Modelling scenarios of cooperation promoting Human Learning: Added value of the CPM Profile

Christian Sallaberry

LIUPPA – FDEG - IAE Avenue de l’Université

64014 Pau, France Tel : 33 5 59 40 80 67

Christian.Sallaberry@univ-pau.fr

Thierry Nodenot

LIUPPA - IUT Bayonne 3 avenue J. Darrigrand 64115 Bayonne, France Tel : 33 5 59 57 43 53

Thierry.Nodenot@univ-pau.fr

Pierre Laforcade

LIUPPA – UFR Sciences Avenue de l’Université

64014 Pau, France

Pierre.Laforcade@univ-pau.fr

Christophe Marquesuzaa

LIUPPA - IUT Bayonne Château Neuf - Place Paul Bert

64100 Bayonne, France Tel : 33 5 59 57 43 45

Christophe.Marquesuzaa@univ-pau.fr

Abstract: Model Based Systems Development is a promising research area for the production of systems

dedicated to Human Learning. Our research focuses on developing tools and techniques for producing models of Learning situations called cooperative Problem-Based Learning (PBL). Our works led us to propose a UML profile dedicated to such learning situations. The profile is built on the CPM (Cooperative Problem-based learning Meta-model) meta-model which provides the designers with a set of concepts allowing one to semi formally describe a learning scenario and to document it. CPM is thus a language which is useful to the team of designers as well as for the developers of computerized systems implementing all or part of a learning scenario. In this paper, we shall focus on the added value of the models produced from the CPM profile, particularly for tutors and learners involved in the use of systems implementing a modelled cooperative learning scenario.

Keywords: Human Learning, Problem Based Learning, Cooperation, Modelling and Meta-Modelling, UML 1. Introduction Our works focus on the modelling of cooperative learning scenarios. In this area, the main proposals

made within the framework of the EML (Educational Modelling Language) [1] are henceforth integrated in the version 1.0 of IMS LD (Learning Design) [2]. The models and the method proposed in IMS LD prepare, on the one hand, the implementation of a learning scenario and, on the other hand, the re-use of the resources or activities within the framework of other learning situations. The formalization step is emphasized whereas the stage of educational design of the scenario is generally performed beforehands. Within the IMS LD framework, the hidden educational scenario is quite simple because it refers to an industrial view of education that consists in pushing some knowledge to the learner (and expecting that the learner can deal with it). Our approach also aims at producing models but gives a more important place to the teacher designing the learning scenario and to the pedagogy he/she wishes to implement. The language we propose allows a team of designers to describe what is going to be learnt and how the learners will face this knowledge. We do not actually prescribe a pre-defined educational model or scenario that a designer has to instantiate on a specific domain. On the contrary, the teacher can design a learning scenario from his/her personal views (his/her educational strategies, the characteristics of students that will use the scenario (learner models), the requirements for the domain, etc.

The learning scenarios that we favor aim at defining Problem Based Learning (PBL) situations during which groups of learners are involved in cooperative activities. In the next section of this paper, we present the Smash cooperative PBL situation, we detail different models of that PBL we produced using the CPM (Cooperative Problem-based learning Meta-model) Profile. We particularly focus on the semi-formal models detailing the type of cooperation that the designer wants to promote between the learners when they are involved in the learning activities. In the last part of the paper, we describe the advantages of such a modelling stage; we show that the models built from the CPM profile are exploited during the implementation and use of the learning scenario. An example is given for a whiteboard component that, at runtime, exploits a model of cooperation defined from the CPM profile.

2. Smash case: a co-operative PBL situation SMASH [13, 14] is based on real-life incidents where pupils work as a team of investigators analyzing

information to identify solutions to challenging and evolving situations. It addresses 10 to 12 year old pupils, and the underlying teaching objective is the road safety.

