collaborative learning in computer

WCIS_A_621803_O

This article was downloaded by: [39.231.26.15] On: 29 November 2013, At: 16:07

Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computers in the SchoolsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcis20Sharing, Talking, and Learning in the Elementary School Science Classroom: Benefits of Innovative Design and Collaborative Learning in Computer- Integrated SettingsJ. Andrs Gallardo-Virgen a & Robert A. DeVillar b a Golden Rule Schools, Inc , Dallas, Texas, USA

b Bagwell College of Education, Kennesaw State University , Kennesaw, Georgia, USA

Published online: 16 Dec 2011.To cite this article: J. Andrs Gallardo-Virgen & Robert A. DeVillar (2011) Sharing, Talking, and Learning in the Elementary School Science Classroom: Benefits of Innovative Design and Collaborative Learning in Computer-Integrated Settings, Computers in the Schools, 28:4, 278-290, DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2011.621803To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2011.621803PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLETaylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to

the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,

and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditionsComputers in the Schools, 28:278290, 2011Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0738-0569 print / 1528-7033 online DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2011.621803Sharing, Talking, and Learning in the Elementary School Science Classroom: Benefits of Innovative Design and Collaborative Learning in Computer-Integrated SettingsJ. ANDRE S GALLARDO-VIRGENGolden Rule Schools, Inc, Dallas, Texas, USAROBERT A. DEVILLARBagwell College of Education, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia, USAImpact on student achievement of randomly assigned students working individually or collaboratively in mixed- and matched- gender pairs at a computer on predetermined science tasks was investigated. Collaborative dyads shared a computer and screen as each operated an independent keyboard and mouse. A mixed gender control group working individually at their respective computers was used for comparison purposes. A software application was designed to facilitate collaborative work and track the quantity of text written by users and their respective use of time. A final written assessment was conducted to compare the level of academic achievement between the control group and the experimental. A significant difference in academic achievement resulted.KEYWORDS collaborative/cooperative learning, computer integrated instruction, educational equity, elementary school science, Mexico, private schoolsLanguage serves as the primary medium in helping students to construct their understanding of complex concepts in science, and to reason more effectively about science and technology. Instructional settings that use information and communication technologies can complement students traditional learning through text and spoken language by integrating diverse tools that enhance communication and that include graphical images, animation, audio, video, simulations, as well as three-dimensional models, and virtualAddress correspondence to Dr. Robert A. DeVillar, Bagwell College of Education, Kenne- saw State University, 1000 Chastain Rd., Kennesaw, GA 30144. E-mail: [email protected]

worlds. This panoply of innovative communicative means is sufficient reason to examine how language is used among students within todays science classroom where enhanced technology tools support computer-enriched instruction (Lemke, 2005). Research is particularly relevant within technology- mediated classroom settings where students share a personal computer to optimize technology resources and engage in cooperatively designed problem-solving activities (DeVillar, 1990, 1991).Classrooms are not traditionally structured to elicit substantive studentstudent conversation, although such interaction is standard behav- ior within social interactions outside the classroom. In social interaction settings, students, as others do, generally follow informal and unspoken rules of discourse (Goffman, 1981). Ideally, the smoothness in role alternation between speaker and listener in a normal dialogue stems from the inter- locutors common purpose to minimize the conversational overlap and time lapses between turns. The context in which this alignment is produced is a social onethat is, one in which communication is synchronized between speaker and listener, enabling the alternate turn-taking action that contributes to mutual understanding (Garrod & Pickering, 2004). To what degree students working together in pairs within a science classroom dialogue with one another in communicative synchrony to solve problems, and to what degree this socially enhanced learning context differs from students working individually at computers, were the focus of the authors in this research.JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

In our increasingly globalized world, it is imperative for students to achieve a heightened level of literacy to complement strong academic skills. The 21st Century Workforce Commission criteria for literacy not only include thinking and reasoning skills, but also effective communication and teamwork skills (Johnson & Johnson, 2009a), as well as proficiency in using technology (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000). The Commission report highlights the fact that the current and future health of Americas 21st century economy depends directly on how broadly and deeply Americans reach this level of literacy. How quickly the United States can achieve this goal is also a salient factor in developing a workforce prepared to design, produce, evaluate, and use technology in the ever-increasing aspects and dimensions of U.S. life (The Childrens Partnership, 2005).The United States is not alone in this technology-driven imperative to educate its students. Other countries are involved in a similar process of development, to greater or lesser degrees, and workforce demand scenar- ios are such that the Commission report cited readily acknowledges that a flexible immigration policy for skilled IT [information technology] work- ers is one of the keys to success (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000).

