Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
collaborative space
Beat Döbeli Honegger
University of Teacher Education Central Switzerland
Michele P. Notari
Pädagogische Hochschule Bern
School of Teacher Education, University of Applied Sciences
ABSTRACT
Based on the implications of technological progress and socioconstructivist learning theory, trends are
being developed for tools to promote learning in the information society of the 21st century. The future
promises a massive increase in information and its ubiquitous availability, along with an increase in
computer-mediated communication. It is particularly important to understand that the communication
requests placed on the individual and the range of available communication channels will increase in
coming years. Tools must therefore be conceptualized to manage the communication and information glut
of the future in an “intelligent” way permitting a collaborative way of learning. Looking ahead, lifelong,
rather informal and problem-based learning could become significantly more important than formal
learning. The characteristics of wikis will be presented as a possible representative example and explored
based on the above criteria. The chapter concludes with prognoses on the nature of ICT-supported
learning in coming years.
1. INTRODUCTION
In this section a number of prognoses are presented concerning the future characteristics of ICT-
supported learning tools based on current trends towards an information society. The discussion will
address technological developments as well as their technological and social consequences while also the
exploring the competences required for living in an information society. After describing a possible
conception of learning and showing a didactic method that can be derived from it, some characteristics
that learning tools may possess in the future will be inferred.
This section attempts to extrapolate these characteristics to their logical limits. Despite this fundamental
approach, certain important aspects of living and learning in the 21st century will not be explored in
depth. The discussion will not be extended, for example, to the consequences of globalization and
dwindling natural resources, nor to the challenges posed by these developments (e.g., living and working
in multicultural societies; sustainable development).
Figure 1 provides a structured overview of the considerations in this section in the form of a concept map
(Novak, Gowin 1985). An enlarged version of the presented map can be found at the following url:
http://beat.doebe.li/publications/liaacs/. The elements of the map discussed in the individual subsections
are displayed in enlarged resolution. An introductory caveat is appropriate at this juncture: Although the
concept map – which graphically displays the key aspects of each section – may convey a picture of
reality that is highly deterministic, the authors do not endorse this conception. Reality is extremely
complex, and eludes accurate schematization in a concept map. This form of presentation is useful,
however, and has been selected in order to shed light on key developments and interrelationships.
In addition, as the goal of this section is to infer the future characteristics of learning tools, no attempt has
been made incorporate reciprocal effects and feedback mechanisms between the displayed concepts,
despite the fact that such mechanisms and effects do surely exist. Please try to keep in mind the concept
map presented as figure 1 while reading the whole section. The map figures as leitmotiv, all terms,
descriptions and definitions mentioned in the subsections refer to elements and connections of the map.
Even if parts of the map are shown in the related subsections the ‘whole picture’ is crucial to understand
the presented ideas.
There are four possibilities as to how new digital tools and media can impact existing tools and media:
Extinction: The new digital tools and media replace existing tools and media. Digital
photography, for example, has largely replaced analog photography.
Convergence: ICT combines previously distinct tools and media in a new, unified format.
Coexistence: The new possibilities offered by ICT are used in tandem with existing tools and
media.
Evolution: While new tools and media are typically used at first as an imitation of existing tools
and media, with time new and previously unknown forms of use can develop.
To the present day the computer remains a visible emblem of the trend towards an increasingly
information-based society. Yet as early as 1991, Marc Weiser was using the term ubiquitous computing to
prophesize a future in which computers would become an omnipresent but hidden feature of our
environment, as they would be integrated in everyday items (Weiser 1991). The future envisioned by
Weiser is already becoming a reality: A modern passenger car boasts more computing power than the first
desktop computer, yet no one would view their car as a computer on wheels. State-of-the-art cellular
telephones also have massive data processing and storage capacity, but are not perceived as computers in
a standard sense. The majority of experts also see a trend in the direction of mobile computing. In a
survey of 578 experts, 77% agreed that the mobile phone is the primary connection tool for most people
in the world (Anderson & Rainie 2008).