2.1. Smash: initiating 10-12 year old pupils to road safety

The main components of the situation can be presented as follows. A bicycle accident occurred in a village. Several cars are involved in this accident. Eye witnesses, pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists attended the scene. While playing the role of police inspectors, children, divided into 4 different groups, must piece together the evidence and decide what really happened. The main obstacle is nothing but the identification of the culprit. In this purpose, several resources are placed at their disposal: a set of testimonies (9 interviews of the pedestrians and other actors present on the spot), some MCQ (one by testimony), note sheets, village map a simplified highway code. Three groups have different subsets of testimonies, while the fourth group has an overview of the facts: this will involve a "strong" debate during the results presentation. This co-operative activity leads the learners to confront their representations. The starting representations of learners are sometimes quite different. Generally learners initially agree on the characteristics of good drivers: a good driver controls his vehicle (speed, direction), drives on the right handside of the road (for US drivers). These initial and inadequate representations will evolve during the activities when the learners will handle resources about the accident and confront their results. The scenario can actually initiate many conflicts. For example, the final representations intended by the designer of the PBL are described as follow: people on the road must conform with specific points of the highway code (signals such as stop, pedestrian crossings, no parking anywhere, etc) - but, also, that they must behave safely e.g. indicate the others a change of direction on the road, take into account their own physical state (tiredness, nervousness, etc), pay attention to the others, to the weather conditions, etc.

Such a learning situation encompasses several disciplinary learning goals. Among them, some important goals are: to orient oneself correctly with a map, discover the dangers of the street and, particularly, to learn and understand the driving regulations. The situation also aims at some transdisciplinary goals: to understand a statement, to make assumptions, to speak and listen in a community, to compile worksheets, etc.

This scenario was tested during four half-days with a 10 year old children class.

2.2. Smash: how to model it, which structure for the scenario?

In accordance to a very general definition drawn from [15], models allow to understand objects or systems which we may observe or which we may want to design/implement. Therefore, using the elements of the CPM language, the models which are produced enable one to make predictions on these objects, to exchange scientific constructions in order to validate/correct, or to re-use them. Lastly, the models provide constructions which may be implemented in software.

As already written in the introduction, there are various modelling languages for learning situations. The IMS Learning Design Information Model [2] integrates EML concepts (Educational Modelling Language [1]). This language is LMS-oriented (Learning Management System). The underlying scenarios are generally centered on the contents of training [16] and on knowledge transmission by the system.

Other approaches already exist. G Costagliola proposes a visual modelling language based both on the UML state diagrams and on specific symbol libraries [17]. This language is intended to guide the teaching pedagogue; it assists him/her when building a graphical representation of traditional activities sequences, of teaching contents or of evaluation processes. The models that we propose are also intended to help the pedagogue when he/she produces/validates his/her scenario. Our models are UML oriented: we focus on models for the description of the learning scenario and we also propose to re-use these former models by associating

them with computerized tools during the implementation or exploitation steps of the scenarios. We will show in paragraph 5 how these models could be used by a tutor (whether human or automatic) in order to control the activity of learners within the framework of the Smash Case Study.

The CPM language can be used to structure a learning scenario in different ways. For Smash situation, we chose to structure the situation in terms of acts, scenes, sequences of activities, and activities. Other choices would have been possible but we chose this type of structuring in order to show the compatibility of CPM with the structuring modes defined in IMS-LD. For the Smash situation, an act corresponds to a teaching phase with a given duration. An act may be broken up into scenes; then, each scene may include sequences of activities which will be linked to roles. Thus, actors play a role in a sequence of activities. Resources are associated to a role or, must be produced by a role within the framework of an activity. Various goals are aimed through a resource, an activity, a sequence, a scene, etc [18].

3. UML modelling of the Smash learning scenario In this paragraph we present some examples of description for the Smash learning scenario that have

been produced with the CPM language.

3.1. Main characteristics of the scenario

We broke down the Smash PBL into four acts of about one hour and a half each: 1. problem presentation: the tutor explains the problem to the class, divides the class into groups, presents the

roles and the progress of the activities and, then, answers the pupils’ questions. 2. investigation: the various groups collect and process evidence, handle driving regulations and map of the

neighbourhood, answer the MQC and make notes. During this stage, there is a cooperation step with a relay group which can help the other ones

3. synthesis/cooperation: each group makes the synthesis of its results and presents it to the other ones. An exchange of questions/answers takes place between the various groups. They build the final investigation result

4. correction/reinforcement: the tutor corrects the errors, gives solution guidelines and then comments road safety and the other notions which were tackled. New activities are proposed

In acts 1, 2 and 3, the Smash scenario includes five different roles: 1. investigator 1: played by the first group of pupils (G1), collects interviews of the witnesses n°1, 2

and 3; he should conclude that the white car is guilty, 2. investigator 2: played by the second group of pupils (G2), collects interviews of the witnesses n°4,

5 and 6; he should conclude that the cyclist is guilty, 3. investigator 3: played by the third group of pupils (G3), collects interviews of the witnesses n°7, 8

and 9; he should conclude that, maybe, both the cyclist, the white car and the red one have some responsibility in the accident,

4. relay : played by the fourth group of pupils (G4), assists the other groups and will draw up the final results sheet at the end of the "Act 3 - Result presentation". This group will explain the differences of results existing between the groups,

5. police chief : played by the tutor, supervises these four groups.

