On Fostering a Co-Creative Process within a CSCL Framework

doi:10.4236/ce.2012.34061

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2012. Vol.3, No.4, 383-391

Published Online August 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.34061

On Fostering a Co-Creative Process within a CSCL Framework

Jose Rafael Rojano-Caceres1, Fernando Ramos-Quintana2, María Dolores Vargas-Cerdán1

1Facultad de Estadística e Informática, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Mexico

2División de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Tecnológico de Monterrey-Campus Cuernavaca, Cuernavaca, Mexico

Email: rrojano@uv.mx, fernando.ramos@itesm.mx, dvargas@uv.mx,

Received June 7th, 2012; revised July 10th, 2012; accepted July 22nd, 2012

In this article is introduced a co-creative process fostered by a Collaborative Learning Framework which

pursues to engage peers of students in a synchronous collaborative dynamic to build the knowledge by

representing it by a formal digraph called Networks of Concepts (NoC). This digraph, the NoC, allows

building and representing the knowledge in a synthetic way, while the co-creative process aims at devel-

oping cognitive skills and collaborative attitudes as essential part of 21st century skills for students.

Nowadays, the Collaborative Learning Framework has been and is currently being used in Mexican uni-

versities in different undergraduate programs such as Industrial Engineering, Computer Science, Sociol-

ogy, Accounting, Business Administration, and Molecular Biology; in this article we analyze and discuss

a particular case of an example in the Engineering program. Thus, the analyzed digraphs are the outcome

of a co-creative process that is carried out through synchronous-mode argumentation and shared interac-

tions by peers of students.

Keywords: Co-Creative Process; CSCL; Network of Concepts; Cognitive Skills

Introduction

Nowadays, Mexican universities, as many others abroad, are

concerned with applying models that allow them to improve

learning processes; consequently, one significant change is the

student-centered learning approach instead of the teacher-cen-

tered learning approach. However, the student-centered learn-

ing approach requires that students develop several skills that

allow them not only to learn new topics but also to apply pre-

viously learned knowledge to find solutions to real problems in

a cyclic way throughout their whole lifes. According to our

experience, a basic set of cognitive skills that could allow stu-

dents to become lifelong learners is composed of analysis, syn-

thesis, abstraction, structuring among some of the most impor-

tant (Ramos-Quintana, Sámano-Galindo, & Zárate-Silva, 2008).

Additionally, we consider social skills like communicating,

interacting and collaborating, all of them essentials in the 21st

century Education paradigm.

Thus, to foster these skills, we have created a Collaborative

Learning Framework (CLF) composed by the stages of rein-

forcement, acquisition and assessment of knowledge, as shown

in Figure 1. The reinforcement stage aims at emphasizing

knowledge that has been acquired previously as a part of a

course. The acquisition stage aims at promoting the responsi-

bility of the students of their own learning by dealing with Ill

Structured Problem (ISP) (Jonassen, 1997). Finally, the assess-

ment stage looks for creating self-consciousness of perform-

ance achieved by means of a peer-review process. However,

what makes this framework accessible and more attractive to

students and teachers is that it fosters and encourages skills by a

co-creative process mediated by computers.

The Collaborative Learning Framework

The Collaborative Learning Framework is inspired in social-

constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), problem-based learning

(Barrows, 1985; Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; Koschman, Fel-

tovich, Myers, & Barrows, 1992), self-directed learning (Gar-

rison, 1992; Gibbons, 2002), and collaborative learning (Dil-

lenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O’Malley, 1996; Dillenbourg, 1999)

theories to integrate a proposal that pursues fostering cognitive

skills. Because of them, the framework outcomes in our CLF

are not the result of an individual but two individuals that by

social interactions (Goodsell, Maher, Tinto, Leigh, & Mac-

Gregor, 1992) write and exchange messages and sharea space

to co-construct creatively an agreed Network of Concepts

(NoC); such consensus is supported by a totally-ordered se-

quence of messages that represents a dialog with a precise goal:

to reinforce knowledge previously learned or acquire new

knowledge and assess it. Thus, both dialogs and NoC are out-

comes that can become the object of further analysis and

evaluation by teachers. Network of Concepts is the name that

we assign to a directed graph (digraph) that represents the

Figure 1.

