=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2685/paper4
|storemode=property
|title=Collaborative educational location-based activities with no teacher supervision: Design Implications
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2685/paper4.pdf
|volume=Vol-2685
|authors=Mariano Velamazán,Patricia Santos,Davinia Hernández-Leo
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ectel/VelamazanSH20
}}
==Collaborative educational location-based activities with no teacher supervision: Design Implications==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2685/paper4.pdf
H. Söbke, J. Baalsrud Hauge, M. Wolf, & F. Wehking (eds.):
Proceedings of DELbA 2020
Workshop on Designing and Facilitating Educational Location-based Applications
co-located with the
Fifteenth European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2020)
Heidelberg, Germany, Online, September 15, 2020
Collaborative Educational Location-Based Activities with
no Teacher Supervision: Design Implications
Mariano Velamazán1, Patricia Santos2, and Davinia Hernández-Leo2
1 Escuela de Artes Plásticas y Diseño, Avda. De Chile s/n, 41005 Sevilla, Spain
2 Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Roc Boronat, 69121 Barcelona, Spain
mariano.velamazan@escueladeartedesevilla.es
Abstract. This paper analyses a gamified collaborative formal–informal outdoor
activity and uses the findings to inform the design of future mobile collaboration
tools. We present a case study framed in two editions (in years 2018 and 2019)
of a (math) gymkhana1 for 15- and 16-year-old students, during which small
groups worked collaboratively outside school, with no teacher supervision. From
the case study, we present the analysis of the observations of three groups that
participated in the activity and the post-activity questionnaire answered by 80
students. The analysis of the questionnaire reveals factors that students
appreciated as promoting productive work (i.e. working together, a sense of
agency because they were completely on their own and a change of perception of
the nature of the subject matter). The analysis of the observations points to other
elements that promote successful collaborative work, most of them confirming
findings from previous research, such as engaged feedback, joint attention and
alignment of goals. But other elements require more research, such as the
importance of role changes over time and a broader view of the subject matter,
as well as those specific to collaborating outdoors, such as finding/locating the
task and matching the description of the task with the real object/place. From
those elements, we derive design implications that should inform the design of
future mobile educational location-based apps (ELbAs) for collaboration.
Keywords: Collaborative Mobile Apps, Learning In Situ, Collaboration, Mobile
Learning, Hybrid Learning Spaces.
1 Introduction
Collaboration is one of the key components of the digital literacy framework of the EU
(Vuorikari & Punie, 2016), but there is a lack of research on collaboration in settings
that mix formal and informal learning (more precisely, outside school with no teacher
1
In our context, a gymkhana is an outdoor game where students must use clues and
riddles to find and solve math problems that are located throughout the streets of a
particular area of the city.
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Mariano Velamazán, Patricia Santos, and Davinia Hernández-Leo
intervention). Educational location-based Apps (ELbAs) can benefit from research that
improves collaboration since working together outdoors is something that students find
that improves their learning experience. This paper analyses a case study of a (math)
gymkhana in Seville. The purpose was to gather data and evidence of other factors that
are important when working outside of school and no teachers are supervising. From
those factors, we derived some design implications in order to improve future
collaborative ELbAs.
2 Previous Research and Research Questions
This section identifies the gaps in the literature and summarizes the main theories and
principles that guided our study.
There are numerous studies that aimed to understand which collaborative learning
(CL) conditions lead to good learning outcomes. There is evidence of multiple factors.
We summarize here the findings from reviews of group dynamics and computer-
supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conducted by Barron (2003), Dillenbourg
(2009), Greeno (2000), Stahl (2005), Stahl et al. (2014), and Tchounikine (2019). Their
findings were used to categorize the observations in the case study presented in this
paper (Analysis of the Observations):
● The amount and/or frequency of discussions. Opportunities to explain one’s
thinking, negotiate and share knowledge and ideas (see design implication 6
in Table 2).
● Making many proposals and actively listening to proposals with constructive
feedback (see design implication 4 in Table 2).
● Alignment of goals (see design implications 2 and 8 in Table 2).