Throughout the last century, Mexico provided a significant number of immi- grants to the United States that were characterized as largely unskilled relative to the U.S. Department of States occupational listing (U.S. Department of State, 2009)a pattern that continues today. As a developing country, Mexico faces great challenges in formally educating its citizenry. It had, for example, the second smallest budget per capita within the nations compris- ing the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the year 2005. In addition, Mexico spent only 1,467 USD (U.S. dollars) per elementary school student, or 27.6% of the mean OECD expenditure of5,313 USD in this category (OECD, 2005).Throughout Mexico, private and public schools exist where computing classroom settings consist of student pairs sharing a personal computer to optimize technology resources. Computers, however, traditionally are designed for use by a single student. Two students at the same computer could produce a setting within which inequity is experienced in the use of the input devices. Equity is defined here as each students comparable access, participation, and benefit relative to computer-integrated instruction (DeVillar,1986, 1987, 2000; DeVillar & Faltis, 1987), particularly within social learning contexts, where collaborationor its more structured and research-informed methodological kin, cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2009a)is expected, by design or intuition. Thus, the fundamental and persistent problem to be addressed in resource-constrained, or even resource-rich, contexts where two or more students access the same computer, relates to trans- forming the shoulder-to-shoulder (also known as side-by-side and parallel) learning setting to a socially interdependent, interactive learning setting characterized by negotiated communication between student partners that leads each to optimal academic achievement (DeVillar, 1991; Jenson, de Castell, & Bryson, 2003).PURPOSEThe general research aim was to determine the impact on the academic achievement of preadolescent students, working collaboratively in dyads at shared computers, who studied a natural science unit regarding oviparous and viviparous animals. The dyad computer setting was enhanced by the following innovation, which was conceptualized by the second author and designed and produced by the first author: Each student shared a common screen and computer in the dyad, but each had individual access and control of his or her input device (mouse and keyboard). A group of students working individually, each at a single computer, was used for control purposes. A secondary aim of the authors in this study had a socioeconomic orien- tation (DeVillar, Faltis, & Cummins, 1994) that was dependent on the null hypothesis being rejectednamely, to associate effective collaborative learning outcomes using independent input devices and a shared output device

with substantive economic savings on computer configurations, particularly for developing countries and, more generally, resource-constrained school contexts. The economic savings of shared devices would be justified to the degree that pedagogical gains were greater under these conditions than gains made by students working individually at computers. This second aim would not detract from the more general hypothesized finding that a collaborative learning setting in which a mixed-device computer configuration was used would result in pedagogical benefits regardless of economic constraints.HYPOTHESESThe primary research objective was to determine if a difference existed between the experimental and control groups studied. The experimental group consisted of 4th-grade student dyads working collaboratively, in mixed and matched pairs, with each partner using his or her own input device at a shared display. A control group comprised of 4th-grade students worked individually at a personal computer. Two hypotheses were generated to reflect possible outcomes relating to the research context:H0 . The work developed through the conditions of collaborative learning created in the present research design does not produce sufficient evidence to infer that an improvement exists in the quality of the academic achievement of the pupils.H1 . The conditions of collaborative learning created in the present research produce sufficient evidence to infer that there exists an improvement in the academic achievement of the students.SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGIC CONTEXTThe school where the research was conducted is a private school located in a Mexican city whose 567,996 inhabitants have a school completion mean of8.4 years (National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Computing, 2005), slightly above the national schooling mean of 8.1 years. Only 22.1% of Mex- ican households have computers nationwide (National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Computing, 2007); however, 95.8% of the students who par- ticipated in the experiment had computers in their homes. Additionally, all students had studied computing since the 1st grade of elementary school.METHODOLOGYThe students were divided into a control group whose members worked individually at his or her computer, and an experimental group whose members

