Learning through Collaborative Projects: The Architecture of an Environment
Flávia Maria Santoro
flavia@cos.ufrj.br
COPPE Sistemas
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
PO Box 68 511 - 21 945 270
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Marcos R. S. Borges
mborges@nce.ufrj.br
Núcleo de Computação Eletrônica
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
PO Box 2324 - 20001-970
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Neide Santos
neide@ime.uerj.br
Instituto de Matemática e Estatística
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
PO Box 20550-013
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Abstract: The analysis of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning research area
reveals the existence of an expressive number of environments proposing learning by means
of enabling students in collaborative development of projects. However, most environments
neither provide support to the definition of the collaborative process, nor address all process
stages. Teachers need flexible environments, where they can get support from the computing
technology, and configure various alternative projects. In this work, a conceptual and
computational infrastructure for collaborative project-based learning, composed by a
collaborative environment is presented. The infrastructure includes a tool framework, a
database of projects, and a library of references.
Key words: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Educational Groupware Design,
Project-Based Environments.
Biographical Notes:
Flávia Maria Santoro obtained her MSc degree in computer science at the Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro in 1996. She is now completing her doctoral studies in
computer science in the area of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) at the
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, under the supervision of the other co-authors of this
paper. Her areas of interest are Computers in Education, Distance Learning and CSCW.
Marcos Borges is an associate professor in the Computer Science Department and a senior
researcher at the NCE, both at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He received
his MSc degree from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro in 1981 and his Ph.D. degree
from University of East Anglia, UK. From 1994 to 1996, he was a visiting research scholar
and a member of the Object Technology Laboratory at Santa Clara University, California.
His research interests include CSCW, CSCL and Software Engineering.
Neide Santos earned a Master of Education degree from the Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro in 1989 and a D.Sc. degree in Engineering of Production at the same university in
1994. She is an associate professor in the Department of Computer Science at the State
University of Rio de Janeiro. Her main areas of interest are Computers in Education,
Educational Hypermedia, Artificial Intelligence and Education, and Web-based Education.
1. Introduction
The area of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) studies how computing
technology can support learning processes promoted by the collaborative efforts of
students working on a given task. The analysis of the area reveals the existence of a great
number of CSCL environments. Many of them propose the collaborative development of
projects [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].
Some of the attractive characteristics of a collaborative project-based approach are:
participants should have a common goal and generate products along the accomplishment
of a project; topics can be explored in accordance with learning goals; the model is wellknown in any organization, such as companies, schools and universities; and also helps
teach students how to work collaboratively.
However, the way activities are proposed within a CSCL environment may not lead to
collaboration, as several authors reported when they used their environments in real
situations. Guzial [7] points out that, simply creating a space for discussion and the
definition of a theme, in the CaMILE environment, does not necessarily lead participants
to a lively discussion. The support to the collaboration should be designed to encourage
discussion and interaction.
O'Neill [8] asserts that if real positive interdependence is not present in the tasks proposed,
the challenge of stimulating collaboration will just be an upset. Besides, teachers usually
plan their activities with antecedence; thus, it becomes extremely important that the
purposes of the environment be very clear to them. Pilot studies with Belvedere indicated
that there was a need to structure the roles and activities of the students’ work [6].
We strongly believe that the definition of activities in a collaborative project is extremely
important to determine the positive interdependence required to stimulate collaboration.
Teachers need flexible environments to support them in the use of the computing
technology, and to allow the configuration of different collaborative scenarios of projects.
In general, most environments neither provide the support to the definition of the
collaborative process, nor address all stages required in a project-based approach.
“The challenge for designers of CSCL environments is to create software supports that
enable students to follow a range of paths for completing projects” [9].
According to Cuthbert [9], investigating the interaction between students’ organizational
strategies, peer interactions, design methods, and knowledge integration can inform the
design of collaborative learning environments by providing a grounded perspective for
connecting instructional goals and technical innovations.
Aiming to address these issues, we propose an infrastructure to assist in the development
of collaborative project-based learning environments. The infrastructure supports the
design of a collaborative work environment and provides a tool framework. Within the
collaborative environment, the teacher can define collaborative educational processes, and
the students' groups obtain support from several collaborative tools in the execution of
their work tasks. Besides, the collaborative tools provided by the environment, the tool
framework also allows new collaborative tools to be developed and integrated within the
environment without much difficulty.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we discuss our approach to
collaborative project-based learning. Section 3 reviews the most relevant related work.
Section 4 describes the proposed conceptual model. In Section 5, the infrastructure, its
components and architecture are detailed. Finally, the conclusions and the future research
directions are presented.
2. A Collaborative Project-Based Learning Approach
A project is a "wholehearted purposeful activity proceeding in a social environment" [10].
Kilpatrick introduced the Project Method in 1918, when science was moving towards
making curriculum relevant to the cultural context of students. The Project Method was
designed to solve real-world problems by using a variety of instructional practices,
including laboratory work. Rather than creating curriculum based upon the subjects, the
Project Method taught content through discovering solutions to real problems that occur in
a human’s life.
The Project Method was reinforced by Dewey’s ideas, for whom, education depends on
action [11]. Knowledge and ideas emerge only from a situation in which learners have to
learn from experiences that have meaning and importance to them. These situations have to
occur in a social context, such as a classroom, where students gather to handle materials,
creating a community of learners who build their knowledge together.
Learning through projects happens by means of interaction and articulation among distinct
areas of knowledge. These connections are established starting from the students' daily
knowledge, whose expectations, desires and interests are mobilized in the construction of
scientific knowledge. The daily knowledge emerges because of an external situation under
study, therefore without fragmentation into disciplines. It is up to the teacher to motivate
the students’ awareness of project implicit concepts and it is necessary that he/she use the
common sense to intervene at the appropriate moment.
Some characteristics of project work can be summarized as follows:

