View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 Flexible Virtual Environments for Teaching and Learning
1/6
Flexible Virtual Environments for Teaching and
Learning
Leonardo Santos, Alberto Castro
Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM)
Brazil
[email protected], [email protected]
Credin Silva de Menezes
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
Brazil
Abstract Distance learning boosts the development of Web-
based software aimed at supporting teaching and learning
processes. More recently, information technology became part of
pedagogies since their conception, especially for those called
pedagogical architectures focused mainly on learning and on
the processes of creation, discovery and invention. This scenario
presented a new challenge: software tools need to facilitate the
expression of individual idiosyncrasies and teams as well as
incorporate multiple fine-tuned ways of working. It becamenecessary to design flexible virtual environments that meet the
needs of its users, allowing runtime changes in their structures
and interfaces. In this paper we present a platform designed
under a novel paradigm for designing virtual environments, with
flexibility to be combined and to define several virtual
environments, runtime changeable without loss of data. As proof
of concept, a software platform was developed and used to model
and implement a total of 11 well-known virtual environments
spanning from usual ones like forum, blog and wiki, to more
complex examples. Finally, in order to evaluate the platforms
ability to accommodate changes, a case-study was carried out in a
real-world event with a class of 10 multipliers (teachers
responsible for training other teachers) that reported their use of
the platforms resources available so far.
Keywords- Distance Learning, Flexible Virtual Environments,
Tailorability
I. INTRODUCTION
In the last ten years, the Web has changed from an ordinary
medium to a complex platform, from a read-web to a read-
write-web and these days Web 2.0s ideas are in line with
modern educational theories such as constructivism and
connectionism, making its applications very attractive for
teachers and learners [1]. This is fulfilling Berners-Leesoriginal vision of the Web a system in which sharing what
you knew or thought should be as easy as learning whatsomeone else knew [2].
Although technical characteristics of those tools lead
to specific pedagogical characteristics especially whenconsidering Distance Learning scenarios, traditional learning
management systems (LMS) tend to replicate conventional
forms of teaching, especially on its focus on content
organization and student activity management, both issues
based on a knowledge-transfer perspective.
More recently, some pedagogical approaches take
into account the technological support since its conception.
This is the case with pedagogical architectures [3] that are
focused mainly on learning and on the processes of creation,
discovery and invention, as well as encouraging subjects to
perform experiments and simulations while searching forsolutions to significant problems connected through different
situations.
This scenario presented a new challenge: software
tools need to facilitate the expression of individual
idiosyncrasies and teams as well as incorporate multiple fine-
tuned ways of working. In a collaborative context, softwaredevelopers are not able to predict all user needs at design time
[4]. That means that even if a developer is able to develop an
optimal application for a group, it will eventually become
inadequate due to new situations and problems that eventually
will appear [5]. Thus, users should be able to adapt their
applications according to their pace and work methods [4]. Itbecame necessary to design flexible virtual environments that
meet the needs of its users, allowing runtime changes in their
structures and interfaces.
Developers of virtual environments tackle this
problem by using approaches like component-baseddevelopment, software production lines and web-services-
based services. However, they do not manage to deal with the
kind of dynamic modification their users are now demanding.
All these approaches take an application as a finished product,
without need for modifications after it is ready for use. These
approaches are still not flexible enough to tackle new demands
of highly dynamic domains.
In this context, a distinct approach called MOrFEu
(from a Portuguese acronym for Flexible Multi-Organizer of
Virtual Spaces) was proposed and has been evolving [6][7].
MOrFEus perspective is that virtual environments should be
composed of simple elements that, when combined, can define
tools for communication, interaction, organization ofknowledge and so on. This simplicity of composition gives
MOrFEu-based tools, flexibility to define several virtual
environments, which are runtime changeable without loss of
data.
In this paper we describe a web-based softwareplatform developed upon MOrFEus perspective and aimed at
highly dynamic collaborative scenarios. This platform is
described here using a Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern
and as proof of concept we implemented a total of 11 well-
known virtual environments, spanning from usual ones like
978-1-4673-1352-0/12/$31.00 2012 IEEE 1388
42nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
7/29/2019 Flexible Virtual Environments for Teaching and Learning
2/6
forum, blog and wiki, to more complex examples, used in
pedagogical architectures for which there was no direct
implementation reported. Finally, in order to evaluate thisplatform ability to accommodate changes in its elements, a
case-study was conducted in a real-world event with a class of
10 multipliers (teachers responsible for training other teachers)
that reported their use of resources available so far.