The general stages in the Collaborative Learning Frame work (CLF).

J. R. ROJANO-CACERES ET AL.

knowledge being reinforced, acquired or assessed, which are

the main tread of this article. Figures 8 and 9, in the appendix

section, are both examples of full Network of Concepts created

by students.

This framework as an instructional strategy, on the one hand,

deals with Problem Based Learning (PBL) because its intrinsic

capacities for the development of Self-Directed Learning (SDL)

and because of their potential to develop cognitive skills during

the process of solving the involved problems. On the other hand,

the CLF deals also with Network of Concepts, which among its

characteristics has a bottom-up methodology that allows sys-

tematically, integrate and develop cognitive skills during the

building process. Such methodology is introduced later.

Thus, to foster self-directed learners with their associated

skills to be developed, we provide them with appropriate sce-

narios with which they become familiarized concerning the

strategies proposed as well as the guidance of the teacher, who

is responsible for defining the topics to be reinforced, acquired

or assessed by following either or not in a sequential way the

stages shown in Figure 1. In spite of the fact that the stages of

the CLF should be performed sequentially, from stage I to stage

III, it is possible to insert the assessment stage once reinforce-

ment has been applied. If such is the case, the teacher decides

whether the student promotes the peer-review process on an

early stage.

Description of Stages and Activities within the CLF

We attempted to build the CLF as simple as possible, then

during our exploratory steps we found that trying to learn new

topics and build network of concepts at the same time could be

disappointing for most of the students. Therefore, it is very

important considering how they feel with respect to the process,

as Shaw points (Shaw, 1991), for that reason we introduced the

reinforcement stage allowing students to become familiar with

the methodology to build Network of Concepts, as well as with

the computer tools, at the time they could reduce cognitive load

by exploring a topic previously seen.

Thus, reinforcement stage allows practicing how to use pre-

viously-learned knowledge by summarizing a topic previously

seen under a representation of a Network of Concepts (NoC),

where two students build co-creatively such NoC in a shared

space through written argumentations in a chat tool. By work-

ing in teams, students get help from each other by recalling and

building concepts together. Eventually, they can learn to nego-

tiate their positions and common understandings. At this stage,

it is expected that a facilitator will intervene to give them feed-

back about the work being done.

The second stage allows students to demonstrate the under-

standing of a new topic by converting the statement of an Ill

Structured Problem (ISP) (Goel, 1992), which was provided by

a facilitator, into a clear or well structure problem (WSP)

(Jonassen, 1997). The gap between the ISP and the WSP repre-

sents the knowledge to be learned. So, an ISP is provided as a

starter containing vaguely key underlying concepts and rela-

tions between them that form part of the topic. The students

should seek to complete the rest of the concepts and to build

relationships between them until they have achieved a complete

structure that represents synthetically the knowledge of the

topic. The proof that students have reached a higher level of

knowledge is when they are capable of converting the statement

associated with the Ill Structured Problem into a Well Struc-

tured Problem. During this process a set of cognitive skills such

as those mentioned before is elicited (Ramos-Quintana, Sámano-

Galindo, & Zárate-Silva, 2008). Thus, students should reach

new knowledge by undertaking any activity that leads to the

solution; meanwhile, the teacher facilitates the process by giv-

ing his/her point of view.

The third stage looks at stimulating argumentative dialogs

between students by questioning the completeness of a Network

of Concepts. To guide the discussion, teachers can provide

students with a checklist similar to that used in Formal Techni-

cal Reviews (FTR) (Pressman, 2002). It is important to note

that this stage does not include assigning a grade, but rather a

critic of the work by another dyad and later a self-critic of the

team’s own work demonstrating acquired experience. Thus,

dyads do not evaluate their own Network of Concepts but they

do evaluate the work of another dyad; later, all dyads receive

comments about their work and then they can decide to make

changes to their work or simply dis miss these co mments.

The overall activities implied in the framework are shown in

Figure 2, and explained herein:

1) Decide the initial statement, as we imply, is a teacher’s

task since he/she decided the topic according to the specific

activity of reinforcement or acquisition of knowledge.

