Instant Ebook Access, One Click Away – Begin at ebookgate.

com

Technologies and Practices for Constructing

Knowledge in Online Environments Advancements in
Learning First Edition Bernhard Ertl

https://ebookgate.com/product/technologies-and-practices-
for-constructing-knowledge-in-online-environments-
advancements-in-learning-first-edition-bernhard-ertl/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Get Instant Ebook Downloads – Browse at https://ebookgate.com

Click here to visit ebookgate.com and download ebook now
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Online Science Learning Best Practices and Technologies

Kevin F. Downing

https://ebookgate.com/product/online-science-learning-best-practices-
and-technologies-kevin-f-downing/

ebookgate.com

Learning management system technologies and software

solutions for online teaching tools and applications First
Edition Yefim Kats
https://ebookgate.com/product/learning-management-system-technologies-
and-software-solutions-for-online-teaching-tools-and-applications-
first-edition-yefim-kats/
ebookgate.com

Identity Technologies Constructing The Self Online 1st

Edition Edition Anna Poletti

https://ebookgate.com/product/identity-technologies-constructing-the-
self-online-1st-edition-edition-anna-poletti/

ebookgate.com

Methodological Advancements in Intelligent Information

Technologies Evolutionary Trends 1st Edition Vijayan
Sugumaran
https://ebookgate.com/product/methodological-advancements-in-
intelligent-information-technologies-evolutionary-trends-1st-edition-
vijayan-sugumaran/
ebookgate.com
Computational Advancements in End user Technologies
Emerging Models and Frameworks 1st Edition Steve Clarke

https://ebookgate.com/product/computational-advancements-in-end-user-
technologies-emerging-models-and-frameworks-1st-edition-steve-clarke/

ebookgate.com

BEST PRACTICES IN ENGAGING ONLINE LEARNERS THROUGH ACTIVE

AND EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING STRATEGIES 2nd Edition Stephanie
Smith Budhai
https://ebookgate.com/product/best-practices-in-engaging-online-
learners-through-active-and-experiential-learning-strategies-2nd-
edition-stephanie-smith-budhai/
ebookgate.com

Utilizing Open Source Tools for Online Teaching and

Learning Applying Linux Technologies 1st Edition Lee Chao

https://ebookgate.com/product/utilizing-open-source-tools-for-online-
teaching-and-learning-applying-linux-technologies-1st-edition-lee-
chao/
ebookgate.com

Advancements in Distributed Computing and Internet

Technologies Trends and Issues 1st Edition Al-Sakib Khan
Pathan
https://ebookgate.com/product/advancements-in-distributed-computing-
and-internet-technologies-trends-and-issues-1st-edition-al-sakib-khan-
pathan/
ebookgate.com

Handling Complexity in Learning Environments Theory and

Research Advances in Learning and Instruction 1st Edition
Jan Elen
https://ebookgate.com/product/handling-complexity-in-learning-
environments-theory-and-research-advances-in-learning-and-
instruction-1st-edition-jan-elen/
ebookgate.com
Technologies and
Practices for Constructing
Knowledge in
Online Environments:
Advancements in Learning

Bernhard Ertl
Universität der Bundeswehr München, Germany

InformatIon scIence reference

Hershey • New York
Director of Editorial Content: Kristin Klinger
Director of Book Publications: Julia Mosemann
Acquisitions Editor: Lindsay Johnston
Development Editor: Beth Ardner
Typesetter: Gregory Snader
Production Editor: Jamie Snavely
Cover Design: Lisa Tosheff
Printed at: Yurchak Printing Inc.

Published in the United States of America by

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com/reference

Copyright © 2010 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Technologies and practices for constructing knowledge in online environments :

advancements in learning / Bernhard Ertl, editor.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: "This book details practices of and technologies for e-collaborative knowledge construction, providing insights
in the issue of how technologies can bring advancements for learning"--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-61520-937-8
(hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-61520-938-5 (ebook) 1. Technological innovations--Social aspects. 2. Education--Computer
network resources. I. Ertl, Bernhard, 1973-
HM846.T433 2010
303.48'3--dc22
2009046556

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
Editorial Advisory Board
Mario Barajas Frutos, University of Barcelona – DOE, Spain
Frank Fischer, Ludwig Maximilian University, Germany
Kathy Kikis-Papadakis, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas / Institute of Applied
and Computational Mathematics, Greece
Erno Lehtinen, University of Turku, Finland
Heinz Mandl, Ludwig Maximilian University, Germany
Jim Slotta, University of Toronto, Canada
Jörg Zumbach, University of Salzburg, Austria

List of Reviewers
Ezendu Ariwa, London Metropolitan University, UK
Marco Bettoni, Swiss Distance University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Adriana Schiopoiu Burlea, University of Craiova, Romania
Edita Butrime, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania
Pat Calahan, Claremont Graduate University, USA
Douglas Clark, Vanderbilt University, USA
Dejana Diziol, University of Freiburg, Germany
Daniel Firpo, Claremont Graduate University, USA
Patrizia Grifoni, CNR-IRPPS, Italy
Päivi Häkkinen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Christian Harteis, University of Regensburg, Germany
Gy Hashim, University Technology MARA, Malaysia
Stylianos Hatzipanagos, King’s College London, UK
Kathrin Helling, Institute for Future Studies, Austria
Bo Hu, Universität der Bundeswehr, Germany
NG Foo Keong, National Institute of Education, Singapore
Mike Keppell, Charles Sturt University, Australia
Looi Chee Kit, National Institute of Education, Singapore
Birgitta Kopp, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Germany
Jane Klobas, Università Bocconi, Italy
Minna Lakkala, University of Helsinki, Finland
Lei Liu, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Heinz Mandl, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Germany
Elvis Mazzoni, Università di Bologna, Italy
Silja Meyer-Nieberg, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Germany
Steffen Möller, DLR, Germany
Richard L. Moreland, University of Pittsburgh, USA
Matthias Nückles, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany
Sandra Y. Okita, Columbia University, USA
Manuela Paechter, Karl-Franzens-University Graz, Austria
Krassie Petrova, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Christian Petter, Institute for Future Studies, Austria
Manuela Pietraß, University of Education Freiburg, Germany
Hans-Rüdiger Pfister, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany
Lin Qiu, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Liana Razmerita, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Ruth Roß, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Germany
Victor Sampson, Florida State University, USA
Silke Schworm, University of Regensburg, Germany
Dominique M.A. Sluijsmans, HAN University & Open University of the Netherlands, The Netherlands
Robin Stark, Universität des Saarlandes, Germany
Karsten Stegmann, University of Munich, Germany
Ken Stevens, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
Jan-Willem Strijbos, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Michael Tscholl, University College London, UK
Monika Uemminghaus, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Germany
Panagiotis Zaharias, University of the Aegean, Greece
Table of Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................................................. xii

Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................... xvii

Section 1
Practice Examples for E-Collaborative Knowledge Construction

Chapter 1
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-by-Doing Environments ............................................. 1
Lin Qiu, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Chapter 2
Collaborative Knowledge Construction in Virtual Learning Environments: A Good Practice
Example of Designing Online Courses in Moodle ............................................................................... 25
Kathrin Helling, Institute for Future Studies, Austria
Christian Petter, Institute for Future Studies, Austria

Chapter 3
Constructing a Sense of Community in a Graduate Educational Setting Using a
Web 2.0 Environment ........................................................................................................................... 46
Daniel Firpo, Claremont Graduate University, USA
Sumonta Kasemvilas, Claremont Graduate University, USA
Peter Ractham, Thammasat University, Thailand
Xuesong Zhang, California State University, USA

Section 2
Technologies

Chapter 4
Collaborative Knowledge Construction with Web Video Conferencing: A Work Based
Learning Approach................................................................................................................................ 85
Stylianos Hatzipanagos, King’s College London, UK
Anthony Basiel, Middlesex University, UK
Annette Fillery-Travis, Middlesex University, UK
Chapter 5
Supporting Case-Based Learning Through a Collaborative Authoring System ................................... 99
Bo Hu, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Germany
Klaus Gollin, Fachhochschule für Oekonomie und Management, Germany

Chapter 6
Knowledge Access and Interaction Evolution in Virtual Learning Communities .............................. 113
Maria Chiara Caschera, Institute of Research on Population and Social Policies (CNR-IRPPS), Italy
Alessia D’Andrea, Institute of Research on Population and Social Policies (CNR-IRPPS), Italy
Fernando Ferri, Institute of Research on Population and Social Policies (CNR-IRPPS), Italy
Patrizia Grifoni, Institute of Research on Population and Social Policies (CNR-IRPPS), Italy

Chapter 7
E-Collaboration Between People and Technological Boundary Objects: A New Learning
Partnership in Knowledge Construction ............................................................................................. 133
Sandra Y. Okita, Columbia University, USA

Section 3
Outlook

Chapter 8
From Instructional Design to Setting up Pedagogical Infrastructures: Designin
Technology-Enhanced Knowledge Creation ...................................................................................... 169
Minna Lakkala, University of Helsinki, Finland
Liisa Ilomäki, University of Helsinki, Finland
Kari Kosonen, University of Helsinki, Finland

Chapter 9
Challenges with Knowledge Construction in an E-Learning Environment........................................ 186
Bolanle A. Olaniran, Texas Tech University, USA
Oladayo Olaniran, Federal University of Technology, Nigeria
David Edgell, Texas Tech University, USA

Chapter 10
E-Learning as a Socio-Cultural System .............................................................................................. 202
Vaiva Zuzeviciute, Vyautas Magnus University, Lithuania
Edita Butrime, Vyautas Magnus University, Lithuania

Compilation of References ............................................................................................................... 219

About the Contributors .................................................................................................................... 251

Index ................................................................................................................................................... 257

Detailed Table of Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................................................. xii

Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................... xvii

Section 1
Practice Examples for E-Collaborative Knowledge Construction

This first section illustrates technology application by good practice examples for e-collaborative
knowledge construction. It shows how learning environments can provide advancements for learning
and which particular role technology can take in these environments. It takes up good practices for
different target groups like school children, university students, and senior learners. Authors provide
insights into development of their learning environments and provide lessons learned during planning,
implementing and running them.

Chapter 1
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-by-Doing Environments ............................................. 1
Lin Qiu, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Qiu focuses on content-specific knowledge construction. She describes an example in the domain of sci-
ence education using a learning-by-doing approach. Students work in Qiu’s environment collaboratively
on a corrosion problem and execute several investigations to find a solution for it. This chapter provides
particular insights in a learning environment and learners’ options for actions within this environment.

Chapter 2
Collaborative Knowledge Construction in Virtual Learning Environments: A Good Practice
Example of Designing Online Courses in Moodle ............................................................................... 25
Kathrin Helling, Institute for Future Studies, Austria
Christian Petter, Institute for Future Studies, Austria
Helling and Petter give insights in e-collaborative knowledge construction in the context of a multi-week
course. This course was dedicated to teachers of senior citizens and aimed at familiarizing them with
special needs of elderly persons for learning in the ICT context. They describe their design rationale and
the implementation in Moodle, evaluation results, lessons learned, and identify particular good practices.

Chapter 3
Constructing a Sense of Community in a Graduate Educational Setting Using a
Web 2.0 Environment ........................................................................................................................... 46
Daniel Firpo, Claremont Graduate University, USA
Sumonta Kasemvilas, Claremont Graduate University, USA
Peter Ractham, Thammasat University, Thailand
Xuesong Zhang, California State University, USA

Firpo, Kasemvilas, Ractham and Zhang use also a community approach and describe the design and
implementation process of a community for graduate students. They show which opportunities com-
munities can offer to graduate students and also how they can stimulate collaboration. The authors deal
with the issue of commitment to the community, which is essential to create a sense of community and
to work productively. Concluding, the chapter reflects on implementation practices and lessons learned.

Section 2
Technologies

As the examples have shown, all of the environments rely on information and communication technologies
to support communication (e.g., by chat, videoconferencing, and discussion boards) and collaboration
(e.g., by shared workspaces/whiteboards or collaborative authoring tools) to empower learners engag-
ing in e-collaborative knowledge construction. Chapters in this section describe these technologies
and—more important—how they can be applied in context of ECKC. This how relates to the issue that
collaboration partners need more than just a technology for ECKC, they work with this technology in
a particular setting to experience beneficial collaboration and knowledge gains. Thus, the technologies
have to be integrated in environments for collaboration, which can provide further support (e.g., by
agents or other dedicate features).

Chapter 4
Collaborative Knowledge Construction with Web Video Conferencing: A Work Based
Learning Approach................................................................................................................................ 85
Stylianos Hatzipanagos, King’s College London, UK
Anthony Basiel, Middlesex University, UK
Annette Fillery-Travis, Middlesex University, UK

Hatzipanagos, Basiel, and Fillery-Travis show the use of web video conferencing for e-collaborative
knowledge construction. They focus particularly on the context of work-based learning and provide two
case studies. These case studies demonstrate important issues of web video conferencing, the advisor/
candidate relationship, which deals with the provision of an appropriate setting for the videoconferenc-
ing session, and the need for clear organizational structures, which is demonstrated by a project called
“Work Based Learning Wednesdays”. Based on both case studies, the authors show aspects to consider
when applying web video conferencing as mean for e-collaborative knowledge construction.

Chapter 5
Supporting Case-Based Learning Through a Collaborative Authoring System ................................... 99
Bo Hu, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Germany
Klaus Gollin, Fachhochschule für Oekonomie und Management, Germany

The chapter of Hu and Gollin describes a system for collaborative authoring. They explain how such a
system can be used for collaborative case-solving and thesis work. The authors take up the issue how
far the individuals contribute to group work and present functionality for evaluating the collaboration
partners’ contributions with respect to different dimensions. Such features allow the assessment of the
amount each partner worked on the collaborative output and also how much each partner contributed to
the final collaborative outcome. The issue of assessment is further explored in the chapter of Sluijsmans
and Stribos in the next section.

Chapter 6
Knowledge Access and Interaction Evolution in Virtual Learning Communities .............................. 113
Maria Chiara Caschera, Institute of Research on Population and Social Policies (CNR-IRPPS), Italy
Alessia D’Andrea, Institute of Research on Population and Social Policies (CNR-IRPPS), Italy
Fernando Ferri, Institute of Research on Population and Social Policies (CNR-IRPPS), Italy
Patrizia Grifoni, Institute of Research on Population and Social Policies (CNR-IRPPS), Italy

Cascera, D’Andrea, Ferri and Grifoni describe the technologies of discussion forms, whiteboards, audio/
videoconferencing, newsgroups, and blogs in a comparative way and discuss how far each of them can
enable virtual communities. This chapter gives an overview on the advantages and disadvantages of
different kind of technologies for their application in the context of e-collaborative knowledge construc-
tion. The chapter introduces the approach of agents to support collaboration partners in virtual learning
communities and to study their interaction.