● Body language for keeping/managing joint attention: silences, intonation,
facial expressions, pointing, tapping, turn taking, coherency, gestures,
laughter, jokes and eye gaze, for example (see design implication 4 in Table
2).
While the primary focus of our study was location-based learning apps, we
proceed now to give an overview of the existing research into mobile collaboration
because numerous studies have been done on mobile learning but only a handful have
examined mobile and collaborative learning. Fu & Hwang’s (2018) literature review is
one of the few papers especially focused on mobile and collaborative learning. The
authors conclude with the importance of advancing the research in this field: “How can
researchers or teachers design activities to engage students in more meaningful and
authentic collaborative learning contexts to provide them with better chances to connect
the learning content with real-life experiences, and hence construct knowledge and
develop higher order thinking competences.” (p. 21). Our approach to advancing the
research into collaborative location-based apps was to observe and analyze face-to-face
mobile collaboration not mediated through technology and not constrained by the
supervision of teachers. With this evidence, we used the findings to propose a set of
design implications that could potentially improve future collaborative ELbAs.
Our main research questions (RQs) are:
● What factors shape collaboration in outdoor location-based activities without
teacher supervision?
Collaborative Educational Location-Based Activities with no Teacher Supervision
● What are students' experiences with outdoor location-based activities?
Table 1 provides details about the structure of this research.
Table 1. Structure of the research: Connections between the study objective, the research
questions (RQs) and the thematic analysis.
Collaborative location-based learning outside the classroom without teacher
Objective
supervision
RQ1: Factors that shape the RQ2: What did students
interactions that lead to enjoy/feel/think that made the activity
RQs
productive mobile collaborative a worthwhile experience? made it less
work outside the classroom enjoyable?
Instruments Observations Questionnaire
Personal interactions Feelings about math
Categories New or especially relevant factors Experience of the activity (the
in collaborating outside school gymkhana) and the collaborative
without teacher supervision experience
Change of roles New perspective on the subject matter
Difficulties connecting the formal Fun (collaboration with friends)
Themes and the informal (linking the
written word problems with the Agency (feeling empowered without
real objects/places) teacher support)
Results Design implications to improve future mobile collaboration tools
3 Methodology
3.1 Design: A Case Study of the (Math) Gymkhana of
Seville
In order to answer our RQs, a case study design was selected due to the opportunities
it provides to holistically understand phenomena (Baškarada, 2014). A case study is a
good choice for testing and expanding upon existing research with new contexts
(Baškarada, 2014), which is the purpose of this paper.
Description of the Gymkhana Activity. This particular gymkhana has been taking
place for 20 years, with around 20 high schools participating each year. It gathers
around a thousand fourth-grade secondary school students(15-year-olds) in groups of
four. The groups disperse around base points that have math word problems located in
situ. Students must first find these base points and locate the object of the problem in
order to solve them and move forward. Students get points for the problems they solve.
During the gymkhana, the groups of students work on their own, with no teacher
supervision, and are free to use any resource they have in solving the problems.
Mariano Velamazán, Patricia Santos, and Davinia Hernández-Leo
3.2 Methods and Instruments
The research instruments used for this case study were
● Observation during the activity of three groups of students (11 students per
group) as they solved math problems in real outdoor settings during two
editions of the gymkhana: 2018 and 2019. The observations included field
notes and still pictures.
● Post-activity evaluation questionnaire completed by 80 participants,
The main purpose of the observations is to give us a view of the group collaboration
while the data collected from the questionnaire gave us insight into individual
experiences of the activity. By combining the two, we can obtain a more holistic view
of the activity.
We conducted a semi-structured observation following the details suggested by
Cohen et al. (2007). The main criteria for the observation was to document any
interactions that were new and different from the existing research. Field notes were
used to describe conversations, attitudes and processes and still pictures to capture body
language and personal interactions. The role of the researcher was observer-as-
participant (Gold, 1958). The data were analysed
concurrent with data collection (Kuper, Lingard, & Levinson, 2008; Twining et al.,
2017). This real-time analysis meant the researchers had to focus on annotating the data
most closely related to our research questions.