3.2. Cooperative activities We use UML activity diagrams to describe the cooperation [6], [7], [8]. Within in scene 2 of act 3, for

example, each group will successively present its works in order to pool all the results. The diagrams describe how the different groups become alternately Speakers (when they present their works) and Listeners (listen to the other groups and\or ask questions). The activity schedule is decided by a scene administrator. At the end of each presentation, the tutor can, in his turn, ask questions to make sure the group has understood correctly. We also design state diagrams which, for example, describe investigators’ various states such as Speaking (present, answer), ListeningInquiring (listen, make notes, ask questions) and Listening (listen) (cf. §4).

3.3. From the models to a global reusable IS

The whole scenario is modelled in UML by means of states, activities and sequences diagrams integrating stereotypes, tagged-values and constraints (rules) detailed in CPM [7]. So, the CPM language enables us to use various conceptual views of the IS: in particular we describe them as packages, respectively called, basic, cognitive, structural and social packages [8] [18] [19]. First of all, the basic elements of CPM allow the global description of a scenario. Hence, for example, the Learning Phase classifier of the CPM language allows us to model the concepts of act, scene, sequence of activities and activity [7] within the class diagram describing the Smash scenario. The cognitive package of CPM provides concepts for the resources, the constraints, the regulation and the assistance description. As to the structural package, it describes every sequence of activities and, every activity. Finally, the social package details all the aspects connected to the cooperation between roles within the associated activities framework. Here below the CPM social package:

Resource

1

LearningPhase

Resoure Parameter

kind : ParameterDirectionKind

Role

{ordered}0..*

0..*

0..*

+ type*

1

SharedParameters

controllable:lockable:observable:

0..* *

1

Activity*

1

Cooperation

Responsability

Cooperation Form

Responsability Type

Templates

*1..*

* **

*

0..1

11

1

fig. 1. – Social package

This view of the meta-model is integrated into the CPM language and then reused for the construction of diagrams.

The « shared » notion concerns resources shared in cooperative activities (synchronous or not) or independent ones. An activity is defined in such a way as only one role may make up this activity. All the resources associated to an activity are detailed using a direction kind parameter (input/output (production)) in Resource Parameter. Resource sharing is carried out with regards to an activity. So, within one activity, like in [20], the shared resource is characterized by three properties:

1. Controllability : read, write and administration rights. Administration means that the activity (and its associated role) which has this right can redefine all the "shared parameters" characteristics of the shared resources. For example, give writing rights to an activity.

2. Lockability : notion of transaction or exclusive control of the resource. 3. Observability : notion of awareness, that is real-time information about the evolution of the state of the

shared resource.

These 3 characteristics thus force resource/activity pairs. Let us note that an activity can also be shared: this is generally limited to the notion of observability, in order to let some activities know the progress of the shared one.

Within the framework of one cooperation, several activities are associated (as well as the roles playing these activities). The forms of cooperation are multiple [21] [22] [23]: direct supervision, mutual adaptation, etc. An activity can thus be independent of or integrated into a particular type of cooperation that we can describe (cf. templates of various kinds of cooperation [22]). The form of cooperation forces the type of responsibility [23] granted to cooperating activities. He gives some examples of responsibility: supervisor, supervised, negotiator, server, etc, assigned to an activity/role within the framework of a cooperation.

Let us consider again act 3 scene 2 which corresponds to the remake of the accident. All the groups cooperate and discuss the results obtained by each one. Let us focus, for example, on the sequence of «Results gathering: G1’s presentation». G1 investigator role is associated to activities like place witness Dupont, place white car and place crosswalk panel on the borough map on the central blackboard (CB). G2, G3, G4 investigators roles are associated to activities like observe central blackboard (CB), look/listen to G1, write questions on the blackboard in the side of the classroom (SB) and, the Tutor role is associated to play the moderator and to give assistance. Resources are: central blackboard (CB - remake of the accident), side blackboard (SB – questions box), witnesses interviews corresponding to the three objects (witness Dupont, white car, panel), real position of these objects. This co-production sequence is thus led by five roles. Each activity-role pair has got different access rights to the resources:

fig. 2. - Shared resources

The administration rights allow the tutor to re-assign these rights defined by default, as indicated above. Present, listen and moderate are activities in which the various resources (see rows in this table) are shared.