Chapter 7
E-Collaboration Between People and Technological Boundary Objects: A New Learning
Partnership in Knowledge Construction ............................................................................................. 133
Sandra Y. Okita, Columbia University, USA

Okita deepens the agent approach and deals with the issue of technological boundary objects. Such objects
may be robots, avatars or other kind of agents. They can take part in knowledge construction processes
by analyzing learners’ behaviour and interaction in the environment and giving feedback to the learn-
ers. Okita distinguishes different kind of such objects with respect to their functionality, their realism
and their application for learning environments. She presents results of three studies which show how
children perceive robotic animals and how technological boundary objects can act as learning partners.

Section 3
Outlook

The outlook section puts e-collaborative knowledge construction in a broader context and discusses
critically educational, and cultural perspectives. Chapters in this section describe possible developments
of e-collaborative knowledge construction in future and driving and hindering forces.

Chapter 8
From Instructional Design to Setting up Pedagogical Infrastructures: Designin
Technology-Enhanced Knowledge Creation ...................................................................................... 169
Minna Lakkala, University of Helsinki, Finland
Liisa Ilomäki, University of Helsinki, Finland
Kari Kosonen, University of Helsinki, Finland

Lakkala, Ilomäki, and Kosonen conclude this section by presenting a framework for the evaluation of
e-collaborative knowledge construction. They consider the pedagogical design of learning environments
as the building of appropriate infrastructures and propose a technical, a social, an epistemological and
a cognitive dimension as dimensions for analysis. They exemplify the application of their framework
by evaluating three different course designs which comprise of question-driven knowledge creation
through wiki, a qualitative methods seminar, and a collaborative course design for engineering students.

Chapter 9
Challenges with Knowledge Construction in an E-Learning Environment........................................ 186
Bolanle A. Olaniran, Texas Tech University, USA
Oladayo Olaniran, Federal University of Technology, Nigeria
David Edgell, Texas Tech University, USA

Olaniran, Olaniran, and Edgell take an intercultural perspective on e-collaborative knowledge construc-
tion. They show some challenges for knowledge construction and manifest them by the example of blogs.
They further discuss collaboration partners’ underlying cultural dispositions towards collaboration and
learning and discuss how far they may have an impact on e-collaborative knowledge construction—par-
ticularly in an inter-cultural context.

Chapter 10
E-Learning as a Socio-Cultural System .............................................................................................. 202
Vaiva Zuzeviciute, Vyautas Magnus University, Lithuania
Edita Butrime, Vyautas Magnus University, Lithuania
The chapter of Zuzeviciute and Butrime takes a socio-cultural perspective on e-collaborative knowledge
construction. It identifies how far information and communication technologies penetrate society and
culture and discusses the effects of this penetration with respect to e-collaboration and e-learning. It
shows further how far e-learning can be considered as socio-cultural system.

Compilation of References ............................................................................................................... 219

About the Contributors .................................................................................................................... 251

Index ................................................................................................................................................... 257

xii

Preface

Since more than a decade, technologies contribute to learning (Ertl, Winkler, & Mandl, 2007). There
are different scenarios like for example computer supported collaborative learning (Koschmann, 1994;
Strijbos, Kirschner, & Martens, 2005), mobile learning (e.g., Chen, Kao, & Sheu, 2003), and Web based
trainings (Horton, 2000). Many of these learning scenarios apply the Internet for collaboration, informa-
tion access, social networking, or just for keeping up to date. Furthermore, several learning scenarios are
fully Internet based, which means that learners just use the Web for entering their learning opportunities
from wherever they want. Such flexibility and adaptability of technology has led to a comprehensive
application of computers for learning, going from pre-school to senior education. Technologies were
further developed to become tools for learning and to facilitate specific learning styles, like e.g. inquiry
learning (Quintana et al., 2004) or e-collaborative knowledge construction (Ertl, 2010).
However, it is not technology itself that provides the learning; it is also dependent on different environ-
mental factors. Thus, a learning environment also comprises of teaching strategies, instructional methods,
learning material and the technology (see also Mandl, & Reinmann-Rothmeier, 2001). Depending on the
instructional design, a learning environment can provide more than just means for knowledge acquisition.
DeCorte (2003) introduces the concept of powerful learning environments that relates to careful instruc-
tional design that enables learners an active knowledge construction and the development of applicable
knowledge, which implies that learners are able to use the knowledge and skills acquired productively
(see also Renkl, Mandl, & Gruber, 1996). One key to designing powerful learning environments is the
implementation of situated learning scenarios (see Lave & Wenger, 1991) that facilitate learners’ active
knowledge construction. They apply authentic problems for the learners to work with—and also a so-
cial context for learning that allows multiple perspectives on the learning material. Such environments
allow learners to construct their knowledge (e-) collaboratively (see Fischer, Bruhn, Gräsel, & Mandl,
2002) and to build a shared understanding of the learning material (see also Puntambekar, 2006). In
general, e-collaborative knowledge construction (ECKC) can show different implementations to provide
powerful learning environments (DeCorte, 2003). Theoretical foundations, insights into processes, and
the issue of support mechanisms for ECKC are covered by Ertl (2010) “E-Collaborative Knowledge
Construction: Learning from Computer-Supported and Virtual Environments” which complements this
book. Here we focus on practices of and technologies for e-collaborative knowledge construction. The
book provides particular insights in the issue of how technologies can bring advancements for learning.
Thereby it offers practice examples that show how e-collaborative knowledge construction takes place
in a learning environment and how technology supports learning in this environment. It further focuses
on particular technologies and how they can be applied now and/or in the future for e-collaborative
knowledge construction.
 xiii

Structure of the book

This book comprises three sections which take up the aspects of how technology can facilitate and pro-
vide advancements in e-collaborative knowledge construction. It starts with practice examples that give
an impression about scenarios of e-collaborative knowledge construction and the technology applied
in these scenarios. The middle section focuses on technologies that enable collaborative knowledge
construction processes and shows how they can be framed to support ECKC. The book concludes with
broader perspectives which set ECKC back in a cultural context. In the following, the sections and
chapters are described more detailed.

Practice Examples for E-Collaborative Knowledge Construction

This first section illustrates technology application by good practice examples for e-collaborative
knowledge construction. It shows how learning environments can provide advancements for learning
and which particular role technology can take in these environments. It takes up good practices for
different target groups like school children, university students, and senior learners. Authors provide
insights into development of their learning environments and provide lessons learned during planning,
implementing and running them.
Qiu focuses on content-specific knowledge construction. She describes an example in the domain of
science education using a learning-by-doing approach. Students work in Qiu’s environment collaboratively
on a corrosion problem and execute several investigations to find a solution for it. This chapter provides
particular insights in a learning environment and learners’ options for actions within this environment.
Helling and Petter show e-collaborative knowledge construction in the context of a multi-week course.
This course was dedicated to teachers of senior citizens and aimed at familiarizing them with special
needs of elderly persons for learning in the ICT context. They describe their design rationale and the
implementation in Moodle, evaluation results, lessons learned, and identify particular good practices.
Firpo, Kasemvilas, Ractham and Zhang use a community approach and describe the design and
implementation process of a community for graduate students. They show which opportunities com-
munities can offer to graduate students and also how they can stimulate collaboration. The authors deal
with the issue of commitment to the community, which is essential to create a sense of community and
to work productively. Concluding, the chapter reflects on implementation practices and lessons learned.

Technologies

As the examples have shown, all of the environments rely on information and communication technolo-
gies to support communication (e.g., by chat, videoconferencing, and discussion boards) and collabo-
ration (e.g., by shared workspaces/whiteboards or collaborative authoring tools) to empower learners
engaging in e-collaborative knowledge construction. Chapters in this section describe these technologies
and—more important—how they can be applied in context of ECKC. This how relates to the issue that
collaboration partners need more than just a technology for ECKC, they work with this technology in
a particular setting to experience beneficial collaboration and knowledge gains. Thus, the technologies
have to be integrated in environments for collaboration, which can provide further support, (e.g., by
agents or other dedicate features).
Hatzipanagos, Basiel, and Fillery-Travis show the use of Web video conferencing for e-collaborative
knowledge construction. They focus particularly on the context of work-based learning and provide two
xiv

case studies. These case studies demonstrate important issues of Web video conferencing, the advisor/
candidate relationship, which deals with the provision of an appropriate setting for the videoconferenc-
ing session, and the need for clear organizational structures, which is demonstrated by a project called
“Work Based Learning Wednesdays.”. Based on both case studies, the authors show aspects to consider
when applying Web video conferencing as mean for e-collaborative knowledge construction.
The chapter of Hu and Gollin describes a system for collaborative authoring. They explain how such
a system can be used for collaborative case-solving and thesis work. The authors take up the issue of how
far the individuals contribute to group work and present functionality for evaluating the collaboration
partners’ contributions with respect to different dimensions. Such features allow the assessment of the
amount each partner worked on the collaborative output and also how much each partner contributed
to the final collaborative outcome.
Cascera, D'Andrea, Ferri and Grifoni describe the technologies of discussion forms, whiteboards,
audio/videoconferencing, newsgroups, and blogs in a comparative way and discuss how far each of them
can enable virtual communities. This chapter gives an overview on the advantages and disadvantages of
different kind of technologies for their application in the context of e-collaborative knowledge construc-
tion. The chapter introduces the approach of agents to support collaboration partners in virtual learning
communities and to study their interaction.
Okita deepens the agent approach and deals with the issue of technological boundary objects. Such
objects may be robots, avatars or other kind of agents. They can take part in knowledge construction
processes by analyzing learners’ behaviour and interaction in the environment and giving feedback to the
learners. Okita distinguishes different kind of such objects with respect to their functionality, their realism
and their application for learning environments. She presents results of three studies which show how
children perceive robotic animals and how technological boundary objects can act as learning partners.

Outlook

The outlook section puts e-collaborative knowledge construction in a broader context and discusses
critically educational, and cultural perspectives. Chapters in this section describe possible developments
of e-collaborative knowledge construction in future and driving and hindering forces.
Lakkala, Ilomäki, and Kosonen conclude begin this section by presenting a framework for the evaluation
of e-collaborative knowledge construction. They consider the pedagogical design of learning environments
as the building of appropriate infrastructures and propose a technical, a social, an epistemological and a
cognitive dimension as dimensions for analysis. They exemplify the application of their framework by
evaluating three different course designs which comprise of question-driven knowledge creation through
wikiWiki, a qualitative methods seminar, and a collaborative course design for engineering students.
Olaniran, Olaniran, and Edgell take an intercultural perspective on e-collaborative knowledge con-
struction. They show some challenges for knowledge construction and manifest them by the example of
blogs. They further discuss collaboration partners’ underlying cultural dispositions towards collaboration
and learning and discuss how far they may have an impact on e-collaborative knowledge construction—
particularly in an inter-cultural context.
The chapter of by Zuzeviciute and Butrime takes a socio-cultural perspective on e-collaborative
knowledge construction. It identifies how far information and communication technologies penetrate
society and culture and discusses the effects of this penetration with respect to e-collaboration and e-
learning. It shows further how far e-learning can be considered as socio-cultural system.
 xv

concluSion

This book provided provides different practice examples for learning environments, tools, and also for
technologies. Comparing these technologies, one may ask about the best technology for a particular
learning scenario, like is it better to use discussion boards or videoconferencing for a particular task.
Cascera et al., for example, contrasted different technologies by analyzing their advantages and disad-
vantages. Such contrasts can be a starting point of considerations about instructional design to resolve
the issue about what technology to take for a particular scenario. Mandl, Ertl, and Kopp (2007) made
the case by contrasting a learning environment that used asynchronous communication with a learning
environment that used a synchronous one. They discussed that the focus of instructional design should
guide the decision about what technology to choose (see also Clark, 1994). Asynchronous discussion can
encourage learners to reflect about a problem by themselves and then build a shared understanding based
on their reflection, which has the advantage that learners are able to also discuss about differences within
their reflections. In contrast, a synchronous discussion can facilitate learners to get to a shared solution
to a problem by intense exchange and collaboration. Thus, using one technology may focus learners
more on a shared reflection while using the other may focused rather on developing a shared solution
(see Mandl et al. 2007). Thus, technology provides just one infrastructure for learning, which has to be
complemented by other infrastructures. This aspect is elaborated by the chapter of Lakkala who raised
the issue about providing different infrastructures for technology enhanced knowledge construction.

referenceS

Chen, Y. S., Kao, T. C. & Sheu, J. P. (2003) A mobile learning system for scaffolding bird watching
learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 347-359.
Clark, R. E. (1994) Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
opment, 42, 21-29.
De Corte, E. (2003) Designing learning environments that foster the productive use of acquired knowl-
edge and skills. In De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N. & Merrienboer, J. J. G. v. (Eds.) Powerful
learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Amsterdam, Pergamon.
Ertl, B. (Ed.) (2010) E-Collaborative Knowledge Construction: Learning from Computer-Supported and
Virtual Environments, Hershey, PA, IGI Global.
Ertl, B., Winkler, K. & Mandl, H. (2007) E-learning - Trends and future development. In Neto, F. M.
M. & Brasileiro, F. V. (Eds.) Advances in Computer-Supported Learning. Hershey, PA, Information
Science Publishing.
Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction
with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213-232.
Horton, W. (2000) Designing Web-Based Training: How to Teach Anyone Anything Anywhere Anytime,
Oxford, Wiley.
Koschmann, T. D. (1994) Toward a theory of computer support for collaborative learning. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 3, 219-225.
xvi

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, New York, NY,
Cambridge University Press.
Mandl, H., Ertl, B. & Kopp, B. (2007) Computer support for collaborative learning environments. In
Verschaffel, L., Dochy, F., Boekaerts, M. & Vosniadou, S. (Eds.) Instructional psychology: Past, present
and future trends. Sixteen Essays in Honor of Erik De Corte. Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Mandl, H. & Reinmann-Rothmeier, G. (2001) Environments for learning. In Smelser, N. J. & Baltes,
P. B. (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Bahavioral Sciences. Oxford, Elsevier Science.
Puntambekar, S. (2006) Analyzing collaborative interactions: divergence, shared understanding & con-
struction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47, 332-351.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D. &
Soloway, E. (2004) A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-386.
Renkl, A., Mandl, H. & Gruber, H. (1996) Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psy-
chologist, 31, 115-121.
Strijbos, J. W., Kirschner, P. A. & Martens, R. L. (2004) What we know about CSCL, Dordrecht, Kluwer.
 xvii

Acknowledgment

My acknowledgements go to the authors who provided their proposals and put many efforts in the writing
and revising of their chapters. Furthermore, I appreciated that there were so many colleagues who served
as reviewers. By their thorough reviews they helped the authors and me to strengthen the chapters and
to increase the quality of this book. My particular thank goes to Heinz Mandl, Frank Fischer, and the
editorial advisory board who provided valuable advice and feedback. For supporting me in all kind of
organizational and technical issues, my special acknowledgements go to Ms. Elizabeth Ardner and the
staff of IGI Global who guided me through the smooth production process of this book.

