Use of Web-Based Tools to Enhance Collaborative Learning

EDDY M. ROJASDepartment of Construction ManagementUniversity of Washington

ABSTRACT

This paper reports on the implementation of a collaborative learn-ing environment in a graduate course in construction engineeringand management at the Department of Civil, Structural, and En-vironmental Engineering at the University at Buffalo. This course,which was restructured in 1998, follows a model that could becalled “Web-plus” because it takes advantage of Web-centrictechnologies plus other value-added activities such as studio class-es, student’s presentations, teamwork, and peer-evaluations togenerate a collaborative learning environment following a holisticapproach. The paper examines the concept of collaborative learn-ing and how it can be applied in an engineering setting. The peda-gogical motivations and cognitive goals behind the implementa-tion of this Web-centric educational model are also explored. Adetailed course description is presented including an explanationof MAESTRO, a software tutorial application, a review of the useof virtual portfolios and student-based assessment during forma-tive evaluations. The paper also summarizes the lessons learnedfrom the implementation of this Web-centric educational model.

I. INTRODUCTION

This paper examines lessons learned during the implementationof a collaborative learning environment in a graduate course incomputer applications in construction engineering, offered at theUniversity at Buffalo. This collaborative learning environment wascreated to enhance student learning and performance by taking ad-vantage of Web-centric technologies.

Collaborative learning implies that knowledge is generated as itis shared and reinforced through group-based discussions. Web-centric technologies allow us to augment interactions among learn-ers through the use of advanced multimedia capabilities. Whenthese technologies are used in conjunction with innovative assess-ment techniques, a new cognitive paradigm is created: Web-centriceducation. The Computer Applications course presented in thispaper is an example of this new educational model where Internet-based technologies are used to reinforce studio classes. Therefore,face-to-face instructor-student interactions are not replaced, butcomplimented by the application of Web-centric tools. In thiscourse, the Web is also employed as a repository of information.Therefore, some classroom time, traditionally used to deliver infor-mation, is liberated and used for higher value-added activities

including mentoring and experiential learning [1]. This model canbe called “Web-plus” because it takes advantage of Web-centrictechnologies plus other value-added activities, such as instructor-student and student-student interactions.

This paper begins by reviewing the pedagogical motivations andcognitive goals behind the implementation of this Web-centric ed-ucational model. This includes the analysis of findings from re-search about the use and effectiveness of Internet-based tools tosupport distance and traditional education. Next, a description ofthe Computer Applications course is presented. An explanation ofhow the different Web-centric technologies were implemented andintegrated with innovative assessment techniques is included. Fi-nally, lessons learned from the implementation of the model arediscussed.

II. ENHANCING LEARNING WITHWEB-CENTRIC TOOLS

The Web provides great flexibility for delivering and presentingteaching materials. As explained by Kortemeyer and Bauer [2], “Weare now on the threshold of the ability to use the emerging comput-ing and communication technologies in education to mediate andaugment interactions among teachers and learners.” The Web al-lows us to truly implement an active learning environment wheregroup-based cooperative learning is possible, redefining the currentparadigm regarding the roles of both educators and students [3].

Web-based materials can be classified in different categories ac-cording to Wallace and Weiner [1]: course administration, refer-ence textbooks, lectures, laboratory simulation and experiments,and recitation/assignments/grading. From a historical perspective,course administration was the first function transferred from thetraditional classroom environment to the World Wide Web. Mostcourse Websites available today can still be included under this cat-egory. Common information provided consists of items such asteaching schedules, the syllabi, instructor’s contact information, listof assignments, grades, links to other sites, and basic lecture notes.Even though these sites are helpful for both teachers and students,they do not take advantage of the interactive capabilities of the de-livery medium, as the Web is only used as an efficient repository ofinformation. At the other end of the interactive spectrum are thelaboratory simulations and experiments. These sites offer truly in-teractive content through the use of CGI scripts and Java applets.

Studies have shown that Web-centric tools enhance learn-ing [4–7]. However, in all of these studies, the tools are presented tothe students as finished products and they do not interactively partici-pate in the development of the learning environments. A Web-centriccollaborative learning environment goes beyond the implementationof interactive tools as it empowers students to actively participate in the

January 2002 Journal of Engineering Education 89

Use of Web-Based Tools to EnhanceCollaborative Learning

90 Journal of Engineering Education January 2002

learning process by creating their own learning experiences. The Com-puter Applications course presented in this paper was restructuredwith the pedagogical objective of experimenting with Web-centric ed-ucation as a new paradigm for collaborative learning. The cognitivegoals for this course are to assist students in:

� Understanding that an engineering project is a complex sys-tem with multiple interactions by applying project-basedlearning.