to consider the expectations, potentialities and the students' needs;

to create the necessary space where teachers and students have autonomy to develop
the process of learning collaboratively, with reciprocal changes, loyalty and
responsibility;

to develop the capacities to work in a team, to make decisions, to facilitate
communication, to formulate and solve problems;

to develop the ability to learn how to learn', so that each one can reconstruct the
knowledge, integrating contents and abilities according to its universe of concepts,
strategies, faiths and values;

not to just incorporate the new technologies to expand access to the up-to-date
information, but mainly to promote a new culture of learning by means of creating
environments, which support knowledge construction and communication.
Dealing specifically with the subject of the collaboration, McGrath [12] describes four
stage activities: (i) incipient apprenticeship (goal choice); (ii) solution of problems
(resources choice); (iii) solution of conflicts (politics choices); (iv) execution (goals
reaching). These stages agree with the classical research project phases: (1) previous works
(understanding of the theme); (2) planning (definition of objectives, choosing of work
methodology and analysis of risks); (3) execution of the research (decisions, formulation of
conjectures, bibliographical researches, gathering and analysis of data, report
composition).
Other possible stages and products in a collaborative project development are:
1. Formulation of conjectures: Proposals, Discussions, Definitions and Decisions.
2. Research: Gathering and Analysis of information, Discussions and Definitions.
3. Building a Product: Texts, WWW Pages and Graphics.
The main characteristic common to all these tasks is the stimulus to information sharing.
The results obtained by each participant should have a relevant meaning for the whole
group.
The development of a project can be defined as a process, divided in stages, which are
related to each other, forming a flow of work. Each stage is summed up by means of the
execution of one or more tasks, which meet some goals and generate some products. A
representative outline of this definition and an example of a process are shown in Figure 1.
In the context of this work, the stages of collaborative development of projects are based
on a simplification of the classic phases of research projects. This decision is based on the
ideas of Demo [13], for whom education seems to decline into the instruction condition
and information reproduction, when it should be creative instrumentation. For this author,
one of the essential instruments of creativity is the research, indicating that it has
educational value, besides the scientific discovery.
Defining the component stages of the process is not enough to make collaboration happen.
It is also necessary to define the flow of work that makes collaboration essential for the
accomplishment of the process. The flow of work should provide:

maintenance of a collaboration status: the members of the group should keep in
mind that the entire team is responsible for the work;

continuous understanding of each stage goal in the context of the process;

