustrate the sort of problems students have, and

examples of teaching activities which help explain

those Stumbling Blocks (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The Tricky Topic Tool.

After registering a Tricky Topic in the Tricky Topic

Tool, the teacher can then describe the students’

problems with that Tricky Topic using the Problem

Distiller Tool (Figure 3). It offers the teachers a set

of examples of common problems that students face

when trying to understand a topic.

Figure 3: The Problem Distiller Tool.

The problems referred in the Problem Distiller Tool

(Figure 3) are organised around four categories: (1)

terminology, (2) intuitive beliefs, (3) incomplete

pre-knowledge and (4) complementary concepts.

Regarding the terminology, the problems

already listed in Problem Distiller Tool are: One

term refer to multiple concepts, scientific use of

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

388

everyday language, obscure scientific terminology,

one concept has many scientific names, and one

term refers to various concepts.

The problems of understanding can also result

from intuitive beliefs. The Problem Distiller Tool

provides a set of options that help to structure the

reasoning of the teacher in regard to each particular

problem: key characteristic conveys group

membership, flawed causal reasoning and weak

human-like or world-like analogy.

An incomplete pre-knowledge can also give

rise to problems of understanding. The Problem

Distiller Tool presents two options for this type of

problem: underpinning understandings and

understanding of Scientific method, process and

practice.

The difficulty in complementary concepts, on

Problem Distiller Tool essential concepts, can also

be a problem for the understanding of the Tricky

Topic by the student.

With the Quiz Tool, the teacher can create the

questionnaires about Tricky Topics and make them

available to students (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Assistant to the creation of a quiz.

A JuxtaLearn Quiz is linked to a Tricky Topic and

its Stumbling Blocks so that when students take the

quiz online, gaps in their understanding are revealed.

Each quiz question is weighted based on how many

Stumbling Blocks it addresses, and the student

results are then displayed as a Radar chart

visualization which makes it easy to identify the

problem areas (Figure 5).

This radar representation allows the teacher to

analyse the level of understanding of the student in

regard to the concepts presented in the quiz. It can

thus support the teacher in planning an intervention

in the classroom that helps the student to overcome

those difficulties. As we can observe in Figure 5, the

student was only able to answer correctly a small

part of the questions involving operation priorities

when using addition, subtraction, multiplication, and

division.

Figure 5: Example of a Radar obtained in CLIPIT.

For the creation of activities and their respective

tasks, CLIPIT offers teachers an activity assistant

(Figure 6).

Figure 6: Assistant to the CLIPIT for the creation of

activities.

The teacher has the flexibility to adjust the activities

to the available time and student’s level. In CLIPIT

students can answer quizzes about the Tricky Topic,

upload a storyboard, a video or other documents that

support the work they performed. In this process of

sharing and collaborative construction, students can

improve their awareness about their own strengths

and areas of improvement. Videos and quizzes can

also be shared in the communal space of the school

to promote engagement around those videos with a

broader community. Using a mobile application,

students can rate, create comments or simply

bookmark videos (Otero et al., 2013).

The students also have space for discussion with

other members of the group or classmates. The

teacher has thus the possibility to see what students

share, launch discussions on a topic, follow the

development of the student’s work and offer them

feedback about improvements in any of the steps in

the process (Llinás et al., 2014).

The JuxtaLearn Process in the Learning of Maths’ Tricky Topics - Practices, Results and Teacher’s Perceptions

389

3 METHOD

3.1 The Training Course

To promote JuxtaLearn’s learning process, we have

developed a training course for teachers of STEM

areas. The objectives were:

 To promote the teacher's reflection on creative

video editing to understanding the bordering

concepts of STEM areas.

 To identify common Tricky Topics associated

with STEM areas.

 To understand the difficulties that students face

in the teaching-learning process of STEM

areas.

 To check the level of the students' learning

about concepts considered complex in STEM

areas.

 To motivate teachers, making them aware of

the potentialities of the JuxtaLearn process.

The training course had a duration of 25 hours.