This part of the IS describes the scenario, but also prepares the implementation stage and that of regulation during the execution of an activity.

4. Making use of the models of the Smash IS Various types of actors are involved in the design, the implementation and the execution of a learning

scenario: teachers, learners, tutor, computer scientists (if the learning activities are supported by a piece of software) can benefit from the models produced with the CPM language. These models produced with this semi-formal language facilitate exchanges within the design team and thus enable designers to more easily validate their propositions and ideas. The automatic production of some documentation from the models also contributes to this dialogue between the persons participating in the implementation of the scenario. On the other hand, the information embedded in the models produced by the designers can be pushed to the learners to inform them

about the objectives associated with the controlled activities, and about the progress of the other learners who they cooperate with.

In the next paragraph, we are going to show how the models produced by the designers and the associated information can help computer scientists and activity tutors. First of all, let us have a look at some examples of the use of such models in the literature.

4.1. Implementing and regulating scenarios

Like IMS LD or the visual language proposed by [17], the CPM language is dedicated to the modelling of learning situations.

In the same trend, the SAAD model of [24], for example, describes distance learning activities in terms of sequential/not ordered stages, which can be broken down into tasks, then, sub-tasks, actions, etc. Composition relations or order relations organize the tasks. Then, [24] proposes an environment to follow up these activities. Other approaches exist. [25], proposes some profiles of social behaviours: library of language acts, acts succession graph, behavioural profiles, calculation formulae. He then proposes a computerized environment which supports a project based pedagogy integrating the analysis of the social behaviours. These research works also aims to regulate and track learning activities. So [24] calls object any resource used within the framework of an activity. One or several roles performs object and, any role "interested" in this object is informed about these manipulations in real time.

In the field of collaborative learning activities, [26] proposes a "participative model". This model facilitates the integration of an educational dimension in collaborative playful activities like the drawing, for example. This model facilitates the definition of collaborative regulated activities. It allows the definition of roles which, according to the educational objectives, will have different rights on the resources (drawing tools). For example, these rights can be granted by the other roles (learner of an upper level, tutor). Within a collaborative PBL, [27] describes the STEP environment. He proposes a module that facilitates the task of the tutor, comprising: knowing details of the learners’ activities, their commitment to collaborative activities, diagnosing difficulties, proposing resources or actions which will resolve these difficulties. In fact, he defines a bank of tools and of on-line resources which assist the tutors and the students in their collaborative processes. Finally, [28] proposes the notion of portfolio describing the learners’ progress: this allows the learners to auto-regulate their activities. At any time, they can know the objectives and the progress report of their activities.

We are now going to present examples of using models described from the CPM language. We shall study the implementation and the regulation of such modelled activities within the Smash scenario framework.

4.2. Implementing the Smash scenario

Here is an example of activity implementation. We play a sequence of activities via remote computers and adapted communication tools.

fig. 3. – Simplified states diagram describing the behaviour of a Listener group

First of all, the listener listens to and sees the speaker (Listen Loud Speaker, Visio Access). The tutor supervises the presentation made on the whiteboard by a group of investigators. Consequently, he can give/refuse to the auditors, the right to write their questions via the Chat. He also manages listeners’ rights to speak or work on the whiteboard where all the elements about the accident are represented (map, witnesses, cars and cyclists icons, etc).

Therefore, these activities can take place thanks to a remote computerized cooperative tool like an electronic “whiteboard”. The features of such a tool must be forced and adapted to the specificities of Smash contextual activities (i.e. fig.3) in order to describe an on-line cooperative learning module.