II. R ELATED WORK
Software developers have been addressing suitability of virtual
environments to user needs through techniques such as:
modular development, component-based development,
software product lines and web-services. However, the
problem is still not solved.
Modular development relies upon services, libraries
and frameworks that encourage reuse and focus on the goals
of an application. Among virtual environments developed with
this approach, Moodle1
is one the most used. It has an atomic
core of basic services and all communication and interaction
tools are installed as modules, making easy to install a new
module. However, these modules are available by a developer
community in not so large numbers. If a group of usersdemands modification on any of these modules, all users of
that environment would be affected.
The main idea in component-based development is to
encapsulate many of the technical difficulties faced by virtual
environment developers [8]. The focus of this approach is onthe reuse of infrastructure aspects like protocols, synchronism,
session management and others, leaving time to implement
innovative solutions. Components assembled according to a
group needs imply that a certain virtual environment would be
developed to that specific group. Unsurprisingly this approach
will have limitations when dealing with new demands
resulting from different patterns of interactions and natural
evolution inside the original groups. The works reported in
[9], [10] and [11] are examples of component-based
development.
Software product lines (SPL) present a more
systematic approach than the ad-hoc criteria frequently seen in
component-based [8]. SPL span over all stages of groupware
development and like the component-based approach, it
allows customization of applications, but also it considers a
virtual environment as a finished, unchangeable product.
Virtual environments can also be developed usingweb-services in a distributed architecture. Examples of this
approach are reported in [12] and [13], with development of
applications by composition of distributed services over theWeb. The work reported in [4] proposes a tailorable
groupware architecture that enables the dynamics composition
of services into a collaborative application. Nevertheless, ashappens with the other approaches, there is no thought on how
to modify one of the services, but only how the services might
be composed, dynamically or not.
These approaches are still not flexible enough to
tackle new demands of highly dynamic domains already into
the web.
1 http://moodle.org
In Table I we present a synthesis of the
characteristics of current approaches and of MOrFEus,
considering typical issues like when new tools can beintegrated to an existing environment, how a customized
environment can be made, how an existing tool can be
modified, and how much time is needed to make some
modification.
TABLE I. COMPARISON OF VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT APPROACHES
Module
based
Component
based
Web
services
MOrFEu
Deployment of
new tools
run-time project-
time
run-time run-time
Customized
environments
no project-
time
run-time run-time
Modification of
existing tools
no project-
time
no run-time
Modification time Slow fast
III. A FLEXIBLE MULTI-ORGANIZER OF VIRTUAL SPACES
MOrFEu [8] has individual production of users as its central
focus, and building virtual environments will be guided by the
organization of that production. Using simple elements,MOrFEu can define a great variety of virtual environments
that can be made flexible and able to deal with runtime
changes in specification.MOrFEu has the following premises:
Users interact with each other through virtualenvironments, in a knowledge construction setting;
Interactions are materialized through user productionstored in these environments;
User production is organized in virtual environmentsas documents, shared according to predefined elementssuch as: structure, responsibility table and interaction
order.
In this way, a basic item of individual productiondoes not need to be subdued by a specific document. The same
production item can be reused to form different group
documents.
Conventional virtual environments organize their
work spaces according to communication/interaction toolsused. Tying up a production to a specific document or tool has
been reason of complaining by a web pioneer that stated:
every time I write something with a computer, I have to
choose whether to open the electronic mailapplication or the
net news application or the Web editorapplication [2].
We introduce the concept ofIntellectual ProductionUnit (IPU) as the basic artifact to support authoring and
registration of individual production. The IPUs can be
produced in different languages, text, graphics, sound, etc., so
that each IPU may be of a different type. Any production
made by a user into an application can be considered an IPU.
For example, forums posts, a blogs comments, an e-mail
message sent to a friend, all of them are IPUs.
In a virtual environment, interaction starts when a
user shares an IPU with others. This leads to another central
concepts in MOrFEu: The act of sharing an IPU in a virtual
1389
42nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
7/29/2019 Flexible Virtual Environments for Teaching and Learning
3/6
environment is called publishing, and these virtual
environments defined by IPU composition are called
Communication Vehicle (ComV). ComV are responsible formaterialization of production generated by interaction
between users following certain interaction protocols, and
are transposed to user view according to individual templates.
