Creative Multimodal Learning Environments and ... - Springer Link

Creative Multimodal Learning Environments and Blended Interaction for Problem-Based Activity in HCI Education By Andri Ioannou, Christina Vasiliou, and Panayiotis Zaphiris, Cyprus University of Technology Tanja Arh, Tomaž Klobučar, and Matija Pipan, Jožef Stefan Institute Abstract This exploratory case study aims to examine how students benefit from a multimodal learning environment while they engage in collaborative problem-based activity in a Human Computer Interaction (HCI) university course. For 12 weeks, 30 students, in groups of 5-7 each, participated in weekly face-to-face meetings and online interactions. Students’ selfreports and tutor’ observations showed that overall students benefited from the multimodal learning environment while they engaged in blended interactions across physical and digital tools and across collocated and networked learning spaces. With respect to tool use, it was found that the downward pointing projector and Facebook were used in all phases of problem based activity, while portable devices for record keeping were mainly used in progress evaluation and reflection phases. Keywords: Multimodal learning, learning environment, blended interaction, technology enhanced learning, Facebook, smart devices, problem-based learning, technology adoption, CHI education.

Introduction

T

oday the abundance of digital technologies at our fingertips, from smartphones to multitouch surfaces, and our increasingly networked world have unavoidably impacted higher education offering new perspectives and approaches to collaboration and interaction. Often, the learners themselves push for Volume 59, Number 2

technology integration and new pedagogical approaches that take advantage of the emerging technologies and the networked world. Although, there is a growing body of research on innovative, multimodal, interactive, multidisciplinary environments, both physical and virtual (e.g., see book edited by Capenter, 2012), these efforts have yet to span across domains and pedagogical approaches. This exploratory case study examines how students benefit from a multimodal learning environment while they engage in collaborative problem-based activity in a Human Computer Interaction (HCI) university course. We seek to (a) understand learners’ blended interaction between physical and digital tools and across collocated and networked learning spaces and (b) evaluate learners’ perceptions and technology use in terms of phases of problem-based activity.

Background and Motivation Student-centered problem-based pedagogy refers to a family of approaches including problem-based learning, case-based learning, project based learning, anchored instruction, inquiry-based learning, among others. These methods share similar processes; mainly the learner is put in the active role of a problemsolver who typically learns through working collaboratively on complex problems that do not have single correct solutions (Barrett, 2005; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Within their group, students ideally analyze the problem and generate hypotheses (e.g., brainstorming), seek knowledge and resources, apply new knowledge

TechTrends • March/April 2015

47

to the problem, and critically evaluate the group’s strategies and progress (Barrows, 1996). The success of such pedagogies depends on a number of factors, including the selection of good problems, the skilled facilitator who scaffolds the learning activity, the effective collaboration and distribution of knowledge within the group, and the process of reflection which helps students relate their new knowledge to their prior understandings (e.g., What did I learn? What more do I need to know?) (Barrett, 2005; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). The latest has received particular attention in PBL research and practice. Engels (1999), for example, recommends that the tutor should ‘perhaps once every 2 weeks’ call ‘time out’ and ‘stimulate the group to reflect on how their studies are progressing and how their learning fits together’ (p. 203). That is, students should reflect both on the new knowledge gained as well as group processes involved in solving the problem. Schon (1987) made a further distinction between ‘reflection–in-action’ and ‘reflection–on action’. According to Schön, reflection-in-action is concerned with reflecting on practice while it is happening, and allows learners to reshape what they are working on, while they are working on it; whereas reflection-on-action is concerned with thinking back on what learners’ have done and understanding how their strategies contributed to desirable (or even unexpected) outcomes (e.g., lessons learned at the completion of the task, Schön, 1987). Overall, student-centered problem-based pedagogies are considered powerful in engaging the learners and leading to sustained and transferable learning (see Hmelo-Silver, 2004 for a comprehensive review of problem-based pedagogies). Nevertheless, it is only fair to say that the learning environment itself (physical, virtual, or blended), in which these activities take place, plays a vital role in learners’ overall success of such pedagogies (e.g., Bonk & Graham, 2006; Capenter, 2012; Derry et al., 2006; Donnelly, 2010; Donnelly, 2004; Hmelo-Silver & Chernobilsky, 2004). For example, a multimodal learning environment which affords interaction with content and among learners as well as collaboration and reflection across collocated and networked learning spaces may be able to provide additional support for studentcentered problem-based pedagogies (Capenter, 2012). Contrary to this idea, the authors of this manuscript would argue that the technologies often comprising the learning environment in the university classroom, and most importantly, the way these technologies are being used by instructors and learners, might hinder the 48