The purpose of the questionnaire was to obtain information about the individual
experience of the gymkhana. The purpose was to find out what was the best of the
activity and why, what was their opinion about collaborating and what they thought
they had learned. Questions were generated around RQ2 (see Table 1). Those categories
were chosen in order to (a) test if they think collaboration is useful in terms of learning
outcomes and fun and (b) detect if their personal attitude towards math affected
somehow the experience of the gymkhana. A mix of quantitative and qualitative
questions was used (See https://tinyurl.com/design-collaborative-ELbAs for more
details) with the goals of the qualitative questions aimed at obtaining details about (a)
what they thought was the best part of the gymkhana, (b) their perceived learning
outcomes and (c) their opinion on the best aspects of the activity.
In order to analyze the data, a thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006)
was used to identify, analyze and report on patterns (themes) in the collected data.
4 Participants
4.1 Observations
Fortunately, the groups making up the gymkhana teams followed Stahl’s
recommendation (2014) of four members as the most fruitful unit of analysis when
studying collaborative meaning-making (one of our groups had three members because
one was sick). Our target was secondary school students, a group that was identified by
Fu & Hwang (2018) as needing further research in collaborative location-based
activities. Data collection took place during two editions of the activity (the years 2018
and 2019). In 2018, one researcher shadowed two groups (A and B, seven students in
Collaborative Educational Location-Based Activities with no Teacher Supervision
total) for 2h 30min each. In order to get a deeper observation of the interactions in
groups, in 2019, a third group (C) was observed for 5 hours. Group A was composed
of three girls and a boy, group B was composed of three girls and group C was
composed of four girls. In all cases the groups were formed on the basis of previous
friendships and independently of the teacher’s opinion.
4.2 Questionnaires
The 14-item questionnaire was completed by a total of 80 students from five different
high schools. They completed the questionnaire during their regular math class with
their regular math teacher in their regular high school within two weeks after the
gymkhana.
5 Analysis
5.1 Observations
The observation notes were reviewed and clustered using ATLAS.ti software
(ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development, Berlin) in two categories derived from
our RQ1:
Personal Interactions Among Members (testing findings from previous research):
experience, feelings (positive or negative), roles, conversations, proposals, alignment
of goals, body language, problems/frictions
New Phases/Factors/Opportunities Detected: strategies/gamification finding/solving
problems outdoors (connecting the formal and the informal), tools, problems/frictions
Second, we coded the pictures taken during the observations. This process revealed
the importance of perception, meaning not only looking and searching with the eyes
but also touching and pointing. Here, we use perception in terms of sensory processes
like seeing, touching or hearing. Perception was the cause of a wide variety of
interactions and became a new category that encompassed many of the notes
categorized in new phases and factors/opportunities detected for collaborating outside
school.
We reviewed the notes and pictures clustered in each category, and from those
categories (see Table 2 at https://tinyurl.com/design-collaborative-ELbAs), we defined
themes, following the methodology proposed by Braun and Clark (2006).
5.2 Questionnaire
The analysis of the qualitative answers was created by clustering similar answers and
detecting and highlighting atypical cases.
Combining our observations with their opinions and feelings provided us with a
more holistic picture of the activity and a student centred design approach.
Mariano Velamazán, Patricia Santos, and Davinia Hernández-Leo
6 Results
In this section we present the results of the questionnaire and a holistic view of the
observations.
6.1 Questionnaire
Identity and Individual Experience during Collaboration. Fig. 1 (see
https://tinyurl.com/design-collaborative-ELbAs) shows that students had a very
positive experience of the gymkhana, even if they had a low self-perception of their
math performance. This indicates that the students generally think math is useful in
their everyday lives, even if they consider their performance low. The responses also
reflected that students valued working in groups much more than their feelings about
their math performance.
Collaboration. Responses to the open question “What did you enjoy most about this
gymkhana?” all fell into one of the following: “collaboration” (28.4%), “having fun
with math” (25.7%) and “being outside/on our own” (20.3%). This final answer raised
the new topic of agency (i.e. being on their own, without teacher intervention).
Roles. Most groups did not have any kind of organization of tasks, but that also
highlights that an important percentage of them did (38.8%). More insights about this
topic are presented with the results of the roles observations. In conclusion, the results
of the questionnaire show that collaborating and solving problems outside school is
something that should be promoted because students find it to be a positive experience.