Bernhard Ertl
 Section 1
Practice Examples for
E-Collaborative Knowledge
Construction
 1

Chapter 1
Computer Support in
E-Collaborative Learning-
By-Doing Environments
Lin Qiu
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

AbStrAct
With the recent widespread use of computer and web technologies, web-based tools have been developed
to mediate collaboration and facilitate knowledge construction. However, how to effectively design
these tools to stimulate and maintain productive knowledge construction remains a challenge. This
chapter describes a virtual learning-by-doing environment where students take the role of consultants
to investigate the cause of recurring pipe corrosion in a paper processing company. We illustrate how
the learning environment is designed to provide both pedagogical and technological support to collab-
orative knowledge construction. Our goal is to provide an example and offer guidance to professionals
and educators who are interested building such virtual environments.

introDuction 1995; Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Meanwhile,

knowledge construction, the ability to actively un-
The social theories of learning have demonstrated derstand existing knowledge and create new ideas
the importance of situating learning in social interac- has become increasingly emphasized in education
tions and collaborations (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991; (Scardamalia, 2003). Students are often engaged
Hicks, 1996). Learning is no longer considered as in collaborative tasks where they negotiate ideas
a cognitive process that happens in an individual’s and construct knowledge based on each other’s
mind, but a social process that often occurs through understanding (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). Their
conversations as well as the collaborative construc- collaboration results in continuous meaning making
tion of conceptual artifacts (e.g., Collins, Brown, and learning (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006).
& Newman, 1989; Graesser, Person, & Magliano, To facilitate collaborative knowledge construc-
tion, e-communication tools such as chat rooms,
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61520-937-8.ch001 discussion forums, and videoconferencing have

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

been used to allow geographically dispersed group materials or representations outside the discussion
members to work together. Research has found forum. Users have to repeatedly go back and forth
that computer-mediated collaboration can reduce between their communication medium and the
production blocking in face-to-face collaboration object under discussion. In addition, most of the
(e.g. Gallupe, Bastianutti, & Cooper, 1991; Va- communication tools lack the flexibility of provid-
lacich, Dennis, & Nunamaker, 1992). Production ing multiple ways of representing and integrating
blocking occurs when only one person can speak at ideas. This inevitably hinders the reorganization
one time. It causes difficulty in simultaneous idea and connection of ideas in knowledge construction.
generation and often leads to the loss of productiv- One way to support collaborative knowledge
ity (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Computer-mediated construction is to embed tools into a learning
communication allows group members to present environment where students need to negotiate
ideas simultaneously without the interference from and share meaning construction through group
peers. Multiple ideas can be generated at the same interaction and negotiation. In this chapter, we
time. Furthermore, computer-mediated collabo- discuss how to support collaborative knowledge
ration often allows one to view the performance construction in a learning-by-doing environment
of other team members and therefore causes the for problem-based learning. Problem-based learn-
effect of social comparison (Festingerís, 1954). ing has been proven as an effective pedagogy for
This comparison motivates one to outperform collaborative knowledge construction (Bereiter &
others and can result in the improvement in task Scardamalia, 2003). It situates learning in the pro-
performance (Munkes & Diehl, 2003). In addition, cess of solving complex and ill-structured realistic
artifacts created in e-communication tools can be problems (Hmelo & Evensen, 2000). Students
easily changed through redo and undo. They can work in groups to tackle problems more complex
be quickly duplicated through copy-and-paste than what individuals could do alone (Hmelo, Na-
and moved around through drag-and-drop. This rayanan, Newstetter & Kolodner, 1995). They are
allows learners to easily refine, reorganize, and engaged in collaborative exploration, reflection,
augment their discussion. These artifacts can also and articulation. Their problem solution represents
serve as a permanent record and be used as the the product of their shared meaning-making and
basis for future reflection. They can be adapted knowledge construction (Schon, 1987; Brown &
to provide scaffolding and representational for- Campione, 1990; Scardamalia & Berierter, 1994).
mats appropriate to the competence of individual In the following, we first describe background
learners and the performance of the whole group research related to collaborative knowledge
(Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006). construction. Then, we describe Corrosion inves-
While e-communication tools have many ad- tigator, a learning-by-doing environment where
vantages, how to effectively use them to stimulate students can run simulated experiments, analyze
and maintain productive knowledge construction data, generate hypotheses, and construct argu-
remains a challenge. For example, while discus- ments. We further illustrate computational support
sion forums have been found to produce more con- in Corrosion Investigator specially designed to
versations with deeper thinking than face-to-face promote collaboration and knowledge construc-
dialogues (Hawkes & Romiszowski, 2001), their tion. Our goal is to provide an example of how
structure makes them difficult for users to keep to support collaborative knowledge construction
track of ideas brought up during discussion. Users in learning-by-doing environments, and offer
tend to pay more attention to recent ideas rather guidance and suggestions to professionals who
than the ones discussed earlier (Hewitt, 2003). are interested building such virtual environments.
In addition, it is difficult for users to reference

2
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

bAckGrounD simply putting students in a team does not neces-

sarily make them collaborate. Johnson, Johnson,
Learn-by-doing is a pedagogical strategy that can and Holubec (1993) identified five critical fac-
be traced back to Dewey’s educational philosophy. tors to ensure effective collaboration. First, team
Dewey (1916) advocates that students should learn members need to work towards a common goal.
by actively manipulating artifacts and testing their Each member should have his or her unique role
ideas rather than passively absorbing knowledge in achieving the learning goal and be considered
from teachers. This idea has been supported by the as indispensable to the group success. This helps
situated cognition theory which shows learning students develop positive interdependence and
as a process involved in the practical doings of make them feel one cannot succeed without the
things and situated in the practice of communities others. Second, the learning task should require
(Bateson 1976; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Cognition students to share resources, discuss ideas, and
is viewed to take place through the interaction teach each other. These supportive interactions will
between a person and the environment rather help students develop interpersonal commitment.
than purely in the mind (e.g., Dewey & Bentley, Furthermore, Webb (1985) found that students
1949; Bickhard, 1992; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, learn better when they teach others and receive
1989; Erickson & Schultz, 1982; Lave, 1988; help. Third, individual accountability should be
Lave & Wenger, 1991; Schon, 1983). Kolb (1984) implemented so that each group member is ac-
identifies four stages in learning: concrete experi- countable and assessed for his or her performance.
ence, observation and reflection, the formation of This will help groups members know who needs
abstract concepts, and testing in new situations. assistance and who deserves applauds. It will
Doing is considered as the key in the first stage reduce the problem of only a few members com-
to initiate the learning process. plete all the tasks. Fourth, students need to learn
Collaborative learning (Slavin, 1990) engages social skills to manage teamwork issues such as
students in learning-by-doing in a group setting. leadership, decision-making, trust-building, and
It is different from competitive and individual conflict resolution. As conflicts and cooperation
learning situations where students work against often co-exist (Johnson & Johnson, 1995), social
each other in order to perform better. Competitive skills will help students maintain healthy and
learning generates negative interdependence that supportive group relationships. Fifth, students
makes students either work harder than others or should continuously improve their collaboration.
give up because they think there is little chance They need to analyze each member’s work and
to win. Students often focus on their self-interest the collaboration between them to decide how
and consider their learning unrelated to others to maintain good practices and discontinue inef-
(Johnson & Johnson, 1989). In contrast, collabora- fective strategies. All the above five elements are
tive learning requires a team of students working key factors in establishing effective collaboration.
together to accomplish learning goals (Artz & They help to maximize group performance as well
Newman, 1990; Slavin, 1990, 1991). Students as individual achievement.
have to share information, create ideas, and make Recent research on socially shared cognition
learning progress as a team. Research has found provides other insights on how people create,
that compared to comparative and individualistic distribute, and use knowledge in group settings
learning, collaborative learning promotes higher (e.g., Higgins, 1992; Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath,
learning achievement, greater social competence, 1997; Levine, Resnick, & Higgins, 1993; Nye &
and more supportive relationship (Johnson & Brower, 1996; Resnick, Levine, & Teasley, 1991;
Johnson, 1989; Stevens & Slavin, 1995). However, Thompson, 1998). Cannon-Bowers, Salas, and

3
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Converse (1993) found that groups often share information. Furthermore, shared information
mental models to help them coordinate their is discussed more often and thoroughly than
tasks and improve team performance. Mental unshared information (Larson & Harmon, 2007;
models are knowledge structures that enable Wittenbaum & Park, 2001). This is often caused by
people to understand the behaviors of objects or the person who leads the discussion of the group
environments around them (Johnson-Laird, 1983; repeatedly directing the group’s attention to previ-
Wilson & Rutherford, 1989, Rouse & Morris, ously discussed formation (Larson, Christensen,
1986). In team collaboration, members need to Franz, & Abbott, 1998). Research has also shown
share multiple mental models to obtain common that when members have similar problem-solving
understanding of the task as well as how to work styles, the group as a whole tends to perform bet-
as a team. These models facilitate teams to handle ter than its average members, but not necessarily
difficulties in cooperation and adapt to changing better than its best members. However, when group
conditions (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). They in- members have very different problem-solving
clude technology models that help team members styles, the group as a whole performs better than
understand how to interact with the tools that they its best members (Larson, 2007).
use, task models that help members understand Social psychologists found social identities
how the task should be accomplished in terms of as another factor that affects group performance.
procedures and strategies, team interaction models Research has shown that despite shared interests
that describe how members should communicate and cooperative interdependence, team members
and how information should flow, and team tend to categorize themselves into different social
member models that contain information about categories (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg,
each member’s knowledge, attitudes, strength, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). This causes
and weakness (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). The positive affect such as trust and liking among
above models can further be categorized as task- members within the same category but also
related models (e.g., the technology models and negative intergroup attitudes and discriminatory
task models) and team-related models (e.g., the behaviors between members with different cat-
team interaction model and team member models) egorical identities (Brewer, 1979; Mullen, Brown,
(Mclntyre & Salas, 1995; Morgan, Glickman, & Smith, 1992; Schopler & Insko, 1992). To solve
Woodard, Blaiwes, & Salas, 1986). These models this problem, several models have been developed
affect communication, strategy, and interpersonal to reduce intergroup conflict and prejudice. The
relationships in the team and consequently impact personalization model (Brewer & Miller, 1984)
team performance (Klimoski & Mohammed, proposes to have group members focus on each
1994; Mathieu, Goodwin, Heffner, Salas, & other’s personal characteristics during interac-
Cannon-Bowers, 2000). Team members develop tion. It aims to replace categorical identity with
better convergence in their mental models when personal identity. The common ingroup identity
they gain experience with their task and each model (Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989;
other (Mathieu et al., 2000). When new comers Gaertner, Mann, Dovidio, Murrell & Pomare,
enter a group, they have to learn the shared metal 1990; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, &
models in order to work effectively with the group Rust, 1993) proposes to create new inclusive cat-
(Moreland & Levine, 2008). egories that include both the ingroup members and
Besides shared mental models, research has outgroup members. It aims to have team members
been done to understand information sharing think themselves as in one superordinate category
within a group. Larson (1997) found that shared rather than different subcategories. The above
information is discussed earlier than unshared decategorization and recategorization models have

4
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

been tested in experimental settings and proved generate different perspectives. Knowledge Forum
to be effective in improving intergroup relations (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003) allows students
and producing more positive intergroup attitudes to construct notes and link them together to form
(Miller, Brewer, & Edwards, 1985; Bettencourt, concept maps. Students are encouraged to connect
Brewer, Croak, & Miller, 1992). their own ideas with the work of their peers to pres-
In the education domain, four learning-by- ent arguments and develop theories. Knowledge
doing pedagogies have been identified as effective Forum further uses a series of prompts to encourage
strategies that promote collaborative knowledge students to contribute ideas, organize information,
construction (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003). and develop new understanding. It has been used
They include learning-by-design, project-based by more than 250 schools, ranging from K-12 to
science, problem-based learning, and knowledge graduate education, in a wide range of domains
building. Learning-by-design engages students in including biology, chemistry, philosophy, English,
the design of an artifact where students need to mathematics, and education. Studies have shown
create their prototypes, collect performance data, that the use of the Knowledge Forum improves
and refine their designs (Holbrook & Kolodner, students’ collaborative skills and the quality of
2000). Project-based science situates learning in their collaborative inquiry (e.g., Bereiter, et al.,
scientific inquiries where students need to answer 1997; Hewitt,2002; Oshima, 1977; Scardamalia,
challenging questions through the creation of 2002; Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Lamon, 1994).
authentic artifacts (Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, While the overall design of the learning en-
& Soloway, 1997). Problem-based learning chal- vironment determines the learning activities, the
lenges students with complex and ill-structured representational tools that students use impact the
problems to help them learn critical thinking focus of their collaborative discourse (Suthers,
and reasoning skills (Hmelo & Evensen, 2000). Vatrapu, Medina, Joseph, & Dwyer, 2007). For
Knowledge building emphasizes the process of example, graphical representations such as concept
discovering new problems based on existing maps make students pay more attention to the
knowledge and develop new knowledge through relationships between their ideas. Students have
solving the problem (Bereiter & Scardamalia, been found to raise more hypotheses and discuss
2003). The above four pedagogies engage students them more often when using concept maps than
in different learning activities, they all situate text-based discussion (Suthers & Hundhausen,
learning in a process where students need to col- 2003). The constraints and salience of different
laboratively create an artifact, either in the form visual representations direct the focus of col-
of a model, a product, or a report, and extend laborative discourse to different aspects of the
their knowledge by continuously elaborating on representations (Suthers, Vatrapu, Medina, Jo-
their ideas, making connections between existing seph, & Dwyer, 2008). It is important to choose
knowledge, and finding opportunities for improve- the appropriate representational tools to mediate
ment and integration. different learning tasks.
To facilitate collaborative knowledge con- Artificial intelligence technology has recently
struction, a number of software tools have been been employed to facilitate collaborative knowl-
developed. For example, CoVIS (Edelson, Pea, edge construction. Back in the 1970s, artificial
& Gomez, 1995) and CSILE (Scardamalia & Be- intelligence was mainly used to support individual
reiter, 1991) let students post data such as images learning by providing corrective feedback through
and documents in common electronic workspaces the use of detailed cognitive modeling (Wenger,
to refute or support claims. They encourage stu- 1987). Starting in the mid 90s, artificial intel-
dents to bring information from various sources to ligence has been used to guide the process of

5
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

discourse in collaborative learning. It identifies only for individual learners. Corrosion Investigator
problems in the discussion based on dialogical extends the GBS framework by providing collabo-
theories (Hicks, 1996) and prompts students for ration support such as data sharing and argument
further elaboration. For example, Belvedere is an construction in the learning environment. It is
e-learning environment where students construct designed to facilitate a group of students to share
evidence maps made up of nodes that are either and interpret the data that they collected and argue
hypotheses or evidence points in their scientific about the conclusions that they can draw from the
inquiry (Suthers, Connelly, Lesgold, Paolucci, data. In the following, we briefly introduce Cor-
Toth, & Weiner, 2001). Belvedere analyzes the rosion Investigator and then discuss its design for
augmentation structure of the evidence map by collaborative knowledge construction.
comparing it with the one generated by subject
matter experts and provides coaching on how to
improve the consistency and completeness of the SoftWAre interfAce
argument. While empirical results have shown
that Belvedere can effectively assist collaborative Corrosion Investigator is a learning-by-doing
argument construction (Suthers, Connelly, Les- environment designed for collaboratively prob-
gold, Paolucci, Toth, Toth, & Weiner, 2001), its lem-solving. Its focus is to provide a structured
technology is based on the analysis of the structure environment with authentic simulated data and a
of the argument rather than its meaning. Providing set of tools to direct and facilitate collaboration.
accurate feedback based on true understanding of It is not intended to be used as the only medium
the argument still remains a challenge. through which students collaborate. Students can
The e-learning environment, Corrosion In- use it either during classroom hours or outside of
vestigator, described in this chapter is based on the class. They can communicate face-to-face or
goal-based scenario (GBS) (Schank, Fano, Bell, through existing tools such as instant messengers
& Jona, 1993; Schank & Neaman, 2001), a frame- to discuss their problem-solving strategies and
work for constructing interactive learn-by-doing coordinate their collaboration. Corrosion Inves-
environments. GBS focuses on creating realistic tigator is aimed to be used as a focal point for
settings where students play real-life roles to students to share data, propose and defend ideas,
solve challenging problems. For example, Sickle and receive coaching.
Cell Counselor (Bell, Bareiss, & Beckwith, 1994) When students first enter Corrosion Investiga-
is a GBS environment where students work as tor, a challenge screen (see Figure 1) tells them
reproductive counselors advising newly married that they need to work as engineering consultants
couples on their children’s risk of having sickle to diagnose the cause of two corrosion problems
cell disease. Volcano Investigator is a GBS envi- in a paper processing company. After reading the
ronment where students play the role of geologists challenge, students can go to the reference screen.
to investigate the likelihood of volcano eruption This screen contains background information
in a small town (Dobson, 1998). These learning about the company, including the location and
environments use fictional scenarios with videos condition of the corrosion and four characters that
and simulations to create engaging settings, and students can contact for more information: the
provide video clips of expert advice and automatic plant foreman, the plant manager, the scientific
critiquing to guide student learning. While GBS consultant and the supervisor. Questions directed
environments have been used to teach students to these characters will be forwarded to the in-
problem-solving and provide on-the-job training structor and the instructor will provide answers
for professionals, previous GBS environments are to students’ questions.