The computer scientist Klaus Haefner postulated in 1982 that the increasing availability of information
and communication technologies would lead to ever-greater automation. For economic reasons,
everything that can be automated will be automated (Haefner 1982). This viewpoint – originally
formulated in the early 1980s – is still shared by experts such as Thomas Friedman (Friedman 2005).
The resulting challenges can be described under the rubric of more, faster, and greater complexity:
More: With the increasing availability of information and options for digital communication, the
individual is faced by the latent danger of an information and communication-request overload.
Faster: The availability of information at all times and places as well as the increasing automation
of processes are causing developments to move at an accelerated pace, as less time is required to
complete tasks. The free time thus attained is used to develop new processes.
Greater complexity: The newly developed processes are often more complex as existing ones, as
existing data and processes form the basis for new ones. This makes complex processes easier to
manage and attracts users.
Figure 3. Potentials and threats of technological change
Haefner and Friedman both advance the view that it is fruitless to resist increasing automation. Rather, it
is necessary to concentrate on the non-automatable. Haefner envisions two such occupational groups: The
first group consists of the autonomes, who complete their work without the use of ICT. The second group
consists of the Unberechenbaren (“non-computables”), who, with the help of ICT, fulfill complex jobs
that rely heavily on communication and cannot be automated (Haefner 1992, p. 192) Friedman has
formulated a similar concept and describes this second occupational group as the “untouchables”
(Friedman 2005).
Globalisation will increase diversity and interconnection within the world. Individuals need to master
changing technologies and to make sense of large amounts of available information. In these contexts, the
competences the individuals need to meet their goals have become more complex, requiring more than
the mastery of certain narrowly defined skills (Rychen & Salganik 2001).
According to Weinert, a competence is not reducible to cognitive skills, but instead also contains social,
emotional, motivational, and behavioral components (Weinert 2001). The OECD project "Defining and
Selecting Key Competencies (DeSeCo)" examined which key competencies would be essential in the
future. Three categories of competencies were identified by the study: dealing with socially
heterogeneous groups; autonomous action and creativity; and the interactive use of media and tools
(Rychen & Salganik 2001).
In pedagogy, the concept of competence goes back to the competence-model of Klafki (2000). Euler
(2006) proposed a possible way to operationalize Klafki’s model in the form of a matrix of competences.
Table 1 shows this matrix filled in with the concepts proposed in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Required competences
A short description of some terms may help understanding the importance of the different competences:
Self-competence is a term described by Susan Harter (1982) referring to perceived ability in subject areas
as a whole. This makes the definition very similar to self-concept, a term associated with Rosenberg
(1965), Shavelson et al. (1976), and Marsh (1990). However, while self-concept also addresses students’
beliefs about academic difficulties and student affect, self-competence refers only to their perceptions
related to success. The term ‘social competence’ or ‘social competences’ refer to the social, emotional
and cognitive skills and behaviors that persons need for successful social adaptation (Fiedler, 2003). Open
mindedness has been pointed out by several researchers as one of the most likely characteristics
associated with successful cross-cultural adjustment (Caligiuri, Jacobs, & Farr 2000, Van Oudenhoven,
Van der Zee, & Van Kooten 2001, Yamazaki & Kayes 2004)
Dimensions of
action / Areas of Knowledge Skills Attitudes
competence
Learning to learn;
Subject Information
Information Open mindedness
competence competences
competences
We start from the idea that learning is a social and active process. We then describe a motivational
learning strategy and provide an overview regarding different types of learning. From these types of
learning, we point out two learning methods (active, collaborative learning) and a didactic concept
(problem based learning). The acquisition of competences in a world of increasing complexity and the
fast-pace of change, is a lifelong learning process. Since formal learning occurs mostly in childhood and
young adulthood, the role of informal learning has grown in significance. Information technologies also
offer supplemental possibilities for informal education during childhood and young adulthood (Sefton-
Green 2004).