maximum interaction among participants.
At the operational level, the project-based collaborative approach using networked
computers consists of preparing, implementing and then educationally processing the
activities carried out by students interacting with each other. Each phase set up in this
definition, i.e., planning, implementing, and processing a project and its results, consists of
major activities, which are logical steps in the process [14].
In the next section, we review the CSCL literature, and analyze how the most
representative project-based environments deal with the collaboration process.
3. Project-Based Collaborative Learning Environments
In this section some examples of computer-supported environments, which use projectbased collaborative learning approach will be examined. The goal is to observe how the
definition of the collaborative process is made and/or supported by the environments.
The Design Discussion Area (DDA) was developed in the context of the ‘Learn By
Design’ approach [3], to support students in the presentation of projects, which are devices
they have built. They should explain project decisions, show how the device works, present
reports, and discuss the next steps of the project development. Other students can ask
questions, point out problems and give suggestions. Project reports possess a pre-defined
format, which teaches students how to organize and to articulate their experiences. The
comments made by other students are also structured.
The DDA environment supports only a specific task, which is the presentation of projects,
in a whole collaborative project development process. Although it is only a single task, it
was well planned, specified and taught the students how to carry it out best.
CoWeb is a collaborative Web site, where any user can create, publish and link pages [2].
The teachers' responsibility is to create and to propose different activities to be executed
with the help of the environment. The students and the teachers have the same rights in the
use of the tool, so the students can also be the provokers of the collaborative activities.
CoWeb can be used for a series of different purposes, defined either by the teachers or the
students: library of information; repository of students' works; collaborative writing;
revision of projects; anchored collaboration; focused discussions; and a library of project
cases.
The CoWeb environment does not provide support to the definition and execution of the
collaborative process. It is up to the teacher and students to plan externally an activity and
propose the use of supporting mechanisms to accomplish it.
The Probability Inquiry Environment (PIE) provides support to textual and graphic
representations, helping students to articulate their intuitions about probability and to build
a standardized shared understanding. The students should investigate the validity of
specific chance games, in the context of guided collaborative inquiries, where each step is
designed to facilitate a different type of interaction. The conception and design of PIE are
based on the Activity Centered Model [1], whose main concepts come from the sociocultural theory developed by Vygotsky [15]: activities proposed should emerge from
activities defined in the group cultural environment.
This environment is centered in the activity and everything related to it: research data,
simulations, discussions, and conclusions. The collaborative process is summarized in
some fundamental steps when students make individual analyses and observations, and in
others when they share information and act in group to come to their conclusions and
generalize from the experience. The steps are: (1) Rules; (2) Try out; (3) Predict; (4) Play;
(5) Conclude; and (6) Principles.
From our observation in the literature, the collaboration model is certainly an important
component of successful CSCL environments, but only a small number of available
environments address this issue. An example is CLARE [16], which is based on a process
model called SECAI (Summarization, Evaluation, Comparison, Argumentation, and
Integration) that metaphorically conveys the learners from an individual position to an
integrated and collaborative perspective. The goal of CLARE environment is to support
learning of scientific text interpretation.
Students analyze texts using a semi-formal representation language called RESRA as they
follow the pre-defined work steps induced by SECAI.
Zebu is an educational groupware developed to support collaborative project-based
learning in the Internet [17]. Students build multimedia pages that are automatically
organized in-group projects. Teachers can provide templates; create objects to facilitate the
knowledge representation; stimulate discussions; and provide sources of information. In
the current stage, the collaboration process is not explicitly defined; it means there is no
linkage among activities or role definition.
Case studies made with Zebu [18] led to the conclusion that there is a need to provide the
teacher with mechanisms to the planning and visualization of activities, because they do
not have required experience in collaborative activities, which really promote positive
interdependence among the students. Besides, providing technology is not enough to
induce people's engagement in collaborative processes.
The goal of these mechanisms is to support the teacher in the collaborative interrelated
learning activities proposal that should stimulate students to participate in a process of
progressive research engagement. Therefore, an activity structure definition is under study
starting from components that deal with how the students' participation will be (individual,
small groups, big groups) to how the transition among tasks will be done (division of a
group, individuals' grouping, recombination of groups).
From the analysis of this group of tools, one can see that some environments, such as the
Design Discussion Area, support only the execution of specific tasks within the project
development, and are not concerned with planning the whole process. Others support a
series of activities, but the definition of goals and the way they will be reached should be
done outside the environment, as in the case of the CoWeb.
In environments like PIE and CLARE, all activities and their sequence are pre-defined;
they are always executed the same way. It means there is a well-defined process that is
intended for a specific learning situation and the system supports its performance.
Although they are extremely limited to one situation, they emphasize the importance of the
collaborative process.
In the case of Zebu, it was observed in the practice, the necessity of providing support to
not only to the execution of the work, but also to the definition of the whole collaborative
learning process.
The literature review shows a lack of environments providing support at the same time to
the definition of the collaborative process (work planning phase), and to different kinds of
projects (project implementing phase). That is because it is necessary to provide
mechanisms that allow teachers and students to plan the activities and the relationship
among them, and to include a large set of tools that could assist students in the execution of
different tasks.
Based on the ideas exposed in sections 2 and 3, we propose an infrastructure that includes
a collaborative environment, where teachers and students can configure the whole
collaboration process, using a process machine, and a flexible architecture from which
many collaborative tools can be easily built to assist the execution of different tasks. The
design of the infrastructure is based on a conceptual model that provides specifications for