6
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Figure 1. The challenge screen in corrosion investigator

To diagnose the corrosion problem, students the value of the project cost and day field on the
go to the experiment screen to run experiments top of the screen, if students choose to run the
(see Figure 2). The left-hand side of the screen has experiment. These fields remind students to solve
a notebook. It collects all the experiment results the challenge using minimum time and money.
that students receive from the system and splits Before running an experiment, students need to
them into single items with labels indicating their enter reasons for ordering the experiment.
experiment names and conditions. Items in the To receive experiment results, students need
notebook are clickable. Students can select them to press the advance date button at the top of the
to use as evidence in their report. The right-hand screen to advance the simulated project date to
side of the experiment screen allows students the time when the most recent experiment results
to look for experiments by entering experiment are available. New experiment results automati-
names into a textbox. Experiments matching the cally appear in the notebook and result area on
name will be shown. the experiment screen.
When students decide to run an experiment, The report screen allows students to construct
they can specify the parameters for the experiment their report using experiment results as evidence
on a separate screen (see Figure 3). Experiments (see Figure 4). Students can select a result in the
in Corrosion Investigator often have complex notebook and enter the reason for using the result.
options so that students have to think hard about When students complete their report, they can
which experiments to run. The cost and delay field submit it for evaluation.
displays the simulated amount of money and the While students are working in the system,
days that the experiment takes. These values are their work is recorded and organized as a report
dynamically calculated and displayed based on for their instructor to review. The instructor can
the parameter selection. They will be added to add comments to the students’ work. Students can

7
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Figure 2. The experiment screen in corrosion unvestigator

review these comments on the feedback screen, It is critical to maintain a shared understanding
and provide responses (see Figure 5). of the problem at hand so that new ideas can be
developed based on this common ground (Cannon-
Bowers et al., 1993). In Corrosion Investigator,
DeSiGn for collAborAtiVe the notebook provides a common knowledge
knoWleDGe coStruction repository for students to share their findings.
It automatically collects all the experiment data
In the following, we discuss computational generated by students so that students do not need
supports in Corrosion Investigator designed for to combine their findings together. It ensures that
collaborative knowledge construction. These all members in the collaboration have access to
supports allow students to actively participate in the same knowledge base.
collaborative problem-solving and develop arti- For collaborative learning to be effective, team
facts that represent the product of their knowledge members need to have a common group goal
construction. (Slavin, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1990). In
Corrosion Investigator, we develop a task setting
Shared Problem-Solving task where group members share the cost and result
to foster collaboration of each other’s action. Each experiment has a
time delay and cost. Whenever a student runs an
Collaborative knowledge construction requires experiment, the time and cost of the experiment
each group member to make sense of others’ will be automatically added to the total time and
understanding and advance the knowledge of the cost spent by the whole group. Different from en-
whole group through negotiation and elaboration. vironments where individuals bear the cost of their

8
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Figure 3. The parameter value selection screen in corrosion investigator

own actions, Corrosion Investigator automatically receives the opportunity to develop a sense of
accumulates the cost of each individual’s action being a member in a community and see how his/
on a group level. This makes the action of every her activities fit into the team effort.
student directly impact the performance of the
whole group. Students have to coordinate their Structured interface for collaborative
actions and formulate team strategies to minimize Argument construction
the cost of their investigation. The individual ac-
countability and shared responsibility make the In collaborative knowledge constructions, team
problem-solving task a collaborative effort rather members need to exchange and negotiate ideas to
than an individual endeavor (Johnson, Johnson, develop new knowledge. The argument construc-
& Holubec, 1993). tion tool in Corrosion Investigator allows students
In virtual environments, participants often feel to argue about and reflect on each other’s ideas.
isolated due to the remote nature of the communi- Students can collect evidence to support their
cation medium (Puntambekar, 1996). In Corrosion hypotheses, or provide contradictory data to refute
Investigator, we provide a progress report to help their hypotheses. Through this argumentation pro-
students obtain an overall picture of their group cess, students will develop a better understanding
activities. The report combines all the actions that of the corrosion problem, the underlying causes
individual members have performed in chronicle of the problem, and the relationship between the
order. It allows students to quickly review activities causes.
performed by other team members and understand In addition, different user interfaces representa-
the progress of the whole group. Every student tions offer different affordances (Norman, 1999).

9
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Figure 4. The report screen in corrosion investigator

The design of user interfaces can direct students’ tal evidence in their arguments, the argument
focus to different aspects of their learning and construction tool is closely integrated with the
lead them through different learning courses (e.g., data collection notebook. Students can select
Baker & Lund, 1996; Dillenbourg, 2005; Guzdial an experiment result from the notebook, attach
& Hmelo, 1997; Suthers & Hundhausen, 2003; a note to explain why he or she wants to use the
Suthers et al., 2007). In Corrosion Investigator, result, and insert it into the argument. While the
we structure the argument construction interface requirement of using experimental data for every
to require students to always create a hypothesis argument point may limit the flexibility of argu-
first and then add evidence to argue about their hy- ment construction, preliminary results show that
pothesis. This ensures students to follow the typical argument reports generated using the tool have the
scientific inquiry process where hypotheses are same quality as the ones generated in face-to-face
generated first and then verified by experimental collaboration (Qiu, 2005).
data. It also helps to center students’ discussion
around their hypotheses. The goal is to avoid the coaching for Problem-
problem in standard discussion forums where Solving and reflection
participants often lose concentration and cannot
generate a conclusion in the end (Hewitt, 2001). Problem-based learning encourages students
The argument construction tool also requires to pursue free exploration and direct their own
students to provide experimental evidence for learning. While this strategy allows students to
every argument point that they make. This ensures learn in a realistic setting, students often miss
that students’ arguments are always grounded key learning resources or fail to think deeply. It
on real data. To help students use experimen- is essential to have teachers provide just-in-time

10
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Figure 5. The feedback screen in corrosion investigator

coaching to help students reach expected learning types. The first type confirms the correctness of
goals (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989). the student’s thinking. For example,
In Corrosion Investigator, we provide an
interactive report for teachers to review student “That is correct- H2S a byproduct of SRB me-
activities in the learning environment. The report tabolism.”
includes the time and money that students have
spent, experiments that students have scheduled The second type points out that the student
and run, reasons for running those experiments, thinking is incorrect. For example,
and hypotheses and arguments that students
have created. Teachers can click on items in the “This is NOT evidence supporting chemical cor-
report and add critiques. The interactive report is rosion as a cause.”
automatically updated every time when students
perform an action in the learning environment. The third type asks for more explanation. For
The interactive report allows teachers to work example,
closely alongside with students to provide critiq-
ing. Empirical results show that teacher’s critiqing “Why is corrosion the worst here instead of other
often provokes students to reflect on their own areas of piping between the primary treatment
thinking (Qiu, 2005). We analyzed 32 critiques plant and the recirculating pipes?”
collected during two preliminary studies and found
that these critiques can be categorized into three

11
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

“More detail could be supplied in regards to the Accessibility

nature of the corrosion.”
Web-based interfaces allow team members to col-
laborate through web browsers. There is a wide
“There are other possibilities for chemical cor- range of options to implement the web-based
rosion at neutral pH’s - should acknowledge interface. Standard HTML pages are widely ac-
this.” cessible from any web browser on any platform.
They are, however, not very interactive. JavaScript
These critiques prompt students to correct their webpages introduce more interactions, but they
misunderstanding or help them develop further can only provide limited options such as textboxes
knowledge by confirming their reasoning. The and drop-down menus. Plug-in based tools such
inclusion of teachers in the learning environment as Flash support integration of video, audio, and
facilitates students to develop knowledge that is graphics for richer interactivity. However, they
valid and complete. typically run on Windows, sometimes on Mac
OS, but are not fully supported on other platforms
technological implementation such as Linux. To encourage participation, it is
for collaborative knowledge important to use the technology that is widely
construction accessible from different platforms and maintain
the capability to support interactive activities.
Online collaborative knowledge construction In Corrosion Investigator, student learning
requires students to participate from different activities include choosing experiments, specify-
locations. It presents unique technical challenges ing parameters, receiving data, and constructing
for learning-by-doing environments. Up until the arguments. They do not require complex interac-
early 2000s, learning-by-doing environments tions such as drawing diagrams. Therefore, we
are all built as monolithic systems. They use im- use standard JavaScript for the user interface. The
mersive multimedia to create engaging settings Javascript implementation allows the interface to
and scaffolding tools to support problem-solving. be easily accessible from modern web-browsers
For example, Alien Rescue (Liu, Williams, & such as Internet Explorer and Netscape without
Pedersen, 2002) is a learning environment where special software plug-ins. It provides wide deploy-
students need to find a new home in the solar ability with the least commitment to third-party
system for aliens to survive. BioWorld (Lajoie, vendor support. This lowers the technical barrier
Lavigne, Guerrera, & Munsie, 2001) is a learn- for using the learning environment and allows
ing environment for students to diagnose patients students to participate with minimum technical
in a simulated hospital setting. These learning requirement.
environments are installed on individual comput-
ers and cannot be accessed remotely from other Data consistency
machines. This makes them difficult to support
collaboration. In the following, we describe the Learning-by-doing environments need to make
technological support in Corrosion Investigator sure that information presented to every student
for collaborative knowledge construction. is always consistent and up-to-date. In Corrosion
Investigator, we save the learning content and
student activities into a central server and loads
data from the server whenever students interact
with the learning environment. This ensures that

12
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

every student has access to the most current ex- and time of an experiment is handled by JavaScript
periment data generated by the team. The storage run in the web browser. Students can immediate
of learning content on the server also facilitates see the change of the cost and time when they
the authoring of the learning environment (Qiu choose different parameter values. This allows
& Riesbeck, 2008). With a web-based authoring students to easily explore different experiment
tool, authors can modify the learning content options without long-time delay. Students can
anytime, anywhere through web browsers. When have fast interactivity even when their network
the learning content is modified, students can bandwidth is low.
immediate see the change in their web browsers The above describes the pedagogical and
because the learning environment is constructed technological support in Corrosion Investigator
real-time from the server. for collaborative knowledge construction. We
The storage of student activities on the server have conducted preliminary evaluation studies
allows instructors to easily access them in a cen- and results have been promising (Qiu, 2005).
tralized location. Instructors no longer need to More thorough evaluative research is underway.
collect student records from individual machines.
They can view these records through web-based
interactive reports that we provide. The report is future reSeArch DirectionS
updated every time a student makes a move in the
learning environment so that the instructor always In Corrosion Investigator, we introduced an in-
sees the most recent student activity. structor into the learning environment to critique
student learning. We plan to use natural language
interactivity processing techniques such as Latent Semantic
Analysis (LSA) (Foltz, 1996; Landauer & Dumais,
Learning-by-doing environments need to be 1997; Landauer, Foltz, & Laham, 1998) to provide
highly interactive because students need to per- automatic feedback to students’ arguments. LSA
form problem-solving activities such as exploring has been used successfully in AutoTutor (Graesser,
background information, running experiments, Wiemer-Hastings, Wiemer-Hastings, Harter, Per-
and comparing results. Speed is one of the key son, & the TRG, 2000) to compare student writings
factors in determining interactivity. Users often against stored examples and provide suggestive
accept delays of one to two seconds, but no more comments. In Corrosion Investigator, we plan to
than ten to fifteen second (Olsen, 1998). Therefore, use LSA to compare students’ reasons for running
it is important to provide immediate feedback to an experiment with stored examples of correct
keep the learning activity interactive and engaging. and wrong reasons, and return corresponding
In Corrosion Investigator, we run the program critiques. While the potential to provide automatic
that generates complex experiment results on feedback remains promising, it is important to note
the server and run the program that handles user that computers can easily lose credibility if users
interactions in the web browser. For example, notice inappropriate feedback (Reeves & Nass,
students’ experiment requests are sent to the server 1996). When users have low trust of computers,
for processing. These requests require complex they pay little attention to the feedback even when
algorithms and simulations with multi-parameter it is correct. The need for extremely accurate
constraints. Running them on the server reduces feedback significantly increases the difficulty of
the time needed and avoids the requirement to have building learning systems with automatic coach-
powerful computational capability on students’ ing capability. For example, intelligent tutoring
machines. In contrast, the dynamic display of cost systems that provide individualized feedback often