The learning act is described above as an active, social and constructive process. In contemporary and in
future learning scenarios the social interactions are intended to happen directly (face to face) or mediated
by technology. Not only the interaction can be enhanced or sustained by technology but also the
construction or co-construction of knowledge and learners activity. Mechanisms enhancing social
interaction might be represented by communication and collaboration tools. Tools permitting and
facilitating editing and sharing of meanings enhance (co-) construction of knowledge. Self determination
theory and personal motivation may help to understand and enhance learners activity.
The described needs underpin the importance of the predictions of the future tools: relatedness refers to
the importance of being involved within a social environment. Learning in a social environment is a
collaborative process, and the need for competence relates to the importance of being up to date with the
changing world and induces active lifelong learning activities. The need for autonomy refers to
independence from formal (learning) frameworks. Autonomy and environment control also enhances
learners motivation and self determination which has an impact on his behavior / his learning activity.
The new technologies affect both formal and informal learning. Due to the acceleration of change (see
Figure 1) the “half-life of knowledge” — i.e. its validity in terms of being up-to-date and accurate —
decreases. To keep abreast of developments, lifelong learning is therefore indispensable. Formal
education (i.e. formal learning) normally stops at the age of 20-25. Because of the necessity of lifelong
learning and rising life expectancy, informal learning will increase in importance.
Active learning: Students take control of their own learning, pose and answer their own
questions.
Integrated learning: Students do not study different disciplines or sub-disciplines separately, do
not view knowledge, understanding, and skills as distinct elements but rather as integrated; they
put the problem into the focus and make every attempt to link the classroom and the real world of
practice.
Cumulative learning: No topic or problem is studied to the depth of the final learning outcome in
a single block; rather topics are revisited in progressively greater depth.
Learning for understanding: For students the processes of inquiry are more important than the
facts delivered; knowledge must be tested by application, feedback is central and reflection is an
integral part of the learning process.
There is a general agreement that problem-based learning provides an environment rich in potential for
the development of a range of skills. Among the skills usually identified are: Problem-solving skills;
skills in posing useful questions; thinking skills; teamwork skills; communication skills; time
management skills; research and information handling skills; and computing skills.
Informal, problem-based, active, constructive, collaborative learning in authentic learning situations may
indicate characteristics of emerging learning scenarios (see Figure 6).
We will now turn to computer-mediated human-human communication like e-mail, chat, instant
messaging, newsgroups, forums, tweets etc. Computer-mediated communication helps bridging spatial,
social, and temporal distances and permits the tracking of past acts of communication.
Asynchronous communication gives the opportunity to rethink and correct the content of a message
before it is sent and so promoting reflective learning (Hiltz and Goldman (2005). Computer-mediated
communication (CMC) has become a part of everyday life. Research suggests that CMC is not inert as a
social force, but that it can cause many changes in the way people communicate with one another,
influencing communication patterns and social networks (see e.g. Fulk & Collins-Jarvis 2001). Rice &
Gattiker (2001) state that CMC limits the level of synchronicity when interacting, which may cause a
reduction of interactivity.
What features might we expect of the next generation of learning tools? As mentioned, ever-greater
demands will be placed on the individual to engage in acts of communication in the future (see Figure 7).
As a result, CMC tools might evolve to resemble face-to-face communication, including all its stimuli. It
may also be that CMC tools merge all of the advantages of CMC with the advantages of face-to-face
communication. Communication tools of the future will also presumably be better at managing large
numbers of communication requests. Such tools may provide for the intelligent selection of relevant
communication requests. To tailor such tools, further research is necessary on communication needs (see
self-determination theory: Deci & Ryan 2002; see section above) as well as on the communication
patterns of learners in active, collaborative learning environments (Notari 2008), has described factors
influencing computer-mediated written communication; research on communication needs and
communication patterns is ongoing).