2) Listing underlying concepts is a student’s activity since

after performing some recall/analysis he/she can list the under-

lying concepts. It is important to mention that this activity is

carried-out individually by students.

3) Making relationships is an activity that is carried-out by

teams or dyads, because through the exchange of messages they

try to make an agreement about the assembling. Particularly

this process conveys the synthesis action because duplicate

concepts can be drop off. In addition, the task of creating sig-

nificant relationships can be very challenge, as explained later

in section Building Network of Concepts.

4) Building the network is the activity where semantic units

are assembled to produce an abstraction of the topic. It requires

structuring such units that make sense, as an example of this

semantic unit see Figure 3(b).

5) Reviewing the network is an activity that can be made by

students or teachers; in any case, the review can provide a

feedback about the possible corrective actions or general sug-

gestions about the correctness or completeness of the network.

6) Questioning is the activity to appreciate or judge the

comments given by others in order to decide if these are valu-

able and accurate or just desert to dismiss it, as a result it could

produce a restructuring on the network.

Therefore, the overall activities are encompassed by a set of

cognitive skills to be developed and which are showed in

dashed rectangles over each stage. In the following section, we

talk about the process to build a NoC and some aspects about

the co-creative process are exposed.

Building Network of Concepts

The Network of Concepts is a directed bipartite graph, bor-

rowed from Petri Nets notation (Diaz, 2009). Petri Nets are a

mathematical formalism that allows modeling concurrent sys-

tem, which with further analysis can provide with information

about structure and dynamic behavior (Peterson, 1981). Their

notation defines the use of two types of nodes represented by

circles (called places) and rectangles (called transitions), then

this nodes are joined by directed links (called arcs). In our

384

J. R. ROJANO-CACERES ET AL.

Figure 2.

The overall activities carried-out by participants in the framework are denoted by the directed chart; over each activity there is a dashed rectangle that

reflects the current skill being us ed.

A Methodology for Building Networks of Concepts

notation, circles are used to denote concepts; rectangles are

used to denote meaningful relationships which are used to se-

mantically provide a link between concepts. Finally, directed

links are used to create a physical connection between concepts

and in this way create semantic units. Thereby, several inter-

connected semantic units form a NoC. Graphically the Figure 3,

reading from bottom to up denotes such steps. In Figure 3(c),

we have concepts and relationship scattered, In Figure 3(b), we

have created semantics units, and in Figure 3(a), we have a

full/partial network of concept. Behind the formalism that sus-

tains NoC’s, what makes the process feasible to students and

teachers is the fact that it is a socialized process where in any

NoC is the creative result of not only one individual, but also of

two individuals, who co-creatively build a model.

The Network of Concepts is built by following a bottom-up

methodology (Ramos-Quintana, Sámano-Galindo, & Zárate-

Silva, 2008a), wherein, at the bottom level, students list a set of

underlying concepts, at the next level, they link pairs of under-

lying concepts, and, at the top level, the whole Network of

Concepts is assembled. During this process, students will need

to analyze which underlying concepts are important so as to

keep them in the shared space; later, they will need to create

structures with semantic meaning as shown in rule (1). At the

same time, they are synthesizing knowledge and an important

exercise of analysis will allow them to link correctly the struc-

tures. As they move along, assembling the network, they create

higher abstractions. Throughout this process, the argumentation

is an important exercise to establish an adequate coordination

between dyads.

On the other hand, NoC’s are different from other more com-

mon graph representations like Conceptual Maps (CM) (On-

toria Peña et al., 1992) mainly for the use of relationships as

semantic operators, which are defined in our work either static

or dynamic. Such distinction is denoted by coloring each rec-

tangle as white or black respectively. Dynamic relationships

imply “execution”, “processing” or “transforming actions”; this

means that a certain concept c1 is transformed into a concept c2

through a dynamic relationship r1, as expressed by the rule (1)

shown below.

As a brief example of this process, we can see in Figure 3

the building of a NoC from the bottom to the top level.

Mediation Tools for the Collaborative Learning

Framework

The Collaborative Learning Framework (CLF) was con-

ceived as a synchronous-mode environment where students,

distributed physically without face-to-face contact, work to-

gether to achieve a particular goal. For this reason, the uses of

boards, forums or email are not suitable computational tools.