Template is another key concept. Any visualization
of data within a ComVs document is made through a
template. Instantiation of a ComV generates a hypermediadocument jointly generated from publication of organized
IPUs, visualized through templates.
These concepts can be used to describe conventional
communication/interaction tools, as follows:
A chat conversation, for example, will produce adocument (ComV) generated by participants of thatchat session. Posts (IPUs) are usually done one afterother, with no predefined intervention order, carriedout synchronously. Usually a chat has just one page,which is generated by a template.
In a blog, authors create several posts (IPUs) organized
by publication date. Each one of these posts is open toget comments from other users (IPUs), which in theirturn will become co-authors of that document (ComV).Basically, a blog has two kinds of pages (bothgenerated by templates): the main page with a postinglist and the comments for every posting.
In a discussion forum, productions (IPUs) areorganized in tree organization (from graph theory). AnIPU replies to other IPU or starts a new thread of
publication, in a hierarchical way. The final documentin this ComV is the set of all productions in the treestructure. Templates generate a page with the list ofthreads and one page for each thread showing its posts.
IV. PEDAGOGICAL ARCHITECTURES
Aiming at breaking away from conventional praxis around
educational software that of schools adopting artifacts
(contents and program) available off-the-shelf a novel
approach was introduced in [3]. In that work, Pedagogical
Architectures (PA) are described as a matching of a
pedagogical approach (a group-based dynamic driven to
knowledge production, devised to address a specific learning
situation also considering the subjects and a specific context)
with a computational support (software, communication
networks, Artificial Intelligence tools, etc). Thus, is notenough to have a generic pedagogical approach (a meta-PA)
and apply it to a new situation (contents, subjects and context) it is necessary for a PA to be in consonance with its elements
and that it could be modified through its use, in order to
comply with new demands risen from that use.
MOrFEu [6] was proposed to tackle this challenge production of software artifacts for cooperative learning
with the following PA requirements:
A software artifact where is possible to describeinteraction patterns combined with documentgeneration;
Support for supervision and intervention by a teacher;
Support for storage and retrieval of individual andgroup productions;
Resources could be modified and tuned during its use.
V. A PLATFORM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FLEXIBLE
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS
Grounded upon MOrFEus principles, we propose a software
platform for developing web-based virtual environments thatmakes it easier to build tailorable social interaction tools,
runtime changeable without loss of data. We discuss how
those principles have been instantiated with current
technology and used to define a platform described and
prototyped using MVC development model [14].
Starting with organization of IPUs published inComVs, behavior and data from the application domain need
to be managed by a moldable element, with a data scheme that
cannot be fixed since it should allow editing or adding new
data types on the model. Conventional relational database are
not suitable for this, once changes on its scheme are inefficientor not allowed at all. NoSQL database are recommended,
especially scheme-free ones, for example XML and
document-based ones.
Each user must have its own way of accessing data,
and several templates will act on a same set of data. For
instance, data in a spreadsheet can be seen in several ways: atable, a row graphic, a pizza graph, a histogram, and so on.
An important element in this platform is related to
management of interaction protocols and regulation of issues
like: user roles, permissions, interaction rules and other
constituents of formally represented workflows.
Functionalities like these are requirements for current social
inspired web applications [5][15][16].Finally, MOrFEus principles state that IPUs exist
independently of where they are published, and should be
available for publishing at any ComV. Thus, there should be
an IPU Database managed by the system and in ComV there
are references (publications) to IPUs that constitute it. A MVC
representation of these elements can be seen on Figure 1.
Controller
- CRUDP actions- Roles- Permissions
- Interaction Flow
Model
- FlexibleSchema
View
- Program /
Script
HTMLPage
ComV
Queries data
Changes data
Controls
IPUs
- entiresystem
HTTPRequisition
Browser
Figure 1. A MVC representation of the platform.
1390
42nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
7/29/2019 Flexible Virtual Environments for Teaching and Learning
4/6
A Prototype of a MOrFEu-based Platform
Using MVC development model we have implemented a
platform for development of ComVs. In this platform, everyuser can manage their IPUs and related publications. An user
can access existing ComVs and create their own. Every ComV
has its own MVC elements, as follows:
Model: it was implemented through a XML file, storedas an IPU. This model has a flexible scheme and IPUsare published as reference to IPUs on an IPU database.
View: views are IPUs in XSLT a Turing-completeprogramming language for XML processing. Viewsprocess Model and display HTML pages withinformation in the Model.