successful implementation of student-centered problem-based pedagogies. Although such negative research is rarely reported in the literature (e.g., see Ioannou, 2009 for a discussion of publication bias), a typical, technologyenhanced classroom may deprive students of the opportunity to engage in active collaboration, interaction (content-learner and learner-learner) and reflection. For example, a digital projection onto a traditional wall does not afford dialog and interaction; rather it might promote passive observation from a seated position. Further, laptops may augment the individualized nature of learning; on top of other time-filling activities laptops may encourage, even the simple act of taking notes, although vital to student reflection, can remove students from the discussion and interaction in a group setting. Moving beyond the classroom walls, virtual environments for collaboration, such as wiki and discussion forums, are currently dominated by textual modalities which may limit the presentation and sharing of information. In the context of HCI education, this exploratory case study seeks to investigate a multimodal learning environment that offers an innovative melding of physical and digital tools. We seek to blend the power of digital computing with natural collaborative work around physical tools to examine learners’ blended interaction across tools and learning spaces during collaborative problem-based activity.

Method Participants The study took place in a post-graduate HCI course, over a period of 12 weeks during Fall 2012, at a public university in Cyprus. Students enrolled in this course were 11 males and 19 females (N=30), 22-35 years of age (M=30). These students came from different postgraduate programs and their backgrounds varied (e.g., computer science, graphic arts, multimedia, education, communication and internet studies). There were five groups in the study composed of 5-7 students each. Students’ backgrounds were considered in creating multidisciplinary groups.

The multimodal learning environment The classroom was transformed into a multimodal learning environment, rich in physical and digital tools and connected to the networked world as described below. A “handson” presentation of the tools, and how the authors envisioned the environment could be used (e.g.,


Volume 59, Number 2

Figure 1. Table as projection surface

shared surface and projection for collaboration on artifacts), was offered to the students during the first course tutorial. Yet, learners were not explicitly instructed to use the technologies in particular ways. Shared surface and projection. Problem-solving and design conversations took place around a large table surface. Students were provided with stationary (e.g., large-size paper, markers, post-it notes, etc.) to take notes of ideas, like in low-tech settings. Moreover, the same table surface was used as a projection surface for a downward‐ pointing projector (powered by a Mac mini and controlled by a wireless keyboard and mouse) as in Figure 1. The projection aimed to support the presentation of digital artifacts, such as images and notes captured in previous sessions. This setting was inspired by Jones, Fields, Bardill, and Williams (2010) who used downward‐pointing projectors to support small groups of students on creative design projects at City University and Middlesex University, London. Portable devices for recording. A tablet, an iPod, a sense cam, and a pen-reader were provided for each group during the session. These devices aimed to allow the capturing of key moments and artifacts during the activity to facilitate later review and reflection. For example, the iPod and tablet could be used to take pictures or record audio and video from the sessions (see Figure 2 on the next page). The sense cam automatically took a picture every 10 seconds (see Figure 3 on the next page). The pen-reader could turn paper Volume 59, Number 2

notes and sketches into digital form (see Figure 4 on page 51). Networked learning environment. Each group was asked to set up a Facebook group for their communication and interaction in-between their face-to-face meetings.