During eight sessions, we presented the advantages

with concrete examples of resources already

developed within the scope of the Juxtalearn project.

All activities carried out by teachers and students

were supported by CLIPIT.

3.2 Data Collection

We collected a broad range of data during the

training course: questionnaires, direct observation,

automatic recordings on CLIPIT. The training

course was accomplished by eight teachers. To

illustrate the process and present the results achieved

by students, we selected as an example one of the

Tricky Topics called “numerical expressions with

rational numbers not negatives”.

Based on their teaching practice, teachers wrote

the tricky topic in the Tricky Topic Tool. With the

support of the Problem Distiller Tool, teachers were

encouraged to think about the problems that students

usually have in a Tricky Topic. Throughout this

process, teachers created one or more activities in

CLIPIT with tasks for students to perform. The

diagnostic quiz and the final quiz were created by

teachers and answered by students in the CLIPIT.

All these data were recorded in CLIPIT and

subsequently analysed.

The assessment of the students’ evolution in

regard to their level of understanding about the

Tricky Topic was based on quantitative data, more

specifically through the comparison between the

results obtained by each student in the diagnostic

quiz and in the final quiz. These questionnaires are

connected to the Tricky Topic and to their

Stumbling Blocks, so each question on the quiz is

designed to enable us to evaluate the knowledge in

at least one of the Stumbling Blocks.

Following the guidelines of Bogdan and Biklen

(2007), and to protect the identity of the learners

involved, we named each teacher by Ti – teacher of

order i (i=1, …, 8). The perception of teachers in

relation to how the process of video editing has

contributed to the understanding of the Tricky Topic

were based on qualitative data, collected during the

training sessions through direct observation.

At the end of the process, the data collection

included a Satisfaction Questionnaire to all teachers,

the System Usability Scale (SUS) from Brooke

(1996). This questionnaire evaluates the teachers'

satisfaction with the platform and the ease of use.

The questionnaire consists of 10 questions, 5 in the

affirmative and 5 in the negative, with a Five-Point

Likert Scale, where 1 is "strongly disagree" and 5 is

"completely agree". In this questionnaire, the

evaluation is made by an average score within the

range of 0 - 100 points.

Based on the data collected and the theoretical

frameworks we made a content analysis (Bardin,

2013), which we will describe below (very

succinctly).

3.3 Participants

We had eight STEM teachers attending the training

course, all females, aged between 36 and 51 years

old.

4 RESULTS

The training course began with a contextualization

of the JuxtaLearn process. We then presented the

CLIPIT and its role as a learning platform. We

provided the teachers with access to CLIPIT and we

explained them how they could create the activities

and tasks for their students. Next, we inform about

the assessment process of the training course.

As a motivation to attend our training course, the

teachers said that they want to “learn how to use the

CLIPIT” (T2, T4, T6) and then “teaching their

students to use it” (T1). While teachers of subjects

“that presents many complex concepts for the

majority of the students” (T8), wish to learn how to

use a new “methodology that will help the students

(…) in understanding complex concepts” (T5), with

“innovative approaches” (T8).

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

390

4.1 CLIPIT Tools

Teachers used the Tricky Topic Tool to insert the

Tricky Topics and their Stumbling Blocks in the

CLIPIT. For example, for the Tricky Topic

“numerical expressions with not negative rational

numbers”, teachers identified the following

Stumbling Blocks: subtraction of rational numbers,

addition of rational numbers, multiplication of

rational numbers, division of rational numbers and

the priorities of operations.

The Problem Distiller Tool helped the teachers to

reflect on the causes of the students’ problems with

the Tricky Topic. According to the data collected,

the students usually have problems in understanding

this concept because they have: “Difficulty in

applying the priorities of numeric expressions:

Students have difficulty in simplifying powers in the

first place, then calculate what is in parentheses;

recognize the priority of multiplication and division

in relation to the addition and subtraction;

recognize that when they arise multiplications and

divisions or additions and subtractions must be

carried out in the order in which they appear from

left to right” (P7, P9, P10).

