Spontaneous use of a CSCW platform in primary school teacher

training: trace analysis

Xxxxxx

Abstract: In this paper, we show how trainers and trainees have gradually and spontaneously
appropriated a CSCW platform. For that, we analyze the traces they have left on the platform during 5
years distinguishing whether these traces are in folders shared only between trainees or between
trainees and trainers. We supplement this analyze by an investigation. We show that the appropriation
of the platform by the trainers has been progressive with a phenomenon of capitalization. In the folders
they share with their trainees there is an activity much more important than in the folders shared by
trainees only (without trainers). Those last folders seem to be ―ad hoc‖ folders built to meet a precise
and limited goal. We observe also that there is very few collaboration in both types of folders.
However, from one year to another, the data vary widely, these changes are related to the actors
involved and the goals they pursue.

Introduction
We present 5 years of use of a CSCW platform by trainees and trainers in the Reunion Island teacher training
school (IUFM de la Réunion). These 5 years constitute a cycle that began with the installation of the platform
and ends with the end of teacher training as it was considered in France to this day.

The IUFM trains future teachers. Here, we are interested only with the primary school teacher trainees (PE2s :
professeurs des écoles 2ème année) who passed the contest and who must be trained to the work. At the end of
their year of training, they should be able to teach in primary schools.
Their training alternates according to two periods throughout the year, a period in the IUFM when they follow
the courses and a period of training when they are in charge of a class. Each year, the IUFM trains, in this way,
a new cohort of PE2s.

If it is considered it is urgent that the teachers take into account the collaborative learning (Stahl, 2009), they
must, themselves, be engaged in such a process during their training. Since 2005, PE2s use a CSCW platform
which allowed them to pool and share the work of preparation of the class. With their trainers, the platform has
served various purposes over the past 5 years:
 to deposit documents and to serve as ―collective memory‖,
 to improve the lesson plans proposed by the PE2s,
 to facilitate the preparation of the workshop of practice analysis,
 to pool and share within the framework of the dissertation,
 to help online and at distance trainees during the training period when they are in charge of a class,
 to validate the C2i2e which confirms that the trainee is able to use ICT in education,

As platform, we chose BSCW (Bentley & al, 1977) essentially because users may structure as they wish spaces
they have created there. As advise (Schlager & al, 2004) : ―we also see a need for teachers to have a set of
online learning and collaboration capabilities that they can own and tailor to meet their own needs and the needs
of the community.‖ Moreover, BSCW allows PE2s to have their own shared spaces without supervision of the
institution; these free spaces are a necessity according to (Mejias, 2006).

Here, we show how trainers and trainees have gradually appropriated this CSCW platform spontaneously,
without the requirement of the institution. We studied for 5 years the work done, each year, by each new cohort
of PE2s. The aim is to identify patterns of interaction, the roles played by different members (Schlager et al,
2004). The study is based on trace analysis. Over 5 years, there have been over 3,000,000 traces corresponding
to the whole activity on the platform. The advantage of trace analysis is to study the real activity of the subjects
and to avoid some side effects (Lancieri et al, 2006) as it can sometimes appear during laboratory experiments.
First, we will present the methodology, then, the results.
Methodology
When users are working on the platform, they leave traces. These traces are of various kinds. They can be traces
of objects: the users themselves (their login) but also the folders and the subfolders they create, and the various
objects that they deposit, documents, URLs, annotations, etc. It can also be traces of actions on these objects,
creation, deposit, reading, etc. and dates of these actions. Finally, it can be traces of description of these objects:
titles, descriptions, etc.
In the field of trace analysis, most of the time, the analysis is global without distinguishing among the activities
and the groups doing those activities (Appelt & al, 2001), (Daradoumis & al, 2003). So, it is difficult to know if
we can generalize the obtained results since those parameters are not taken into account. For example when
(Daradoumis & al, 2003) check if all the users take part to CSCW, we can wonder whether we will obtain the
same results with other types of activities.
This is the reason why our work consists in analyzing the traces in agreement with the activity theory
(Engeström, 1987) (Lewis, 2002). This theory considers that, in the activity, the subject pursues a goal. To
achieve this goal, he relies on tools and a community which obeys rules and some division of labour.
In our case, the tool is the CSCW platform, the communities, the groups of PE2s with or without trainers, and
we want to see how these groups operated to achieve their goals. So, to analyze the traces in agreement with the
activity theory, it is necessary to be able to connect each trace to the individual that he left it, but also to the
group to which he belonged when he left the trace and to the objective that him and the group pursued. For that,
we gathered the traces according to the higher level shared folder, hlsf (Xxxxx, 2009a). A hlsf is, as the name
suggests it, a folder shared by a group of users. It is higher level because it is not itself a subfolder of another
folder. Thus defined, a hlsf allows to connect any trace left by a user to the group where he worked and to the
goal that the group pursued.