its components and allows the description of explicit collaboration processes. In the next
section, a description of the conceptual model is shown.
4. A Conceptual Model for a CSCL Environment based on a System of
Patterns
Modeling the collaborative activities involves representation of the collaborative traits such
as conflict identification and resolution, and the roles of the collaborating peers. Brna [19]
points out contradictory meanings referring to the expression “collaboration”, related to
different educational goals: a) splitting tasks into sub-tasks to be carried out by individual
peers, or joining efforts to solve the tasks; b) collaboration as a state or as a process; c)
collaboration is an instrument and the goal is to learn about a specific domain, or is an end
in itself.
We developed a model for collaborative learning, which addresses the problem of the
process definition, and the relationship with learning theories, cultural aspects and previous
knowledge [20]. The model considered the characteristics of the most important works in
the CSCL area and is described in the form of conceptual patterns.
4.1. Model Description
All issues addressed by the model are divided into high levels of granularity, described
through a system of patterns. This system provides useful requirements to the development
of an infrastructure for project-based collaborative learning where different CSCL
environments could be instantiated. Santoro et al. [21] describe the model in detail. A
general view of the model is depicted in Figure 2.
The Collaboration Model is based on target Objective, for example, learning a certain
concept; and on the Process, required to the collaborative actions, for example,
collaborative edition of a text.
The Objective of the proposal brings the issues related to the group Context and Culture,
which will determine how the process should be implemented in order to stimulate
collaboration. The objective is related to four aspects: Previous Knowledge - background
knowledge representation of the group; Learning Theories - basis for the learning
environment; the proposal must follow one theory; Cooperation Forms - the forms, with
which the group works, should identify and define in agreement with the objective that one
wants to reach; Cultural Aspects - the cultural factors, which determine the context on
which the group is inserted, will influence the collaborative proposal objective.
The Collaborative Process is the element that describes “what people are going to do”
within the environment. Therefore, its components must define everything related to the
flow of work, such as tasks to be performed, how to know if tasks are being rightly done,
and mechanisms to support the work. A good flow of work definition is one, in which
interdependencies are established, allied with mechanisms to support work in-group. It
guarantees that collaboration process will be stimulated.
The Process element is related to 6 issues and is linked to the Stimulus area: Activity –
activities to be developed by the group; Roles – functions that group members can assume,
which can be different according to process diverse stages; Memory - storage of
everything related to the way activities happen; Coordination- related to process controls
and help to the learner; Evaluation – mechanisms to support evaluation of learning;
Awareness - elements responsible to guarantee that people understand, and are conscious
of the process.
4.2. Conceptual Model and Infrastructure
According to Figure 2, three related areas – Context, Culture and Stimulus - were pointed
out as the critical components for the development of a CSCL environment. The problems
related to these areas are described through a system of conceptual patterns. Each area is
detailed, and the patterns, which describe them, were used as a basis for the design of the
components of the infrastructure.
The patterns defined for the issues Previous Knowledge, Theory of Learning, Forms of
Collaboration, Cultural Factors and Evaluation supply guidelines for the work modeling,
the design of the tools features and the support mechanisms available. One example is
presented in Figure 3, where the Evaluation area is split, and some patterns are associated
to the sub-areas (listed on the right).
All other model elements provide requirements for the building of one or more software
components of the infrastructure. Figure 4 presents an example of a conceptual pattern and
the associated infrastructure component. The Solution part of the pattern suggests that a
workflow model should be used to describe the flow of activities in a project-based CSCL
environment. This solution is similar to the definition of business processes and it is our
approach to support the definition and execution of the collaborative development of
projects.
In this Section, we discussed two kind of examples of the model patterns: the first one
presents guidelines to learning evaluation mechanisms; and the second one defines a
software component in the infrastructure that implements the solution part described in the
pattern. All parts of the infrastructure were designed according to their corresponding
patterns.
5. Development of Collaborative Project-based Learning Environment
Based on our premises for collaborative project-based learning and the specifications given
by the model described, an infrastructure to support the development of computersupported learning environments is proposed. According to Santoro et al. [22], it addresses
the following requirements:
 The teacher should have support in the definition of collaborative tasks, their
interdependencies, the flow of work, and in the selection of appropriate computational
tools to support them;
 The infrastructure should provide the most common collaborative tool and facilitate the
development of new ones;
 Concluded projects should be available in order to allow students and reexamine
already established ideas;
 Accessibility through the Internet to guarantee flexibility.
Given these requirements, the components of the infrastructure can be defined: a
collaborative environment, a database of projects, a library of references, evaluation
mechanisms and a tool framework. The infrastructure proposal is based on COPSE Collaborative Project Support Environment [23], which is a software development
environment that provides support to the development of generic groupware tools. It is
focused on the important essential collaboration issues: communication, coordination,
group memory and awareness.
The COPSE infrastructure offers services to support both synchronous and asynchronous
mechanisms in groupware systems [24]. The COPSE environment was proposed with the
objective of providing collaborative support not only to the project level, but also to the
activity level of the development of groupware tools.
Our proposal introduced adaptations and modifications in both conception and
implementation of COPSE in order to use common and basic services already implemented
by it, and also achieve the requirements of implementing educational collaborative
environments.
5.1. Architecture of the Collaborative Environment
The collaborative environment is the space where students and teachers work, being the
starting point for planning and executing the activities of the project. The environment is
based on a client-server architecture providing access to two centralized databases: the
Project Database and the Reference Library. A general architecture of the environment is
depicted in Figure 5.
The server side is composed by the Project Server, which activates secondary servers,
maintains the Project Database, and accesses the References Library. The secondary
servers are responsible for the services available in the infrastructure:

The Process Server is one of the key components of the infrastructure, because it is
responsible for the execution of the process, working as a kind of a workflow machine.
An editing tool is necessary to help in the design the collaboration processes. Once a
process is defined, it can be associated with a specific project.
The editing tool adopts symbols and conventions that might represent all important
components of the process: activities, roles, agents, flow, rules, descriptions, and the
relationships among them. The process server interprets the model, deploys the
execution of the process in the beginning of the project, and maintains the relevant
information about its activities.

The Document Servers establish connections with the tools that make use of a
document and treat the multiple events generated within the environment, according to
a client request.

The Agent Server manages people and teams registration, and active user sessions.

The Tool Server maintains the registration of tools and active servers within the
environment.

The Evaluation Server disposes services of gathering information on the work process,
and features for building evaluation mechanisms.

The Search Server accomplishes the connection with the Library of References,
offering services to search documents required by users.
The client side presents the interface between the collaborative environment and the user.
The user “gets into” the environment and starts working through the client application.
The User Session Manager has four main functions: link the user to the main and the
secondary servers; provide project status; manage personal information; and activate the
appropriate tools, according to the process being performed.
There are also groupware tools to support the execution of activities defined in the process.
These tools establish connections with document servers related to the activities that
invoke them.
The Project Database stores information about the work process through the persistence of
instantiated objects, related to elements of the process, agents, tools, documents, and
evaluation (Figure 6 and the corresponding description in Table 1).
The Library of References is a multimedia database, which stores documents of any type
(texts, images, HTML pages, etc.).
5.2. Tool Framework
Several types of projects can be developed in the context of the collaborative environment,
indicating the need of different tools to support their activities. Thus, the infrastructure
should be flexible enough to allow the increment of new services (servers) and new
groupware tools.
A framework is a reusable design of all or part of a system that is represented by a set of
abstract classes and the way their instances interact. A framework is also the skeleton of an
application that can be customized by an application developer [25].
The Tools Framework in our environment is provided to allow the development of
groupware tools to be added to the infrastructure context. It is also possible to use it to
extend secondary servers in order to provide new resources to the environment.
In collaborative tools, different users, sharing the same document, execute several
instances of the same application at the same time. A server application can serve several
instances of a client application. The framework allows the development of both the server
and the client applications, which have similar components as shown in Figure 7 [24]:

User Session Manager - responsible for the management of users' session;

File Manager - responsible for the services of concurrency control of the shared
documents.