worked collaboratively in pairs at their respective computers. Participants within the experimental group were divided again, so that each student within a dyad would study a different sub-theme in the first part of the experiment and specialize in it. Collaborative engagement was accomplished through a variation of the Jigsaw II method (Slavin, 1991) adapted for pairs and the Take protocol as a turn-taking method (Inkpen, Booth, Gribble, & Klawe, 1995). To complete an exercise collaboratively, each student partner, by way of the computer, shared the information in which he or she had become specialized.Forming GroupsFourth-grade students were selected based on criteria regarding level of computer concepts and skills generally common to students within Mexican private school settings. Third-grade students, for example, can learn the basics of computer operation, including notions of input, memory, central- processing unit, arithmetic unit, and output. Fourth-graders, in turn, can become thoroughly familiar with the notions of software and hardware and the concept of a program as a set of instructions (Bitter, 1983). Additionally, students around the age of 10 may have extensive computer experience, which was the case for students at the research site, and thus be ready to critique software (Hanna, Risden, & Alexander, 1997).Applying the criteria mentioned previously, 4th-grade students from the school were invited to participate in the research. All students, 9 females and15 males, agreed to be part of the research study. Students were randomly separated to form two groups with 12 participants in each group.In the experimental group (EG), dyads worked collaboratively sharing the computer, each one using his or her mouse and keyboard. Settings such as this one that use an application combining multiple independent input channels (mouse devices, keyboards) together with a single shared output channel (computer monitor) fall within the Single Display Groupware (SDG) design (Stewart, Bederson, & Druin, 1999). In the control group (CG), each student worked alone at his or her computer.Each dyad with the EG was divided in two subgroups (EG11-6 ) and EG21-6 ) to allow researchers to differentiate between each student in the matched pair, and the set of input devices he or she used, while at the same computer. The three group classifications were each identified by student- selected pet names. The last step in the process was to form mixed dyads composed of EG1 and EG2 partners. Six pairs of students were randomly selected to work in mixed-grouped EG dyadsWorking SessionsSessions were conducted during the computing class and within the planned activities in the regular classroom. Following guidelines to assess students

(Hanna, Risden, & Alexander, 1997), each session consisted of 30 minutes working on subject-matter specific materials in the classroom and 30 minutes of practice using the computer software in the computer lab.Selected MaterialThe material used in the research was part of the elementary school program authorized by the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) of Mexico. The themes specifically selected related to viviparous and oviparous animals, which, as themes, were current at the time of the research and complied with the MPE-authorized natural science subject matter for 4th grade.Experimental ProtocolThe experiment required three working sessions, divided in two phases. During Phase I, which encompassed the first two working sessions, students reviewed the material for viviparous animals in the first working session and for oviparous animals in the second one. In Phase II, students reviewed a summary of the material studied in Phase I. Finally, a written test was required of all students, the results of which were statistically analyzed.PHASE I

Phase I of the experiment consisted of two sessions, each one subdivided into two stages. Session 1, Stage 1 included a lesson on scientific subject matter relative to viviparous or oviparous animals, each of which was covered by one of two teachers in the classroom. The EG1 group studied viviparous animals as the EG2 group studied oviparous animals; each group was taught by a qualified teacher and worked in separate learning centers located within the same classroom. Session 1, Stage 2 entailed all students working on the viviparous assignment in the computer laboratory. Students in the experimental group were paired in mixed-group dyads (EG1 + EG2) on shared computers and independent input devices, using the specially designed software. The dyads engaged in a jigsaw variation of cooperative learning (Aronson & Patnoe, 2011), where the student having received specialized instruction regarding viviparous animals served as the tutor for the student partner who had not. Control group students used the same software in its single-user version. Session 2, Stage 1 duplicated the instructional format: The EG1 group continued its specialized instruction regarding viviparous animals, while the EG2 group continued its specialized instruction of oviparous

animals. The CG received instruction on oviparous animals. Session 2, Stage 2 involved all students studying oviparous animals, where the EG2 group served as tutors for the EG1 group.Subject matter instructional stage. CG students who worked in individual settings, identified as frogs, were exposed to each theme in different sessions as follows: In the first session, they studied viviparous animals; in the second one, they studied oviparous ones. At the same time, within the experimental group, two sets of thematically matched dyads, in which each student was identified as a dog or hen, studied their particular sub-theme: viviparous animals for dogs (EG1) and oviparous for hens (EG2).Subject matter practice stage. Students within the CG progressed through their subject matter activities individually, each at a single computer, over the course of two sessionsthe first session related to viviparous animals; the second, to oviparous animals. Dyads, meanwhile, progressed through their respective activities relating to one of the two sub-themes, either viviparous or oviparous animals, distributed over the course of two sessions, using the independent input devices-shared output device computer configuration.PHASE II

A third session was designed for all students, as a whole group, to review the material in the classroom and, subsequently, in the computer laboratory, using the earlier mixed-pair dyad configuration (EG1 + EG2) in the case of the experimental group. Students reviewed the subject matter presented in the classroom and were required to engage in a final assessment in the computer lab, where each group (EG1+2 and CG) used the computer configuration previously assigned it. The final assessment scores are shown in Table 1.TABLE 1 Final Assessment Scores, Grades (010 scale) of Experimental andControl GroupsExperimental GroupControl Group