Hlsf
lesson plans
2 documents

Sub-folder 1 Sub-folder 2
first year of compulsory education second year of compulsory
education

Sub-folder 1.1 Sub-folder 1.2 Sub-folder 1.3 ………….. …………

mathematics French geography
7 documents 8 documents 3 documents

Figure 1. An example of hlsf. The heads symbolize the group of members associated with the hlsf. Each folder
can itself contain sub-folders and documents, … and all those objects can be created, modified, read, deleted…

We will see that these two parameters, groups and objective, are fundamental. For example, if the group is
composed entirely of peers, or has a trainer in addition, the activity will not be the same; idem, if the purpose of
the folder is to prepare the c2i2e or to accompany the PE2 during the training courses.
To verify some assumptions, we have supplemented it by an investigation in July 2010. The investigation was
conducted among 79 trainees (out of 155) in July 2010, at the end of the school year.

Results

Differences between the hlsfs shared only between peers and the hlsfs shared also
with the trainers

We present here the use of the platform by the trainees during the 5 years, distinguishing whether they were in
groups shared with trainers (PE2s+trainers) or not (PE2s). We made this distinction because we wanted to know
if trainees would use the platform without being forced by the trainers. For each variable indicated in the first
column, we indicate in the second column a total, an average or a percentage, in the third a minimum, and in the
fourth a maximum observed in the folders shared only between PE2s. We redo the same work in columns 5, 6
and 7 for the folders shared with the trainers. For example, line 3, the average number of PE2s attached to one
hlsf ―PE2s+trainers‖ was 20 over 5 years with a minimum of 16 members (2005/2006) and a maximum of 30
(in 2009/2010). We indicate the minimum and the maximum to show the behavior variability from one year to
another and the range of this variation over the 5 years. Table 2 (next section) shows more clearly the variation
among years in hlsfs shared with trainers.
 Table 1 : PE2s activity on the CSCW platform during 5 years
PE2s PE2s+trainers
L over 5 over 5
PE2 : members, readers, producers..= years min max years min max
1 Total number of hlsf 668 29 289 292 38 78
2 Total number of PE2s 1167 155 343 1167 155 343
3 Average number of PE2s for one hlsf 13 8 22 20 16 30
4 Average number of documents for one hlsf 6 4 8 34 18 70
5 Average number of documents produced by the PE2s for
6 4 8 25 13 57
one hlsf
6 Average number of PE2 producers for one hlsf 2 1 2 5 3 7
7 Average number of documents per producer for one hlsf 3 3 4 5 4 8
8 Average number of readings per PE2 for one hlsf 29 19 47 132 71 213
9 Average number of PE2 readers for one hlsf 8 6 11 15 13 20
10 Average number of readings per reader for one hlsf 4 3 6 9 5 12
11 Average number of deposited documents per member for
0,44 0,24 0,63 1,26 0,58 2,65
one hlsf
12 Average number of readings for one hlsf 2 1 3 7 4 10
13 Percentage of PE2 producers on the number of members 13% 8% 18% 26% 16% 41%
14 Percentage of PE2 readers on the number of members 59% 35% 88% 78% 66% 92%
15 Percentage of real readings compared to the possible
38% 17% 58% 20% 14% 27%
readings

An activity much stronger in the folders shared with the trainers

As we can see the PE2s freely use the platform and the number of hlsfs shared only by them is significantly
greater than the number of hlsfs shared with trainers (L1). However, we find that the activity is much higher in
hlsfs shared with trainers than in hlsfs shared only by PE2s in productions or in readings. Thus, most figures in
hlsfs PE2s are lower than the figures in hlsfs PE2s+trainers for the average, the minimum or the maximum.