Collaboration Manager - responsible for the management of collaboration
mechanisms: communication, coordination, awareness, and group memory.

Event Manager - responsible for the manipulation and distribution of events that
arrive from connections among servers and client’s applications.
The client application is divided in two layers, as depicted in Figure 8:

Client Manager – components are similar to the application server.

User Interface – components support the development of the user interface.
The user interface layer is composed by the components presented in Figure 9 [24]:

General User Interface Manager (GUIManager) - manages the interface; owns interface
objects, such as windows and menus; and have two auxiliary managers which are
listeners of events received by the other layer of the application:
o Specific Tool Manager (GUIToolManager) - allows the addition of specific
menus and other interface components.
o Collaboration
Mechanisms
Manager
(GUICollaborationManager)
manages components for collaboration mechanisms.
-

Interface Controls (GUIControl) - each controller manages an interface component or a
group of commands. Appropriate components are made available for the specific
purpose of developing educational tools, developed from the specifications described
in the conceptual model. Some examples are presented in Figure 10.
The Process Editing Tool mentioned before in this section is one example of a groupware
tool developed from the Tool Framework (see Figure 11).
5.3. Evaluation Mechanisms
The infrastructure should provide means to implement mechanisms for qualitative and
quantitative evaluation of student’s learning along the project development. Santoro et al.
[21] modeled the evaluation activity in the context of a CSCL environment. In the
proposed model, three conceptual patterns describe solutions to problems identified in this
area: the evaluation of the educational process, and the individual and group results.
The first pattern, Process of Educational Evaluation, defines a learning assessing process
and its stages. Generally, the start point to define an assessment process is the choice of a
learning approach and its underlying theory. Based on it, teachers describe the learning
goals and design their pedagogical strategies, which will result in specific tasks. After that,
they can plan the assessment procedures, comprising goals, strategies and tasks. If the
teacher believes the better strategy to achieve learning goals is through the collaborative
learning approach, he must define specific mechanisms to assess both individuals and
group performance and attitudes.
The two other patterns, Individual Results Evaluation and Group Results Evaluation, point
to the need for some kind of evaluation mechanisms. The infrastructure provides
mechanisms to support both the qualitative and the quantitative evaluation approach along
all stages of the collaborative project development. Even when the learning goal is to
improve social behaviors, some mechanisms to assess individual progress must be
designed. According to Constructivist theory, each student builds his personal meaning,
bringing his own perspectives to the learning activity. Standardized tests do not furnish the
teacher the appropriate means to assess student perspective. Individualized tests or tasks
can best reflect the personal development.
In a Socio-Cultural-based environment, both knowledge acquisition and social attitude
improvement are relevant outcomes. Some kind of qualitative instrument should assess the
group development. Structured observations and interviews can give suitable data to ensue
the group progress. It is important to document the participation of each student in
collaborative tasks and his contribution to the solutions. The analysis of data files of group
interactions can offer relevant information to teachers. In addition, CSCL environments
could provide an electronic space where teachers store their comments and notes about the
individual and group behavior.
Self and peers assessment can be proposed when students are enough mature to carry out
their own assessing. Teachers must also assess the group as a single entity, observing both
academic outcomes and social behaviors.
Assessment solutions were expressed as conceptual guidelines, services and templates.
Conceptual guidelines give theoretical principles, and practical guiding about how
solutions can be implemented. Services are available in a special Evaluation Server,
allowing services of gathering data concerned to collaboration process. It also associates
teacher's comments to documents prepared by the group, and to certain events related to
the activities, formatting and presenting evaluation results through specific reports.
Teacher uses the Process Server (see Figure 5) to design and propose a process for the
collaborative project development. While carrying out an activity, students may use some
tools, which are also previously defined to support them. Using educational groupware
tool, students exchange messages, make comments and notes about the other members
work; and teachers can give concepts or grades to students’ participation and contributions.
The tool sends all the information about the interaction process to the Evaluation Server,
which by storing it, creates an activity log. There are specific reports to format and present
this information to the learning evaluators (Figure 12).
New services can be attached to the Evaluation Server aiming to provide teachers with
personal support. Besides the server, the infrastructure also presents templates for the main
evaluation mechanisms described in the patterns. Templates are empty structures
previously defined, where details can be changed and adapted to specific situations. The
mechanisms both for quantitative and qualitative analysis are summarized in Table 2.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, we presented an infrastructure to support the development of a collaborative
project-based learning environment. The goal is to create a set of facilities for
implementing CSCL environments, providing efficient support to the definition and
execution of collaborative learning. The core of the architecture is the Process Server,
which supports the design and execution of the process.
The requirements of the infrastructure were based on a conceptual model expressed as a
system of patterns. The model assures consistency to environments built from the
infrastructure, since all solutions are based on real cases or on well-established theories.
A comprehensive study of CSCL field showed environments often present low levels of
peer’s collaboration. Once the nature of the problems had been identified, the infrastructure
can address practical solutions both to software environment designers, who are not
familiar with the educational domain, and to teachers who need help to manage technology
and to design and configure the collaborative projects.
Since the architecture described is flexible, easily handled and specific for building
educational software environments, we believe it provides an answer to the lack of support
in the development of CSCL applications. Many toolkits, middleware and frameworks
provide support to the development of generic groupware tools, but there are few
concerned with the educational domain. Thus, our solution can contribute to the design of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning applications area.
Future research work will be focused on the implementation of new tools and experimental
studies with students to verify the environment efficacy and the behavior of the conceptual
model application in a series of different educational situations.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by grants from the Brazilian Science Foundations:
CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior and CNPq Brazilian Research Council.
References
[1] Gifford, B.R., Enyedy, N.D. (1999) ‘Activity Centered Design: CSCL Towards a