6.2 Observations
We followed the recommendations of Cohen et al. (2007) and Braun and Clarke (2006)
for making meaning from data and now present the results of the holistic observations
of the activity.
Rules/Gamification Create Strategies. Rules refers to the gamified rules of the
gymkhana: getting points by solving problems according to difficulty, having to move
around the city to find the problems and having to find the objects of the problems in a
given amount of time. These were the origins of authentic and situated math problems;
for example, optimizing time and distances resulted in the unfolding of a number of
interesting math problems that students were probably unaware of.
Strategies refers to the decisions taken in order to maximize the possibilities of
collecting and solving problems. Basically, this meant saving time walking and
choosing the best problems to solve and the best moments to do it. For example, if a
group chose to collect as many problems from base points as possible in order to try to
solve them later, the interactions between the members were focused on getting to the
base points. Alternatively, if a group chose to solve problems as they were collected,
the dynamics of that group were more collaborative in all aspects. As already noted, the
game dynamics embedded in the activity add an extra layer of math thinking that was
enjoyed by students (see design implication 7 in Table 2).
Roles. Roles/tasks refers to the functions assumed by each member of the group,
including whether these functions changed over time. Because these students had only
Collaborative Educational Location-Based Activities with no Teacher Supervision
minimal experience with collaborating, their emergent roles were either tasks or roles
that existed before the gymkhana and were dependent on each member’s grades. If roles
changed among members of the group (as they did in group A), the interactions were
more productive. If the roles were clearly established and fixed, the members tended to
accept the opinions of the leaders and/or students who usually obtain better grades.
These groups also had more difficulty making decisions and had a tendency to remain
blocked if the leader did not know what to do. This effect is not entirely new (see
Shirouzu, Miyake, & Masukawa, 2002), but we posit a more adaptive view of roles:
members who are able to dynamically change roles (for example from leader to listener)
and complete different tasks, in the process learning how they can be useful in a variety
of situations, make the group more successful with both the learning outcomes and
positive experience of the activity (see design implications 1, 2, 5 and 9 in Table 2).
Tools. Concerning the tools students used or needed, a problem many groups faced was
having to write or draw the solutions to the word problems on paper, which was
hindered by aspects such as being in a standing position and adverse weather
conditions. Providing some kind of drawing tool (see design implications 10 and 11 in
Table 2) could help students better explain themselves and share their knowledge with
the other members while simultaneously helping mathematize the problem.
Collaboration Issues. Some of the issues with collaboration prompted positive
interactions and collaboration, and some prompted more negative situations that
students then had to handle.
Among the positive outcomes noted in the questionnaires, 35% of students referred
to enjoying working in a group. Most of these kinds of answers were about being useful
to the group, even when the respondents did not consider themselves “good at math”.
They graded themselves, on average, 3.20/5 points (1.10 SD) on this aspect. We
observed that they seemed more confident and freer to voice their opinions when
working without the teacher’s presence. One student described the best part of the
experience: “Even being bad at math, I could still propose things that were useful for
the others” (all responses translated from Spanish by the author). These students did
not have much experience collaborating, and the fact that they were among friends
without any teachers involved and far from the classroom culture of right/wrong opened
up far-reaching opportunities for sharing and learning through their conversations.
For the students who had little prior experience (and even less with math), being in
this situation made the entire situation easier and more enjoyable.
There were also opportunities for learning from experiences that were not altogether
positive. Some students complained that other members of the group did not work as
hard as they did or that not all members were engaged equally with the goals of the
group. Others complained that even if they gave their opinions and made proposals,
they felt it was futile because the group always did “what the members with better
grades said”.
We find that tools for trying to promote collaborative learning should afford
anonymous sharing of opinions in order to avoid the fear of proposing wrong answers
and the kind of negative situations mentioned (see design implication 3 in Table 3).
A Broader Perspective of the Subject Matter. Finally, on the post gymkhana
questionnaire, 17.5% of the students referred to some degree of surprise about math.