13
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

require two hundred hours of development for Blascovich, Loomis, Beall, Swinth, Hoyt, and
one hour of instruction (Woolf & Cunningham, Bailenson (2002) found that virtual environments
1987). Future research is needed to develop ef- can reduce methodological issues in traditional
fective and inexpensive methods for automatic experimental settings such as the lack of replica-
feedback generation. tion and unrepresentative sampling. Furthermore,
While collaborative learning-by-doing envi- when social behaviors happen in a virtual environ-
ronments change the traditional learning practice ment, researchers can perform “reverse engineer-
into a collaborative effort, they also change the ing” by manipulating components in the virtual
social relationships among their users (Levin & environment to understand the cause of particular
Kareev, 1980). Several studies have found that behaviors and identify their components. This
the use of computers in the classroom reduces helps researchers perform more fine-grained ex-
teacher-centered activities and weakens teachers’ amination of social behaviors and their elements.
authority role (e.g., Gearhart, Herman, Baker, No-
vak, & Whitteier, 1994). When students have ac-
cess to individuals or information resources more concluSion
knowledgeable than their teachers, they become
less dependent on their teachers (Schofield, 1995). In this chapter, we described Corrosion Investiga-
Student-student relations also become more co- tor, a virtual learning-by-doing environment where
operative as students work as collaborators rather students take the role of consultants to investigate
than simply classmates (Hawkins, Sheingold, the cause of recurring pipe corrosion in a paper
Gearhart, & Berger, 1982). These social impacts processing company. We discussed how to provide
of learning software should be fully aware by support to e-collaborative knowledge construction
technology adopters. by a) creating a shared task to engage students in
Educational games have recently received a lot collaboration, b) providing an argument construc-
of attention. Games such as Second Life provide tion tool to facilitate idea exchange and knowledge
immersive and animated environments for anyone construction, c) providing instructor coaching to
guide problem-solving, and d) using technological
in the world to access. Research has shown that
implementation to ensure data consistency, acces-
students are fairly comfortable of using avatar to
sibility, and interactivity. The synergy of the above
represent themselves in games and carry out col-
design provides multi-level support for collabora-
laborative learning activities (Virvou, Katsionis, &
tive knowledge construction. We believe it serves
Konstantinos, 2005). Pedagogical agents in such
as an example of how to design learning-by-doing
games can stimulate student learning and maintain environments to effectively support collaborative
high level of engagement (Conati & Zhao, 2004). knowledge construction.
With these new technologies, students can interact
with their team members (including computer
agents) in 3D environments that are much more referenceS
natural than chat rooms or discussion forums.
They can construct virtual artifacts similar to the Artz, A. F., & Newman, C. M. (1990). Coopera-
ones in real life. With these new developments, tive learning. Mathematics Teacher, 83, 448–449.
the study of knowledge construction in immersive
Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1996). Flexibly Struc-
environments becomes an emerging topic worth
turing the Interaction in a CSCL environment. In
further investigation.
P. Brna, A. Paiva & J. Self (Eds.), Proceedings of
Besides learning, virtual environments have
the EuroAIED Conference (pp. 401-407). Lisbon,
also been employed for studying social behaviors.
Portugal: Edições Colibri.

14
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Barrows, H. S. (2000). Problem-based learning Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R.
applied to medical education. Springfield, IL: (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, Mind,
Southern Illinois University Press. Experience, and School. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Academy Press.
Bateson, G. (1976). Some Components of Social-
ization for Trance. In Schwartz, T. (Ed.), Social- Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal
ization as Cultural Communication (pp. 51–63). intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307
Bell, B. L., Bareiss, R., & Beckwith, R. (1994).
Sickle cell counselor: a prototype goal-based Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the
scenario for instruction in a museum environment. contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 347–386. desegregation. In Miller, N., & Brewer, M. (Eds.),
doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0304_3 Groups in contact: The psychology of desegrega-
tion (pp. 281–302). New York: Academic Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learn-
ing to Work Creatively With Knowledge. In De Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1990). Com-
Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., & Van munities of learning and thinking, or a context by
Merriënboer, J. (Eds.), Unravelling basic com- any other name. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Contributions
ponents and dimensions of powerful learning to Human Development, 21, 108-125.
environments. EARLI Advances in Learning and
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989).
Instruction Series.
Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Cassells, C., & Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Hewitt, J. (1997). Postmodernism, knowledge
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S.
building, and elementary science. The Elementary
A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team
School Journal, 97, 329–340. doi:10.1086/461869
decision making. In Castellan, N. J. Jr., (Ed.),
Bettencourt, B. A., Brewer, M. B., Croak, M. R., Current issues in individual and group decision
& Miller, N. (1992). Cooperation and reduction of making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
intergroup bias: The role of reward structure and
Chicago: Open Court.
social orientation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 28, 301–319. doi:10.1016/0022- cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201-
1031(92)90048-O 228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bickhard, M. H. (1992). How Does the Environ- Collins, A., & Brown, J. (1988). The computer as
ment Affect the Person? In Winegar, L. T., & a tool for learning through reflection. In Mandl,
Valsiner, J. (Eds.), Children’s Development in H., & Lesgold, A. (Eds.), Learning issues for
Social Context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum intelligent tutoring systems. New York: Springer
Assoc. Verlag.
Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A. C., Swinth, Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989).
K. R., Hoyt, C. L., & Bailenson, J. N. (2002). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of
Immersive virtual environment technology as a reading, writing and mathematics. In Resnick,
methodological tool for social psychology. Psy- L. (Ed.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction.
chological Inquiry, 13, 103–124. doi:10.1207/ Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
S15327965PLI1302_01

15
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Collins, E., & Green, J. L. (1992). Learning in Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. (1995).
classroom settings: making or breaking a culture. In Constructivism in the collaboratory. In Wilson, B.
Marshall, H. H. (Ed.), Redefining student learning: G. (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments:
roots of educational change. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Case studies in instructional design (pp. 151–164).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Conati, C., & Zhao, X. (2004). Building and Evalu-
Publications.
ating an Intelligent Pedagogical Agent to Improve
the Effectiveness of an Educational Game. In Pro- Erickson, F., & Schultz, J. (1982). The Counselor
ceedings of International Conference on Intelligent as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews.
User Interfaces 2004. New York: Academic Press.
Derry, S. J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social com-
Chernobilsky, E., & Beitzel, B. (2006). Cognitive parison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
transfer revisited: Can we exploit new media to doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
solve old problems on a large scale? Journal of
Foltz, P. W. (1996). Latent semantic analysis for
Educational Computing Research, 35, 145–162.
text-based research. Behavior Research Methods,
doi:10.2190/0576-R724-T149-5432
Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 197–202.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P.,
York: MacMillan.
Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. (1993). The Com-
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1949). Knowing and the mon Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization
Known. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. and the reduction of intergroup bias. In Stroebe,
W., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European review of
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss
social psychology (Vol. 4, p. l-26). Chichester,
in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a
UK: Wiley.
riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 53, 497–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497 Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Dovidio, J. F., Mur-
rel, A., & Pomare, M. (1990). How does co-
Dillenbourg, P. (2005). Designing biases that aug-
operation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of
ment socio-cognitive interactions. In Bromme,
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 692–704.
R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (Eds.), Barriers
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.692
and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge
Communication-and How They May Be Over- Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrel, A., & Dovidio, J.
come. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits
doi:10.1007/0-387-24319-4_11 of recategorization. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 57, 239–249. doi:10.1037/0022-
Dobson, W. D. (1998). Authoring tools for in-
3514.57.2.239
vestigate and decide learning environments.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern Gallupe, R. B., Bastianutti, L. M., & Cooper,
University, Evanston. W. H. (1991). Unblocking brainstorms. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 137–142.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., &
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.1.137
Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learn-
ing: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13,
533–568. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7

16
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices
P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in affect the development of asynchronous discus-
naturalistic one-on-one tutoring. Applied Cog- sion threads. Journal of Educational Computing
nitive Psychology, 9, 495–522. doi:10.1002/ Research, 28(1), 31–45. doi:10.2190/PMG8-
acp.2350090604 A05J-CUH1-DK14
Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer- Hicks, D. (1996). Contextual inquiries: A
Hastings, K., Harter, D., & Person, N.TRG. discourse-oriented study of classroom learn-
(2000). Using Latent Semantic Analysis to Evalu- ing. In Hicks, D. (Ed.), Discourse, learning and
ate the Contributions of Students in AutoTutor. schooling (pp. 104–141). New York: Cambridge
Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 128–148. University Press.
doi:10.1076/1049-4820(200008)8:2;1-B;FT129
Higgins, E. T. (1992). Achieving “shared re-
Guzdial, M., & Hmelo, C. (1997). Integrating and ality” in the communication game: A social
guiding collaboration: Lessons learned in com- action that creates meaning. Journal of Lan-
puter-supported collaborative learning research guage and Social Psychology, 11, 107–131.
at Georgia Tech. In Proceedings of Computer doi:10.1177/0261927X92113001
Supported Collaborative Learning ‘97, Toronto,
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A.
Ontario (pp. 91-100).
(1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups
Hawkes, M., & Romiszowski, A. (2001). Exam- as information processors. Psychological Bulletin,
ining the reflective outcomes of asynchronous 121, 43–64. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43
computer-mediated communication on in service
Hmelo, C., Narayanan, N. H., Newstetter, W. C.,
teacher development. Journal of Technology and
& Kolodner, J. L. (1995). A multiple-case-based
Teacher Education, 9(2), 285–308.
approach to generative environments for learning.
Hawkins, J., Sheingold, K., Gearhart, M., & Paper presented at the Second Annual Symposium
Berger, C. (1982). Microcomputers in schools: on Cognition and Education.
Impact on the social life of elementary classrooms.
Hmelo, C. E., & Evensen, D. H. (2000). Introduc-
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
tion. In Evensen, D. H., & Hmelo, C. E. (Eds.),
3, 361–373. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(82)90008-9
Problem-Based Learning, A Research Perspective
Hewitt, J. (2001). Beyond Threaded Discourse. on Learning Interactions (pp. 185–195). Mahwah,
International Journal of Educational Telecom- NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
munications, 7(3), 207–221.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006).
Hewitt, J. (2002). From a focus on tasks to a focus Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning
on understanding: The cultural transformation of facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-
a Toronto classroom. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, based Learning, 1, 21–39.
& N. Miyake (Eds.) Computer Supported Coop-
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn,
erative Learning Volume 2: Carrying forward the
C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in
conversation, (pp. 11-41). Mahwah, New Jersey:
problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational
Psychologist, 42, 99–107.

17
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Holbrook, J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Scaffold- Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D.
ing the development of an inquiry-based (science) (1998). An Introduction to Latent Semantic
classroom. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divel- Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.
biss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of doi:10.1080/01638539809545028
the Learning Sciences (pp. 221-227). Mahwah,
Larson, J. R. Jr. (1997). Modeling the entry of
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
shared and unshared information into group dis-
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Coop- cussion: A review and BASIC language computer
eration and competition: Theory and research. program. Small Group Research, 28, 454–479.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. doi:10.1177/1046496497283007
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Teach- Larson, J. R. Jr. (2007). Deep diversity and
ing students to be peacemakers (3rd ed.). Edina, strong synergy: Modeling the impact of
MN: Interaction Book Company. variability in members’ problem-solving
strategies on group problem-solving perfor-
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J.
mance. Small Group Research, 38, 413–436.
(1993). Cooperation in the Classroom (6th ed.).
doi:10.1177/1046496407301972
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Larson, J. R. Jr, Christensen, C., Franz, T. M.,
Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models. Cam-
& Abbott, A. S. (1998). Diagnosing groups: The
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
pooling, management, and impact of shared and
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team unshared case information in team-based medi-
mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal cal decision making. Journal of Personality and
of Management, 20, 403–437. doi:10.1016/0149- Social Psychology, 75, 93–108. doi:10.1037/0022-
2063(94)90021-3 3514.75.1.93
Koh, G. C., Khoo, H. E., Wong, M. L., & Koh, D. Larson, J. R. Jr, & Harmon, V. M. (2007). Recall-
(2008). The Effects of Problem-based Learning ing shared vs. unshared information mentioned
During Medical School on Physician Compe- during group discussion: Toward understand-
tency: A Systematic Review. [CMAJ]. Canadian ing differential repetition rates. Group Pro-
Medical Association Journal, 178(1). doi:10.1503/ cesses & Intergroup Relations, 10, 311–322.
cmaj.070565 doi:10.1177/1368430207078692
Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice. Cambridge,
Munsie, S. (2001). Constructing Knowledge in the UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
Context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), CBO9780511609268
155–186. doi:10.1023/A:1003996000775
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A So- Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
lution to Plato’s Problem: The Latent Semantic UK: Cambridge University Press.
Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning:
Representation of Knowledge. Psychological
Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge,
Review, 104(2), 211–240. doi:10.1037/0033-
UK: Cambridge University Press.
295X.104.2.211

18
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Levin, J. A., & Kareev, Y. (1980). Personal com- Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2008). Building
puters and education: The challenge to schools. bridges to improve theory and research on small
Technical report no. CHIP 98. La Jolla, CA: Center groups. In Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin,
for Human Information Processing, University of G. F. (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex
California at San Diego. organizations and systems: Cross-disciplinary
perspectives and approaches (pp. 17–38). San
Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T.
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
(1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual
Review of Psychology, 44, 585–612. doi:10.1146/ Morgan, B. B., Jr., Glickman, A. S., Woodard, E.
annurev.ps.44.020193.003101 A., Blaiwes, A. S., & Salas, E. (1986). Measure-
ment of team behaviors in a Navy environment
Liu, M., Williams, D., & Pedersen, S. (2002).
(NTSC Tech. Rep. No. 86-014). Orlando, FL:
Alien Rescue: A Problem-Based Hypermedia
Naval Training Systems Center.
Learning Environment for Middle School Sci-
ence. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). In-
30(3). doi:10.2190/X531-D6KE-NXVY-N6RE group bias as a function of salience, relevance,
and status: An integration. European Journal of
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S.,
Social Psychology, 22, 103–122. doi:10.1002/
& Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based
ejsp.2420220202
science. The Elementary School Journal, 97,
341–358. doi:10.1086/461870 Munkes, J., & Diehl, M. (2003). Matching or
Competition? Performance Comparison Pro-
Mathieu, J., Goodwin, G. F., Heffner, T. S., Salas,
cesses in an Idea Generation Task. Group Pro-
E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence
cesses & Intergroup Relations, 6(3), 305–320.
of shared mental models on team process and
doi:10.1177/13684302030063006
performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(2), 273–283. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273 Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, Conventions,
and Design. Interactions (New York, N.Y.), 6,
Mcintyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring
38–42. doi:10.1145/301153.301168
and managing for team performance: Emerging
principles from complex environments. In Guzzo, Nye, J. L., & Brower, A. M. (Eds.). (1996).
R., & Salas, E. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and What’s social about social cognition? Research
decision making in organizations (pp. 149–203). on Socially Shared Cognition in Small Groups.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Olsen, D. R. (1998). Developing User Interfaces
Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based (1st ed.). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
instruction: a comparative Study of instructional
Oshima, J. (1997). Students’ construction of
method and student characteristics. Interdisciplin-
scientific explanations in a collaborative hyper-
ary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1, 49–69.
media learning environment. In Hall, N. M. R.,
Miller, N., Brewer, M. B., & Edwards, K. (1985). & Enyedy, N. (Eds.), Computer Support for Col-
Cooperative interaction in desegregated settings: laborative Learning ‘97. Toronto.
A laboratory analogue. The Journal of Social Is-
sues, 41, 63–79.