In the next figure (fig. 4), we show a window capture of white board we have implemented. In this example the investigator groups are pooling the results of their investigations. The tool presented below has been implemented with the Flash technology. In this example, group G1 presents its results with an electronic “whiteboard” on which comments are made via a mini visio conference. The rights of the various groups are managed in real time by the tutor of the activity. For example, at this stage, the other groups (listeners) can ask questions via the Chat, but they have no access to their microphone nor to the other tools of the electronic whiteboard. group G1 places elements (crosswalk panel, person, and vehicle) relative to the witnesses’ interviews that it handled. It also gives explanations within which it can integrate answers to the questions submitted via the Chat by other groups.

fig. 4. – Whiteboard-like cooperative tool

Obviously, a state diagram like that of fig. 3 describes the behaviour (constraints on the various senses of a listener) of a group of investigators when it attends the presentation of the results obtained by another group. We presented an example of its usage in order to implement a computerized tool within a remote context. On the other hand, it can also be a useful document whether a teacher directly run such an activity in his classroom with some sheets of paper and a classical blackboard.

4.3. Regulating and tutoring learning activities from the Smash scenario

The tutor has at least two specific functions: he regulates the learner(s’) activities and assists them.

Activity and state diagrams describe the detail of this dynamic piloting: chain of acts, scenes and activities. We shall also reuse the information collected about learners’ actions in order to help the tutor manage and assist the result pooling activity: i.e. fig.5.

For the tutor (fig. 5), the channel management action consists of giving/closing the talking rights to the auditor groups, in giving them (or not) access to the communication boards, etc. Events indicating that the last slide of the speaker is on, that the speaker has just announced the end or, that the granted 10mns are spent, are going to allow the tutor make his/her decision: lengthening or stopping the presentation, launching the question stage. Events indicating that a listener group has already submitted a high number of questions (10 for example) are also indicators that the tutor can assist in restricting the channels of communication given to this group.

The tutor is not necessarily the person who conceived the learning scenario. He/she thus needs to be assisted in his/her work. So, we imagined quite a simple tool in order to help him/her do the regulation. A prompter, dedicated to the tutor, shows a list of indicators (synthesis of events: group G1 presents its third slide, group G2 number of questions equals to 7, time spent since the beginning of group G1 presentation equal to 9mns) as well as a list of proposals of actions (indicating group G1 that it has still 1mn, closing a scene, helping a group in trouble, proposing reinforcement exercises to another one).

This tutoring application also needs the UML description of the learning scenario: events, actions, activities, sequences of activities, scenes, acts, etc.

fig. 5. – State diagram describing regulation of a presentation

So, we imagined an automated prompter application within which regulation is supported by computerized specific tools. Learners work remotely with a cooperation tool like a whiteboard for example. All the users’ actions are henceforth collected automatically and given to the prompter application (event log file). At the same time, the prompter proposes synthetic information about the situation and suggests the tutor actions in order to better manage learners’ activities and assist them.

5. Conclusions In this paper, we focused on the PBL scenario modeling. We used the CPM language to design such

learning scenarios and to describe cooperation activities. We attempted, through the Smash case of study, to illustrate various uses of these models: the implementation of a cooperative activity and its regulation at run-time.

In fact, we use the CPM language to allow the designer team to produce models foreseeing how a PBL is supposed to get organized and to take place at run time. The objective is then to store these models in an information system. The regulation of the learning and the management of the cooperation bases on the exploitation of this information system. This description of the scenario and the list of the learners actions at run-time helps the tutor (human or automated) to better pilot the learning.

We already have a first prototype of a white-board component (cf. fig. 4) developed with the Flash Communication Server technology. Its behavior is governed by a sub-set of data of this information system. Our prototypes are developed and refined with the support of the Aquitaine Region (project N 200330204009A) and of the program Aquitaine Euskadi Navarre.