This was reflected in responses that included “taking a closer look at things” or “math
is more important than we thought” as one of their learning outcomes (this was also an
Mariano Velamazán, Patricia Santos, and Davinia Hernández-Leo
open question). This is as though being in a group outside the classroom and looking at
things in a new, closer way was an “eye-opening” experience that led to a new or at
least broader perception of math; some students remarked that they “didn’t know that
was math”. We interpreted these answers as confirmation that the perception and
relationship students have with math can be significantly improved. On the
questionnaire, these students ranked the usefulness of math in their everyday lives at
3.56/5 avg. (1.01 SD). Their perception of math was as something they do at school
(Esmonde et al., 2013; Martin & Gourley-Delaney, 2014) and we hypothesize that this
perception can be improved and broadened, and furthermore, would be welcomed by
students. Thus, design for math learning outside school could be successful if it tries to
promote an active perception and observation of everyday situations while also
connecting with formal lectures.
7 Design Implications
From the results just discussed, we distilled design implications that should promote
more active participation and could inform the design of future asynchronous mobile
collaborative tools. Some of these design implications come from existing literature
and some are new proposals that need to be tested in the future.
Table 2. Design implications for collaborative ELbAs
Type Design Implication
1. Always show all the members of the group (and of course, who is
sending any message). This should help to have an active image of all
the people as a working group.
2. Allow evaluations to be made of the general performance of the group,
and let that information be visible to the group: For example, a
Collaboration:
simplified version of the Radar and OurEvaluator tool (Järvelä et al.,
group
2015) .
awareness
3. Allow sending of anonymous/private messages to the group to provide
an error-safe space.
4. Provide affordances for showing that members are paying attention
through quick answer/feedback icons. (“understood”, “I need more
information”, “I didn’t understand”, etc.)
Collaboration: 5. Visually show different kinds of messages: proposals (Stahl, 2005),
visualization facts, decisions. Also show the connection between messages to clearly
of group and quickly see the previous message and message threads.
activity 6. Visually show times of inactivity.
7. Gamify the types of messages: number of proposals, ideas and positive
feedback. Provide stats about roles (elicited from kinds of messages
sent). This should promote active participation in the group.
Roles/tasks 8. Provide affordances for taking decisions and visually show them. This
would facilitate taking decisions and moving forward to next steps.
9. Awareness of roles and tasks and let them evaluate each other in the
roles. However, do not force students into assigned or scripted roles.
10. Provide affordances for a shared creative/modelling canvas to draw
Tools
together (Stahl, 2005).
Collaborative Educational Location-Based Activities with no Teacher Supervision
11. Allow taking/sending/drawing on pictures (as in regular apps like
Instagram). Quick access to calculator and formulas cheat-sheet.
8. Discussion
This study was built on top-down and bottom-up methodologies, specifically, a
literature review and a case study, to identify factors that shape collaborative problem-
solving in hybrid contexts. The observed case study is a gamified activity that combines
formal education with an informal setting. While the gymkhana was enjoyed by
students, some questions arose. First, if we implement these design implications in a
mobile collaborative ELbA, we wonder if students would engage as much as they did
with this face-to-face activity or if they would just try to finish the activity as quickly
as possible, without truly collaborating. Second, how much of the positive experience
of collaboration was about being physically together out of school for one day and how
much was collaboration and learning. Finally, data needs to be obtained from other
types of groups, especially those who do not work together as well or who are
minimally motivated.
From the questionnaires, we learned that students not only enjoyed collaborating and
the sense of agency they got from working on their own but that this experience also
helped them change their perception of math. At the same time, the problems were very
similar to those you can find in a regular textbook except that they were located in a
real place. We wonder if the experience of the activity would improve if the problems
were more connected to the students’ interests. The problems were also of the “well-
structured”, one-solution type. Problems that are less structured and more open-ended
would require more personal interaction and collaboration. We hypothesize that those
kinds of tasks would offer better opportunities for learning. We also cannot be certain
the students actually learned any new mathematics with the activity, and if they did not,
a thoughtful determination of what can be done will be required.
These design implications should inform the design of future mobile collaborative
ELbA’s, but we are also curious how these design implications can be organically
integrated into a collaboration tool.