19
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Recip- Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On look-
rocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and ing into the black box: Prospects and limits in the
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin,
and Instruction, 2, 117–175. 100, 349–363. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.349
Perkins, A. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hills- Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive re-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum. sponsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In
Smith, B. (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the
society (pp. 76–98).
child. New York: Basic books. doi:10.1037/11168-
000 Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building.
Journal of Distance Education, 17(S3), 10–14.
Puntambekar, S. (1996) Investigating the effect of
a computer tool on students’ metacognitive pro- Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher
cesses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School Levels of Agency for Children in Knowledge
of Cognitive and computing sciences, University Building: A Challenge for the Design of New
of Sussex, UK. Knowledge Media. Journal of the Learning Scienc-
es, 1(1), 37–68. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0101_3
Qiu, L. (2005). A web-based architecture and
incremental authoring model for interactive Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer
learning environments for diagnostic reasoning. support for knowledge building communities.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.
University, Evanston. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3
Qiu, L., & Riesbeck, C. K. (2008). Human-in- Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M.
the-loop: A Feedback-driven Model for Authoring (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring
Knowledge-based Interactive Learning Environ-
Schank, R., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1993).
ments. Journal of Educational Computing Re-
The design of goal-based scenarios. Journal of
search, 38(4), 469–509. doi:10.2190/EC.38.4.e
the Learning Sciences, 3, 305–345. doi:10.1207/
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. s15327809jls0304_2
Cambridge, MA: SLI Publications, Cambridge
Schank, R., & Neaman, A. (2001). Motivation
University Press.
and Failure in Educational Simulation Design.
Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. (Eds.). In Forbus, K. D., & Feltovich, P. J. (Eds.), Smart
(1991). Perspectives on socially shared cogni- Machines in Education (pp. 99–144). Menlo Park,
tion. Washington, DC: American Psychological CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
Association. doi:10.1037/10096-000
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and class-
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning room culture. New York: Cambridge University
to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Press.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner:
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The con- How Professionals Think in Action. NY: Basic
struction of shared knowledge in collaborative Books.
problem solving. In O’Malley, C. (Ed.), Computer-
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective
supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197).
Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.

20
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1992). The disconti- Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An ex-
nuity effect in interpersonal and intergroup rela- perimental study of the effects of representational
tions: Generality and mediation. In Stroebe, W., & guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the
Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European review of social Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219. doi:10.1207/
psychology (pp. 121–151). Chichester, UK: Wiley. S15327809JLS1202_2
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S.,
Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, & Dwyer, N. (2007). Conceptual representations
NJ: Prentice Hall. enhance knowledge construction in asynchronous
collaboration. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens & S. Pun-
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Student team learning: A
tambekar (Eds.), The Computer Supported Col-
practical guide to cooperative (3rd ed.). Wash-
laborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (pp.
ington, DC: National Education Association of
704-713). New Brunswick: International Society
the United States.
of the Learning Sciences.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Education for all. Exton,
Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph,
PA: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond Threaded Discus-
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). sion: Representational Guidance in Asynchronous
Computer-supported collaborative learning. In Collaborative Learning Environments. Computers
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the & Education, 50(4), 1103–1127. doi:10.1016/j.
learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge compedu.2006.10.007
University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The coop- identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel,
erative elementary school: Effects on students’ S., & Austin, W. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup
achievement, attitudes, and social relations. relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
American Educational Research Journal, 32,
the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilley (Eds.),
321–351.
Classroom lessons: Integrating
Suthers, D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci,
Thompson, L. (1998). The mind and heart of the
M., Toth, E., Toth, J., & Weiner, A. (2001). Rep-
negotiator. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
resentational and Advisory Guidance for Students
Hall.
Learning Scientific Inquiry. In Forbus, K. D.,
and Feltovich, P. J. (2001). Smart machines in Turner, J. C., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S.,
education: The coming revolution in educational & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social
technology (pp. 7–35). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/ group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK:
Mit Press. Basil Blackwell.
Suthers, D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Nuna-
M., Toth, E., Toth, J., & Weiner, A. (2001). Rep- maker, J. F. (1992). Group size and anonym-
resentational and Advisory Guidance for Stu- ity effects on computer-mediated idea gen-
dents Learning Scientific Inquiry. In Forbus, K. eration. Small Group Research, 23(1), 49–73.
D., & Feltovich, P. J. (Eds.), Smart machines in doi:10.1177/1046496492231004
education: The coming revolution in educational
technology (pp. 7–35). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/
MIT Press.

21
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Virvou, M., Katsionis, G., & Konstantinos, M. Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (Eds.).
(2005). Combining software games with education (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated
and evaluation of its educational effectiveness. knowledge communication, and how they may
Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 54–65. be overcome. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Computer-
supported collaborative learning book series. New
Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning
York: Springer.
in small groups: A research summary. In Slavin,
R., Sharan, S., Kagan, S., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Bruffee, K. (1993). Collaborative learning. Bal-
Webb, C., & Schmuck, R. (Eds.), Learning to timore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 148–172).
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S.
New York: Plenum.
A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team
Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial Intelligence and decision making. In Castellan, N. J. Jr., (Ed.),
Tutoring Systems: Computational and Cognitive Current issues in individual and group decision
Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge. making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers,
Collins, A., & Brown, J. (1988). The computer as
Inc.
a tool for learning through reflection. In Mandl,
Wilson, J. R., & Rutherford, A. (1989). Mental H., & Lesgold, A. (Eds.), Learning issues for
models: Theory and application in human factors. intelligent tutoring systems. New York: Springer
Human Factors, 31, 617–634. Verlag.
Wittenbaum, G. M., & Park, E. S. (2001). The Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P.,
collective preference for shared information. Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. (1993). The Com-
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, mon Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization
70–73. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00118 and the reduction of intergroup bias. In Stroebe,
W., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European review of
Woolf, B. P., & Cunningham, P. A. (1987). Mul-
social psychology (Vol. 4, p. l-26). Chichester,
tiple knowledge sources in intelligent teaching
UK: Wiley.
systems. IEEE Expert, 2, 41–54. doi:10.1109/
MEX.1987.4307063 Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006).
Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning
facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-
based Learning, 1, 21–39.
ADDitionAl reADinG
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Coop-
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the eration and competition: Theory and research.
knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Associates.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
(Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, Mind, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Experience, and School. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Academy Press.

22
Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Mcintyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring Schank, R., & Neaman, A. (2001). Motivation
and managing for team performance: Emerging and Failure in Educational Simulation Design.
principles from complex environments. In Guzzo, In Forbus, K. D., & Feltovich, P. J. (Eds.), Smart
R., & Salas, E. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and Machines in Education (pp. 99–144). Menlo Park,
decision making in organizations (pp. 149–203). CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1992). The disconti-
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2008). Building nuity effect in interpersonal and intergroup rela-
bridges to improve theory and research on small tions: Generality and mediation. In Stroebe, W., &
groups. In Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European review of social
G. F. (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex psychology (pp. 121–151). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
organizations and systems: Cross-disciplinary
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006).
perspectives and approaches (pp. 17–38). San
Computer-supported collaborative learning. In
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
The construction zone: Working for cognitive University Press.
change in schools. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Thompson, L. (1998). The mind and heart of the
University Press.
negotiator. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, Conventions, Hall.
and Design. Interactions (New York, N.Y.), 6,
Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning
38–42. doi:10.1145/301153.301168
in small groups: A research summary. In Slavin,
Nye, J. L., & Brower, A. M. (Eds.). (1996). R., Sharan, S., Kagan, S., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R.,
What’s social about social cognition?: Research Webb, C., & Schmuck, R. (Eds.), Learning to
on Socially Shared Cognition in Small Groups. cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 148–172).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. New York: Plenum.
O’Malley, C. (1995). Computer supported col- Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial Intelligence and
laborative learning. Berlin, Germany: Springer Tutoring Systems: Computational and Cognitive
Verlag. Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge.
Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equa-
tion. Cambridge: SLI Publications, Cambridge Wittenbaum, G. M., & Park, E. S. (2001). The
University Press. collective preference for shared information.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10,
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning
70–73. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00118
to think. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The con-
keY terMS AnD DefinitionS
struction of shared knowledge in collaborative
problem solving. In O’Malley, C. (Ed.), Computer- Collaborative Learning: A pedagogical
supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). approach that embeds learning in collaborative
Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag. activities where students work in teams to ac-
complish a common goal.

23
 Computer Support in E-Collaborative Learning-By-Doing Environments

Collaboration Technologies: Computer tech- Problem-Based Learning: A pedagogical

nologies designed to facilitate group collaboration. approach that situates learning in the process
Educational Technology: Technologies de- of solving complex and ill-structured realistic
signed to facilitate education. problems.
Goal-Based Learning: A pedagogical ap- Web-Based Learning: A pedagogical ap-
proach that embeds learning in the pursuit of a proach that uses web-based tools to facilitate
specific goal. learning.
Learning-by-Doing: A form of learning that
obtains new knowledge through the practical
doing of things.

24
 25

Chapter 2
Collaborative Knowledge
Construction in Virtual
Learning Environments:
A Good Practice Example of Designing
Online Courses in Moodle
Kathrin Helling
Institute for Future Studies, Austria

Christian Petter
Institute for Future Studies, Austria

AbStrAct
In this chapter, a practical example of designing and implementing a Virtual Learning Environment
(VLE) building on aspects of collaborative knowledge construction is presented. Based on a theoretical
section on collaborative knowledge construction in VLEs, the potential of the VLE Moodle with regards
to its collaboration tools is introduced. The subsequent central section of the chapter has a focus on the
actual design and implementation of an online course in Moodle, following principles of constructivist
course design. The final two sections reflect on the evaluation of the course by course participants, and
possible conclusions to be drawn from designing and implementing the online course.

introDuction lated challenges and possibilities for the facilita-

tion of effective learning processes are taken into
The relevance of collaborative learning is empha- account in the current discussion (cf. Bromme,
sised with regard to computer-based educational Hesse & Spada, 2005). The book at hand brings in
and instructional approaches. Theory and research new perspectives on the topic of computer-based
of educational communication processes and the collaborative knowledge construction and in this
use of technologies for communication purpose chapter the authors aim at contributing to the book
(cf. Jonassen, 2004) is discussed widely and re- by providing a practical example of designing and
implementing a Virtual Learning Environment
(VLE) for collaborative knowledge construction.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61520-937-8.ch002

Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 Collaborative Knowledge Construction in Virtual Learning Environments

In general, for the implementation of online the ICT4T course, and both authors implemented
courses a large variety of VLEs is available (e.g. several other online and blended learning environ-
Blackboard, Sakai, Moodle, ATutor, etc.) which ments with Moodle. Furthermore, they worked
all have different functionalities for the design of as tutors in the ICT4T course offers and other
learning activities and processes. For the online Moodle courses. Therefore, the description of the
course described in this chapter the VLE Moodle course implementation process refers to practical
was chosen due to its Open Source nature and the experiences of the authors.
large developer and user community behind it. It The evaluation results of the course are de-
allows course designers to build on an extensive scribed in section five. The focus is on data which
knowledge base of pedagogical and technical provides information on the course implemen-
solutions for Moodle course implementation. tation, taking into account the aspects guiding
Furthermore, the VLE Moodle has an explicit learners, feedback and support processes and
orientation towards learning from a social con- recognition of learning, which aimed at support-
structivist perspective (cf. Cole & Foster, 2007). ing collaborative knowledge construction. Finally,
This was also an important aspect for choosing in the concluding section the authors discuss the
Moodle, because the pedagogical approach of the design and implementation of the ICT4T course
online course is based on theory of collaborative from a perspective which considers technological
knowledge construction in VLEs. In this context and pedagogical challenges of designing VLEs for
the authors consider three central aspects for the collaborative knowledge construction.
design and implementation of VLEs from a con-
structivist and situated learning perspective: Guid-
ing learners, feedback and support processes and collAborAtiVe knoWleDGe
recognising learning processes. The theoretical conStruction in VirtuAl
outline on collaborative knowledge construction leArninG enVironMentS
in VLES is provided in the second section of this
chapter, following the introduction part. Further From a perspective of situated cognition, learning
details on specific aspects of designing courses is seen as a process of active knowledge construc-
with Moodle are then provided in the third sec- tion by learners, situated in a specific physical,
tion with a focus on utilising collaboration tools. social, cultural and historical context. It is based
The fourth section is the central part of this on a constructivist understanding of learning which
chapter. It describes the so called ICT4T online sets a focus on the learners and their active role
course. The course was designed and offered in the in constructing knowledge (cf. Mandl, Gruber &
frame of the “ICT4T – ICT Training for Trainers Renkl, 2002). Collins, Brown & Duguid (1989)
– Meeting Senior Learner Needs” project, which explain that conceptual knowledge is linked to
was financially supported by the Socrates Grundt- the situation in which it is acquired through ac-
vig Programme of the European Union (http:// tive application and interaction within situations.
www.ict4t.net). The participants of the ICT4T It is distinctive for authentic activities that their
course were trainers interested in computer-based meaning is socially negotiated, taking into account
teaching for the specific target group of senior the cultural frame of the domain and situation.
learners. The ICT4T course itself was presented Similarly, Lave and Wenger (1991) consider
as an example of designing courses based on col- participation in social practice and social negotia-
laborative knowledge construction with a VLE. tion of meaning central for situated learning. In
The authors of this chapter were responsible for communities of practice new members perform
the pedagogical and technical implementation of new tasks and gain understanding through the