Teachers have made use of CLIPIT QUIZZES to

create a questionnaire on the identified Tricky

Topic. The questions could be: “check box”,

“multiple choice”, “numeric” and “true or false”. For

the Tricky Topic “numerical expressions with not

negative rational numbers”, teachers have created

thirteen questions. For each question, the teacher had

to assign a degree of difficulty, and each one of

these questions had to be connected to (at least) one

of the Stumbling Blocks (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Screen of CLIPIT with part of the quiz created.

To deliver tasks to their students, teachers have

created in the activity wizard of CLIPIT one or more

activities. There, students created tasks with

different periods of start and end in accordance with

the JuxtaLearn procedure and the working times of

students. This period is flexible and can be adjusted

in CLIPIT. For the work with students on the Tricky

Topic “numerical expressions with not negative

rational numbers”, teachers created three activities,

with different tasks that allowed guiding the work of

the students. In Figure 8, we present one of those

activities.

Figure 8: Print Screen with part of a quiz.

Based on the results obtained in the quiz the teachers

divided the students into working groups.

4.2 Students Outcomes

Applying a Flipped Teaching approach (Newman et

al., 2016), the students started by exploring the

materials shared by teachers about the Tricky Topic

and the respective Stumbling Blocks. The students

were given a week to study and to ask questions to

the teacher (if they wanted to). They then performed

the quiz. Based on this diagnosis, the students,

organised in groups, created storyboards and

instructional videos on the topics.

For the Tricky Topic “numerical expressions

with not negative rational numbers”, students

created three storyboards. They started with a sheet

of paper in 4, 6 or 8 parts and in each of them they

described the scenes they wanted on their video

(Figure 9).

Two of these three initial storyboards, were then

translated into instructional videos, on the themes:

“division of rational numbers not negatives” and

“priorities in numerical expressions with not

negative rational numbers”. For the collection of

images, students used their smartphones. Video

edition was performed in the class computers and

The JuxtaLearn Process in the Learning of Maths’ Tricky Topics - Practices, Results and Teacher’s Perceptions

391

then shared in CLIPIT to promote the discussion

around the concepts.

Figure 9: Storyboard created to explain the priorities in

operations.

In the end, students responded the quiz, again, and

compared the results with those obtained in the

diagnostic (initial) quiz. Table 1 shows the data

obtained by the group of students who worked the

Tricky Topic: “numerical expressions with not

negative rational numbers”.

Table 1: Comparison between the initial and final quiz.

Initial quiz (%)

Final quiz (%)

46%

62%

85%

77%

69%

77%

38%

85%

The data show that the majority of the students

improved their results from the initial quiz to the

final quiz. We can observe the case of student A1,

which achieved a score of 46% in the initial quiz.

The analysis of the radar (Figure 10) obtained in this

initial quiz (in blue) indicates that the student

answered well only part of the questions. In the final

quiz (in red), A1 obtained a score of 62%, improving

the overall score from the initial quiz and evolving

in regard to the different Stumbling Blocks.

Comparing the results obtained on the radar of

the initial quiz with the ones obtained on the final

quiz (Table 2) we can observe that the student A1

managed to hit more questions that involve the

knowledge of priorities and knowing how to add,

subtract and multiply rational numbers. However,

between the initial and the final quizzes, this e

student maintained the same number of right

answers to the questions that involve the division of

rational numbers.

Figure 10: Radar from student A1.

Table 2: Comparison between the initial and final quiz of

student A1.

Stumbling Block

Initial quiz

(%)

Final quiz

(%)

Knowing the priorities

43%

57%

Division of rational numbers

20%

Multiplication of rational numbers

44%

56%

Addition of rational numbers

33%

44%

Subtraction of rational numbers

33%

50%

On the other hand, the student A2 obtained a score

of 85% in the initial quiz, but in the final quiz

obtained 77%, a lower score than in the initial quiz.

Figure 11: Radar obtained by A2.