Course activities and procedures The HCI course followed a student-centered problem-based pedagogy. In particular, the course began by presenting students with a complex design problem, taken from the student design completion of CHI 2013 (http://chi2013. acm.org/) and dealt with an authentic design need. The outcome group products were to be delivered at the end of the 12-week course. The course was organized in 3-hour weekly sessions. Prior to attending each session, students


49

had to study a textbook chapter. Each session began by presenting some information (i.e., a mini-lecture of 20-min) to trigger attention on relevant issues students would have to consider during their design. A tutorial followed the minilecture where students worked in their groups with the instructor and a skilled (domain-expert) tutor acting as facilitators. In general, the tutorials could be characterized by four phases of facilitated problem-based activity: 1) problem analysis and brainstorming, 2) seeking and using knowledge and resources, 3) critically evaluating the group’s strategies and progress and 4) reflecting on the content (current stage of knowledge) and problem-solving process. Group collaboration and interaction did not end in the classroom, but was continued online via Facebook during the week in-between the face-to-face meetings.

Data sources At the end of the course (week 12), five focus groups were conducted (one with each group) to explore perceptions related to the multimodal learning environment as well as technology adoption and use. Each focus group lasted approximately 40 minutes and was facilitated by a researcher who aimed to uncover the shared viewpoints among group members and across groups. Moreover, at the end of each tutorial, both facilitators kept detailed notes and reflections of what they had encountered during the meetings. Figure 2. Use of tablet for taking snapshots of the group activity (top) and for recording group conversations (bottom)

Research Findings Two investigators independently conducted a thematic analysis of the focus group data, and upon discussion and agreement between them, they concluded with three prominent themes found in participants’ responses. Then, the investigators worked closely together and used the facilitators’ notes and reflections as a contrasting data source to verify the findings from students’ self-reports (i.e., triangulation). The prominent themes in students’ self-report were fully consistent with the impressions the facilitators had recorded, while being engaged with the events as they happened in the classroom. The three themes are discussed first. Then, we provide a meta-review of technology adoption and use linked to the different phases of problem-based activity.

Themes and Meta-review

Figure 3. Sense cam taking pictures every 10 seconds

50

Theme 1: Facebook acted as a record-keeping mechanism, facilitated communication in-between and during meetings and enabled continuity in the interaction. This core theme included ideas relevant to how Facebook enabled the sharing of information TechTrends • March/April 2015

Volume 59, Number 2

Figure 4. Use of pen-reader for taking notes

and artifacts prepared during self-directed study, provided a trigger for discussion during meetings, allowed immediate feedback on issues and questions that emerged during the week inbetween meetings, and acted as record-keeping mechanism facilitating continues interaction during the design process. For example, Group 2 participant: “Facebook was an effective way to communicate inbetween class meetings and during class meetings. During meetings, we checked whether our to-do list was completed. Students had to upload the results of their homework on Facebook. It was an effective way to share all kinds of files in preparation for the meeting. In case someone had a question in completing a step from the to-do list, all of us could provide input via Facebook in a timely manner. At the end of each tutorial we posted a report of our progress and another set of goals for the following week.” Volume 59, Number 2

Theme 2: Capturing moments and artifacts was beneficial to the collaborative learning process. This theme was interlinked to the overall use of Facebook and revealed how the participants’ practice of taking pictures of various collaboration moments and uploading those on Facebook, facilitated the recall of important information, continuity of thought and reflection-in-action (Schön, 1987), as in the following quotations: Group 4 participant: Taking pictures and sharing them on Facebook helped me remember what had happened in the previous lesson and even in former lessons and rethink on these activities, like asking myself ‘why we acted as we did?’ Group 1 participant: We took pictures of specific artifacts and moments using our tablets or smartphones, we looked at them at the end of each tutorial and chose a couple to upload on


51

Table 1. Use of the Multimodal Space and Individual Technologies by Groups Group1

Group 2

Shared surface and projection for collaboration in groups. Downward-pointing + projector Paper and pencil + + Portable devices for record-keeping and reflection. Tablet (sometimes + owned) Smartphones (owned) + + iPod + Sense cam + (*) Pen reader Laptops (owned) + Facebook groups for communication and information sharing. Facebook groups