There is more documents in the hlsfs PE2s+trainers than in the hlsfs PE2s because the documents in the hlsfs
PE2s+trainers could be deposited either by the trainers or by the PE2 (L4 and L5). Lower production in hlsf
PE2s is also due to the fact that there are fewer PE2 producers in absolute numbers (L6: 2 vs 5) and compared to
the number of members (L13: 13 % vs. 26%). In addition, these PE2 producers deposit less in the folders shared
only between them (L7: 3 vs 5). So, the total number of documents deposited by all the PE2s is of 3834 in the
hlsfs PE2s whereas it is of 7315 in hlsfs PE2s+ teachers.
The fact that there are less documents explains, partly, why in hlsfs PE2s, there is less readers in absolute
numbers than in hlsf s PE2s+trainers (L9: 8 vs 15) and compared to the number of members (L14: 59% vs
78%), and that the readers read less documents (L10: 4 vs 9). So the average number of readings is of 29 in hlsf
PE2s against 132 in the hlsf PE2s+trainers (L8). The full number of readings is 19165 in hlsfs PE2s against
38509 in the hlsfs PE2s+trainers.

A first possible explanation for this higher activity in hlsfs PE2s+trainers is that there is an effect “teachers”
that incites students to work more (Peterson, 2009). For example, to pass his c2i2e, the trainee must deposit a
certain number of documents and read those of his colleagues. In other fields, he will be ―invited‖ to go and
consult the documents which the trainer has deposited for him. But there exists a second reason which appears
in the investigation that we made in July 2010, it is that the trainee goes on the platform to find resources to
make class and that he tends to have more confidence with the resources deposited by the trainers or deposited
by the colleagues and validated by the trainers. This is confirmed by 73% of the PE2s in the investigation.
Those results confirm those of (Kirschner & al, 2006).

All the deposited resources are not used

We calculated the number of real readings on the total number of possible readings (L15). This ratio may be an
indication of the interest that trainees have for the documents found and the way they use the platform.
 The number of possible readings is calculated by multiplying the number of documents by the number of
members who could read them. We have a ratio of 38% in hlsfs PE2s and 20% in hlsfs PE2 + trainers (L15).
Thus we are far from 100% : whatever the type of hlsf, all documents proposed are not read by all members.

We note also that the ratio is more important in the hlsfs PE2s as in the hlsfs PE2s+trainers, we can think that
the documents deposited in the hlsfs PE2s interest more the trainees than those deposited in the hlsfs
PE2s+trainers. A first explanation is that certain documents deposited on the platform in the hlsfs PE2s+trainers
are used for the validation and thus they don’t concern the other trainees. A second explanation is that hlsfs
PE2s+trainers are often used as databases and/or collective memory. Thus, some trainers do not hesitate to
deposit more than 100 documents which they place at the disposal of the trainees and the trainees take those
which are useful for them. This is confirmed in the investigation where, at the question, ―Why do you use
BSCW, some PE2s answer :
- ―to find ideas of lessons more quickly, like a data bank‖
- ―Because it is a fast data bank to consult at home.‖
- ―The data are classified there and the titles make it possible to find a document quickly.‖
- …

In contrast, the fact that hlsfs PE2s are smaller but more numerous leads to the assumption that they are more
focused on limited and specific needs. The hlsfs PE2s could be considered as “ad hoc” folders. In the
investigation :
- ―I used it to deposit light documents for other colleagues when there was a problem with the emails.‖
- ―Internet links proposed by peers for the preparation of a teaching situation‖,
- ―to share documents with my colleagues like a distant USB key ‖
- ...

Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution because the differences between the two types of hlsfs
change depending on the year. So if the ratio was higher in the hlsfs PE2s from 2005/2006 to 2007/2008 the
trend is reversed from that year until 2009/2010.

Diachronic analysis of the hlsfs PE2s+trainers

In Table 1, we find differences (maximum-minimum) greater in the hlsfs PE2s+trainers than in the hlsfs PE2s.
One reason is that, according to some years, actions are implemented and they are changing the landscape on the
platform as shown in the following table.

Table 2 : activity in the hlsfs PE2s+trainers from 2005/2006 to 2009/2010

L 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- over 5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 years
1 Number of hlsfs 78 77 38 54 45 292
2 Number of PE2s 343 277 217 175 155 1167
3 Average number of PE2s for one hlsf 16 19 22 17 30 20
4 Average number of documents for one hlsf 18 33 70 37 29 34
5 Average number of documents produced by trainers for one hlsf 5 8 13 12 11 9
6 Average number of documents produced by PE2s for one hlsf 13 26 57 25 17 25
7 Average number of PE2 producers for one hlsf 3 5 7 7 5 5
8 Average number of documents per PE2 producer for one hlsf 4 5 8 4 4 5
9 Average number of readings per PE2 for one hlsf 71 123 213 162 148 132
10 Average number of PE2 readers for one hlsf 13 14 18 15 20 15
11 Average number of readings per reader for one hlsf 5 9 12 11 7 9
12 Percentage of real readings compared to possible readings 25% 19% 14% 27% 17% 20%

We see that, from one year to the other, there are strong fluctuations.

