Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 169–188 | Cite as

Computer-Supported Collaborative Concept Mapping: Study of Synchronous Peer Interaction

  • Vassilis Komis
  • Nikolaos Avouris
  • Christos Fidas


The paper studies undergraduate students' synchronous peer interaction using a shared Activity Space and a text communication tool. Several groups of students collaborated in order to accomplish a data-modelling task in the context of a Databases University undergraduate course. The paper presents the collaboration support environment, i.e. a concept-mapping tool, used in this study. Subsequently, evaluation of the effectiveness of the environment in the educational process is discussed along various dimensions, like group synthesis, task control, content of communication, roles of the students and the effect of the tools used. Special emphasis is given in the ways the tools and the representations used complement each other and support the process. A discussion on the use of computer-supported collaborative problem solving environments is also included.

concept mapping computer-supported collaborative learning human-computer interaction problem solving open learning environments 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, M. and Jackson, D. (2000) Computer systems for distributed and distance learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 213–228.Google Scholar
  2. Avouris, N., Dimitracopoulou, A., Komis, V., and Fidas, C. (2002a) OCAF: An object-oriented model of analysis of collaborative problem solving. In Proceedings of CSCL 2002, G. Stahl (ed), Boulder, Colorado. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 92–101.Google Scholar
  3. Avouris, N. M., Dimitracopoulou, A., and Komis, V., (2002b) On analysis of collaborative problem solving: An object-oriented approach. J. of Human Behavior (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  4. Baker, M. and Lund, K. (1997) Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, P. P. (1976) The entity-relationship model - towards a unified view of data. ACMTransactions on Database Systems, January, 9-36.Google Scholar
  6. Chiu, C.-H., Huang, C.-C., and Chang, W.-T. (2000) The evaluation and influence of interaction in network supported collaborative concept mapping. Computers and Education, 34, 17–25.Google Scholar
  7. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., and O'Malley, C. (1996) The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Learning Human and Machine: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science, E. Spada and P. Reiman (eds), Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 189–211.Google Scholar
  8. Doise, W. and Mugny, G. (1984) The Social Development of Intellect. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., and Punamaki, R.-L. (eds) (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fidas, C. and Komis, V. (2001) The architectural design of a real time collaborative concept-mapping environment from distance. In Proceedings of Euro Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, and K Hakkarainen (eds), Maastricht, March, pp. 528–532.Google Scholar
  11. Fidas, C., Komis, V., and Avouris, N. (2001) Design of collaboration-support tools for group problem solving. In Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Proceedings of the Panhellenic Conference with International Participation in Human-Computer Interaction, N. Avouris and N. Facotakis (eds), Typorama, Patras, December, pp. 263–268.Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, K. (1990) Semantic networking: The new kid on the block. Journal of Research of Science Teaching, 27(10), 1001–1018.Google Scholar
  13. Gasser, L. (1992) DAI approaches to coordination. In Distributed A.I. Theory and Praxis, N. Avouris and L. Gasser (eds), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 31–51.Google Scholar
  14. Gay, G. and Lentini, M. (1995) Use of communication resources in a networked collaborative design environment. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 1(1).Google Scholar
  15. Gifford, B. and Enyedy, N. (1999) Activity centered design: Towards a theoretical framework for CSCL. In Proceedings of Computer Support Collaborative Learning-99, University of Stanford, pp. 189–197.Google Scholar
  16. Heeren, E. and Collis, B. (1993) Design considerations for telecommunications-supported cooperative learning environments: Concept mapping as a “Telecooperation Tool”. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4(2), 107–127.Google Scholar
  17. Hutchins, E. (1991) The social organization of distributed cognition. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley (eds), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 283–307.Google Scholar
  18. Komis, V., Dimitracopoulou, A., Politis, P., and Avouris, N. (2001) Expérimentations exploratoires sur l'utilisation d'un environnement informatique de modélisation par petits groupes d'élèves, Sciences et Techniques Educatives, 8(1-2), 75–86 (in French).Google Scholar
  19. Kuutti, K. (1996) Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In Context and Consciousness. Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, B. Nardi (ed), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, R. (1997) An activity theory framework to explore distributed communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(4), 210–218.Google Scholar
  21. McAleese, R. (1998) The knowledge arena as an extension to the concept map: Reflection in action. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  22. Muehlebrock, M. and Hoppe, H. U. (2001) A collaboration monitor for shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education AIED-2001, J. D. Moore, C. L. Redfield, and W. L. Johnson (eds), San Antonio, TX, May. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 154–165.Google Scholar
  23. Novak, J. (1990) Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29–52.Google Scholar
  24. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., and Hakkarainen (2002) Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In Proceedings of CSCL 2002, G. Stahl (ed), Boulder, Colorado. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 62–72.Google Scholar
  25. Plöetzner, R., Hoppe, H. U., Fehse, E., Nolte, C., and Tewissen, F. (1996) Model-based design of activity spaces for collaborative problem solving and learning. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, P. Brna, A. Paiva, and J. Self (eds), Colibri, Lisbon, pp. 372–378.Google Scholar
  26. Rogers, Y. and Ellis, J. (1994) Distributed Cognition: An alternative framework for analysing and explaining collaborative working. Journal of Information Technology, 9(2), 119–128.Google Scholar
  27. Roschelle, J. (1992) Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.Google Scholar
  28. Roth, W.-M. and Roychoudhury, A. (1992) The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76(5), 531–557.Google Scholar
  29. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1994) Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.Google Scholar
  30. Schwartz, D. L. (1995) The emergence of abstract representation sin dyad problem solving. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.Google Scholar
  31. Soller, A. L. (2001) Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. Int. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(1), 40–62.Google Scholar
  32. Suthers, D. and Hundhausen, C. (2002) The effects of representation on students' elaboratios in collaborative inquiry. In Proceedings of CSCL 2002, G. Stahl (ed), Boulder, Colorado. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 472–480.Google Scholar
  33. Stahl, G. (2002) Contributions to a theoretical framework for CSCL. In Proceedings of CSCL 2002, G. Stahl (ed), Boulder, Colorado. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 62–72.Google Scholar
  34. Steeples, C. and Mayers, T. (1998) A special section on computer-supported collaborative learning, Computers and Education, 30(3/4), 219–221.Google Scholar
  35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vassilis Komis
    • 1
  • Nikolaos Avouris
    • 2
  • Christos Fidas
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Early Childhood EducationUniversity of PatrasRio PatrasGreece
  2. 2.Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentUniversity of PatrasRio PatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations