4SPPIces: A case study of factors in a scripted collaborative-learning blended course across spatial locations

  • Mar Pérez-Sanagustín
  • Patricia Santos
  • Davinia Hernández-Leo
  • Josep Blat
Article

Abstract

Computer-Supported Collaborative Blended Learning (CSCBL) scripts are complex learning situations in which formal and informal activities conducted at different spatial locations are coordinated and integrated into one unique learning setting through the use of technology. We define a conceptual model identifying four factors to be considered when addressing the design of these CSCBL scripts and of the technological system for supporting their enactment: the space, the pedagogical method, the participants and the history (4SPPIces factors). This paper presents and evaluates a CSCBL script designed according to the 4SPPIces factors. The script is proposed for extending the learning of geographic fieldwork in a geography course at a high school. In this script, students reflect about the urbanism and the socio-geographic characteristics of a Barcelona neighborhood. The script blends individual and collaborative activities supported by mobile and computer-based technologies conducted in the classroom, home and city. The script is evaluated in a case study involving thirty-four students and two teachers. The case study reports: (1) the CSCBL script designed with the teachers, considering the 4SPPIces factors and the associated technological environment and (2) the results of enacting the script in the actual learning context and analysing whether it fulfils the targeted learning objectives. The results from this case study show the impact of considering the 4SPPIces factors to enhance a real practice providing new learning and motivational benefits. The CSCBL script presented is an example that can encourage other practitioners and researchers to adopt the 4SPPices factors in similar educational situations.

Keywords

Computer supported collaborative learning script Blended learning Educational spaces Mobile learning Case study 

Supplementary material

11412_2011_9139_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (148 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 148 kb)