Comparing the results obtained in the two radars

(Table 3), we comprehended that the student has

failed answers that were correct in the initial quiz:

“subtraction and addition of rational numbers”.

These are only two examples of the data

collected. One from a student that improved his

performance, and the only one who didn´t. We just

want to show the kind of info the teacher can get on

the radar.

In short, each teacher has chosen a concept

within her area and created the learning activities in

the CLIPIT. As they were learning CLIPIT features,

teachers were also applying JuxtaLearn learning

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

392

process with their students.

Table 3: Comparison between the initial and final quiz of

student A2.

Stumbling block

Initial quiz

(%)

Final quiz

(%)

Knowing the priorities

71%

Division of rational numbers

60%

Multiplication of rational numbers

78%

Addition of rational numbers

78%

67%

Subtraction of rational numbers

100%

67%

4.3 Teachers’ Acceptance of the

Process

Teachers considered the training course as

“interesting and that students also enjoyed” (T1).

The fact that its “evaluation focused on the

implementation of the different stages of the

platform in the context of classroom was

appropriated” (T5). The “sharing experiences and

materials between the different groups of training”

(T3) and “the fact that CLIPIT allowed the sharing

of ideas and materials on a same complex concept”

(T7) were some of the positive aspects reported.

The teachers’ satisfaction regarding CLIPIT was

confirmed by the SUS questionnaire. The average

classification on a scale from 0 (not at all satisfied)

to 100 (very satisfied) was 59.4 points,

corresponding to a qualitative evaluation of ‘Good’

according to Bangor, Kortum and Miller (2009).

Regarding the CLIPIT, teachers expressed their

satisfaction by mentioning that "it is an excellent

platform for sharing resources" (T3) and

“experiences” with the students (T7). One teacher

said that "with the power to create, edit and share

educational videos produced by the students, it is a

way to foster creativity and motivation to study and

learning more complex concepts" (T1). Another

teacher said that the CLIPIT "is a platform that takes

time and dedication to be understood" (T5) but that

can "promote the reduction of subject failure" (T3).

Regarding the ease of use with the CLIPIT, teachers

expressed their opinion through expressions like

“the tool could be more intuitive, making it easier to

use” (T4) and admitted to know the "objectives of

the platform but not sure if able to apply [them]"

(T5). Teacher T1 even told that she enjoyed to do

this training course, that she "liked to learn more

about video and visual resources that encourages

creativity and students’ motivation

study/understanding of specific concepts" (T1).

Additionally, all teachers expressed interest in

leveraging this training to a more advanced level, so

that they "may have a better control and a better

understanding of CLIPIT tools" (T7) and get to

know more “especially in the several tools that

allow to create and edit videos” (T3). If continuous

training isn’t possible, at least they would like to be

able to "have a periodic update" (T5).

5 CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents a study in which we coached

eight teachers in supporting their students

overcoming Tricky Topics with the support of the

JuxtaLearn process.

Firstly, with the teachers, we identified the

Tricky Topics that their students have, and we put

the Tricky Topics into the CLIPIT, the online

collaborative platform. Then, we presented the

teachers the eight steps of the JuxtaLearn process,

and we coached them in the implementation of these

phases with their students. The first conclusion is

that the eight teachers were able to put into practice

the whole JuxtaLearn process with their students,

guiding them to produce storyboards and suitable

instructional videos, collaboratively. During the

training course, we observed that the teachers used

the CLIPIT platform to support their work with the

students. Automatic data from CLIPIT also supports

this conclusion. Regarding the satisfaction with the

ease of use of the platform, the SUS questionnaire

shows that the teachers evaluated the platform as

‘Good’, and think that they can use it regularly.

Overall, the teachers believe that the

implementation of the JuxtaLearn process was good

and all teachers who participated in the sessions

successfully completed the training course.

The results show that four from five students

(presented in this paper) have been able to improve

their scores from the initial to the final quiz. The

results suggest that the JuxtaLearn process helped

them to improve the understanding of the Tricky

Topic “numerical expressions with not negative

rational numbers”, as 80% the students have

improved the scores.