Logically, if work on the platform was repeated identically from one year to another, the figures should be
proportional to the number of trainees and, as this one decreases, their curves should be decreasing as well: it is
not the case. If we exclude the number of folders all the figures grow until 2007/2008 then decrease. We can
consider that the growth corresponds to the phase of training in the use of the platform. The decrease which
follows corresponds to the weaker number of PE2s each year. The fact that the number of hlsfs decreases (L1)
also corresponds to a training phase. Indeed, over time, the trainers have reduced the number of hlsfs and have
organized them better (Xxxxx, 2009b). However, these fluctuations are not due solely to a learning phase, they
are also related to the actors involved and the goals they pursue.

These fluctuations are related to the actors involved and the goals they pursue.

For example, we showed in (Xxxxx, 2009b), the impact of an action implemented in 2007/2008, by a trainer to
accompany at distance the PE2s when they were in charge of a class to give them an answer " just in time" and
"just enough". The both hlsfs she has created and she has shared with trainees and trainers totaled more
documents than all the others hlsfs together. The PE2s have deposited there twenty times more documents on
average than in the other folders. This action stopped with the departure of the trainer, the following year. When
we look in Table 2 (L6), the average number of documents in hlsfs, this phenomenon is clearly apparent for
2007/2008 because the number of documents produced by PE2s (57) is more than twice more the average (25).
Another example, we note that year 2009/2010 is characterized by an average number of members which is
definitely higher than the one of the other years (L3: 30 against an average of 20). The explanation holds in the
fact that, until year 2008/2009, the majority of the groups with which the trainers worked corresponded to class-
groups which were about thirty trainees or half class-groups (about fifteen). In 2009/2010, several trainers
placed documents at the disposal of several class-groups (in physical education, ICT and technology in
particular). We find, here, the ―databank‖ aspect evoked previously.
We see that the use of the platform by the trainers is highly variable from one trainer to another and even from
one year to another for the same trainer. It is therefore essential to provide tools that do not impede their efforts
and that they can adapt to their needs.

Phenomenon of capitalization among trainers

But all the observations do not vary strongly, we note in particular a phenomenon of “capitalization” in the
documents produced by the trainers. If, every year, this is a new cohort of PE2s who arrive on the platform, in
contrast, those are the same trainers that we mostly find from one year to the other. Over the years, they keep
their documents on the platform. If we look at the line ―Average number of documents produced by trainers for
one hlsf‖ (L5) we see that the number of documents goes from 5 in 2005/2006 to 13 in 2008/2009 and, since
this year, this number remains stable at around 11 documents. Thus, there has been a “capitalization” between
2005 and 2009, then, a stabilization.

Diffusion, cooperation, collaboration

We wondered what kind of interactions take place on the platform, distinguishing between dissemination of
information, cooperation and collaboration (within the meaning of (Dillenbourg & al, 1996) for the two last).
For that, we took different indicators: the number of producers per hlsf, the number of annotations, the number
of descriptions.

Table 3 : collaboration, cooperation, diffusion : percentages over five years

hlsfs
collaboration, cooperation, diffusion PE2s+trainers hlsfs PE2s
desc. annot. producer

percentage of hlsfs with 0 producer 10% 12%

percentage of hlsfs with 1 producer 38% 64%
percentage of hlsfs with 2 and more producers 52% 24%
percentage of annotated documents by PE2s 1,73% 3,62%

percentage of annotated documents by trainers 7,78%

percentage of folders with a description 26,53% 26,49%

Number of different producers by hlsf

The first indicator was the number of producers within each hlsf. The hlsfs with 0 producer are mistakes because
a hlsf where nothing is deposited is useless. This average over the 5 years badly reflects the process of
appropriation of the platform over the years. Thus, if the average number among the hlsfs PE2s+trainers is of
10%, it is in fact descended from 23% in 2005/2006 to 2% in 2009 /2010. Over the years, trainers have
―learned‖ the platform. It is the same for PE2s.