Theoretical Framework for CSCL’. Proceedings of Computer Supported for Collaborative
Learning, Stanford, USA.
[2] Guzdial, M., Realff, M., Ludovice, P., Morley, T., Kerce, C., Lyons, E., Sukel, K.
(1999) ‘Using a CSCL-Driven Shift in Agency to Undertake Educational Reform’
Proceedings of Computer Supported for Collaborative Learning, Stanford, USA.
[3] Kolodner, J.L., Nagel, K. (1999) ‘The Design Discussion Area: A Collaborative
Learning Tool in Support of Learning from Problem-Solving and Design Activities’.
Proceedings of Computer Supported for Collaborative Learning, Stanford, USA.
[4] Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., Lakkala, M. (1999) ‘Collaborative Technology for
Facilitating Progressive Inquiry: Future Learning Environments Tools’. Proceedings of
Computer Supported for Collaborative Learning, Stanford, USA.
[5] Stahl, G. (1999) ‘Reflections on WebGuide: Seven Issues for the Next Generation of
Collaborative Knowledge Building Environments’. Proceedings of Computer Supported
for Collaborative Learning, Stanford, USA.
[6] Suthers, D., Toth, E.E., Weiner, A. (1997) ‘An Integrated Approach to Implementing
Collaborative Inquiry in the Classroom’. Proceedings of Computer Supported for
Collaborative Learning. Toronto, Canada.
[7] Guzdial, M. (1997) ‘Information Ecology of Collaborations in Educational Settings:
Influence of Tool’. Proceedings of Computer Supported for Collaborative Learning,
Toronto, Canada.
[8] O’Neill, K., Gomez, L.M. (1994) ‘The Collaboratory Notebook: a Networked
Knowledge-Building Environment for Project Learning’. Proceedings the Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Vancouver, Canada.
[9] Cuthbert, A.J. (1999) ‘Designs for Collaborative Learning Environments: Can
Specialization Encourage Knowledge Integration?’ Proceedings of Computer Supported
for Collaborative Learning. Stanford, USA.
[10] Kilpatrick, W. H. (1926) Foundations of Method: Informal Talks on Teaching. New
York: Macmillan.
[11] Dewey, J. (1966) Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press.
[12] Mcgrath, J. (1993) Groups and Human Behavior. Readings in Groupware and
Computer-Supported Cooperative Work Assisting Human-Human Collaboration (Excerpt
from Groups: Interaction and Performance, 1984, Prentice Hall), Ed. by R. M. Baecker,
Morgan Kauffman Publishers, Inc.
[13] Demo, P. (1999) Research: Scientific and Educational Principle (In Portuguese). 6th
Edition, São Paulo: Cortez Editor, Brazil.
[14] Grégoire, R., Laferrière, T. (1999) ‘Project-Based Collaborative Learning with
Network Computers- Teachers Guide’, Canada.
http://www.tact.fse.ulaval.ca/ang/html/projectg.html (accessed by January, 3rd 2001).
[15] Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[16] Wan, D.; Johnson, P.M. (1994) ‘Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Using
CLARE: the Approach and Experimental Findings’. Proceedings of ACM Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
[17] Ward, D.R., Tiessen, E.L. (1997) ‘Supporting Collaborative Project-Based Learning
on the WWW’. Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Toronto,
Canada.
[18] Tiessen, E.L., Ward, D.R. (1999) ‘Developing a Technology of Use for Collaborative
Project-Based Learning’. Proceedings of Computer Supported for Collaborative Learning,
Stanford, EUA.
[19] Brna, P. (1998) ‘Models of Collaboration’. Proceedings of the Workshop on
Informatics in Education, XVIII Congresso Nacional da Sociedade Brasileira de
Computação. Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
[20] Santoro, F.M., Borges, M.R.S., Santos, N. (1999) ‘Towards a Model for Developing a
Cooperative Learning Environment’. Proceedings of TISE’99. Santiago, Chile.
[21] Santoro, F.M., Borges. M.R.S., Santos, N. (2000) ‘Cooperation Model for Learning:
A System of Patterns’. Proceedings of the Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia and Telecommunications. Montreal, Canada.
[22] Santoro, F.M., Borges. M.R.S., Santos, N. (2000) ‘An Infrastructure to Support the
Development of Collaborative Project-Based Learning Environments’. IEEE Press
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Groupware-CRIWG. Madeira, Portugal.
[23] Dias, M.S. (1998) ‘COPSE – An Environment to Support Cooperative Software
Development’. Master Dissertation in Portuguese. COPPE/Sistemas, UFRJ, Brazil.
[24] Dias, M.S.; Borges, M.R.S. (1999) ‘Development of Groupware Systems with COPSE
Infrastructure’. IEEE Press Proceedings of International Workshop on Groupware
CRIWG, Cancun, Mexico.
[25] Johnson, R.E. (1997) ‘Components, Frameworks, Patterns’. ACM 0-89791-9459/97/0005.
[26] Leite, A. de S., Omar, N. (1999). ‘Pedagogical and Didactical Knowledge
Representation in Intelligent Educational Systems’ (In Portuguese) Proceedings of X
Brazilian Conference on Informatics and Education. Curitiba, Brazil.
[27] Secretaria Municipal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (1996) Multieducation: Basic
Curricular Nucleus (In Portuguese). RJ, Brazil.
[28] Tarouco, L.M. R., Hack, L.E. (1999) ‘Assessment in Distance Learning: Kirkpatrick’s
Model‘ (In Portuguese) Proceedings of X Brazilian Conference on Informatics and
Education. Curitiba, Brazil.
[29] Marshak, R.T. (1995) ‘Groupware: Technology and Applications’, Chapter 3:
Workflow: Applying Automation to Group Processes. David Coleman & Raman Khanna
(ed), Prentice Hall, NJ, USA.
Tables
Table 1. Components of the Data Model
Table 2. Evaluation mechanisms templates presented within the infrastructure
Table 1 – Components of the Data Model
Component
Process
Responsibilities
Management of the process.
Agent
Management of individuals
and groups.
Management of data and all
documents related to a
project
Registration of tools and
their available functionalities
Document
Tool
Evaluation
Recording interactions
workgroups.
in
Services
 Definition of process models composed
by activities; flow, roles and access
control; execution and control of the
process.
 Configuration of work teams; mailbox;
agenda.
 Registration of documents and associated
types;
version
control;
histories;
annotations; hyperlinks.
 Registration
of
tools;
activation;
association of a tool with a document
type, association of functionalities of a
tool with roles described within the
environment.
 Gathering of data concerned to the
collaboration process, association of
teacher's reports to documents produced
by a group, and events related to the
process activities, formatting and
presenting evaluation results.
Table 2. Evaluation mechanisms templates presented within the infrastructure
Quantitative Evaluation Individual Exams, which verify the student progress,
according to its personal characteristics.
Questionnaires and interviews.
Questionnaires of self-evaluations, where the tutor or the
student can create the structure of topics to be assessed.
Group Exams.
Observations about the interactions during the work
Qualitative Evaluation
process.
Annotations or structured comments (having some kind of
grading) on the students' development.
Possibility for the group members to evaluate the
accomplished work and to evaluate other members.
Figures
Figure 1. Project Development and an example of a process
Figure 2. Collaboration Model for Learning
Figure 3. Pattern related to the Evaluation Element of the Conceptual Model
Figure 4. Pattern related to the Activity Element of the Conceptual Model
Figure 5. Architecture of the Collaborative Environment
Figure 6. Simplified Data Model
Figure 7. Application Server Structure
Figure 8. Client Application Layers
Figure 9. User Interface Framework Structure
Figure 10. Examples of Available Components
Figure 11. Process Editing Tool
Figure 12. Representation of the Information Gathering in the Infrastructure
Project Development
Process
Flow of stages
Stages
Set of tasks
Goals accomplished and
Products generation
Tasks
Stage 1
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Stage 2
Stage 4
Stage 3
Task 5
Task 6
Task 4
Stage 5 Task 8
Task 9
Figure 1 - Project Development and an example of a process
Context
OBJECTIVE
Cooperation Forms
Previous Knowledge