6. References

[1] Koper, R., Educational Modelling Language : adding instructional design to existing specifications. 2002, Open University of the Netherlands, http://eml.ou.nl/eml-ou-nl.htm [2] IMS, IMS LD Information Model. 2003, IMS Global Learning Consortium. http://imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ [3] Meirieu Ph., “Apprendre… oui, mais comment ? ”, Collection Pédagogies. 1994, ESF Edition [4] Tribollet B., “Qu’est-ce qu’une situation problème?”, http://nte-serveur.univ-lyon1.fr/nte/tribollet/RegionR-A/Rubriques/ SituationPb.html [5] Dillenbourg, Baker …“The Evolution of Research on Collaborative Learning”, P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds), 95 [6] Laforcade, P., Barbier, F., UML Modeling for Cooperative Problem-Based Learning Situations:Towards Educational Components. in 2003 IRMA International Conference. 2003, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, USA [7] Laforcade, P., et al. Profiling Co-operative Problem-Based Learning Situations. in IEEE International Conf. on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI 2003). London (UK) [8] Nodenot, T., et al. Knowledge Modelling of Co-operative Learning Situations: Towards a UML profile. in 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, AI-ED Society. 2003. Sydney (Australia) [9] http://www.omg.org [10] OMG. The Software Process Engineering Management Metamodel (SPEM). Technical Report: ad/2001-02-08, February 14 2001. [11] OMG Unified Modelling Language Specification: http;//www.rational.com/media/uml/post.pdf [35] Piaget J., “Psychologie et pédagogie”, Denoël, 1969 [36] Vygotsky L.S., “Pensée et langage”, 1934, Trad. Française : Sèves, Editions sociales, Paris, 1985 [12] OMG. White Paper on the Profile mechanism v.1.0, Analysis and Design Platform Task Force. Report ad/99-04-07, Avril 1999. [13] ACTIS, Smash Scenario. 2001, ACTIS Ltd.: http:// www.projectboxes.co.uk/catalogue/scenarios.html#smash [14] Oudot C., Adaptation du cas Smash et modélisation UML, rapport de DESS « Sciences Cognitives, Bdx 4, 2003 [15] Ecole thématique EIAH Autrans 2003 – cours n°1, http://www.afia.polytechnique.fr/node.php?lang=fr&node=557 [16] Laister J., Koubek A. 3rd Generation Learning Platforms Requirements and Motivation for Collaborative Learning, European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 2001. http://www.eurodl.org/eurodlen/index.html [17] Costagliola G., Ferrucci F., Polese G., Scanniello G. A visual Language for Designing and Presenting e-learning Activities, ITRE’2003, IEEE International Conference on Information Technology : Research and Education. Newark (USA) [18] Nodenot, T., et al. A UML Profile incorporating separate viewpoints when modeling Co-operative Learning Situations. in IEEE International Conference on Information Technology : Research and Education. 2003. Newark (USA)

[19] Nodenot, T., et al. (2003).Model based Engineering of Learning Situations for Adaptative Web Based Educational Systems, 13th World Wide Web Conference, New York City, 17-22 May 2004 http://www2004.org/ [20] Rubart, J. and P. Dawabi. A UML Profile for Modeling Groupware. in 8th International Workshop , CRIWG'2002. 2002. La Serena (Chile): Published in J. M. Haake & J. A. Pino (Ed.): Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use [21] →, J., O. Gutknecht, and F. Michel. From Agents to Organizations: an Organizational View of Multi-Agent Systems. in The Fourth International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE-2003). 2003. Melbourne (Australia) [22] Odell J.J., Van Dyke Parunak H., Bauer B., Representing Agent Interaction Protocols in UML, www.fipa.org/docs/input/f-in-00077/f-in-00077.pdf [23] Etcheverry, P., SAPIC : Modélisation et Spécification de la Coordination Interrne aux Processus d'Activités, in Mémoire de Doctorat en Informatique de l'Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour (Laboratoire LIUPPA). 2002: Bayonne (France). [24] Despres C. Modélisation et conception d’un environnement de suivi pédagogique synchrone d’activités d’apprentissage à distance, thèse de doctorat de l’Université du Maine, 2001. http://www-ic2.univ-lemans.fr/~despres [25] George S. Apprentissage collectif à distance – SPLACH : un environnement informatique support d’une pédagogie de projet, thèse de doctorat de l’Université du Maine, 2001. http://ictt.insa-lyon.fr/sgeorge/ [26] Ferraris C., Brunier P., Martel C. Constructing collaborative pedagogical situations in classrooms : a scenario and role based approach, CSCL’2002, Boulder, Colorado, USA. http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/243.pdf [27] Steinkuehler A., et al. The STEP Environment for Distributed Problem-Based Learning on the World Wide Web, CSCL’2002, Boulder, Colorado, USA. http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/282.pdf [28] Kyza E.A., Golan R., Reiser B.J., Edelson D.C. Reflective inquiry: Enabling group self-regulation in inquiry-based science using the Progress Portfolio tool, CSCL’2002, Boulder, Colorado, USA. http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/165.pdf [29] Objecteering Software, http://www.objecteering.com/