What interests us more here is the opposition between the hlsfs with only one producer and those with several
because if there is only one producer we are more in diffusion of information than in collaboration. 38% of the
hlsfs PE2s+trainers have one producer and 52% have 2 or more. 64% of the hlsfs PE2s have one producer and
only 24% have 2 or more. This shows that the hlsfs PE2s are more used to disseminate information than the
hlsfs PE2s+trainers. If a majority of hlsfs PE2s+trainers have several producers, they are nevertheless more in
cooperation than in collaboration as we will see.

Number of annotations of documents

Collaboration within the meaning of Dillenbourg implies that the people interact throughout the production
process, for example, that they modify or annotate the documents deposited by others. We have just seen that a
majority of folders have only one producer so it means that nobody has modified the documents in those folders.
Concerning the annotation, there is little feedback also on the documents produced: 9,51% of annotations in the
hlsfs PE2s+trainers, and most of the time these are the trainers’ annotations, and only 3,62% of annotations in
the hlsfs PE2s.

Number of descriptions of folders

Collaboration also implies to avoid work to the others. For that, associating a description with the folder allows
the group not to have to open it to know its contents. Again, we see that this is not often done because only one
folder out of four has a description. For once, there is no difference between the two types of folders.

Then diffusion, cooperation, collaboration ?

Thus, although the tools to annotate, modify, etc. which claim (Carroll & al, 2003) are there, they are little used.
It is found that there is more interaction in hlsfs PE2s+trainers than in hlsfs PE2s alone. This is easy to
understand, the trainer often has to validate (or not) material placed on the platform and thus to annotate it. This
can be considered as an embryonic form of collaboration. But, as we have said, the platform is also used as a
space where the trainer can deposit documents at the disposal of the trainees and we are, then, more in diffusion
of information. In the same way, in the spaces only shared by the PE2s, it is more often diffusion than
collaboration or cooperation.

In the investigation, trainees explained that they modified the documents they had taken on the platform before
using them in class (91%), but, after that, it was rare for them to deposit them again on the platform (5%). In
contrast, a small majority of trainees (53%) said that they have discussed, in class, about the documents before
or after their use. Thus we can suppose that if PE2s collaborate between them, they probably do it more in class
than on the platform and that this one is used by them more as a space of diffusion.

A recurring phenomenon: for 5 years the files have been “overorganized”

Let us recall that a folder can contain documents and sub-folders. These sub-folders, which are themselves
folders, can in turn contain documents and sub-folders and this ad infinitum. What we have found, and which
may seem trivial, is that these folders (hlsfs and subfolders) have the particularity of containing an average of
only 2-3 documents and, this, whatever the years, whatever the type of users (Xxxxx & al, 2010).

Table 4 : overorganization of the folders

Number of documents for 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- sur 5

one folder in 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ans
hlsfs PE2s 3,21 1,85 1,66 3,10 2,07 2,27
Hlsfs PE2s+trainers 3,18 3,04 3,06 3,09 2,70 3,02

A folder can however contain much more than three documents while remaining readable. The recurrence of the
phenomenon thus invites to point it. The only feature common to all the communities and all the years is the
CSCW platform which is used: BSCW. We do not believe however that this is the explanation of the
phenomenon.
Conclusion
Trace analysis according to activity theory

Trace analysis makes it possible to provide a picture of the activity of PE2s and trainers in real conditions. But
to get more information from those traces, it is necessary to link each trace to the actor who has left it but also to
the group to which he belongs and to the objective that this group pursues. By doing this, we obey, in some way,
to the activity theory model.
Once, we obtain the results of trace analysis, it is however necessary to launch an investigation to get
confirmation for some findings.

What conclusions drawn from this for the teachers training?