� Learning how to master software applications by providingan on-line tutorial application.

� Improving their interpersonal and communications skills byrequiring in-class presentations.

� Learning how to learn from each other by incorporatingteamwork and peer formative evaluations.

� Discovering the potential of Web-centric technologies asmeans for integrating and disseminating information by en-couraging the development of virtual portfolios.

� Developing and practicing problem solving skills throughthe use of studio classes.

III. COURSE DESCRIPTION

Computer Applications is a core course for graduate students inthe program of construction engineering and management at theUniversity at Buffalo. In addition, it is also an elective course forstudents from other graduate programs in civil engineering such asstructural, geotechnical, and environmental engineering. However,three quarters of the students enrolled in a typical class are from theconstruction engineering area while the remaining portion comesfrom the structural engineering program. Some of the students inthe construction program also have a background in architecturedue to either their undergraduate degree or the fact that they areconcurrently pursuing masters’ degrees both in civil engineeringand architecture. Therefore, the student base for this course couldbe considered multidisciplinary to some extent.

The objective of the course, since it was restructured in 1998, isto expose students to the latest software applications used in the de-sign-build process to support basic engineering functions such asconceptual design, architectural and structural design, scheduling,cost estimating, and collaborative engineering. Therefore, studentsare introduced to several software packages during the semester in-cluding 3D Studio Viz from Kinetix, AutoCAD from Autodesk,Suretrak from Primavera Systems, Precision Estimating fromTimberline, and Microsoft FrontPage. Another objective of thecourse is to foster communication skills among engineering stu-dents. This is accomplished by supporting collaborative learningand requiring students to present four progress reports to the entireclass and invited faculty evaluators throughout the semester.

The main pedagogical paradigm used in the course is project-based learning [8] in a studio class. At the beginning of the semes-ter the class is divided into groups of either 4 or 5 students. Eachgroup forms a virtual design-build firm. Students select a name fortheir corporation and a specific project to work on during the se-mester. Some examples of projects selected by students include ashopping center, a large span bridge, an office building, a hotel, aparking structure, a fire station, a prison, a casino, and an apartmentcomplex. Students are responsible for creating 3D conceptual mod-els of their projects, walkthrough animations, selected architectural

and structural blueprints, construction schedules, and preliminarycost estimates.

A. Learning Software with a Tutorial Application: MAESTRO One of the major challenges when restructuring the Computer

Applications course was deciding how to expose students to the dif-ferent software applications to be covered. After evaluating differentalternatives, a constructivist teaching approach [9] was selected,where students have to assume most of the responsibility for learningthe software packages. This model, however, requires students tohave control over teaching materials in order to acquire knowledge.A software tutorial application called MAESTRO (teacher in Span-ish) was developed to assist students in this process. MAESTRO is aJava program that students download and install in their worksta-tions. It was developed using Symantec Visual Cafe 3.0, and is deliv-ered with a fully functional Java Runtime Environment for Windows95/98/NT/2000 to ensure runtime consistency. Support for otherplatforms, such as Macintosh, was not implemented because most ofthe software applications covered by MAESTRO are only supportedon the Windows operating system. Therefore, cross-platform sup-port was not an issue.

A Web-centric model was chosen for delivering information toMAESTRO. Therefore, the application itself is just an enablingtechnology that provides the interface for HTML information thatis downloaded every time the program is run, guaranteeing thatusers are always working with the latest tutorial revisions. Thisstrategy also reduces the burden on the instructor who only needs tomodify the HTML files in order to maintain a repository of contin-uously updated knowledge.

MAESTRO, as shown in Figure 1, was designed to enable quickaccess to information through the use of a two-window interface.The vertical window located to the right of the screen, called theNavigation window, allows users to find their way through the dif-ferent application tutorials by selecting the desired tabs. Every time anew application is selected, a list of available “how to” lessons is listedin this window. When one of these lessons is selected, its descriptionis shown in the Information window located at the bottom of thescreen. The Information window provides users with the data theyrequire to complete specific tasks. The Navigation and Informationwindows are displayed following an inverted “L” shape to permit useraccess to the software applications while running the tutorials. Forexample, as shown in Figure 1, a user could run a tutorial about 3DStudio Viz and execute the actions described in the Information win-dow without having to leave MAESTRO. In addition, MAESTROalso includes an image viewer to display screen captures that illustratethe different steps required for a particular action. The image vieweris executed when users select one of the legends that accompany eachfigure included in the Information window.