Learning Theory
Culture
Cultural Aspects
Stimulus
PROCESS
Activity
Memory
Roles
Coordination
Evaluation
Awareness
Figure 2 - Collaboration Model for Learning
Evaluation
Individual Results
102 – Individual Results Evaluation
101 – Process
Group Results
of Educational Evaluation
103 – Group Results Evaluation
Pattern name: Process of Educational Evaluation
Problem: How to define an evaluation process in the CSCL context and relate it to an underlying
learning theory?
Context: The evaluation is a process aiming at verifying whether the extent CSCL experiences are
actually producing the desirable effects. The educational goals, i.e. the concepts and abilities taught and
the designed activities, are part of this context.
Forces: The evaluation process starts with the definition of program goals. In other words, its main aim
is to determine at what degree the desirable goals are actually being accomplished. It is directly related
to the type of proposed educational activities, and consequently to the learning theory they are based on.
In the view of a social-cultural and constructivist theory, it is not possible to evaluate the knowledge
construction disassociated from the process, which enable it. For this reason, the evaluation should be
continuous and allow the tutor to identify and create zones of proximal development (Vygostky).
In the constructivist educational space, processes are even more relevant than the generated products.
The reality should not be reduced to the observation of final conceptions. The qualitative evaluation
should go beyond the quantitative evaluation, but without disregarding the latter.
Solution: The evaluation process of learning in a cooperative environment can be defined with 4 steps:
 The educational goals can be used as a first step towards the definition of the items to be evaluated.
Among these items, we can also include the learning of the cooperation process itself. To map the
relationship between the educational goals and the validation variables we can use some method for
knowledge representation such as the one proposed by Leite and Omar [26].
 The next step of the evaluation process is the identification of situations, which allow the students
to manifest their expected behavior as derived from the educational goals. These situations should
occur during the entire working process developed within the environment context. The
environment should provide the means for the intervention from the part of the tutor anytime he
decides this to be necessary for evaluation purposes. These interventions should be inserted in the
development of proposed activities and should be possible to set them differently for each member
of the group.
 Next, the instruments for evaluation should be examined. They can either use those already
available or develop them. These instruments should be capable of collecting, storing and analyzing
the data about the progress of each member and of the group as a whole.
 The last step is the definition of quantitative and qualitative measures, which represent the result of
the evaluation. For qualitative measures, we can use a set of concepts aimed to represent the student
progress, such as: cognition, social relationships, participation, argumentation capability, criticism
and creativeness.
Related patterns: Evaluation of individual results and Evaluation of group results.
Known uses: Studies in the area of education [27], identified classical methods for the evaluation
process, establishing a direct relation to educational goals. Some computer-supported learning
environments adopt these methods, either in part or as a whole. They developed specific solutions to
help the representation of goals and supporting tools in some of the stages of these methods [26, 28].
Remarks: CSCL environments, with exception of those related specifically to distance learning have
not frequently addressed the evaluation of learning. Therefore, the definitions and solutions of this and
related patterns were extracted from other computer-supported learning environments and from studies
in the educational area.
Guidelines to
implement evaluation
mechanisms
Figure 3 – Pattern related to the Evaluation Element of the Conceptual Model
Activity
Collaborative Tasks
Dynamics
Protocols
005 – Interdependency Characteristics
006 – Task 1
007 – Collaborative Tool 1
008 – Task 2
009 – Collaborative Tool 2
010 – Task 3
011 – Collaborative Tool 3
001 – CSCL Activities
002 – CSCL Activities Description
Individual Tasks
003 – Individual Tasks
Supporting Tools
004 – Individual Products
Integration
012 – Flow of Activities Components
013 – Knowledge Representation
Pattern Name: Flow of Activities Components
Problem: How to describe the flow of collaborative activities in a CSCL environment?
Context: The context of a collaborative project development-based learning involves a group of people that
should carry out some tasks to reach a common goal. This goal is successfully reached if the group defines,
drifts, organizes and manages the tasks to be accomplished, the people who will accomplish them and the
products that should be generated.
Forces: The definition, planning, organization and management of activities indicate that the group should
define a work process. In order to describe a work process, it is necessary to define the relationship among
the several activities: flow, interdependences, hierarchy, incomings, outgoings and generated sub-products.
Solution: A Workflow model should be used to describe the flow of activities in a CSCL environment for
development of projects. The model should contemplate graphic elements that represent the activities, their
relationships, the people involved (who carry out their roles) and the generated products. All these elements
should be defined and described by the group.
Related patterns: CSCL Activities
Known Uses: Marshak [29] defines the workflow technology as management of processes of business. A
process of business is a sequence of actions or tasks that should be performed in order to reach an objective.
According to this author, workflow applications consist basically of: Tasks, People and Tools. This definition
can also be applied to the context of collaborative development of projects for learning.
Process Server
Component
(Workflow Machine)
Figure 4 - Pattern related to the Activity Element of the Conceptual Model
User 1
User m
…
Evaluation
Mechanism 1
User Session Manager
…
…
Tool 1
Evaluation
Mechanism n
Tool n
Process
Server
User Session
Manager
Agent
Server
Tool
Server
Search
Server
Tool k
Evaluation
Server
Document
Servers
Project Server
Project Database
Reference Library
Figure 5 - Architecture of the Collaborative Environment
Agent
Process
Document
Tool
Figure 6 - Simplified Data Model
Evaluation
Client
connection
Server
ServerSocket
Server
CollaborationManager
FileController
Server
CollaborationHandles
SessionManager
Server
EventHandler
ToolSession
File
UserSession
User Connection
Handler
Client
Connector
communication
Figure 7 - Application Server Structure

User Interface
Client Manager
Server
Applicatio
n
Figure 8 – Client Application Layers
GUIManager
Frame
MenuBar
Client
...
Listener
GUICollaboration
Manager
GUITool
Manager
Menu
Collaboration
Control
Tool
Control
GUIControl
Figure 9 – User Interface Framework Structure
GUIControl
Task Knowledge
User List
User Information
TelePointer
Radar
MultiScrollBar
Message
Chat
Scratchpad
Activity
TaskList
Roles
Notes
History
DocumentElements
File
Edit
Help
Roles Awareness
Teacher Comment
Figure 10 - Examples of Available Components
Figure 11 – Process Editing Tool
MONITORING INFORMATION
EDUCATIONAL GROUPWARE
TOOL



Messages
Contributions (comments, annotations)
Grades given by teacher, and group members
SENDS INFORMATION TO THE SERVER
Storing information within the
context of the activity/project
EVALUATION SERVER
TAKES INFORMATION FROM SERVER
EVALUATION MECHANISMS
REPORTS
Formatting
and
presenting
information on special Reports
Figure 12 – Representation of the Information Gathering in the Infrastructure