From face‐to‐face to distance LMS‐mediated collaborative learning situations with GLUE!

GLUE! is an integration architecture that allows teachers to easily set up an LMS environment with several external tools to carry out complex collaborative learning situations in distance settings. Though its effectiveness in alleviating the burden on teachers of deploying and enacting such situations has been studied elsewhere, there are no studies in the literature analyzing the impact, in terms of learning achievement, of turning traditional face‐to‐face collaborative learning situations into distance LMS‐mediated ones with the support of integration approaches such as the GLUE! architecture. This paper compares the learning achievement in a distance LMS‐mediated collaborative learning situation supported by GLUE! and in the equivalent face‐to‐face in a non‐technological setting. The conclusions of this comparison, along with the fact that GLUE! significantly reduces the set up effort, suggest that GLUE! is a good choice for turning traditional face‐to‐face collaborative learning situations into distance LMS‐mediated ones without significant negative effects in the learning achievement. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Comput Appl Eng Educ 23:527–536, 2015; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cae; DOI 10.1002/cae.21623

[1]  Kalina Yacef,et al.  Collaborative Writing Support Tools on the Cloud , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[2]  Eduardo Gómez-Sánchez,et al.  GLUE!: An architecture for the integration of external tools in Virtual Learning Environments , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Charles K. Fadel,et al.  21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times , 2009 .

[4]  Davinia Hernández Leo,et al.  Computational Representation of Collaborative Learning Flow Patterns using IMS Learning Design , 2005, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[5]  Dai Griffiths,et al.  Distributing education services to personal and institutional systems using Widgets , 2008 .

[6]  H. Coates,et al.  A Critical Examination Of The Effects Of Learning Management Systems On University Teaching And Learning , 2005 .

[7]  William Stallings,et al.  Data and Computer Communications , 1985 .

[8]  Carlos Alario-Hoyos,et al.  Comparison of the main alternatives to the integration of external tools in different platforms. , 2010 .

[9]  Charles R. Severance,et al.  The coming functionality mash-up in Personal Learning Environments , 2008, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[10]  N. Cliff Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. , 1993 .

[11]  Matt Bower,et al.  A Comparison of LAMS and Moodle as learning design technologies - teacher education students' perspective , 2011 .

[12]  Ton de Jong,et al.  The effects of whole-class interactive instruction with Single Display Groupware for Triangles , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[13]  Markus Neuhäuser,et al.  Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test , 2006 .

[14]  Mei Liu,et al.  Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study , 2012, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[15]  George Siemens,et al.  The Open Course: Through the Open Door--Open Courses as Research, Learning, and Engagement , 2010 .

[16]  Osamu Takahashi,et al.  A Technique for Describing High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) Procedures , 1980, IFIP Congress.

[18]  Andrew D. Spaeth,et al.  Google Docs as a Form of Collaborative Learning , 2012 .

[19]  Ana Carvalho,et al.  Students' perceptions of Blackboard and Moodle in a Portuguese university , 2011, Br. J. Educ. Technol..