It is important to emphasize that the tutorials provided byMAESTRO are based on “how to” nuggets of information ratherthan on feature-based. This approach was selected because theComputer Applications course calls for students to acquire a work-ing knowledge of five different computer applications in one se-mester. A feature-based model would require more time for stu-dents to learn the applications. The “how-to” information nuggetsincluded cover just the basic data required to perform the activitiesin the Computer Applications course and are not intended to be anexhaustive review of all the capabilities offered by the different soft-ware applications included.


B. Collaborative Content Creation: Virtual PortfoliosAn important component in the collaborative learning paradigm

implemented in the Computer Applications course is the use of Vir-tual Portfolios. Virtual portfolios are the equivalent of traditionalpaper-based portfolios in the Web. However, because of the capabili-ties of the Web, these portfolios include an array of multimedia infor-mation including text, pictures, videos, Java applets, animations,downloadable files, on-line blueprints, and hyperlink navigationalaids. Each group of students creates their own portfolio with com-plete freedom in terms of style and content. Therefore, every portfo-lio is unique and reflective of the personality of each group. Virtualportfolios for the class of 1999 are shown in Figure 2. Students gene-rally select their best deliverables and publish them in a Web-friendlyformat to be included in the portfolios. Other major differences bet-ween virtual portfolios and traditional ones are that virtual portfoliosare on-line for anyone to evaluate and that they remain on-line foryears to come, allowing students to take advantage of these resourcesas marketing tools during their job searching activities. As expressedby Mourtos [10], the purpose of using portfolios is “…the shift inhigher education culture from topic-driven, teacher-centered instruc-tion to skill-driven, student-centered learning.”

In order to create the deliverables to be included in the virtualportfolios, students work in studio sessions with the instructor

where emphasis is given to engineering principles rather than tosoftware instruction. However, the instructor and the teaching as-sistant are available at office hours to answer more software-specificquestions as well. All deliverables are stored at the instructor’s com-puter where a system of shared folders and subfolders is created,taking advantage of the Windows NT login system, to provide stu-dents with enough hard disk space to store all of their deliverableand work-in-process files. These common folders allow students towork in an asynchronous collaborative environment, since all mem-bers of a group have access to all of their files from any computer inthe network at any time. Therefore, a common working space isprovided to each group. Furthermore, access privileges precludestudents from accessing the folders of groups others than their own.

Virtual portfolios for the Computer Applications course areavailable on-line for examination at http://overlord.eng.buffalo.edu/ClassHomePages/cie594/. This is the address for the “AppliedComputer Visualization and Planning for Construction Engineers”site. This site includes not only the virtual portfolios, but also a linkto download MAESTRO and an on-line user’s guide.

C. Student-Based Assessment: Formative Peer EvaluationsAs mentioned before, collaborative learning implies that knowl-

edge is generated by sharing information and learning experiences

Figure 1. MAESTRO software tutorial application.

in group settings. The generation of virtual portfolios, as explainedin the previous section, facilitates intra-group interactions. Howev-er, in order to take advantage of inter-group exchanges and create acommunity of learning, other strategies must be utilized. Accord-ing to Maskell [11], group-based cooperative learning requiresprompt, accurate and informative feedback to ensure effectiveness.Feedback is provided in the Computer Applications course throughthe use of inter-group peer evaluations that transfer some of the re-sponsibility of the assessment process to students, thus, promotingcritical learning by requiring students to compare, evaluate and re-flect upon their own work and that of others.

Inter-group peer evaluations are implemented by requiring eachgroup of students to evaluate the quality of the deliverables pro-duced by the other groups, as well as the effectiveness of their class-room presentations. Each group is asked to assess the work of theirpeers by ranking the groups and providing each one with at leastthree recommendations on how to improve the quality of the de-liverables and/or their presentations skills. They are not asked toassess their own work, since studies have shown that self-evalua-tion tend to be biased, especially for below average performers who

tend to inflate their self-ratings substantially [12]. In addition, theydo not assign grades but only rankings. A civil engineering facultymember from a program other than construction engineering isalso invited to rank the groups for each presentation. All students,the invited faculty member, and the instructor are free to ask ques-tions to each group after their presentations. Each group receivesthree points for each first place, two for each second place, and onefor each third place obtained. All rankings are combined to con-struct an overall score. Grades are assigned by the instructor usingthe rankings, but according to his own discretion. For example,when a group obtains the highest score this does not imply that theinstructor will necessarily assign an “A” grade; he could assign a “B”grade if the overall quality of the presentations is considered tohave been deficient. The following week, after the classroom pre-sentations are given, each group receives an evaluation form. Thisform contains the combined score and overall ranking as well as asummary of the recommendations provided by the other groups,plus any additional suggestions from the instructor. Students areadvised that these are formative rather than summative evalua-tions, and that the main objective is to provide feedback, guidance,


Figure 2. Virtual portfolios from the class of 1999.

and constructive criticism. Summative evaluations are performedby the instructor at the end of the semester when he re-examinesthe quality of the deliverables and assigns a grade to reflect the de-gree of compliance with the advice offered in the evaluation forms.Therefore, each group has the opportunity for grade improvementby implementing the recommendations given during the formativeevaluations.