9. Limitations
Most of the groups that are created without teacher intervention are not gender
balanced, and this was true in our study. Another limitation is our lack of video recorded
material. The decision to not take video recordings was taken because the students
being observed preferred to not be recorded. The chosen method of data collection was
aimed at keeping the researcher in a more invisible and unobtrusive position while
taking field notes. Ethical issues and the potential emotional implications for the
students led to the decision that video recording could produce awkward behaviour
from the students and affected their personal interactions. A final limitation of the study
is the small number of groups observed with only three. Future research must
thoroughly test and iterate the prototypes based on the design implications proposed
here.
Mariano Velamazán, Patricia Santos, and Davinia Hernández-Leo
10. Open Data, Ethics, Acknowledgements & Conflicts of Interest
The observation notes and questionnaire results are published online at
https://tinyurl.com/design-collaborative-ELbAs. The ethics procedure for this study
followed the principles, tools and procedures for the quality of research (Santiago-
Delefosse, Gavin, Bruchez, Roux, & Stephen, 2016; Twining et al., 2017) Consent was
obtained from all participants for observation, questionnaire and taking anonymous
pictures. The authors would like to thank all students and teachers who participated in
this study. This work has been partially funded by the EU Regional Development Fund
and the National Research Agency of the Spanish Ministry of Science (TIN2017-
85179-C3-3-R). D. Hernández-Leo acknowledges the support by the ICREA Academia
programme.
11. References
1. Barron, B.: When smart groups fail. J. Learn. Sci. 12 (3), 307–359 (2003).
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1kuper
2. Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K.: Research Methods in Education (6th ed). Routledge,
London (2007)
3. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., O’Malley, C.: The evolution of research on
collaborative learning. In Spada, E., Reiman, P. (eds.) Learning in Humans and Machine:
Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science, pp. 189–211, Oxford, Elsevier (1995).
4. Esmonde, I., Blair, K. P., Goldman, S., Martin, L., Jimenez, O., Pea, R.: (2013). Math I am:
What we learn from stories that people tell about math in their lives. In: Bevan, B., Bell, P.K.,
Stevens, R., Razfar, A. (eds.) LOST Opportunities: Explorations of Educational Purpose, vol.
23, pp. 7–27. Dordrecht, Springer (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4304-5_2
5. Fu, Q.-K., Hwang, G.-J.: Trends in mobile technology-supported collaborative learning: A
systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016. Comput. Educ. 119, 129–143
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.004
6. Gold, R. L.: Roles in sociological field observations. Soc. Forces. 36 (3), 217–223 (1958).
https://doi.org/10.2307/2573808
7. Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., Koivuniemi,
M., Järvenoja, H.: Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups:
Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 63(1), 125–142 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1
8. Kuper, A., Lingard, L., Levinson, W.: Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 337,
a1035 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1035
9. Martin, L., Gourley-Delaney, P.: Students’ images of mathematics. Instr. Sci. 42 (4), 595–
614 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9293-2
10. Shirouzu, H., Miyake, N., Masukawa, H.: Cognitively active externalization for situated
reflection. Cogn. Sci. 26(4), 469–501 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2604_3
11. Stahl, G. Sustaining online collaborative problem solving with math proposals. Proceedings
of the 2006 Conference on Towards Sustainable and Scalable Educational Innovations
Informed by the Learning Sciences: Sharing Good Practices of Research, Experimentation
and Innovation, pp. 436–443 (2005)
12. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., Suthers, D.: Computer-supported collaborative learning: An
historical perspective. In: Sawyer, R. K. (ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences, pp. 409–426. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (2014)
Collaborative Educational Location-Based Activities with no Teacher Supervision
13. Tchounikine, P.: Learners’ agency and CSCL technologies: Towards an emancipatory
perspective. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 14(2), 237–250 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09302-5
14. Twining, P., Heller, R. S., Nussbaum, M., Tsai, C.-C.: Some guidance on conducting and
reporting qualitative studies. Comput. Educ. 106, A1–A9 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002
15. Vuorikari, R., Punie, Y. DigComp 2.0: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens
(2016)