26
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
familiar to the Italians that they were hardly scandalised by them.
Thus though the Italians, as a whole, showed little zeal for religious
reform, they were, at any rate the wealthier classes, usually free
from superstition and unlikely to tolerate ecclesiastical despotism.
It is also to be noted that the popes in Italy did not always pursue a
policy of enlightened devotion to their spiritual interests. These
The Papacy and the interests were, or were thought to be at a
Renaissance. later time, opposed to freedom of thought,
and therefore to such an advance in literature and art as would
favour such freedom. But the popes were secular princes as well as
heads of the Church. The central provinces of Italy constituted a
considerable temporal principality; and it frequently happened that
the interests of this principality by no means coincided with the
interests of Roman Catholicism throughout Europe. The same
motives which made so many Italian princes the munificent patrons
of literature and art appealed to the popes also in their secular
capacity. They, too, desired to have a magnificent and learned court;
they were ambitious to compete with the Medici of Florence and
with the kings of Naples; they wished to have their palaces and their
churches built and adorned by the most eminent artists of their
time; they were eager that their praises should be handed down to
posterity by men whose genius would secure immortality to their
patrons as well as to themselves. Thus individual popes, such as
Nicolas V. and Leo X., were the industrious furtherers of the
Renaissance; and they unconsciously stimulated a movement which
was destined to overthrow the magnificent structure of ecclesiastical
autocracy which had been built up by their great predecessors from
Gregory VII. to Innocent III. Such shortsightedness has many parallels
in history. It is easy to recall how the French nobles in the
eighteenth century flirted with a philosophy which preached the
doctrine of popular rights and liberties; and how the French
monarchy gave practical aid to a rebellion which secured such rights
and liberties in North America, thus encouraging the advance of that
Revolution which for a time swept the French monarchy and the
French nobility from the face of the earth.
Turning now to a rapid survey of the actual achievements of Italy,
we find that the revival of literature and art was not only a stimulus
The Revival of to intellectual progress and a deathblow to
letters. ignorance and superstition; it also marks a
great step in the freedom of the individual from mediæval
restrictions. In art, and still more in literature, the individual found a
career by which he could exercise his highest talents, and in which
he could attain a personal eminence hitherto impossible. Dante, who
stands on the threshold of the Renaissance, was the first great man
in the Middle Ages who stood out by himself, unconnected with any
corporate body or institution. He used to boast exultingly that he
was his own party. The Divine Comedy gave literary form to the first
of the new living languages of Europe. For Italy the work was almost
too great; it has left too weighty an impression upon his fellow-
countrymen. To this day it is the highest ambition of an Italian writer
to use the language of Dante, and he must have frequent recourse
to a dictionary to make sure that his words were really current in the
thirteenth century. It is never wholesome to have too marked a
distinction between the language of literature and that of ordinary
life, and this servile habit of looking back has checked the growth of
a really great Italian literature in later times. But Dante, with all his
greatness, was not really imbued with the modern spirit. He had not
emancipated himself from the ideas of his time, though he had
raised himself above them. In his De Monarchia he willingly
surrendered himself to the scholastic philosophy, and made a
vigorous effort to defend the already effete and worthless theory of
a universal empire. Dante stands on the threshold of the
Renaissance, but he is rather the last giant of the Middle Ages than
the herald of a new epoch.
Dante was followed by Petrarch, whose sonnets have influenced
literary form in all countries, while his passionate devotion to the
literature and liberty of the ancients makes him the first of Italian
humanists. A contemporary of Petrarch was a man of still greater
original genius, Giovanni Boccaccio. Like Petrarch, Boccaccio was a
great lover and student of ancient literature, and he did much to
introduce the study of Greek into Italy. But it is as the author of the
Decameron that he is entitled to the greatest fame. In this collection
of stories he displayed a contempt for superstition and a delight in
life which were alien to the spirit of the Middle Ages. Chaucer
borrowed many plots of the Canterbury Tales from the Decameron;
and through Chaucer and other writers Boccaccio has influenced the
whole of later English literature.
These three great men were followed by a crowd of collectors, men
The age of who travelled throughout Europe and even
collection. beyond it in search of manuscripts of
ancient authors. It is almost impossible nowadays to appreciate the
extraordinary ardour with which the search was carried on. In some
cases the greed for these new and valuable possessions tempted
men into actions which in a less worthy cause would have merited
the name of fraud. The greatest of these collectors, who really
performed an invaluable service to the world with marvellous
industry and success, were Poggio Bracciolini, Francesco Filelfo, and
Niccolo Niccoli, the founder of the library of St. Mark in Florence.
Their most bountiful patrons were Cosimo de’ Medici, the ‘father of
his country,’ and Pope Nicolas V. During this period, which is roughly
the first half of the fifteenth century, the Italian language seemed
likely to fall into oblivion. The only great writers in Italy were Poggio
and Æneas Sylvius, and they both wrote solely in Latin. That Italian
did not go wholly out of fashion was due, in the first place, to the
influence of the Medici in Florence. One great object of their
ambition was to attract the most learned men of the day to their
court. But their anomalous position as despots masquerading in
republican robes compelled them to appeal to popular favour. Hence
even their studies had to some extent to be regulated so as to
please the people. The magnificent Lorenzo himself set an example
by writing the famous ‘carnival songs’ to be sung at popular
festivals. These songs have a place of their own in the history of
Italian literature; but they are of special importance as showing how
a great prince, in the midst of Greek and Latin studies, could find
time to cultivate the language of the people. The finest Italian poem
of the century is the Giostra of Politiano, who was not only an
eminent scholar, but also a courtier and a favourite companion of
Lorenzo de’ Medici.
In classical studies the second part of the fifteenth century was not
so much an age of collection as an age of criticism. Men set
The age of themselves to read and interpret the
criticism. treasures which had been already brought
together, and they were insensibly led to apply the teaching of
ancient writings to the circumstances and problems of their own
time. Prominent among the scholars who gave to the world the fruits
of their researches were Lorenzo Valla in Rome and Naples, and
Ficino and Politiano in Florence. It is impossible to over-estimate the
solvent influence of these studies upon human thought. Much of the
scholastic philosophy which had been based upon a corrupt
translation of Aristotle from the Arabic gave way at once before a
study of the philosopher’s original text. All kinds of delusions and
superstitious beliefs were overturned by the new spirit of inquiry.
Lorenzo Valla published a treatise to prove that the pretended
Donation of Constantine, upon which the popes had professed to
base their claim to temporal sovereignty, was a forgery. Valla was at
this time in the service of Alfonso the Magnanimous of Naples, who
had quarrelled with the Pope. Under his protection Valla went on to
attack the whole ecclesiastical system, and especially the moral
decline of monasticism. These may serve as illustrations of the
influence exerted by the new culture. In fact, so great was the
energy displayed in the work of destruction, that it seemed probable
that all the old religious bonds would be broken before anything had
been found to take their place. If Italy had stood alone, this might
have been the case. But by this time the new learning had begun to
spread to other countries. The more sober temperament of the
Germans revolted against the extravagances of many of the Italian
scholars. Luther and Reuchlin were impelled by the critical spirit of
the age to revolt against the mediæval system, but they were not
content with mere negation, and their revolt, constructive as well as
destructive, has been called the Reformation.
If we can trace to the Italians the origin of modern literature, we
may with still greater confidence call them the creators of modern
The revival of art. art, or at any rate of the arts of painting
and sculpture. Architecture was the only
form of art which did not fall into decay during the Middle Ages, and
in which the northern peoples may claim at least equality with the
people of Italy. But in painting and sculpture the Italians can claim
not only that they are entitled to all the glories of their revival, but
also that they brought these arts to their highest perfection. This is
far more than can be said of their services to literature.
In the Middle Ages painting was so bound down by fixed and
1. Painting. arbitrary rules that it hardly deserved the
name of an art. It was employed only for
religious purposes, and it was forced to conform to the dominant
religious spirit. Custom and tradition regulated not only the subject
and its treatment, but even the very colours to be employed. Any
departure from these recognised rules, if it had been possible, would
have been regarded as impious. The altar-pieces of mediæval
churches were covered with stiff and lifeless representations of
madonnas and saints. These had a conventional value, and no
artistic standard was dreamt of. There were many pictures, but no
artists. The individual, as was so often the case in the Middle Ages,
was repressed and kept down by the society of which he was
perforce a member. Anybody can obtain a concrete illustration of the
differences in painting between the Middle Ages and modern times,
who can compare a picture of Cimabue or any other contemporary
artist with a picture by Titian. The Renaissance, which bridges over
the gap between these artists, is the steady though gradual
assertion of the freedom of the individual from the bondage of
mediæval rules and traditions. The change may be traced in the
increased love of nature, in the new reverence for and study of the
human figure, and in the improvement of artistic methods. The most
important of the technical changes were the introduction of fresco
for wall-pictures, the discovery of oil-colours, which is to be credited
to the Flemings, and the employment of copper-plate and woodcuts,
which made it possible to reproduce and disseminate great works of
art. But still more important than any change in method was the
change in the very spirit of art; for the old stereotyped forms were
substituted imitations of the beautiful from Nature. The study of
anatomy and perspective became necessary for a painter. Works of
art ceased to be mechanical copies of a pattern prescribed by
ecclesiastical authority; they became an index to the mind of the
free artist. The change marks a complete alteration in the motives of
religion as well as of art. Religion ceased to be a superstitious
reverence for something unearthly and inhuman; it was brought into
closer relation with the ordinary life of men and women.
The beginning of the Renaissance in painting is usually placed in the
fourteenth century. At that time two great art cities, Florence and
Siena, were especially prominent. The first great Florentine artist
whose name has been handed down to posterity is Cimabue. His
Sienese contemporary was Duccio. In their works we see the first
conception of the beauty of the human face and figure, though they
were still bound down to the old stiffness of composition and the
prescribed distribution of colours. They were followed by a number
of artists who have obtained lasting renown. In Florence Giotto,
equally great as a painter, sculptor, and architect, founded a school
which raised the whole character of art, besides effecting a great
improvement in technique. Giotto was the first to substitute dramatic
painting for the stiff and lifeless representation of human figures
which had hitherto been universal. With him may be coupled the
name of Andrea Orcagna, Ambrogio Lorenzetti, and Fra Angelico,
though the last-named belongs chronologically to a somewhat later
period. But of these men the same observation may be made as of
Dante in literature. They are rather the greatest men of an age
which is already passing away than the beginners of a new period.
Giotto especially is the Dante of art. He and his contemporaries sum
up in a pictorial form the mediæval theories and conceptions of
religion and of human life. To their representation they contribute a
vast improvement in manner and style, as did Dante in his great
poem, but what they represent is essentially mediæval. In fact, if
any one wished to see the Middle Ages before his eyes, he might be
referred to three great pictures of this period. The gloomy personal
religion, which weighed down the spirits of thoughtful men in the
Middle Ages, may be seen in Orcagna’s picture, ‘The Triumph of
Death,’ in the Campo Santo of Pisa. On the other hand, the converse
side of religious life in the Middle Ages, the grand and awe-inspiring
organisation of the Church, is represented in ‘The Church Militant
and Triumphant,’the work of Giotto’s pupils, in the Spanish Chapel of
Santa Maria Novella in Florence. And the stormy political life of a
mediæval commune may be studied in the frescoes of Ambrogio
Lorenzetti, entitled ‘Civil Government,’ on the walls of the Palazzo
Publico of Siena.
It is when we leave the school of Giotto and his pupils, and turn to
the next generation of painters in the fifteenth century, that we find
the artistic change associated with the Renaissance in full progress.
Florence was still the most important city in the history of art. The
first great painter in this transition period was Masaccio. His frescoes
in the Brancacci Chapel of the Church of the Madonna del Carmine
at Florence may be taken as illustrating the next marked advance in
independence and artistic beauty from the days of Giotto. These
works exercised great influence upon all later artists, and especially
upon Raphael, who made them the subject of special study.
Masaccio was followed by a large number of eminent painters,
among whom may be named Filippo Lippi, in connection with whom
Browning’s poem gives so vivid a picture of the artistic struggles of
the early Renaissance, Sandro Botticelli, who was the first to
introduce classical myths and allegories as alternative subjects with
the old Biblical stories, Filippino Lippi, Domenico Ghirlandaio, and
Luca Signorelli. The last is perhaps in some way the ablest, though
by no means the most pleasing, of the fifteenth century painters. In
the boldness of his conceptions, in his knowledge of anatomy, and in
his contempt for arbitrary and meaningless rules, he is not only the
forerunner but the rival of Michael Angelo. But Florence, although
the most important, was by no means the only city in which this
artistic revolution was taking place. The same sort of work was
being done in Perugia by Pietro Perugino, the tutor of Raphael, in
Padua by Andrea Mantegna, one of the greatest of fifteenth century
painters, and, above all, in Venice by Giovanni and Gentile Bellini and
by Vittore Carpaccio. It was the work of these men, in addition to
that of the Florentine and many other painters, which prepared the
way for the supreme artists of the sixteenth century—Leonardo da
Vinci, Michael Angelo, Raphael, Andrea del Sarto, Giorgione, Titian,
and Tintoretto. These painters still devoted their talents mainly to
the illustration of religious subjects; but they treated these subjects
in a human and secular spirit. The religious and devotional aspect
was subordinated to the desire for artistic perfection of form and
colour, and to the exciting of natural associations in the minds of
men and women. There is nothing really irreligious in their art,
though it shows a new way of regarding both art and religion. At the
same time, it is possible to discover in these artists of the completed
Renaissance a certain relaxation of moral earnestness and purpose
as compared with their predecessors; their very mastery of colour
and of drawing seems to mislead them; there is no longer the noble
struggle to express a lofty meaning in spite of difficulties and
drawbacks. It was the perception of these differences which led
many thoughtful artists and art students, who formed what has been
called the pre-Raphaelite school, to devote themselves to the study
of the earlier and less faultless painters of the fifteenth century, and
somewhat to undervalue the more mature artists who had been the
idols of previous generations.
The Renaissance marks almost a greater epoch in the history of
2. Sculpture. sculpture than in that of painting. In some
respects the change which took place was
the same. Great artists revolted against the prescribed forms of the
Middle Ages, and produced works of greater beauty and greater
originality. But sculpture was more profoundly influenced than
painting by the revived study of antiquity. The great painters of
ancient Greece were mere names, their works had perished. It was
therefore only the classical spirit that influenced painting. Direct
imitation was impossible. With sculpture it was otherwise. Greek and
Roman statues were still in existence, and many that had been
buried were unearthed and welcomed with passionate reverence. In
some of these statues had been realised the utmost possible beauty
of form and truth to nature that were possible in sculpture. It was
impossible to surpass them, and before long the passion for
antiquity led to a servile imitation of the ancient originals. But the
first enthusiasm did produce a few great master-workers who
rivalled the artists of Greece. The first to inaugurate the new epoch
in the history of sculpture was Niccolo da Pisano. A Greek
sarcophagus, still preserved, had been brought to Pisa, and Niccolo
was induced by its beauty to make a thorough study of Greek forms
and methods. From this time he set himself to reconcile, as far as
was possible, the Greek love of beauty with the traditions of
Christian art. He was followed in the next century by a number of
great sculptors, most of whom were Florentines. Among their names
the most important are those of Lorenzo Ghiberti, who carved the
gates for the Baptistery in Florence, which Michael Angelo declared
worthy to be the gates of Paradise; Luca della Robbia, whose chief
works are reliefs in terra-cotta; Donatello, the sculptor of the famous
figure of David; and Andrea Verrocchio, the modeller of the grand
equestrian statue of Bartolommeo Coleone, which stands near the
Scuola di San Marco in Venice. After them came the great masters of
Renaissance sculpture—Benvenuto Cellini and Michael Angelo. The
Memoirs of the former may be commended to any one who wishes
to study the purely artistic temperament, uninfluenced by
considerations of religion or morality, which was produced in the
later stages of the Renaissance. Sculpture, it must be remembered,
was more essentially non-religious and pagan than painting. The
beauty of the face was necessarily subordinate to beauty of figure.
Thus the new religious impulse of the sixteenth century, which led to
the Reformation in northern Europe and to the counter-Reformation
in the south, was in many ways alien or hostile to sculpture, and
from this time the art tended to decline.
In architecture the Renaissance exerted an overwhelming and
permanent influence, and here again Italy led the way, but it may be
questioned whether the influence resulted in unmixed gain.
Architecture had never been a lost art, as painting and sculpture had
been. Nor was classical influence a new thing, for the Romanesque
style of the early Middle Ages had been based upon ancient models.
Beyond the Alps the early Romanesque buildings had been followed
by the great Gothic churches and cathedrals which remain the great
monument of the religious zeal of the Germanic peoples in the later
Middle Ages. Gothic architecture had been introduced into Italy by
German builders in the later part of the thirteenth century. But
Italian Gothic was a different style of architecture from that which
prevailed in the northern countries. From the first it had been
modified by national usages and by considerations of climate. The
great Gothic churches of Italy are the cathedrals of Orvieto and
Siena, and they are very different from the Gothic cathedrals of
Germany, France, and England. The excessive height in proportion to
the width and length, the enormous arches, and the flying
buttresses are absent in Italy. Italy never departed altogether from
the classical models.
The Renaissance in architecture, as in sculpture, was the result of
the revival of classical studies; and its formal changes are to be seen
3. Architecture. in the return, first to the round arch of the
Romanesque period, and later, in the use of
the flat top or lintel of the Greeks and Romans. The great building of
the early or transitional Renaissance is the Cathedral of Florence,
with its magnificent dome, the work of Filippo Brunellesco, and the
progress of the movement, may be traced in St. Peter’s in Rome,
designed by Bramante, but modified and completed after his death,
and finally in the palaces built by Palladio in Vicenza and Verona.
Thus only the beginning of the architectural Renaissance belongs
properly to the period covered in this volume, whereas much more
progress had been made in painting and sculpture by the end of the
fifteenth century. And its ultimate results were in many ways alien to
the true spirit of the real Renaissance. Gothic architecture, whatever
its defects, had given great scope for originality. After the main
design had been agreed upon, the completion of details had been
left in great measure to the ability and imagination of the individual
workmen. But the architecture of the later Renaissance laid supreme
stress upon symmetry and uniformity. Thus the workmen could no
longer be allowed to be original. Every detail, as well as the central
design, had to be fixed from the outset. The result was magnificent
and imposing, but it was purchased at the sacrifice of originality and
imagination. When the first vigour of the intellectual revival was
spent, there was a marked decline in architecture as in sculpture,
because in both the imitative faculty was cultivated rather than the
power of independent creation.
The Renaissance, like all great historic movements, contained good
and evil intermingled together. Its two prominent directions,
Humanism and the especially in its earlier period, were the
Reformation. revival of classical influences in literature
and art, and the vindication of originality of thought and of individual
freedom. Both had their special dangers, and they only went
together for a limited distance. The first tended to degenerate into
the slavish and mechanical imitation of ancient models; the second
led in many cases to atheism, to licence, to the chaos of pure
negation. Nor were these the only evils. The Renaissance spirit of
free inquiry, when applied to religion, gave rise to the Reformation,
and the religious Reformation hastened to turn against the spirit that
had given it birth. Extreme Protestantism or Puritanism was in many
ways diametrically opposed to humanism. Savonarola, who may be
said to represent the Puritan spirit upon Italian soil, urged his
followers to make bonfires of their pictures, their personal
ornaments, and even of their books. The English Puritans denounced
the love of beauty in art as a carnal and misleading pleasure. The
Protestants, who owed their origin to the assertion of freedom of
thought and worship, soon came to erect a rigid system of dogma
and church government, which was fully as repressive and intolerant
as that against which they had revolted. The persecution which they
resisted with such heroism impelled them, unfortunately, not to
practise toleration, but to become persecutors in their turn.
That the good results of the Renaissance were not entirely destroyed
or overwhelmed either by the evils of the movement itself or by the
Spread of reaction provoked by those evils, is due to
education. the impulse which the Renaissance and the
Reformation both gave to education. In every country the
introduction of the new learning and the reformed religion was
followed by the creation of new schools and universities, and by the
improvement of educational methods in the institutions which
already existed. To the spread of education we owe the greatest and
most permanent result of the Renaissance, the union, instead of the
antagonism, of morality and culture. And this union has resulted in a
higher morality than that inspired by compulsory beliefs and
compulsory observances—the morality of the free mind and
conscience of the individual.
 APPENDIX
GENEALOGICAL TABLES