Another idea was the use and interpretation of dialogs (the se-

quence of exchanged messages) to determine behavior patterns

during the process of building the NoC’s (Ramos-Quintana,

Sámano-Galindo, & Zárate-Silva, 2008a; Ramos-Quintana,

Sámano-Galindo, & Zárate-Silva, 2008b). Therefore the use of

chat is a suitable tool of communication. On the other hand, it

(c1) tadpole  (r1) metamorphosis  (c2) frog (1)

Semantically we could understand this rule as: if a tadpole

undergoes a metamorphosis, then it will be transformed into a

frog.

Meanwhile, static relationships denote some reference or

characteristic to another concept that does not imply a trans-

formation. For example, it can be used to stay the fact that “the

sun is a star”, such representation is straightforward. a

J. R. ROJANO-CACERES ET AL.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3.

Example of building a NoC at different levels of abstraction. (a) A full-assembled network of concepts at the top level; (b) Basic semantic units by

related concepts in the middle level; (c) List of underl ying concepts in the bottom level.

386

J. R. ROJANO-CACERES ET AL.

is necessary to have the possibility of dra wing the network into

a shared space where participants can observe and participate in

the modifications; then a shared blackboard is an adequate tool

to achieve this goal.

Nevertheless, the use of a piece of paper and face-to-face

chat between peers can be a common practice to break the ice

and introduce the methodology. Besides, when it is not possible

to use technology, the Collaborative Learning Framework can

go on during some sessions with this approach, but the benefits

of registering and tracking process would not be achieved.

Technologically speaking, at the beginning, we used Free-

styler (Giemza & Ziebarth, 2008) because it allowed us to keep

a record of activities. However, this tool does not provide much

control to the teacher; so students could interfere with other

sessions and damage the creative process. Nonetheless, it is a

good Java™-based tool, for some users present annoyances for

configuring their IP address and plug-in. For that reason, we

decided to create a Web-based prototype. This tool is called the

Collaborative Distributed Tool (CDT) (Rojano-Caceres, Ramos-

Quintana, & Garcia-Gaona, 2010) and it is a Rich Internet Ap-

plication (RIA) that can be executed for any web browser that

has the Flash© plug-in. Currently, it is available at collabora-

tivelearningframework.net . In Figure 4, it is shown how a

group of students interacts with each other by means of this

tool.

An Overview of the Creative Process Based on

the Issued Actions

Within our framework, the dialogs created through ex-

changed messages and graphic construction of the networks of

concepts are not only the probe of creative processes, as Lums-

den argues in (Lumsden, 1999), but also a co-creative process

achieved by two individuals. There are different definitions that

address what creativity is, but generally it is related to the crea-

tion of something new and appropriate (Sternberg & Lubart,

1999; Runco, 2007). By asking to students reinforcing or ac-

quiring a topic and represent it by means of Network of Con-

cepts allows them producing an original and creative represent-

tation according to their own understanding. Along with repre-

sentations, we found that there are not similar network to each

other, which is favorable to the concept of divergent thinking

(Scott & Lyle, 2004) and development of cognitive skills for each

Figure 4.

Peers developing collaborative learning by building networks of con-

cepts, the pairs are not at the same geographic place, thus avoiding a

face-to-face collaborative situation.

individual. Thus, the creative process is involved in both the

interaction between pairs to build the NoC and in the process of

the development of skills. For the latter case, this work consid-

ers the following aspects to be dealt with concerning the crea-

tive process: the statement of an idea to be concretized or a

problem to be solved; the search for relevant pieces to be as-

sembled through an appropriate analysis; the creation of basic

structures, which could be composed of at least two relevant

pieces, by making an important exercise of analysis and syn-

thesis; the assembly of the whole NoC, which implies again an

important exercise of analysis, synthesis and construction of

structures, as we previously stated.

Method for Analyz i ng the Process

We chose as a descriptive example the data of an Engineer-

ing course with 26 students, where 19% were women and the

81% were men, and which were instructed to reinforce the topic

of “Agile Manufacturing”. Such students were physically dis-

tributed to avoiding face-to-face communication during a ses-

sion of two hours long approximately.