What we have done here is to study how trainers and trainees have used the tool spontaneously (with no
prescription of the institution on the way to do it). This spontaneity, and the use of BSCW which permits it,
makes the difference with other studies like (Schlager & al, 1997) with TAPPED IN or (Derry & al, 2005) with
STELLAR where the activity is more shaped. So what we find is probably a minimal use of a CSCW platform
which should be encountered as a minimum in any similar situation. We can say:
 a CSCW platform is useful, even necessary, as part of teacher training. It is claimed by both trainers
and trainees (in the investigation, 95% of the trainees say that they wish to continue to use a CSCW
platform after their year of training).
 its adoption by the actors is progressive with a phenomenon of capitalization of the resources
deposited,
 this tool is used by the trainees even if there is no formal requirement of the trainers (hlsfs PE2s)
 when trainees share the hlsfs with trainers they produce more.
 the main objectives for the trainers are :
o to disseminate information to trainees. The trainers propose resources to their trainees who
use them or not according to their need. The folders are used as collective memory and
databank.
o to validate the work done by the trainees
 the main use by the trainees, in the hlsfs PE2s, is pooling resources for some precise goals as they
say it in the investigation. The great number of hlsfs PE2s, their limited capacity and their lack of
activity indicate that they are ―ad hoc‖ hlsfs built to meet a definite and limited need. Trainees use
the platform more or less like a USB key.

It is regrettable that the interactions on the platform are not more collaboration rather than diffusion or
cooperation. One possible explanation is that PE2s do not use it for a sufficiently long time. Indeed, (Gueudet &
al, 2009) have noted that when a CSCW tool is used ―spontaneously‖ the collaboration appears only after a
rather long process that involves several steps: sharing, cooperation, collaboration. The ten months during which
a same cohort of PE2s uses the platform do not make it possible to reach all these steps. One solution would be
to use a CSCW platform much earlier in the process of their training.

Bibliography
Appelt W. (2001) What Groupware Functionality Do Users Really Use? Analysis of the Usage of the BSCW
System, Ninth Euromicro Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Processing (PDP '01) , Mantova,Italy

Bentley R., Appelt W., Busbach U., Hinrichs E., Kerr D., Sikkel K., Trevor J., Woetzel G. (1997). Basic
Support for Cooperative Work on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Human Computer
Studies: Special issue on Novel Applications of the WWW, Spring 1997, Academic Press, Cambridge,
vol. 46, no6, p. 827-846.

Carroll, J.M., Choo, C.W., Dunlap, D.R., Isenhour, P.L., Kerr, S.T., MacLean, A., & Rosson, M.B. (2003):
Knowledge management support for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development.

Daradoumis, T., Xhafa, F. and Marquès, J.M. 2003 « Is an ―Effective‖ Online Group Really Effective?‖ In:
Proceedings of the Spanish Workshop on Trabajo en Grupo y Aprendizaje Colaborativo: experiencias
y perspectiva. November 11, Donostia, pp. 75-82, 2003.
Derry, S. J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Feltovich, J., Nagarajan, A., Chernobilsky, E., & Halfpap, B. (2005). Making
a mesh of it: A STELLAR approach to teacher professional development. Proceedings of Computer
Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2005, Taipei, Taiwan.

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A. & O'Malley, C.(1996) The evolution of research on collaborative learning.
In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds) Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary
learning science. (Pp. 189-211). Oxford: Elsevier.

Engeström Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research.

Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

Gueudet G. & Trouche L. (2009). Conception et usages de ressources pour et par les professeurs.
développement associatif et développement professionnel : Le travail collaboratif . Les dossiers de
l’ingénierie éducative, n° 65, p. 76-80

Kirschner P.A., Sweller J. Clark R.E. (2006) Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An
Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based
Teaching, Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86

Lancieri L, and Durand N. (2006), Internet User Behavior: Compared Study of the Access Traces and
Application to the Discovery of Communities, IEEE International Journal, Transaction in Systems,
Man and Cybernetics (T-SMCA).

Lewis R., (2002) Learning Communities — Old and New, International Conference on Computers in Education
(ICCE'02),

Mejias U. (2006). Teaching Social Software with Social Software. Innovate, vol. 2, n° 5.

Peterson E. (2009). Using a Wiki to Enhance Cooperative Learning in a Real Analysis Course. Primus:
Problems, Resources & Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, vol. 19, n° 1, p. 18-28.

Schlager, M. and P. Schank (1997): Tapped In: A New On-line Teacher Community Conceptfor the Next
Generation of Internet Technology. In R. Hall, N. Miyake and N. Enyedy (eds.), Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, pp. 231–240.

Schlager, M. S. et Fusco, J. (2004). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of

practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? In S. A. Barab, R. Kling et J. H. Gray (dir.),
Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (p. 120-153). Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press.

Stahl G. (2009). « Yes we can! ». Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 4, n° 1.

Xxxxx x., (2009a) xxxx

Xxxxx x, (2009 b) xxxx

Xxxxx x, xxxxx x, (2010) xxxx