A. The Succession in Bohemia. (See p. 15.)

 B. The Succession in Tyrol. (See pp. 107 and 120.)

C. The House of Hapsburg.

Note.—The Hapsburg territories were divided between Albert III. and

his brother Leopold, the former taking Austria, and the latter all the
rest. Of the sons of Leopold, Ernest succeeded to Styria and
Carinthia, Frederick to Tyrol and the lands in Swabia. The Albertine
line became extinct with the death of Ladislas Postumus, when
Austria passed to Frederick III., and the latter’s son, Maximilian I.,
reunited all the territories of the house.

D. The House of Wittelsbach.

E. The House of Luxemburg.

Note.—Luxemburg was transferred by Elizabeth, daughter of John of
Görlitz, to her husband’s nephew, Philip the Good of Burgundy, to
the exclusion of her own nearest surviving relative, Ladislas
Postumus.

F. The Later Capets in France.

 G. The House of Valois.

H. The Duchy and County of Burgundy.

Notes.—The duchy and county were united by the marriage of Eudes

IV. with Jeanne, daughter of Philip V. of France (see p. 64). On the
death of Philip de Rouvre the duchy fell to the crown, and was
granted by John to his fourth son, Philip the Bold. The County, with
Artois, passed to Margaret, widow of Lewis II. of Flanders: and her
grand-daughter, another Margaret, brought these provinces,
together with Flanders, Nevers, and Rethel, to the Valois dukes of
Burgundy.

I. The First House of Anjou in Naples and Hungary.

Notes.—Charles I., called in by the popes, acquired both Naples and

Sicily, but lost the latter in the Sicilian Vespers, 1282 (see p. 25).
Joanna I., in order to disinherit her nephew, afterwards Charles III.,
adopted as her heir Louis of Anjou, who could claim a distant
descent from Charles II. Louis obtained possession of Provence, but
he and his descendants carried on a long and unsuccessful struggle
for the crown of Naples.
 K. The Second House of Anjou in Naples.

Note.—Several members of the family made strenuous efforts to gain

the crown of Naples, but without any substantial success. Réné le
Bon, who spent a long life in Provence, disinherited his grandson,
Réné of Lorraine, and left his possessions to his nephew, Charles of
Maine, with remainder to the French crown. This enabled Louis XI. to
annex Provence in 1481, and also gave rise to the claim upon Naples
which was put forward by Charles VIII. in 1494.
 L. The House of Aragon in Sicily and Naples.

M. The Houses of Visconti and Sforza in Milan.

N. The Medici in Florence.
O. The Union of Kalmar.
P. The Palæologi.
Q. Castile.
 R. Aragon.

S. Navarre.

Note.—Spanish Navarre was annexed to Spain by Ferdinand the

Catholic in 1512. French Navarre was permanently united to France
by an edict of Henry IV. in 1607.
T. Some European Connections of the House of Portugal.
 INDEX

Abul Hakam, 471.

Acciaiuoli, Angelo, 299, 301, 302.
Acre, siege of, 452;
fall of (1291), 55, 168, 456.
Adolf of Nassau, King of the Romans, 11, 52;
relations with France, 12;
confirms the Swiss league, 129;
death, 13.
—— Count of Holstein, 444;
Duke of Schleswig, 445;
offered Danish crown, 446;
death, 447.
Adrianople, captured by the Turks, 502.
Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, 524;
at the Council of Basel, 234, 235, 239;
reconciles Frederick III. with the Papacy, 239-241, 272, 405;
elected Pope as Pius II., 276.
Agincourt, battle of, 329.
Aiguillon, siege of, 75, 77.
Ailly, Pierre d’, 194.
Aladdin III., last Sultan of Iconium, 499.
Albania, 501, 508, 511, 513.
Albert I. of Hapsburg, 11, 12;
chosen King of the Romans, 13;
policy of, 14, 15;
action in Swabia, 129;
murdered, 16.
—— II. of Austria, 111, 133, 134, 136.
—— III. of Austria, 136;
shares Hapsburg territories with his brother Leopold, 137, 398.
—— IV. of Austria, 398.
—— V. of Austria (II. as King of the Romans), 397, 398, 239;
King of Hungary and Bohemia, 399;
elected in Germany, 400;
death, 401, 507.
—— Achilles of Brandenburg, 406.
—— the Bear, 3, 453.
—— of Hohenzollern, last Grand-master of the Teutonic Order, 466.
—— Duke of Mecklenburg, 436, 437, 441.
Albert, son of above, King of Sweden, 436, 437, 442;
abdicates, 443.
—— II. of Saxony, 3.
—— III. of Saxony, 226.
Alberti, Benedetto, 165, 166.
Albizzi, the, 163, 164.
—— Maso degli, 166, 289.
—— Piero degli, 289.
—— Rinaldo degli, 289, 292, 293, 294.
Albornoz, Cardinal, 160, 161, 176, 177.
Albret, house of, in Navarre, 487.
Alexander V., 200, 201.
—— VI., 281, 287;
bull of, 493.
Alfonso III. of Aragon, 480, 481.
—— V., 239;
King of Aragon and Alfonso I. of Naples, 269, 271, 272, 484, 525;
death of, 297, 484.
—— II. of Naples, 257, 285, 287.
—— X. of Castile, 6, 8, 48, 470.
—— XI. of Castile, 470;
war with the Moors, 471.
—— son of John II. of Castile, 476, 477.
—— V. of Portugal, 477, 492.
—— of Poitiers, 47.
Algeciras, 471.
Aljubarrota, battle of, 474, 491.
Alsace, acquired by Charles the Bold, 377, 408;
recovered by Sigismund of Tyrol, 379, 380, 409.
Altenburg, battle near, 16.
Alvaro de Luna, Constable of Castile, 475, 476.
Ammonizio in Florence, 163.
Amurath I., 502;
killed, 503.
—— II., 506;
his wars with Hungary, 507, 508.
Anagni, outrage at, 29, 54;
papal election at, 186.
Andrea del Sarto, 529.
Andrew of Hungary, marries Joanna I. of Naples, 152;
murdered, 152, 153.
Andronicus II., 497;
deposed, 498.
—— III., 498, 499;
death of, 500.
—— son of John V., 171, 503, 504.
Angelico, Fra, 527.
Angora, battle of, 505.
Anjou, first house of, acquires Provence, 9, 24;
acquires Naples and Sicily, 24;
loses Sicily, 25, 48, 50, 479, 480;
acquires Hungary, 15, 16, 26, 123;
becomes extinct, 155, 271.
—— second house of, acquires Provence, 154;
claims Naples, 154, 155, 260, 266, 269, 271, 275, 277, 278, 286;
its possessions and claims pass to French crown, 258, 279, 389.
Anne of Beaujeu, 390, 391, 392.
—— of Bohemia, 208.
—— of Brittany, 391, 392.
—— of Burgundy, marries Duke of Bedford, 336;
death of, 346.
Antony, Duke of Brabant, 321, 322, 337;
killed at Agincourt, 329.
Aquitaine, Duchy of, 45, 95.
Aragon, constitution of, 478;
acquires Sicily, 25, 479;
loses Sicily, 26, 480;
acquires Sardinia, 480;
annexes the Balearic islands, 481;
 recovers Sicily, 482;
falls to house of Trastamara, 483;
acquires and loses Naples, 484;
relations with Navarre, 484-487;
united with Castile, 477, 487.
Architecture, influence of the Renaissance on, 531, 532.
Arezzo, annexed to Florence, 167.
Arles, kingdom of, 12, 56, 78, 116, 184.
Armagnac, Bernard of, 322, 330, 331, 351.
Armagnacs, the, 323, 326-332.
‘Armagnacs,’ the, in Switzerland, 408.
Army, standing, in France, 352, 353, 354, 355.
Arras, treaty of (1414), 327;
(1435), 347, 349, 359, 361;
(1482), 388, 416.
Artevelde, Jacob van, 71, 72;
murder of, 74.
—— Philip van, 317, 318.
Artois, succession in, 67;
passes to Margaret of Flanders, 90;
acquired by house of Burgundy, 320;
ceded to Louis XI., 388;
surrendered by Charles VIII., 393, 417.
Ascania, house of, 3, 10;
extinction in Brandenburg, 107, 110, 458;
extinction in Saxony, 226.
Athens, duchy of, 498, 512.
Auberoche, battle of, 74.
Austria, under Ottokar, 3;
 transferred to the Hapsburgs, 10, 127;
separated from the other Hapsburg territories, 137, 398;
succession of Ladislas Postumus, 409;
falls to Frederick III., 414;
reunion of territories, 409.
Avesnes, house of, 14.
Avignon, papal residence in, 4, 17, 30, 140, 155, 185, 458;
sold to Clement VI., 153;
quitted by the Popes, 122, 185;
Clement VII. returns to, 122, 186.
Avila, Henry IV. deposed at, 477.
Aybar, battle of, 485.
Azof, Genoese in, 495, 513.
Azores, the, 491, 493.

Baden in Aargau, 138.

Bagnolo, treaty of, 257, 284, 311.
Bajazet I., 503, 504;
defeat at Angora and death, 505.
—— II., 513.
Baldwin, Archbishop of Trier, 17, 98.
Balearic Islands, conquered by James I. of Aragon, 479;
annexed to Aragon, 481.
Balliol, Edward, claims crown of Scotland, 68.
—— John, King of Scotland, 51.
Baltic, Danish preponderance in, 420, 428;
decline of, 431;
attempted restoration by Waldemar III., 433, 435, 437;
overthrown by Hanseatic League, 438, 439, 444;
 trade in, 449;
diminished importance of, 450.
Barbiano, Alberigo da, 151.
Barcelona, treaty of, 392.
Barnet, battle of, 373.
Baroncelli, 160.
Basel, Council of, 229-242, 270, 272, 273.
Baugé, battle of, 333.
Bayonne, 96;
surrendered to France, 357.
Beatific Vision, heresy of the, 101.
Beaufort, Edmund, 357.
—— Henry, Bishop of Winchester and Cardinal, 326, 342, 345, 346,
347, 355, 356;
at council of Constance, 220;
heads crusade against the Hussites, 227, 228.
Beaujeu, Anne of, 390, 391, 392.
Bedford, John, Duke of, 334, 336-346;
quarrel with Burgundy, 346, 347;
death of, 348.
Belgrade, 507, 514;
relief of, in 1456, 406, 412, 511.
Bella, Giano della, 32.
Bellini, Gentile, 529.
—— Giovanni, 529.
Beltran de la Cueva, 477.
Benedict XI., 29, 54.
—— XII., 99, 102, 106.
—— XIII., 187, 217, 218, 221, 266.
Bentivoglio, Giovanni, 180, 181.
Bergamo, 144;
subject to Milan, 147;
acquired by Venice, 249, 251, 253.
Bergen, German ‘factory’ in, 426.
Berri, Charles, Duke of. See Charles of Berri.
Béthune, Robert of, 54.
Bianchi, the, 22.
Black Death, 79, 110, 153, 471.
—— Prince, the, 69, 79, 80, 90;
gains battle of Poitiers, 81;
supports Peter the Cruel, 93, 473;
illness and ill-success, 94;
quits France, 95;
death, 96.
Blanche of Bourbon, wife of Peter the Cruel, 472.
—— of Navarre, 485.
—— daughter of John II. of Aragon, 487.
Blanchetaque, ford over the Somme, 76, 328.
Blois, Charles of, 73;
death of, 92.
Boccaccio, 523.
Boccanegra, Simone, 169.
Boguslav of Pomerania, 445.
Bohemia, succession in, 15, 16;
acquired by John of Luxemburg, 18;
under Charles IV., 113;
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebookgate.com