Along the time session, dialogs and Network of Concepts

were recorded by our computational tool as they constituent

elements were issued with a time mark of milliseconds. In this

analyze we use the actions issued to create the network and

dismiss the text messages for allowing readability in data.

Therefore, to analyze in general the construction process of

the network we start by plotting the sequence of such constitu-

ent actions occurred in the shared space as shown by Figure 5.

With this view we aim at visualizing how the process of con-

struction took place. As a result we observe that actions occur

in well-defined periods of time where both participants actively

co-construct the network. In the same figure we can observe

that actions are not continuously issued over time, but in com-

pact intervals. This means that there are gaps between groups of

issued actions which denote the process of exchanging mes-

sages where students get involved in discussion, negotiation

and agreement.

To particularize the process, we chose some dyads with few

actions that let us analyze and explain their co-creation process,

also plotting few data enable their full visualization within this

article. Thus, Figures 6 and 7 show the contributions that each

participant made to their respective networks. First, Figure 6

Actions issued o ver tim e

tm1

tm2

tm3

tm4

tm5

tm6

tm7

tm8

tm9

tm10

tm11

tm12

tm13

1 112131415161718191101111121131

Actions

8:38:24

8:52:48

9:07:12

9:21:36

9:36:00

9:50:24

10:04:48

10:19:12

10:33:36

Time

Figure 5.

Actions issued by thir t e en dyads along a session o f t w o hours.

J. R. ROJANO-CACERES ET AL.

shows that participant B6, who is a member corresponding to

dyad 6, makes three groups of compacts actions, and participant

A6 makes three groups also, the rest of actions seems to work

as glue between those groups of actions. We mean by group of

actions the sequen ce of actions issued over the time. For exam-

ple, in Figure 6 at the beginning of the plot there are four con-

secutive actions issued by B6, later, there are two actions issued

by A6 followed by one more action of B6, these intercalated

actions from both participants are what we consider as glue

between groups.

On the other hand, even though Figure 7 shows bigger dis-

continuities than the previous figure and there is more partici-

pation of member A2, who is a member corresponding to dyad

2, participant B2 seems to be an occasional contributor to the

network construction.

In Table 1 we present a summary of actions issued by all

dyads and their subjects as well as the percentage of contribu-

tion of each member with respect to their partner. As a result,

we can observe that in almost all dyads there were contributions

of both members, with the exception of dyad four, where it is

Actions issued by Dyad 6

Dy6 : B 6

Dy6 : A 6

159 131721252933374145495357

Actions

8:38:24

8:52:48

9:07:12

9:21:36

9:36:00

9:50:24

10:04:48

10:19:12

tm6

Figure 6.

Actions issued by dyad 6. In this figure we observe h o w t h e intercalated

participation of both students B6 and A6 contributes along the process

to co-creatively build the network of concepts.

Actions issued by Dyad 2

Dy2: A 2

Dy2: B 2

1713 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 6167 73 79 85

Actions

8:38:24

8:52:48

9:07:12

9:21:36

9:36:00

9:50:24

10:04:48

tm2

Figure 7.

Actions issued by dyad 2. In this figure we observe sequence of actions

mainly issued by student A2, while student B2 participates sporadi-

cally.

Table 1.

Frequency table for total actions issued by students in dyads.

Frequency Table

Category Count Cumulative Count Percent

B1 52

80 52

132 39.39

60.61

B2 72

12 72

84 85.71

14.29

B3 32

28 32

60 53.33

46.67

B4 67

7 67

74 90.54

9.46

B5 8

38 8

46 17.39

82.61

B6 28

30 28

58 48.28

51.72

B7 54

37 54

91 59.34

40.66

B8 53

53 53

106 50.00

50.00

B9 39

54 39

93 41.94

58.06

A10

B10 70

26 70

96 72.92

27.08

A11

B11 134

55 134

189 70.90

29.10

A12

B12 20

29 20

49 40.82

59.18

A13

B13 59

49 59

108 54.63

45.37

clear that the network is the major result of one participant. In

addition, there is the contrasting participation of dyad eight,

where both members contribute uniformly in the co-construc-

tion.