With this study, a new issue has emerged. We

found that with our support the teachers were able to

implement with success the whole JuxtaLearn

process, and recognised its benefits. They used the

CLIPIT and admitted that the students took

advantage from its use. They saw that the video

edition motivated the students to work the math

concepts, which itself is an added value for the

teaching of mathematics. Recognising the gains, as

The JuxtaLearn Process in the Learning of Maths’ Tricky Topics - Practices, Results and Teacher’s Perceptions

393

they recognised, will the teachers without our

support and stimulus be able to continue using the

CLIPIT and the JuxtaLearn process with their

students in the future? This is something that we

have already explored and that we will present in a

future article.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research leading to these results has received

funding from the European Community's Seventh

Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under

grant agreement no. 317964 JUXTALEARN.

REFERENCES

Adams, A., Rogers, Y., Coughlan, T., Van-der-Linden, J.,

Clough, G., Martin, E., & Collins, T. (2013). Teenager

needs in technology enhanced learning. Workshop on

Methods of Working with Teenagers in Interaction

Design, CHI 2013, Paris, France.

Adams, A., Hartnett, E., & Clough, G. (2015). Turn it on

its head! Juxtaposed Learning. Creative Education,

6(21), 1-14.

Adams, A. & Clough, G. (2015). The E-assessment

burger: Supporting the Before and After in E-

Assessment Systems. Interaction Design and

Architecture(s) Journal - IxD&A, 25, 39-57.

Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining

What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an

Adjective Rating Scale. Journal of Usability Studies,

4(3), 114-123.

Bardin, L. (2013). Análise de Conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições

70.

Bogdan, R, & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative Research for

Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods,

5th Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale.

In P. W. Jordan, et al. (Eds.), Usability evaluation in

industry. London: Taylor & Francis.

Cruz, S., Lencastre, J. A., & Coutinho, C. (2015). Da

reflexão à aprendizagem de conceitos complexos

através da edição de vídeos e sua partilha em ecrãs

públicos. SENSOS-e, 2(2), 1-18.

Cruz, S., Lencastre, J. A., Coutinho, C., Clough, G., &

Adams, A. (2016). Threshold concepts Vs. Tricky

topics: Exploring the Causes of Student´s

Misunderstandings with the Problem Distiller Tool, In

J. Uhomoibhi, et al. (ed.), Proceedings of

CSEDU2016, Volume 1, (pp. 205-215). Rome, IT:

SCITEPRESS.

Lencastre, J. A., Coutinho, C., Cruz, S., Magalhães, C.,

Casal, J., José, R., Clough, G., & Adams, A. (2015). A

video competition to promote informal engagement

with pedagogical topics in a school community. In M.

Helfert, et al. (ed.), Proceedings of CSEDU2015,

Volume 1, (pp. 334-340). Lisbon, PT: SCITEPRESS.

Meyer, J. & Land, R. (Eds.). (2006). Overcoming barriers

to student understanding: Threshold Concepts and

Troublesome Knowledge. New York: Routledge.

Newman, G., Kim, J. H., Lee, R. J., Brown, B. A., &

Huston, S. (2016). The Perceived Effects of Flipped

Teaching on Knowledge Acquisition. Journal of

Effective Teaching, 16(1), 52-71.

Otero, N., Alissandrakis, A., Müller, M., Milrad, M.,

Lencastre, J. A., Casal, J. & José, R. (2013).

Promoting secondary school learners' curiosity

towards science through digital public displays. In A.

Lugmayr et al. (org.), Proceedings MindTrek

Conference 2013, (pp. 204-210). New York, NY:

ACM Press.

Llinás, P., Haya, P., Gutiérrez, M., Martín, E., Castellanos,

j., Hernán, I., & Urquiza, J. (2014). CLIPIT:

Supporting Social Reflective Learning through

Student-Made Educational Videos. In C. Rensing, et

al. (eds.) Open Learning and Teaching in Educational

Communities, vol. 8719, (pp. 502-505). Graz:

Springer.

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

394