References

  1. Adams, A., Lunt, P., & Cairns, P. (2008). A qualitative approach to HCI research. In P. Cairns & A. L. Cox (Eds.), Research methods for human-computer interaction (pp. 138–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carrol, J. M. (2000). Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers, 13, 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Catalan High School Curriculum – Decret 142/2008. Web: http://www.gencat.cat/diari/5183/08190087.htm. Accessed 20 November 2011.
  4. Ciolfi, L. (2004). Understanding spaces as places: Extending interaction design paradigms. Cognition, Technology & Work, 6(1), 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de-la-Fuente-Valentín, L., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Santos, P., Henández-Leo, D., Pardo, A, Blat, J., & Delgado-Kloos, C. System orchestration support for a flow of blended collaborative activities. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems (INCOS 2010), 415–420. Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  6. Dillenbourg, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Basics of computer-supported collaborative learning. Zeitschrift Für Berufs- Und Wirtschaftspadagogik, 21, 111–130.Google Scholar
  7. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, J. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In P. Dillenbourg, & P. Jermann (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. Cognitive, Computational and Educational Perspectives (pp. 275–301). US: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dimitriadis, Y., Asensio, J. I., Martínez, A., & Osuna, C. (2003). Component based software engineering and CSCL: Component identification and dimensioning. Upgrade. Digital Journal of European Professional Informatics Societies, Special Issue on e-Learning: Boarderless Education, 4(5), 21-28.Google Scholar
  11. Dougiamas, M., & Taylor, P. (2003). Moodle: Using learning communities to create an open source course management system. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 2003) (pp. 171–178). Chesapeake, VA.Google Scholar
  12. Facer, K., Joiner, R., Stanton, D., Reid, J., Hull, R., & Kirk, D. (2004). Savannah: Mobile gaming and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6), 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frechtling, J., & Sharp, L. (Eds.) (1997). In J. Frechtling, & L. Sharp (Eds.), User-friendly handbook for mixed method evaluations. US: Directorate for Education and Human Resources Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication NSF.Google Scholar
  14. Gahan, C., & Hannibal, M. (Eds.). (1998). Doing qualitative research using QSR NUD* IST. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  15. Gee, J. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language power and social context (pp. 214–232). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Google Spreadsheets. Web: http://www.google.com/google-d-s/spreadsheets/. Accessed 19 January 2012.
  17. Gregory, J. (2003). Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 62–74.Google Scholar
  18. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75–91.Google Scholar
  19. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 163–194). New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., & Villasclaras, E. D. (2010). Pattern languages for generating CSCL scripts: From a conceptual model to the design of a real situation. In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), E-learning, design patterns and pattern languages (pp. 49–64). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Ruiz-Requies, I., & Rubia-Avi, B. (2006). Collage, a Collaborative Learning Design Editor Based on Patterns. Educational, Techology & Society, 9(1), 58–71.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(3–4), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Kurti, A., Spikol, D., & Milrad, M. (2008). Bridging outdoors and indoors educational activities in schools with the support of mobile and positioning technologies. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 2(2), 166–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larusson, J., & Alterman, R. (2009). Wikis to support the “collaborative” part of collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lim, K. Y. T. (2006). Pictures in place. Adolescent usage of multimedia messaging in the negotiation, construction and sharing of meaning about local environments. Thousand Oaks: Dissertation.com.Google Scholar
  28. Martínez-Monés, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Rubia Avi, B., Gómez Sánchez, E., & de la Fuente Redondo, P. (2003). Combining qualitative evaluation and social network analysis for the study of classroom social interactions. Computers in Education, 41(4), 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maxwell, J. A., & Loomis, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 241–272). US: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & De Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muller, M. J. & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM - Special issue on graphical user interfaces: The next generation, 36(6), 24–28.Google Scholar
  32. Oblinger, D. G. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(1), 14–18.Google Scholar
  33. Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Space as a change agent. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 1–4). EDUCAUSE. Web: http://www.educause.edu/learningspaces. Accessed 20 November 2011.
  34. Park, J., Parsons, D., & Ryu, H. (2010). To flow and not to freeze: Applying flow experience to mobile learning. Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(1), 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Nieves, R., Hernández-Leo, D., & Blat, J. (2010). Representing the spaces when planning learning flows. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2010), 276–291. Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  36. Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Ramirez-Gonzalez, G., Hernández-Leo, D, Muñoz-Organero, M., Santos, P., Blat, J., & Delgado Kloos C. (2012). Discovering the campus together: A mobile and computer-based learning experience. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 35(1),176–188.Google Scholar
  37. Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Estrella, G., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2010). From handheld collaborative tool to effective classroom module: Embedding CSCL in a broader design framework. Computers in Education, 55(3), 1018–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management Research News, 25(1), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruchter, M., Klar, B., & Geiger, W. (2009). Comparing the effects of mobile computers and traditional approaches in environmental education. Computers in Education, 54(4), 1054–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Santos, P., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Hernández-Leo, D., & Blat, J. (2011). QuesTInSitu: From tests to routes for assessment in situ. Computers in Education, 57(4), 2517–2534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  43. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G., Bachmair, B. (2010). A theory of learning for the mobile age. Learning through conversation and exploration across contexts. In Ben Machmair (Ed.) Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen (pp. 87–99). Verlag: Springer 2010.Google Scholar
  44. Spikol, D., & Milrad, M. (2008). Combining physical activities and mobile games to promote novel learning practices. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technology in Education (WMUTE 2008), (pp. 31–38). Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  45. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stake, R. E. (Ed.). (1998). The art of case study research. US/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Stenton, S. P. (2007). Mediascapes: Context-aware multimedia experiences. IEEE Multimedia, 14(3), 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tchounikine, P. (2008). Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 193–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weinberger, A., Kollar, I., Dimitriadis, Y., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., & Fischer, F. (2009). Computer-supported collaboration scripts. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 155–173). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Zelkowitz, M., & Wallace, D. (1998). Experimental models for validating technology. Computer, 31(5), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mar Pérez-Sanagustín
    • 1
  • Patricia Santos
    • 1
  • Davinia Hernández-Leo
    • 1
  • Josep Blat
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Carlos III de MadridLeganés (Madrid)Spain

Personalised recommendations