+

+

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ + +

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

(*) Used consistently by a single leaner only Facebook; they helped us keep a record of our progress and recall information and parts of the process. Theme 3: Both digital and physical tools were appreciated. An additional theme in the data was concerned with the relative use of the various physical and digital elements in the learning environment – that not all tools were of equal value, but it was nice to have them all and use as needed, for example, Group 4 participant: We made extensive use of the digital tools. It was good to also have the pencils and everything; we used post-its and A2 paper during the design of our interface […] We could benefit from more tablets and iPods (maybe a second one) so that we can multitask. In general, the participants felt that the learning experience was enriched due to the multimodal learning environment. And, even in cases where the added value of the technology was not perceived, participants were happy to have had the experience and suggested they would not eliminate anything from the learning environment. Interestingly, in the relevant comments, it was further evident that some participants used these technologies for the first time (e.g., a tablet), when we (instructors) often assume we are dealing with digitally literate learners, for example: 52

Group 2 participant: I never had to work in such a tech rich environment and I am happy I had the experience. I did not know a ‘sense cam’ and a ‘pen reader’ existed and I now know how to use a ‘tablet’! I may find these tools useful in some other setting. Overall, students’ self-reports (along with the facilitators’ observations) showed that students benefited from the multimodal learning environment. Also, students’ responses provided evidence of how blended interactions occurred across physical and digital tools and collocated and networked learning spaces. To expand our understanding of the value of this setting for problem-based activity, we looked at the data in more depth. First, Table 1 summaries the use of tools by groups, which is further, elaborated below. Then, we provide a meta-review of the technology adoption and use, linked to the different phases of problem-based activity. Downward-pointing projector. Problemsolving and design conversations always took place around the large table surface. Although three regular whiteboards (on rolling stand) were available in the classroom, their use was negligible. With the exception of Group 2, all groups used the downward-pointing projector in every tutorial. It was used to project their Facebook group, to project Google for collaborative exploration of digital sources, and to project a common file to work on, such as a


Volume 59, Number 2

Table 2. Use of the Multimodal Learning Environment in Phases of Problem-based activity Problem analysis and brainstorming Shared surface and projection for collaboration in groups. - Downward-pointing projec- + tor - Paper and pencil Portable devices for record-keeping and reflection. - Laptops, Tablet, Smartphones, iPod, Sense cam Facebook groups for communi+ cation and information sharing.

Critically evalu- Reflecting in ating the group’s action strategies and progress

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

wireframe prototype. This shared surface was thought essential for the groups’ collaboration, for example: Group 4 participant: “The downward-pointing projector was great. We could see the screen in large size and there was no need for all of us to sit at the same side of the table. We had our Facebook page opened and looked at our postings from previous weeks, built on those ideas and planned for the day [….] We also google(d) things we needed information about [….] Other times, we projected our wireframe prototypes to work on together.” Paper and pencil. The study aimed to enrich the learning environment with technologies rather than to replace traditional tools such as paper and pencil. Indeed, what groups practiced regularly was drawing/writing on regular paper and taking pictures of their artifacts for review and reflection. Although the relative use of the various physical and digital tools varied within and across groups, there was a collective consensus that it was nice to have both and use them as needed. Tablets, smartphones, ipods. All groups appreciated being able to keep a record of their work and aspects of the design process, using the portable devices. Typically, students took pictures and audio recordings of selected moments and artifacts to post on Facebook for later review, as the quotations above demonstrate. All groups reported that they revisited their pictures and/ or audio recordings to refresh their memories both during the tutorials, but also individually at home. Group 1 argued they never revisited the Volume 59, Number 2