IV. LESSONS LEARNED

The Computer Applications course has been offered three timesby the same instructor since it was restructured in 1998. More thanfifty students have experienced this collaborative learning environ-ment. Several lessons have been learned about a variety of issues in-cluding the effectiveness of MAESTRO, the adequacy of peerevaluations to provide feedback and encourage continuing work,the usefulness of virtual portfolios, and the opinion of studentsabout their experience in the course. A summary of lessons learnedin each category follows.

A. Effectiveness of MAESTRO:The effectiveness of MAESTRO as a tutorial application was

evaluated by student surveys performed at the end of the semester forthe third year of the course. About 80 percent of the eligible studentscompleted these surveys. Several statements were presented to thestudents and they had to select from the options of “strongly agree,”

“agree,” “neutral,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree,” according totheir level of agreement with each statement. The results are shownin Table 1.

B. Adequacy of Peer Evaluations:One of the major concerns of instructors when implementing al-

ternative assessment techniques is their adequacy to fairly evaluateperformance. Results from peer evaluations in the Computer Ap-plications course were compared with the evaluations performed bythe invited faculty members at each presentation. In total, twelvegroup presentations were evaluated. A strong correlation was foundbetween the groups that were ranked number one by the studentsand the ones selected by the invited faculty members. In fact, innine out of twelve evaluations the groups selected are the same. Asimilar result is found for the groups that were ranked at the bottomof the pack (fourth place), as ten out of the twelve evaluations showconsistency between the peer evaluations and the opinion of the in-vited faculty member. However, the degree of agreement betweenthe rankings for the second and third positions shows a difference ofopinions where students and professors produce the same rankingsin six out of twelve evaluations. This disagreement; however, proba-bly reflects honest differences of opinion. During the formativeevaluations, students were instructed to judge the other groupsbased on the quality of their deliverables and presentations. In addi-tion, for the second and third years, students were also instructed toreview the virtual portfolios from previous years so that they were ina better position to gauge the quality of work expected in the course.


Table 1. Evaluation of MAESTRO.

The effectiveness of the peer evaluations can also be evaluated bythe effect that they had throughout the semester, as measured bythe summary evaluations. As explained earlier, students were capa-ble of attaining a higher grade by implementing the recommenda-tions given by their peers and the instructor during the formativeevaluations. Indeed, most groups took advantage of this feedback toimprove the quality of their deliverables. This demonstrates that theformative evaluations increased students’ motivation and thus theirlevel of achievement. Specifically, forty-eight grades were originallyassigned during the peer evaluations. Most groups were able to in-crease their score by at least one letter grade (from B to B�, for ex-ample). In fact, thirty-five scores were increased by one letter grade,four were increased by two, two were increased by three, while theremaining scores did not change.

C. Usefulness of Virtual Portfolios:The virtual portfolios were found to be very useful for prospec-

tive students, new incoming students and alumnus who havetaken advantage of them during their job searching efforts. Forprospective students, the virtual portfolios represent an interactivemedium by which they can evaluate the set of skills they wouldlearn if they decide to take the course. In fact, after the first virtualportfolios were on-line, the demand for the course increased twofold among students who may consider this course as an elective.For new incoming students, the virtual portfolios provide bench-marks for the quality and scope of work expected. In addition, vir-tual portfolios from previous years were seen by new students as asource of challenges to be overcome. A strong competitive spiritwas generated not only amongst groups in the current promotion,but also against groups from previous promotions. It is clear thatstudents look at the virtual portfolios as a symbol of their achieve-ments, and, therefore, they develop a sense of pride that inspiresthem throughout the semester. Alumni have also taken advantageof the virtual portfolios to visually demonstrate their computingabilities to prospective employers. Even though it is impossible todemonstrate that virtual portfolios helped alumni obtain jobs,comments conveyed by them suggest that the portfolios were seri-ously considered by prospective employers during the evaluationof their credentials.