9.2310.0

9.239.23

9.238.85

9.238.85

9.238.85

9.238.46

9.238.46

9.238.08

8.857.69

8.467.31

8.466.73

6.926.54

ANALYSISTo analyze the impact in student achievement for groups working collaboratively and individually, the hypothesis testing statements were defined as follows:H0 : 1 2 = 0H1 : 1 2 > 0where 1 and 2 are the average scores of groups EG and CG, respectively. Using the results of the final assessment scores represented in Table 1, the following statistical values were obtained.y1 = 8.878205; s 2 = 0.469562; s1 = 0.685246y2 = 8.253205; s 2 = 1.058756; s2 = 1.028959From the above values, the combined estimation of the common variance,s 2 , was calculated:(n1 1)s 2 + (n 1)s 2s 2 =

1 2 2s 2 =

n1 + n2 2(12 1)0.469562 + (12 1)1.05875612 + 12 2s 2 = 0.76415972; s = 0.874162Due to the alternative hypothesis, the authors determined that it was necessary to use a statistical unilateral test and that the region of rejection of the test is located at the top end of the t distribution. The statistical value of the test is as follows: ( y1 y2 )t = 1 1s n1 + n2(8.878205 8.253205)t = 1 10.874162t = 1.751312

12 + 12

A value of confidence of 0.95 was defined for the statistic value t(0.05,22) , resulting in value t(0.05,22) = 1.717144.

FIGURE 1 Number of characters written by subgroups EG1 and EG2.Comparing the value t = 1.751312 versus the critical value t(0.05,22) =1.717144, the result of the information collected falls within the rejection region, t > t(0.05,22) , and leads us to reject hypothesis H0 : 1 2 = 0. There- fore, hypothesis H1 : 1 2 > 0 is accepted, and there is sufficient evi-dence to indicate a difference in the academic achievement as a result of the use of the collaborative classroom settings at this level of statistical confidence. The values of 8.88 and 8.25 for 1 and 2 , respectively, show that students sharing computers scored slightly higher than those working individually.DISTRIBUTION OF TASK ENGAGEMENTThe contribution by each student within subgroups EG1 and EG2 in each computer set is represented in Figures 1 and 2 in two forms: (a) the number of characters written during the practice session by each student in a dyad, and (b) the corresponding percentages for each student within the six dyads.Although it was not possible to determine a pattern of participation relative to gender, the authors did observe a certain level of distribution of the work across dyads. In four of the six cases, for example, the differential distribution of work between members within any particular dyad ranged from 15.14% to 7.38%. In two cases, however, the differential distribution of work was noticeably broader: 67% (nominally) versus 33%.

FIGURE 2 Percentage of characters written by subgroups EG1 and EG2.CONCLUSIONSComputers continue to become relatively more affordable for schools as a result of the decreasing cost of technology. In many cases, but certainly not all, students can have access to their own computera phenomenon natu- rally exhibited more in developed countries than the ones that are referred to as developing. However, beyond independent access to technology, educational leaders should re-evaluate the research within the fields of social science and education, where robust research exists regarding the socioaca- demic benefits associated with cooperative (formally structured) and collaborative (less formally or informally structured) dyadic and small group learning settings. The results of this experiment demonstrate that using collaborative groupings in the elementary school, computer-integrated science classroom can result in academic gains greater than those achieved by students working individually at the computer.In developing countries such as Mexico, where computers tend to be shared by students, this alternate type of collaborative technology-integrated classroom setting, characterized by independent input devices and a shared output device, could constitute an affordable solution to doubling the capac- ity of the existing infrastructure of personal computers. An adequate family of software programs needs to be designed specifically for this low-cost hardware arrangement to more ably and comprehensively address the equity needs relative to access, participation, and benefit of students working and learning together at the computer.

A limitation of the present study is that it was conducted within a private school setting, where students had received computer training since school entry and where virtually 100% of the students had computer access at home. Thus, the degree to which the present studys findings are generalizable to low-income, resource-limited, and experience-limited settings and students is unknown and highlights the need for a specific study within this type of setting.The technically designed arrangement of the devices theoretically promotes equity in access to the computing resources and, therefore, a greater possibility of equitable distribution. The actual achievement of desired balance in their use raises two recommendations for further study:1. The need for students to be formally trained in collaboration or its more formal complement, cooperative learning, to learn to engage in negotia- tion to navigate through differences (Johnson & Johnson, 2009b).2. The production of a software update to complement the existing software application utilized in this study to enable teachers to operationally define desired balance and measure its degree of occurrence between pairs of students working together in a learning activity.REFERENCESAronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (2011). Cooperation in the classroom: The jigsaw method(3rd ed.). London, UK: Pinter & Martin Ltd.