An initial, perhaps banal and purely pragmatic requirement that we neither dealt with in theory nor as part
of a model, but that seems nevertheless to be quite essential is the reliability and usability of the learning
tool. Along with steady improvements in computer hardware and applications there has also been a
concomitant increase in complexity, which potentially leads to the increased instability of learning tools.
In view of the latent dangers of information overload, the implementation of learning tools will become
ever more important in the management of information, which could be transformed by a personal
information manager (PIM) of the future with the following requirements: intelligent filtering,
prioritization, and visualization of information, as well as the ability to link associations to existing
information and an intelligent storage system for later retrieval. New concepts for solving problems raised
by the flood of new information already exist in rudimentary fashion: statistical methods are increasingly
available to make information management more logical, such as self-learning spam filters, and user-
generated taxonomies (folksonomies).
Not only the quantity of information is increasing, but also, in similar fashion, the volume of
communication requests directed at the individual is rising. In the modern world, we are bombarded by
communication requests from a wide range of channels, including telephone, mail, VOIP, wall posts at
social networking sites, and micro-blogging comments. The escalating frequency of requests from an
ever-increasing variety of communication channels requires a new form of communication management.
Today, there are already services available that merge different communication channels. This helps raise
efficiency by reducing the number of channels: the same quantity of communication may no longer be
experienced as a flood of communication, because each communication channel no longer has to be
checked individually. Adequate, active engagement in communication is an additional help for managing
the flood of communication requests. Today, this kind of active “communication agent” already exists in
the form of intelligent-email absence announcements. Some agents, for example, are able to limit
announcing the absence of the message recipient to one occasion per message sender. Obviously, an
additional aspect of communication management includes enhanced learning tool features such as
filtering, prioritization, visualization, association and the integrated storage of new data.
A reliable learning tool must enable a high level of collaboration, and must make collaboration easier. We
will speak in more depth about collaboration as a characteristic of learning tools with reference to wikis in
the next section. As additional requisite properties we would postulate flexibility and organizational
independence. Flexibility consists of actions that do not depend on time or place, and in the ability to use
the same tool to tackle different problems in different ways. Organizational independence must be
promoted in order to facilitate informal learning, which is becoming of such paramount importance to
lifelong learning. Flexibility and organizational independence are also important characteristics of wiki
tools, which will be described in the following section.
Using this definition, we can describe some of the potentials of wikis (Döbeli Honegger 2007):
Create: creating content activates and motivates learners, two important prerequisites for learning
Change: Wikis ease the modification of content (like all computer-based editors). This allows
more revisions of a text which fosters re-reading and re-thinking the text and therefore can
enhance the learning effect.
Link: Wikis allow links between different parts of a text (like all hypertext systems). This
requires that learners read and understand the parts they want to link and find fitting relationships.
This enhances the discussion about the topic.
Everybody: Wikis ease collaborative content creation and therefore ease working in interest-
groups.
Revision control: The integrated revision control of wikis not only lowers the danger and damage
of vandalism. The revision control can also be used to look at the creation process by the teacher
and the students. This can foster reflection about working and learning strategies (so called
history pages).
On the internet: As wikis can be hosted on a server on the internet, schools don't have to install
hardware in their own buildings and the wiki can be accessed from everywhere
Without additional tools: As wikis only need a web browser as a tool, there is no need for
software installation on the learners’ computers. This lowers the barriers for using wikis as a
learning tool.