At the end of this article, in appendix I, we present the final

Network of Concepts corresponding to both dyads exposed

herein in according to how they understood the topic been re-

inforced (Agile Manufacturing); for dyad 6 see Figure 8, and

for dyad 2 see Figure 9). For each graphical representation, we

can observe that each one is very different, but they share fun-

damental concepts like those cited in (Sanchez & Nagi, 2001)

with respect to Agile Manufacturing, example of these concepts

are adaptability, human factors, competitivity, cooperation, cus-

tomers, e-commerce, technology, and information systems. Par-

ticularly in the case of dyad 2 (Figure 9), the shape of the net-

work attracts our attention because we found that it could be

influenced by a similar scheme from the reading of the article

of Gunasekaran (Gunasekaran, 1998), therefore we dismiss the

idea that the shape of the network were totally new in contrast

to others. But we still consider the process as something new

because of the coordination process to build the network.

Final Considerations

In this article, we exposed how a CSCL framework has pur-

sued fostering a co-creative process for building Networks of

Concepts and how the activities within it develop cognitive

skills. Since 2008, we have applied the framework in under-

388

J. R. ROJANO-CACERES ET AL.

Figure 8.

The full network of concepts created by dyad 6 representing the topic of “Agile Manufacturing” with several appropriated concepts as well as a com-

pact network, which can be c o n s i d e red as synonymous of a good synthesis. The network is transc ripted as created by students.

pants, looking at the quantities we found that students contrib-

ute with different effort and in some cases just one peer takes

all responsibility (e.g. dyad 4 in Table 1) and just in rare cases

actions are fully balanced (e.g. dyad 8 in Table 1). On the other

hand, we have reinforced the idea that the co-creative process

influence on the development of some relevant skills needed for

the lifelong learning and problem solving, as mentioned before.

As a creative goal, a challenge for students is to achieve a Net-

work of Concepts as much semantic expressiveness as possible

by obtaining a topology easily interpretable by third persons,

such as other students and teachers. We mean by a semantic ex-

pressiveness NoC, a network that expresses correctly the linked

concepts and is easily understandable as whole. As we have

seen, the NoC is an abstract and synthetic representation of a

knowledge, whose whole structure is composed of basic struc-

tures semantically correct, which in turn are composed of un-

derlying pieces of knowledge (concepts). Thereby, the process

to achieve the NoC entails the development of skills such as

analysis, synthesis, abstraction, argumentation and construction.

Finally, one of the potential applications of this research is the

capability to evaluate a whole process with objective parame-

ters as those shown here with independence of the knowledge

domain, and the possibility to track structuration process at the

syntactic level given by the groups and time frame identified

in order to mediate the collaboration opportunely. Furtuer

graduate programs of Engineering and Computer Science. Later

in 2010, we extended the framework to include the assessment

stage and we decided to use this framework within different

disciplines to promote their benefits. As a result, we started to

work in other undergraduate programs such as Sociology, Ac-

counting, Business Administration, and Molecular Biology.

Herein, we presented just one particular case for Engineering,

but we found it very remarkable that, in despite of working with

such different disciplines and different sized groups, the devel-

opment of the framework has not been an obstacle, and that the

experience of all the participants (students/teachers) has been in

general positive. During this time, we found that students enjoy

working collaboratively and teachers observed a better assimi-

lation of topics reinforced by the use of the framework.

Conclusion

On the one hand, we exposed how a co-creative process can

be evidenced by plotting the recorded actions from the con-

struction of Network of Concepts by using the “issued action”

dimension, and not only by exploring the final outcome that is

presented as original graphical constructions of Network of

Concepts following hierarchical, centralized, arboreal shapes.

Therefore, as a result we found that group of structures are

created in very well defined amounts of time by both partici-

J. R. ROJANO-CACERES ET AL.

Figure 9.

The full network of concepts created by dyad 2 representing a very peculiar shape as a web. Structurally speaking the main difference is that all con-

cepts are related in the central point as in a spider-web in contrast to more common hierarchical models herein evaluated. The network is transcripted

as created by students.

analysis will be required to establish the adequate syntactic

threshold in such early intervention process.