Bitter, G. G. (1983). Computer literacy cross the curriculum: A scope and sequence model. SIGCUE Outlook, 17(4), 712. doi:10.1145/1045083.1045085.Chi, E. H., Munson, S., Fischer, G., Vieweg, S., & Parr, C. (2010). Advancing the design of technology-mediated social participation systems. IEEE Computer,43(11), 2935.DeVillar, R. A. (2000). Literacy and the role of technology: Toward a framework for equitable schooling. In J. V. Tinajero & R. A. DeVillar (Eds.), The power of two languages, 2000: Effective dual-language use across the curriculum (pp. 320336). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill School Division.DeVillar, R. A. (1991). Cooperative principles, computers, and classroom language. In M. McGroarty & C. J. Faltis (Eds.), Languages in school and so- ciety: Policy and pedagogy (247261). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter Publishers.DeVillar, R. A. (1990). Second language use within the non-traditional classroom: Computers, cooperative learning, and bilingualism. In R. Jacobson & C. J. Faltis (Eds.), Language distribution issues in bilingual schooling (pp. 13159). Cleve- dons, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

DeVillar, R. A. (1987, JuneAugust). Los ordenadores y la equidad educativa en los Estados Unidos. Telos: Cuadernos de Comunicacio n, Tecnologa y Sociedad, pp. 1632 (Spain).DeVillar, R. A. (1986). Computers and educational equity within the United States: An overview and examination of computers uses in education (pp. 123). Paper presented at the StanfordUNESCO Symposium on Computers and Education, Stanford University, CA.

DeVillar, R. A., & Faltis, C. J. (1987). Computers and educational equity in American public schools. Capstone Journal of Education, 7(4), 310.DeVillar, R. A., Faltis, C. J., & Cummins, J. P. (Eds.) (1994). Cultural diversity in schools: From rhetoric to practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in CognitiveSciences, 8(1), 811.Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hanna, L., Risden, K., & Alexander, K. (1997). Guidelines for usability testing withchildren. Interactions, 4(5), 914. doi:10.1145/264044.264045Inkpen, K., Booth, K. S., Gribble, S. D., & Klawe, M. (1995). Give and take: Children collaborating on one computer. Proceedings of CHI 95: Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 258259). Denver, CO: ACM Press.Jenson, J., de Castell, S., & Bryson, M. (2003). Girl talk: Gender, equity, and identity discourses in a school-based computer culture. Womens Studies International Forum, 26 (6), 561573. For historical persistence of problem, see DeVillar, R. A., Faltis, C. J., & Cummins, J. P., Eds. (1994). Cultural diversity in schools: From rhetoric to practice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009a). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365379.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009b). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 3751.Lemke, J. (2005). Research for the future of science education: New ways of learning, new ways of living. Paper presented at the Seventh International Congress on Research in Science Teaching, Granada, Spain. Retrieved from http://

www-personal.umich.edu/jaylemke/papers/Granada%20Future%20Science%20Education.htm.National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Computing. (2005). Informacio n por entidad. Retrieved from http://cuentame.inegi.gob.mx/monografias/informacion/col/default.aspx?tema=me&e=06.National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Computing. (2007) National survey of availability and usage of information technology in households, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod serv/contenidos/ espanol/bvinegi/productos/encuestas/especiales/endutih/ENDUTIH2007.pdfOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Panorama de la Educacio n 2005. Breve nota sobre, Me xico. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/28/22/35354433.pdf.Slavin R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Education Lead- ership, 48(5), 7182.

Stewart, J., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (1999). Single display groupware: A model for co-present collaboration. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: The CHI Is the Limit (pp. 286293). New York, NY: ACM Press.The Childrens Partnership. (June 2005). Measuring digital opportunity for Americas children: Where we stand and where we go from here. USA. Retrieved fromhttp://www.childrenspartnership.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Technology&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7087U. S. Department of Labor, 21st Century Workforce Commission. (2000). A nation of opportunity: Building Americas 21st century workforce. Retrieved from http://

digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=key workplace.U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (2009).Unskilled occupations (Appendix E to 22 CFR 62). Retrieved from http://exchanges.state.gov/jexchanges/private/trainee unskilled.html.

Downloaded by [39.231.26.15] at 16:07 29 November 2013








1

2







collaborative learning in computer

Documents

collaborative learning

computer integrated

computerintegrated settingsj

benefits of innovative

articletaylor francis

copyright taylor francis

kennesaw state university

collaborative dyads