The openness of wikis reflects the requirement for institution-independent tools. Unlike other groupware
tools or learning management systems, wikis do not try to reproduce organizational structures. In
addition, little about the architecture of the tool would stand in the way of broad uses across multiple
organizations. The requirement for auto-reflection is supported by wikis in a number of respects. In wikis,
revision control enables the documentation of the development process and thereby enables historical
reflection. In a similar fashion, discussion pages on certain wiki engines promote meta-reflection on the
part of the authors, as an explicit place is provided for such levels. The ‘lack of predefined structures’
may rise questions about effectiveness of the tool for active collaborative learning purposes. Following
Jadin and Batinic (2006) students working with structured tools like a forum or a weblog worked more
effectively than people using a wiki. The results of Jadin and Batinic relate to a formal university learning
unit where the wiki was used for the first time. Tools used in the future might consider this fact and offer
‘intelligent’ structuring possibilities following specific learners needs or users might learn how to cope
with the freedom of unstructuredness.
Wikis are rightly considered the most flexible content management systems, because they impose only
the most minimal structure and leave the rest to the users. Wikis also fulfill the requirement for
collaborative tools to a considerable degree, as Wikis were designed from the beginning to be multi-user
systems. Correspondingly, it has been a fundamental goal of Wikis to promote and simplify the process of
collaborative work. The situation with respect to personal information management is more ambiguous.
On the one hand, wikis could certainly be used for this purpose, but offer very little automation toward
this end. Current research in the area of semantic wikis and the visualization of wikis (see, for example,
Schaffert et.al. 2006, Stickel, Ebner & Holzinger 2008), could ameliorate this deficit in the near future.
Wikis offer hardly any practical support for personal communication management. In this respect, it is
important to recall that no single tool is likely to be able to meet all requirements placed on future
learning tools.
Writing a Wikipedia article can relate to formal and also informal learning. Learners can have the
assignment to create or revise a Wikipedia article in a formal learning setting (Konieczny 2007). It is also
possible that something is learned in the course of writing an article in an informal context. Finally, there
are also Wikipedia authors who deliberately write articles in the hope of learning something about the
topic involved (Forte, Bruckman 2007).
Revision control in Wikipedia permits an author to follow the evolution of the articles. With articles that
have multiple authors, established modifications may be rescinded from time to time following
consultation with the original authors.
Communication between Wikipedia authors most often takes place within the confines of Wikipedia
itself, since for every article there also exists an associated discussion page. Within this discussion site,
individual comments and viewpoints of the authors are debated. An enormous learning potential can be
attributed to this process of discussion and debate (see the section on Collaborative learning). Even when
individual authors do not have the impression that they have learned from creating or modifying their
articles, in the process of discussion one’s own perspective is necessarily juxtaposed with other
viewpoints. Ideally, the confrontation leads to compromise and the article will be adapted accordingly.
This adaptation of texts may lead to a transformation of the mental model held by all participants.
According to Piaget, this would constitute an accommodation in response to a discordant perturbation
caused by a different perspective (Piaget 1937).
Over time, a Wikipedia article is linked to a number of related articles. This process of linking is in and of
itself a learning process: an existing concept (content and meaning of a concept or facts relating to an
article) is connected to another similar and already established concept. In addition, linking may lead to
perturbations and related discussions that ultimately lead to a learning process.
A paper which has been often cited as of late, Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with
history flow visualizations, by Viégas et al. (2004), quite clearly visualizes the never-ending,
collaborative, generative process of creating Wikipedia articles described above, and, at the same time, is
an example of a needed tool for the future, one that eases the individual’s management of the challenges
posed by a flood of information.
7. CONCLUSION
Due to the rising complexity of problems in the future and the increasing capacity of the technical tools
available, the importance of communication and collaboration will rise and informal learning will become
more important. Instruction-based approaches will decrease and constructivist methods like PBL will
become more popular. The tools of the future will render many repetitive work processes obsolete. They
will also help us manage complex problem-solving activities, while easing collaborative and
communicative tasks.
Competences that allow us to manage information- and communication-based environments will become
more important considering the rising tide of information and communication requests we will be forced
to manage Tools sustaining information- and communication management in different learning settings
should optimize the following properties: First of all collaboration and flexibility are crucial due to the
complexities of upcoming problems to solve. We also predict the importance of institutional
independence due to the increasing importance of informal learning. Such informal problem solving
activities also call for tools improving auto reflection mechanisms.