REFERENCES

Barrows, H. (1985). Designing a problem-based curriculum for the

preclinical year. New York: Springer.

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. N. (1980). Problem-based learning: An

approach to medical educa t i on. Berlin: Springer.

Diaz, M. (2009). Petri nets: Fundamental models, verification and ap-

plications. Hoboke n, NJ: Wiley-ISTE.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”?

In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and com-

putational approa ch e s (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The

evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. S. Reimann

(Ed.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdiscipli-

nary learning science (pp. 189-211). Oxford: Pergamon.

Garrison, D. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult

education: An analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult

Education Quarterly, 42, 136-148.

Gibbons, M. (2002). The self-directed learning handbook: Challenging

adolescent students to excel. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Giemza, A., & Ziebarth, S. (2008). Overview of the freestyler modeling

environment. Recuperado el Noviembre de 2009, de Collide Faculty

of Engineering, Univ e rsity of Duisburg-Essen. URL.

http://www.collide.info/images/b/b1/FreeStyler_description.pdf

Goel, V. (1992). A comparison of well-structured and ill-structured task

environments and problem spaces. In Proceedings of the fourteenth

annual conference of the cognitive science society. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Goodsell, A. S., Maher, M., Tinto, V., Leigh, S. B., & MacGregor, J.

(1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education.

University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching,

Learning, and Assessment.

Gunasekaran, A. (1998). Agile manufacturing: Enablers and an imple-

mentation framework. International Journal of Production Research,

36, 1223-1247. dsoi:10.1080/002075498193291

Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured

and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 45, 65-94.

Koschman, T., Feltovich, P., Myers, A., & Barrows, H. (1992). Impli-

cations of CSCL for problem-based learning. ACM SIGCUE Outlook,

21, 32-35.

Lumsden, C. (1999). Evolving creative minds: Stories and mechanisms.

In R. Sternberg, & T. Lubart (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (Vol. 1,

pp. 153-168). London: Cambridge University Press.

Ontoria Peña, A., Ballesteros Pastor, A., Martín Buena dicha, I., Molina

Rubio, A., Cuevas Moyas, C., Vélez Ramírez, U. et al. (1992). Mapas

conceptuales. Una técn i c a para aprender. Madrid: Narcea.

Peterson, J. L. (1981). Petri net: Theory and the modeling of systems.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: P rentice Hall.

Pressman, R. S. (2002). Software engineering: A practitioner’s ap-

proach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Ramos-Quintana, F., Sámano-Galindo, J., & Zárate-Silva, V. (2008a).

Collaborative environments through dialogues and PBL to encourage

the self-directed learning in computational sciences. In M. Bubak, G.

van Albada, J. Dongarra, & P. Sloot (Eds.), Computational Science—

390

J. R. ROJANO-CACERES ET AL.

ICCS 2008 (pp. 725- 7 34 ). Berlin/Heidelber g: S p ringer.

Ramos-Quintana, F., Sámano-Galindo, J., & Zárate-Silva, V. H. (2008b).

A formal interpretation of implicit messages in agent dialogues. In

IADIS Intelligent Systems and Agents 2008 (pp. 237-240). Holanda:

InterScience.

Rojano-Caceres, J., Ramos-Quintana, F., & Garcia-Gaona, A. (2010).

Proposal for a collaborative distributed tool for building network of

concepts. XXIII Congreso Nacional y IX Congreso Internacional de

Informática y Comput ación (pp. 383-388). Puerto Vallarta: Alfa-Omega.

Runco, M. (2007). Creativity. theories and themes: Research, develop-

ment and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Sanchez, L., & Nagi, R. (2001). A review of agile manufacturing sys-

tems. International Journal of Production Research, 39, 3561-3600.

doi:10.1080/00207540110068790

Scott, G., & Lyle, E. L. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training:

A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361-388.

doi:10.1080/10400410409534549

Shaw, M. P. (1991). On the creative process in science and engineering.

In Technology management: The new international language (pp.

635-639). Portland, OR: IEEE.

Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects

and paradigms. In R. Sternberg, & T. I. Lubart (Eds.), Handbook of

creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 3-15). London: Cambr idge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher

psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.