Seeking and using knowledge and resources

audio files, “as it was time consuming and the pictures alone were great artifacts for recall and reflection”. In contrast, groups 3, 4 and 5 reported they revisited both audio recordings and pictures. Group 2 and 5 preferred to use their own laptops and smartphones for recording the process. On the same note, participants of Group 5 argued for ‘ownership’ of the devices and felt students should be allowed to take the devices outside the classroom and set up their personal accounts on them. On top of taking pictures of artifacts and moments, Group 4 demonstrated a different use of the tablet to support their thinking about design. A variety of applications were installed and used and trigged discussions on design issues (e.g., pros and cons). This allowed the group to refine their ideas for their own system solution. Sense cam. Most groups commented that the sense cam was not ideal for a fixed group arrangement as it produced similar pictures over and over. Yet, the sense cam was extensively used by Group 3 who explained how the pictures from the sense cam let them “re-play” the tutorials in their memories. Pen-reader. With regard to the pen-reader, all groups explained that it was used a couple of times at the beginning of the course to take personal notes and share with the group, however the quality of the digitized notes was low, therefore the technology was not used much further. Facebook. Facebook was extensively used by all groups allowing the sharing of information and artifacts prepared during self-directed study and providing a trigger for discussion during meetings. Also, Facebook allowed immediate feedback on issues that emerged during the


53

week in-between meetings and acted as recordkeeping mechanism for the design process. As one explained, Group 5 participant: What we posted on Facebook during the week was revisited and discussed during the tutorial. During the tutorials we worked as a group, discussed more, drew interfaces and prototypes, kept notes, took pictures to remember, then, updated our Facebook for a record. We decided what was to be investigated for homework and shared a list of tasks on Facebook. We also decided what was left to complete as a group face-to-face during the next tutorial and we kept another list on Facebook. All of this was important for our successful collaboration. Overall, all groups utilized the capabilities of the multimodal learning environment in many ways during the problem-based activity and beyond what the investigators’ had initially envisioned. Table 2 and the discussion that follows provide a meta-review of technology adoption and use linked to the different phases of problem-based activity (problem analysis and brainstorming, seeking and using knowledge and resources, critically evaluating the group’s strategies and progress and reflecting on content and process (i.e., reflection-in-action, Schön, 1987). Problem analysis and brainstorming. The shared surface provided a space where problem analysis and hypotheses generation could take place. The groups’ Facebook page was often projected on the surface to allow access to information recorded from previous tutorials. Seeking and using knowledge and resources. Often groups engaged in collaborative researching trying to locate useful resources about the problem. In this case, the shared surface and projection provided a space for collaboration; Google was projected on the shared surface so that everyone (or at least, some of the group members) could contribute to the search for information by suggesting and evaluating resources. Yet, responsibilities for finding resources were also assigned to individuals for homework, with a to-do list typically shared on Facebook. In this case, individual searching took place in between meetings, while new information acquired was shared with the group via Facebook, in order to be discussed at the next meeting. Sometimes during individual research, questions emerged. In this case, Facebook served communication making it possible for learners to renegotiate thoughts 54

and ideas. Last, applying knowledge to the problem generated extensive discussions and collaboration which was supported by physical and digital tools. For example, physical post-it notes, markers and paper were used to design diagrams, sketches and prototypes. Others chose to work with wireframe software which was again projected for everyone’s input. Ideas emerging from the discussion were recorded on Facebook for later consideration. Critically evaluating the group’s strategies and progress. Evaluating the group’s progress and strategies typically occurred around the shared surface. Facebook was projected to display information uploaded by group members and provided a trigger for discussion. Also, Facebook was used to retrieve and display information from previous sessions and therefore, compare earlier ideas or artifacts with the current stage of knowledge and plan accordingly. Reflection-in-action. The group’s recordkeeping on Facebook was projected on the shared surface and included captured moments and artifacts recorded and shared using the portable devices (e.g., pictures of sketches and prototypes, audio files, information on learning issues etc.). These captures served as a valuable source for reflection in the as well as individual reflection at home during this semester-long design activity. Reflection-in-action (Schön, 1987) allowed the learners to reshape what we were working on until they found a viable design solution.