In the dynamic and interdependent world in which we live, learning and communication capabilities are
becoming as crucial as knowledge. A main goal of institutional design should be to increase the learning
and communication capabilities of the system and its constituents.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. Q., & Rainie, L. (2008). The Ffuture of Internet III. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved May 1, 2009, 1. 2009, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_FutureInternet3.pdf.pdf
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bruns, A.;, & Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment,. In The
M/Cyclopedia Project., WikiSym 2005,. New York: ACM Press.
Caligiuri, P. M., Jacobs, R. R., & Farr, J. L. (2000). The Attitudinal and
BehavioralBehavioural Openness Scale: Scale development and construct
validation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 27-46.
Cross, J. (2006). Informal Learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and
performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
David, T., Patel, L., Burdett, K., & Rangachari, P. (2009),. Problem- based learning in medicine: A
practical guide for students & teachers: A Practical Guide for Students and Teachers. London
:Royal Society of Medicine Press.
Dansereau, D.F. (1983). Cooperative learning: Impact on acquisition of knowledge and skills (Report
No.341). Abilene, TX: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (Eds.)., (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
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, UK: Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts in computer-supported
collaborative learning., International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol.
3, Number( 1).
Döbeli Honegger, B. (2007). Wiki und die starken Potenziale: Unterrichten mit Wikis als virtuellen
Wandtafeln. In Web 2.0 - Internet Interaktiv, J(Journal Computer und Unterricht) (pp. 39-
41). Friedrich. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from.
http://beat.doebe.li/publications/2007-doebeli-honegger-wiki-und-die-starken-potenziale.pdf
Engel, C. E. (1991). Not just a method but a way of learning,. iIn D. Boud D and& G. Feletti, G
(Eds.), The Challenge of Problem Based Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Engel, C. E. (1992). Problem-based learning. British Journal of Hospital Medicine,. 48., 325-329.
Euler, D., Hasanbegovic, J., Kerres, M. Seufert, S. (2006). Handbuch der Kompetenzentwicklung für E-
Learning Innovationen. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Forte, A.;, & Bruckman, A. (2006). From Wikipedia to the Cclassroom. In Proceedings of the
International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from
http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/ForteBruckmanFromWikipedia.pdf
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the globalized world in the twenty-first
century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fulk, J., & Collins-Jarvis, L. (2001). Wired meetings: Technological mediation of organizational
gatherings. In L.L. Putnam & F.M. Jablins (Eds.), New handbook of organizational
communication (2nd ed.), (pp. 624-703). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guzdial, M. (1999). Teacher and student authoring on the Web for shifting agency.
Retrieved May 01, 2009., from http://guzdial.cc.gatech.edu/papers/aera99/default.html
Guzdial, M.;, Kehoe, C.;, Realff, M., &; Morley, T. (2000). A catalog of CoWeb uses.
Retrieved May 1, 2009, from. http://guzdial.cc.gatech.edu/squeakers/coweb-catalog.pdf .
Guzdial, M.,; Rick, J.,; & Kehoe, C. (2001). Beyond adoption to invention. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, Volume 10 Number( 3) July 2001.
Guzdial, M., &; Rick, J. (2006). Situating CoWeb. International Journal of Computer- Supported
Collaborative Learning, 1(1).
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87-97.
Hiltz, S.R. (1995). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. New
JerseyYork: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (2005). What are asynchronous learning networks? In Hiltz, S. R., &
Goldman, R. (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 3–18).
Hoppe, H. U., Ogata, H., & Soller, H. (Eds.). (2007). The role of technology in CSCL: studies in
technology enhanced collaborative learning. New York: Springer.
Huynh, M.Q. (1999). A critical study of computer-supported collaborative learning. Unpublished PhD,
SUNY Binghamton, . New York: SUNY.