Controller: CRUDP (Create, Read, Update, Delete +Publish) actions were implemented as well as Viewmanipulations. Permissions deal with authors andreaders of a ComV.
A prototype was implemented using PHP as
programming language and MySQL as DBMS. A PHP
processor with modules for XML/XSLT processing isrequired. A software development framework called Yii
2was
used to speed up the prototype development. The prototype3
can be installed on any Apache-MySQL-PHP hosted either by
Linux or Windows with active XML/XSLT processing on
PHP.
Figure 2 shows the layer architecture of the prototype
with relations between elements.
View Controller
ModelFunctions
Yii Framework
DataBase File System
ComV
IPUs Users
Figure 2. Layer Architecture of the Prototype.
In the prototype there are ComVs already
implemented and they are used as models for new ComVs.
For example, if a user wants to create a discussion forum, they
can copy a model from the standard forum in the system.
Thus, modifications done on a ComV are valid only at each
specific instance. To modify a ComV, a user may use the
ComV editor and alter ComV elements: View, Model andController.
Interface modifications are done through View. On
views also are found the links for IPU publishing and
functions to obtaining system information like name of an user
accessing data, IPU data, date of last modification of a ComV,
etc.
2 http://www.yiiframework.com/3 http://gsiufam.com/
Model modification includes inclusion of publishing
schemata short pieces of XML code that are included in the
model at the moment of publishing.Controller modification can refer to permissions or
configurations. At the prototype, only simple permissions
were implemented like who are authors and readers of a
ComV.Each ComV might have its configuration set adjusted
to match an expected behavior. Simple modifications, likeinterface ones, can be done by the user and requires someknowledge of HTML and ComV architecture. More complexmodifications, like inclusion or modification of ComVfunctionalities might involve several modifications on viewsand model, or even inclusion of new views, and should be done
by developers or more specialized users.
VI. DEVELOPING FLEXIBLE TOOLS FORINTERACTION
As concept proof, we have described and implemented 11
software tools. In this section, we illustrate the ComV
development process, from design up to runtime modifications
in its functionalities. To do that, we show the development
process for a tool supporting a pedagogical architecture called
Thesis Debate (TD) [17].
TD was developed as an experimental activity, in a
stepwise way. After each stage, the following one wasincluded according to what happened in that stage. As a result,
a five-stage activity was devised.
In the first stage the moderator (teacher) selects
theses to be debated from a survey on student previous
knowledge. A chart with the thesis assigned to each student
(stage 2) is prepared and each student must states whetherhe/she agrees or disagrees with it, along with a correspondent
justification. Next (stage 3), each opinion must be evaluated
by two or more members of the group and they must composea short review. In stage 4, authors of the initial justifications
can, if they want to, answer to evaluators comments. At stage
5 users can presented a new/revised version of their positionsand arguments.
Theses Debate
Theses
Thesis*
IPU Argumentations
Argumentation*
IPU Comments
Comment*
IPU
Replica
IPU
Revision
IPU
Note*
IPU
Note*
IPU
Note*
IPU
Figure 3. Data Scheme for Thesis Debate (TD)
1391
42nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
7/29/2019 Flexible Virtual Environments for Teaching and Learning
5/6
A. Project
Our ComV development platform includes a tool modeling
scheme comprising data modeling and web navigation. Figure3 presents a data model for the discussion chart of TD. Its tree-
like shape makes easier to map it to a XML scheme, using for
it a notation similar to ancient Jackson representation diagram
[18]. On that representation, arrows mean composed by and
a star means one or more. Dotted line represents publication
schemes. Dark colored boxes are modifications after initial
modeling, carried out during runtime. Modification process
will be described later.
Figure 4 shows the navigation diagram (between
webpages) for this tool. It consists of three states: the main
page; a participants list; and charts I have commented.
Parameters are represented along connectors.
Theses Debate
IF not user
THENmy page
ELSE users page
List of Participants
A list of all participants
What I commented
A list of participants that Imade some comment
user
user
Figure 4. Navigation Diagram for a TD tool.
B. Implementation
Implementation process involves development of views,
model and controller. First it is necessary to implement an
initial model and publication schemes in XML. Next comes
the development of a view for each of the three pages, writtenusing XSLT. A view must extract data from the model and
present them as a web page. The view must have links for
publications specifying which publication scheme must be
used, what sort of IPU and where in the model publicationmust be made. It is also possible to show system information
and IPUs currently in the IPU database. Publication links andinformation display are done through a specific function used
by the view processor.