D. The Course from a Holistic Point of View:As expressed by Maskell [11], “Another, and possibly better,

mechanism for evaluating the success of a subject in achieving itsoutcomes is to determine how the subject has affected the studentsperformance on later year subjects.” Students from the second pro-motion of the Computer Applications course were also participat-ing in a yearlong project for their Masters of Engineering degree.This project, which also makes emphasis on project-based learningand teamwork, concludes with presentations in front of a jury. Inthis particular case, the jury was made up of four distinguishedmembers of the professional community, all active participants inthe Buffalo section of the American Society of Civil Engineerswith more than sixty years of combined field experience. The juryselected as the best group the one that included several studentsfrom the Computer Applications course. When the jury explainedthe reasoning behind their decision, they made emphasis on theproper use of 3D models and animations to clarify engineering con-cepts, as well as on the organization and quality of the presentation.These were skills that the students learned from their Computer

Applications course. The fact that this knowledge was transferredfrom the Computer Applications course was evident because thesestudents had given several presentations for this project before theywere enrolled in the Computer Applications course. These presen-tations did not take advantage of computer technologies, nor didthey stand out as particularly well organized.

V. CONCLUSION

This paper showed how Web-centric technologies can be inte-grated with more traditional pedagogical models such as studioclasses and project-based learning. The experience of the instructorduring the three years that the Computer Applications course hasbeen offered can be characterized as very positive and encouraging.The cognitive goals established in 1998, when the course was re-structured, have been accomplished. This course has successfullyenhanced interactions among learners through the use of Web-centric tools fostering collaborative learning. This course formatengages students to excel by allowing them to learn from eachother.

REFERENCES

[1] Wallace, D.R., and S.T. Weiner, “How Might Classroom Time BeUsed Given W W W-Based Lectures?,” Journal of Engineering Education,vol. 87, no. 3, 1998, pp. 237–248.

[2] Kortemeyew, G., and W. Bauer, “Multimedia Collaborative Con-tent Creation (mc3): The MSU LectureOnline System,” Journal of Engi-neering Education, vol. 88, no. 4, 1999, pp. 421–427.

[3] Evans, R.M. et al., “Effectiveness of an Internet-Based GraduateEngineering Management Course,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol.89, no. 1, 2000, pp. 63–71.

[4] Graham, C.R., and T.N. Trick, “Java Applets Enhance Learning ina Freshman ECE Course,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 87, no. 4,1998, pp. 391–397.

[5] Petre, M., L. Carswell, B. Price, and P. Thomas, “Innovations inLarge-Scale Supported Distance Teaching: Transformation for the Inter-net, Not Just Translation,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 87, no. 4,1998, pp. 423–432.

[6] McKenna, A., and A. Agogino, “A Web-Based Instructional Mod-ule for Teaching Middle School Students Engineering Design with SimpleMachines,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 87, no. 4, 1998,pp. 437–443.

[7] Mohtar, R.H., and B.A. Engel, “W W W-Based Water QualityModeling Systems to Enhance Student Learning,” Journal of EngineeringEducation, vol. 89, no. 1, 2000, pp. 89–94.

[8] Fruchter, R. “Multi-Site Cross-Disciplinary A/E/C Project BasedLearning,” Proceedings, Third Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering,ASCE, June, 1996, p. 126–132.

[9] Lord, T.R., “A Comparison Between Traditional and Construc-tivist Teaching in Environmental Science,” Journal of Environmental Edu-cation, vol. 30, no. 3, 1999, pp. 22–27.

[10] Mourtos, N. J., “Portfolio Assessment in Aerodynamica,” Journalof Engineering Education, vol. 88, no. 2, 1999, pp. 223–229.

[11] Maskell, D., “Student-based Assessment in a Multi-disciplinaryProblem-based Learning Environment,” Journal of Engineering Education,vol. 88, no. 2, 1999, pp. 237–241.


[12] Saavedra, R., and S.K. Kwun, “Peer Evaluation in Self-managingWork Groups,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 78, no. 3, 1999,pp. 450–462.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Eddy M. Rojas is an Assistant Professor of Construction Man-agement at the University of Washington. He received a B.S. inCivil Engineering from the University of Costa Rica in 1991 andan M.S. and Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University ofColorado at Boulder in 1995 and 1997, respectively. He also re-ceived an M.A. in Economics from the University of Colorado atBoulder in 1997. Dr Rojas began his academic career as an Assis-tant Professor in Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineeringat the University at Buffalo (State University of New York), wherehe coordinated the construction engineering and managementgraduate program from 1997 to 2001. Dr. Rojas’ main researchareas include information technologies in construction engineeringand management and construction economics.

Address: Department of Construction Management, Universityof Washington, 116 Architecture Hall, Box 351610, Seattle, WA,98195-1610; telephone: 206-616-1917; fax: 206-685-1976; e-mail: [email protected].


Documents

Use of Web-Based Tools to Enhance Collaborative Learning