Jadin, T., &; Batinic, B. (2006, May 23-24). Social Skills durch Social Software. In Interdisziplinäre
Fachtagung zu Bildungs- und Arbeitstechnologien im Semantic Web, am 23. und 24. Mai 2006 in
Salzburg.
Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.hotel-virgil.at/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/jadintrack_1-
3.pdf
Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977). Personal dynamic media. In Computer 10(3):, 31-41.
Klafki,W. (2000). Kritisch-konstruktive Pädagogik. Herkunft und Zukunft. In Eierdanz, Jürgen / Kremer,
Armin (Hrsg.): Weder erwartet noch gewollt – Kritische Erziehungswissenschaft und Pädagogik in der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Zeit des kalten Krieges,. Baltmannsweiler, Germany 2000, (ppS. 152-
178).
Konieczny, Piotr P. (2007). Wikis and Wikipedia as a teaching tool. International Journal of
Instructional Technology And Distance Learning, 2007, Nr. 1. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from.
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_07/article02.htm
Lawler, C. (2006). Wikipedia as a learning community: content, conflict and the 'common good'. In B.
Lutterbeck, Matthias M. Bärwolff, & R. A. Gehring (Eeds.)., Open Source Jahrbuch 2006 - Zwischen
Softwareentwicklung und Gesellschaftsmodell. Berlin, Germany: Lehmanns Media. Retrieved May 1,
2009, from.
http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/portal/articles/pdfs/osjb2006-06-04-en-lawler.pdf
Leuf, B.;, & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley..
MacDonald, D., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Developing a professional identity through problem-based
learning. Teaching Education., 12, 315-333.
Moore, G. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics., 38, Number (8).
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1985). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
OECD. (2007). Participative Web and user-created content: Web 2.0, wikis and social networking. :
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from
http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9307031E.PDF .
Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and
Learning Objects, 3, (pp 57-72).
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of a child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rice, R.E., & Gattiker, U.E. (2001). New media and organizational structuring. In F.M. Jablin & L.L.
Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 544-581). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L.H. (2001). Defining and Selection Key Competencies. Toronto, Canada:
Hogrefe & Huber Publishing.
Schaffert, S., Bischof, D., Bürger, T., Gruber, A., Hilzensauer, W., and& Schaffert, S. (2006 June 11-14).
Learning with Semantic Wikis . In First Workshop “SemWiki2006 - From Wiki to Semantics”, co-located
with the 3rd Annual European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), First Workshop SemWiki2006 - From
Wiki to Semantics, Budva, Montenegro, 11th - 14th June, 2006.
Schwartz, L. et al. (2004, April). Educational Wikis – features and selection criteria. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (April - 2004). Retrieved May 6, 2009,
from.
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/163/692
Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature review in informal learning with technology outsidoutside school.
VAC Performing Arts and Media College., Futurelab Series, Report Report 7. Retrieved April 26, 2009,
from. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/02/22/PDF/Sefton-Green_2004.pdf
Sharon, S. (Eed.). (1990) Cooperative Llearning: Theory and Rresearch. New York: Praege.
Shavelson, R. G., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Validation of construct interpretations.
Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative Llearning: Student Tteams., Washington, DC: National Educational
Association.
Stickel, S., Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2008). Useful oblivion versus information overload in e-learning
examples in the context of wiki systems. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, - CIT 16,
2008, (4), 271–277.
Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda
for CSCL . International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning., 3(1), 3 , 315-
337. (1), 315-337.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2007). Wikinomics, : How mass collaboration changes everything. New
York: Portfolio Hardcover.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Kooten, M. (2001). Successful
adaptation strategies according expatriates. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 25, 467-482.
Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors
with history flow visualizations. In Proceedings of SIGCHI, Vienna, Austria (pages pp. 575--582),
Vienna, Austria, 2004. New York: ACM Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA:, Harvard University Press.
Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, .65(3), 94-104.