C. Modifications
The first modification tested was the inclusion of text notes for
direct interaction between moderator and participants, a
situation not anticipated in the original version of TD [17]. To
do this, a new Note publication scheme was added (see Figure
3). After that, a publication link was added in the chart for
situation when user is a moderator. In this view an exhibition
code for published notes was also added.Other feature wanted in the tool was suggestion of
charts for evaluation, since each participant should evaluate
only two charts from other participants. Thus, a generation of
a random list of pairs of participants was included.
A third modification was done to parameterize ComV
configurations and allow informing how many charts each
participant should comment upon.These three modifications have been carried out as a
straightforward task a simple programmer working two
hours at each modification. These modifications could be done
by most of the users and are supported by a versioning tool.
As result, Figure 5 shows a chart of one user of this ComV,
generated at the Case Study described in the next section.
D. Using ComV to develop other virtual cooperative tools
As concept proof, we have described and implemented other
10 software tools. Description for some of these tools can be
easily found on the web: forum, blog, wiki, questionnaires,
glossary and whiteboard. For others, there is no specificdescription: simulated jury [19], problem-solving virtual diary[20], soccer world-cup betting tool and a simple LMS-like
course manager. The later spans over various application
contexts and functionalities and are aimed to represent real
world situations. These ComV have from 1 to 4 views and
were implemented by one programmer working up to two
days in each view. The resulting code is about 260 lines foreach view.
Figure 5. A TD runtime modified chart.
VII. FORMATIVE EVALUATION
An exploratory Case Study has been carried out in order to
determine how the platform would tackle real-world demands
for modification. The main goal was to develop hypothesis
and related propositions for a following study on what sort of
virtual environments can be build using the platform.
The scenario for the Case Study was a course with 10multipliers (teachers responsible for training other teachers) on
using of Information and Communication Technology on
elementary school. Those participants had to reach proper
skills level before to go back to their own schools and
replicate the strategies and materials there. All participantsagreed to be observed and to use our prototype.
Among several activities planned for that course,some time was allocated for exploring pedagogical
architectures described here, built using our prototype. Two
tasks were observed: using of Thesis Debate and evaluation of
learning objects using forums to discussion and wiki forreporting. Participants had little knowledge on using internet-
based tools, so the first task had a preliminary step: after
discussing how Thesis Debate works, a structured debate was
done using only 3 participants (the others stayed as observers)
with conventional materials (pen and paper). By the end of the
process, all participants (3 operators and 7 observers) have
1392
42nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
7/29/2019 Flexible Virtual Environments for Teaching and Learning
6/6
said that it was too complicated to apply that pedagogical
architecture with no computing support.
Next, we presented a Thesis Debate supporting toolbuilt using our prototype and all 10 participants started the
activity. We assisted the participants with technical support
and questions about that pedagogical architecture, taking notes
on all problems reported or functionalities the participants
would like to have on that tool. The same assistance was given
in the second task.By the end of those activities we have identified a
total of 31 modifications. From those, 10 were simple bugs
and 11 were variations on the ComV to better accommodate
personal preferences. All these 21 modifications were easily
done (about 6 working hours) and checked upon by users in
the following day.All remaining modifications were concerned with
variations on the pedagogical architecture, especially
interaction rules, that participants thought would better suit
their application scenarios (students and teachers at their own
school) and not implemented because they require
modifications over the controller, a component not yetincorporating formal definitions allowing runtime alterations
in current prototype.
In addition to these variations on Thesis Debate,
some participants suggested other ComV that they thought
would be used in related contexts like a synchronous,cooperative and multi-operated text editor; or an educational-
oriented social net.
VIII. CONCLUSION
In this paper we described a web-based softwareplatform developed upon a novel software developmentperspective called MOrFEu and aimed at highly dynamiccollaborative scenarios.
Results of a concept proof implementing a total of 11software tools gave evidence of: (1) feasibility of the proposal
there is a running prototype; (2) flexibility of the proposal several tools, in various contexts, were implemented and usedin a real-world situation; (3) ease of use considering theamount of code, time and personnel involved in thedevelopment task.
A Case Study developed as formative evaluation gaveevidence that even non-experts can present a challengingdemand for modification in virtual environments (a need forflexible approaches), which support our initial assumption thateven if a developer is able to develop an optimal application for
a group, it will eventually become inadequate due to newsituations and problems that eventually will appear.