Discussion and Conclusion The objective of this exploratory case study was to explore how students benefit from a multimodal learning environment while they engage in collaborative problem-based activity in a HCI university course. We examined learners’ blended interaction between physical and digital tools and across collocated and networked learning spaces and evaluated learners’ perceptions and technology use in terms of phases of problem-based activity. The study revealed students’ positive experiences in the multimodal learning environment and seamless interaction across tools and spaces that allowed them to engage in collaborative work inside and outside the classroom. In particular, the physical and digital tools in the learning environment, coupled with the affordance of Facebook as a record-keeping and communication tool were found to be integral and supportive of the problem-based activity. With respect to tool use, all groups used portable devices (mostly smartphones) and Facebook and almost all groups used the


Volume 59, Number 2

downward pointing projector and laptops. The pen reader was not used and the sense cam was used by one group only. In this sense, we may argue that, with fewer types of technologies, this study could have accomplished most of what we suggest in this manuscript. Further, the study found that the facilitated problem-based activity in this HCI course could be characterized by four phases (problem analysis and brainstorming, seeking and using knowledge and resources, critically evaluating the group’s strategies and progress, and reflecting-in-action) during which learners utilized the multimodal learning environment. It was found that the projector and the Facebook groups were used in all four phases, while portable devices for record keeping were mainly used in the group’s progress evaluation and reflection phases. There is a lot more we can achieve in future studies with regard to understanding the roles that technology might play in supporting student-centered problem-based activity. Beyond self-reports and facilitators’ reflections, our goal in future investigations is to video-record group activity during the tutorials. Video data would allow a careful construction of an account of technology-mediated interactions within groups. For example, quantitative content analysis of the interactions would allow a systematic presentation of when and how often technology was used. This should allow us to offer additional and more concrete suggestions, on how a multimodal learning environment can be used to support problem-based activity. Furthermore, the multimodal learning environment did not replace physical tools (such as paper, markers and post-its) but rather, co-existed with digital tools. Understanding the ‘blended’ interactions across tools is another area where video analysis could shed light. Last but not least, a content analysis of Facebook activity should be conducted for a more complete picture of our findings concerning the use of Facebook groups. This analysis will provide further quantitative evidence in relation to how often the technology was used and for what (e.g., uploading data on Facebook). With regard to transferability of our results, we believe we have described the research context adequately so that other researchers are able to transfer these results to different, but similar, contexts and settings. This study is in effect an evaluation of a technology-enhanced problem-based course on HCI. The study should be valuable for those teaching and designing a similar course, as they can use the findings to improve how their course is enhanced and facilitated. Below, we provide some suggestions for researchers and practitioners, which should Volume 59, Number 2

be interpreted with caution, considering the nongeneralizable results of this study. • A multimodal learning environment can be taken-up and endorsed by the learners. • Facebook can support problem-based activity both during and in-between meetings, as a record-keeping and communication tool. • Creative use of affordable technologies can enrich the learning environment and serve problem-based activity at various stages. • Multimodal learning environments and ‘blended’ interactions across digital and physical tools are worth exploring further in various contexts and domains. As technology becomes more and more affordable, classrooms in higher education institutions are transformed into rich learning environments. Meanwhile, more and more learners are equipped with mobile technologies and are continuously connected to the networked world. We cannot ignore the possibilities these may have for enhancing student-centered, problem-based pedagogies. Studies such as this one are needed to provide an understanding for how different physical and digital tools are used together to achieve different learning goals, what strategies learners adopt for their blended interaction across learning environments and the ability to reach a harmonious relationship between devices and the environments during such an activity. This work is by no means complete. A number of similar studies need to be conducted in order to understand the complexities and possibilities from enacting collaborative problem-based activity in multimodal learning environments.

Acknowledgments This project is funded by the Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation (DESMI 20092010) and the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS), under the “Bilateral Cooperation” between Slovenia and Cyprus (ΔΙΑΚΡΑΤΙΚΕΣ/ ΚΥ-ΣΛΟ/0411). DESMI 2009-2010 is co-funded by the Republic of Cyprus and the European Regional Development Fund of the EU. Andri Ioannou is a Lecturer in the Department of Multimedia and Graphic Arts at the Cyprus University of Technology. She received her PhD and MA in Educational Technology from the University of Connecticut (USA) and BSc in Computer Science from the University of Cyprus. Direct correspondence regarding this article to Andri Ioannou, Department of Multimedia and Graphic Arts, Cyprus University of Technology, 94 Anexartisias street, Iakovides building, 2nd floor, P.O. Box 50329, 3603 Lemeso, Cyprus, phone: +357 25 0022276, email: [email protected]


55

Christina Vasiliou completed her BSc in Computer Science from the University of Cyprus. She was awarded with a departmental scholarship for her MSc in Human-Centred Interactive Technologies at the University of York, UK. She currently works as a research associate for the project “creative multimodal information spaces for problem-based learning” at the Cyprus University of Technology. Panayiotis Zaphiris is an Associate Professor in the Department of Multimedia and Graphic Arts at the Cyprus University of Technology. Panayiotis has a PhD in HumanComputer Interaction from Wayne State University, USA. He also has an MSc in Systems Engineering and a BSc in Electrical Engineering both from University of Maryland, College Park, USA. Tanja Arh obtained her PhD degree at the Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana. She works in the Laboratory for Open Systems and Networks at the Jožef Stefan Institute as a researcher in the field of e-learning, organisational learning and usability evaluation. She is assistant professor at Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Jožef Stefan Postgraduate School and DOBA Faculty of Applied Business and Social Studies. Tomaž Klobučar is a researcher at Laboratory for Open Systems and Networks at Jožef Stefan Institute and an assistant professor at Jožef Stefan Postgraduate School and DOBA Faculty of Applied Business and Social Studies. Matija Pipan, M.Sc. earned his Master’s degree at the Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana. His master thesis was on Methods and Techniques for Usability Evaluation of Software Solutions. His work in Laboratory for Open Systems and Networks at Jožef Stefan Institute is mainly related to research in European-wide research programmes in the field of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) and Usability and User Experience Evaluation (U2XEM).

References Barrett, T. (2005). What is problem-based Learning. In Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. In O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds). Dublin: AISHE, 2005. Released August 2013 from http:// www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/ Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview. In Wilkerson, L., Gijselaers,

56

W. H. (Eds.) New directions for teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 3-11. Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). Introduction. In C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham (eds.). The Handbook of Blended Learning. Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2006, pp. 5–15. Carpenter, R. G. (2012). Cases on Higher Education Environments: Innovation, Collaboration, and Technology, IGI Global. Derry, S. J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., Chernobilsky, E., & Beitzel, B. (2006). Cognitive transfer revisited: Can we exploit new media to solve old problems on a large scale? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 145-162. Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning, Computers & Education, 54 (1), 350–359. Donnelly, R. (2004). Online learning in teacher education: Enhanced with a problem-based learning approach. Journal of the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 12 (2), 236–247. Engel, C. E. (1999). Problem-based Learning in Medical Education. In Leach, J. & Moon B. (eds.). Learners and Pedagogy, The Open University, UK Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16 (3), 235-266. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Chernobilsky, E. (2004). Understanding collaborative activity systems: The relation of tools and discourse in mediating learning. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.). Proceedings of the International Society of the Learning Sciences (pp. 254-261). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum. Ioannou, A. (2009). Publication Bias: A Threat to the Objective Report of Research Results. Retrieved March 1, 2014 from http://www.mendeley.com/research/ publication-bias-threat-objective-report-research-results/ Koschmann, T., Myers, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1994). Using technology to assist in realizing effective learning and instruction: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 227-264. Jones, S., Fields, B., Bardill, A. and Williams, M. (2010). ‘Conversational Environments for Teaching Interaction Design’ Draft submission. Retrieved February 4, 2013 from http://idc.mdx.ac.uk/projects/iscc/publications/ Schön, D. A. (1987). Teaching artistry through reflection-inaction. In Educating the Reflective Practitioner (pp. 22-40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.


Volume 59, Number 2