Traditional approaches for development of this kind oftools are not flexible enough, and as we checked in a prototypestage, our platform already allows developers to implementseveral runtime modifications.
Our Case Study also brought out some issues relatedto the interaction protocols of the activities that are supported
by those tools. Therefore, deeper formalization of usertemplates and interaction patterns, as well as other real-worldcase studies are the next steps on this investigation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work had financial support from CNPq, Edital
MCT/CNPq/CT-Amaznia n 55/2008, Proc.575553/2008-1.
REFERENCES
[1] Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., & Shen, R. Why web2.0 is good for learning and for research: principles and prototypes.Proceedings of WWW, 2008, pp. 705-714.
[2] Berners-Lee, T. Weaving the Web: the original design of the WorldWide Web by its inventor (1st ed.). New York, 2000.
[3] Carvalho, M. J., Nevado, R. A., & Menezes, C. S. ArquiteturasPedaggicas para Educao a Distncia: Concepes e SuporteTelemtico.Anais do SBIE, 2005.
[4] Cheaib , N., Otmane, S., Mallem, M. Groupware Tailorability based onthe 3C Model: From Theory to Practice. To appear in the InternationalJournal of Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS), acceptedNovember 2011.
[5] Fuks, H., Raposo, A., Gerosa, M. A., Pimental, M., & Lucena, C. J. The3C Collaboration Model. In N. Kock,Encyclopedia of E-Collaboration.New York, 2007.
[6] Menezes, C. S., Nevado, R. A., Castro, A. N., & Santos, L. N. MOrFEU:Multi-Organizador Flexvel de Espaos VirtUais para Apoiar a InovaoPedaggica em EAD.Anais do SBIE, 2008, pp. 451-460.
[7] Santos, L. N., Castro, A. N., & Menezes, C. S. MOrFEu: CriandoAmbientes Virtuais Flexveis na Web para Mediar a Colaborao.Anaisdo Congreso Iberoamericano de Informtica Educativa (IE2010), 2010,pp. 114-121.
[8] Gadelha, B., Nunes, I., Fuks, H., Lucena, C. An Approach forDeveloping of Groupware Product Lines.Proceedings of CRIWG. 2009,pp. 328-343.
[9] Gerosa, M., Pimentel, M., Fuks, H., Lucena, C. Development ofGroupware Based on 3C Collaboration Model and ComponentTechnology.Proceedings of CRIWG. 2006, pp. 302-309.
[10] Won, M., Stiermeling, O., Wulf, V. Component-Based Approaches toTailorable Systems.End User Development. 2009, pp. 115-141.
[11] Beder, D., Silva, A., Otsuka, J., Silva, C., Rocha, H. A Case Study of theDevelopment of e-Learning Systems Following a Component-BasedLayered Architecture.Proceedings of ICALT. 2007.
[12] Pessoa, J., Netto, H., Menezes, C. FAmCorA: um framework para aconstruo de ambientes cooperativos inteligentes de apoio aaprendizagem na Internet baseado em web services e agentes. Anais doSBIE. 2002, pp. 94-104.
[13] Medeiros, V. Um Ambiente de Autoria para Estaes de Aprendizagem.Dissertao de Mestrado. Universidade Federal do Amazonas. 2005.
[14] Burbeck, S. Applications Programming in Smalltalk-80(TM): How touse Model-View-Controller (MVC). Retrieved from http://st-www.cs.illinois.edu/users/smarch/st-docs/mvc.html, 1987.
[15] Paredes, H., & Martins, M. F. Social interaction regulation in virtualweb environments using the Social the Social Theatres Model. Journalof Network and Computer Applications. 2010.
[16] Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: designing usability andsupporting sociability. 2000.
[17] Nevado, R. A., Dalpiaz, M. M., & Menezes, C. S. Arquitetura
Pedaggica para Construo Colaborativa de Conceituaes. Anais doWorkshop Sobre Informtica na Escola (WIE). 2009.
[18] Jackson, M. A.Principles of program design. London, 1975.
[19] Real, L. M., & Menezes, C. S. Jri simulado: possibilidade deconstruo de conhecimento a partir de interaes em grupo. In: R. A.Nevado, M. J. Carvalho, & C. S. Menezes (Eds.),Aprendizagem em redena educao a distncia. Porto Alegre, 2007.
[20] Serres, F. F., & Basso, M. V. Dirios virtuais Uma ferramenta decomunicao social para a autoria e aprendizagem de Matemtica.Anaisdo SBIE, 2009.
1393
42nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference