pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.10710 · v1 · pith:XSMPAISFnew · submitted 2019-06-25 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.CY

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning in Software Engineering Education: A Systematic Mapping Study

Antti Knutas , Jouni Ikonen , Jari Porras This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 16:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.CY
keywords computer-supported collaborative learningsoftware engineering educationsystematic mapping studycollaborative learningCSCLeducation researchsoftware engineering
0
0 comments X

The pith

A systematic mapping of CSCL research in software engineering education finds benefits established across environments but insufficient detail to identify success factors.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper conducts a systematic mapping study of articles published between 2003 and 2013 on computer-supported collaborative learning in software engineering education. It shows that CSCL improves student motivation and critical thinking in settings ranging from local classrooms to global teams. The mapping identifies active research on wider learning communities and the effectiveness of different collaborative methods. A sympathetic reader would care because clearer identification of what makes these approaches succeed could guide better course designs. The study concludes that existing work does not yet provide enough comparative detail on enabling factors.

Core claim

The central claim is that research has established the benefits of computer-supported collaborative learning in software engineering education across local to global environments, yet the published approaches lack sufficient detail and comparison to determine which specific factors drive their success. Ongoing topics include wider learning communities and comparative effectiveness of methods.

What carries the argument

The systematic mapping study, which reviews and categorizes literature to reveal patterns and gaps in how CSCL is applied and evaluated.

If this is right

  • Studies should shift toward more comparative designs that isolate which elements of CSCL produce benefits.
  • Research on wider learning communities will continue as an active direction.
  • Investigations into the effectiveness of specific collaborative approaches are needed to guide practice.
  • Improved documentation of factors would allow replication of successful CSCL implementations in software engineering courses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Designers of global software engineering courses could use the identified gaps to prioritize experiments that test one variable at a time.
  • The mapping points to a need for updated reviews that include post-2013 work on online collaboration tools.
  • Connecting these findings to current distributed team practices in industry might reveal transferable lessons.

Load-bearing premise

The selected articles from 2003 to 2013 obtained through the search process represent the overall state of CSCL research in software engineering education for that period.

What would settle it

A replication of the search that locates many additional relevant papers from 2003-2013 showing detailed comparative analyses of CSCL success factors.

read the original abstract

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) has been a steady topic of research since the early 1990s, and the trend has continued to this date. The basic benefits of CSCL in the classroom have been established in many fields of education to improve especially student motivation and critical thinking. In this paper we present a systematic mapping study about the state of research of computer-supported collaborative learning in software engineering education. The mapping study examines published articles from 2003 to 2013 to find out how this field of science has progressed. Ongoing research topics in CSCL in software engineering education concern wider learning communities and the effectiveness of different collaborative approaches. We found that while the research establishes the benefits of CSCL in several different environments from local to global ones, these approaches are not always detailed and comparative enough to pinpoint which factors have enabled their success.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a systematic mapping study of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) in software engineering education, examining articles published 2003–2013. It concludes that benefits of CSCL have been established across local-to-global environments, yet the approaches are insufficiently detailed or comparative to identify enabling success factors; ongoing topics include wider learning communities and effectiveness of collaborative approaches.

Significance. If the mapped sample is representative, the work usefully flags a gap in comparative detail within CSCL-SE research and could help prioritize future studies on community-scale and effectiveness questions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and mapping-procedure description] Abstract and the description of the mapping procedure: no databases, search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, quality thresholds, or inter-rater reliability measures are stated. Because the central claim (that observed lack of comparative detail reflects the actual state of the field) requires a representative sample, this omission is load-bearing and prevents verification of completeness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for highlighting the importance of methodological transparency in our systematic mapping study. We agree that the central claims require a verifiable sample and will strengthen the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and mapping-procedure description] Abstract and the description of the mapping procedure: no databases, search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, quality thresholds, or inter-rater reliability measures are stated. Because the central claim (that observed lack of comparative detail reflects the actual state of the field) requires a representative sample, this omission is load-bearing and prevents verification of completeness.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The abstract and procedure section as submitted do not explicitly list the databases searched, the precise search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, quality thresholds, or inter-rater reliability statistics. These omissions undermine the ability to assess sample representativeness. We will revise both the abstract and the dedicated methodology subsection to provide these details in full, including the search protocol, selection process, and any reliability measures employed. This revision will directly address the load-bearing concern for the central claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: descriptive mapping study with no derivations or predictions

full rationale

The paper is a systematic mapping study that reviews and categorizes existing literature on CSCL in software engineering education from 2003-2013. It contains no equations, parameter fitting, predictions, or derivations that could reduce to the paper's own inputs by construction. All claims are descriptive summaries of the reviewed articles (e.g., benefits observed across environments, lack of comparative detail), with no self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that create circularity. The study is self-contained as a literature synthesis without any mathematical or predictive chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard assumption that a systematic mapping of the chosen decade adequately represents the field; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Articles published 2003-2013 located via the study's search process form a representative sample of CSCL in SE education research.
    The mapping study explicitly limits its scope to this period and relies on the completeness of its literature search.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5677 in / 1205 out tokens · 29644 ms · 2026-05-25T16:21:16.139355+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 108 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alfonseca, E . et al . The impact of learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: a case study. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. 16, 3-4 (Sep. 2006), 377–401. PREPRINT COPY. Find the original at http://ijits-bg.com

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    de Almeida Biolchini, J.C. et al . 2007. Scientific research ontology to support systematic review in software engineering. Advanced Engineering Informatics . 21, 2 (Apr. 2007), 133–151

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Asensio, J.I. et al. 2004. Collaborative learning patterns: assisting the development of component -based CSCL applications. 12th Euromicro Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing, 2004. Proceedings (Feb. 2004), 218–224

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    and Irwin, W

    Baghaei, N., Mitrovic, A. and Irwin, W. 2007. Supporting collaborative learni ng and problem-solving in a constraint -based CSCL environment for UML class diagrams. International Journal of Computer -Supported Collaborative Learning . 2, 2-3 (Sep. 2007), 159–190

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    et al 2007

    Bailey, J. et al 2007. Evidence relating to Object -Oriented software design: A survey. ESEM (2007), 482–484

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    and Repenning, A

    Basawapatna, A.R. and Repenning, A. 2010. Cyberspace Meets Brick and Mortar: An Investigation into How Students Engage in Peer to Peer Feedback Using Both Cyberlearning and Physical Infrastructures. Proceedings o f the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 184–188

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Beldarrain, Y. 2006. Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance education. 27, 2 (2006), 139–153

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    and Carroll, J.M

    Borge, M. and Carroll, J.M. 2010. Using Collaborative Activity As a Means to Explore Student Performance and Understanding. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences - Volume 1 (Chicago, Illinois, 2010), 889–896

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    and Gallardo, J

    Bravo, C., Duque, R. and Gallardo, J. 2013. A groupware system to support collaborative programming: Design and experiences. Journal of Systems and Software . 86, 7 (Jul. 2013), 1759–1771

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Bruffee, K.A. 1995. S haring Our Toys: Cooperative Learning Versus Collaborative Learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 27, 1 (1995), 12–18

    work page 1995

  11. [11]

    Caballé, S. et al. 2011. Providing effective feedback, monitoring and evaluation to on-line collaborative learning discu ssions. Computers in Human Behavior . 27, 4 (Jul. 2011), 1372–1381

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    -D., Garcia -Sanchez, D

    Cabrera-Lozoya, A., Cerdan, F., Cano, M. -D., Garcia -Sanchez, D. and Lujan, S

    work page

  13. [13]

    Computers & Education

    Unifying heterogeneous e -learning modalities in a single platform: CADI, a case study. Computers & Education. 58, 1 (Jan. 2012), 617–630

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    and Farooq, U

    Carroll, J.M. and Farooq, U. 2007. Patterns as a paradigm for theory in community - based learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2, 1 (Mar. 2007), 41–59

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    and Rosson, M.B

    Carroll, J.M. and Rosson, M.B. 2005. A Case Library for Teaching Usability Engineering: Design Rationale, Development, and Classroom Experience. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. 5, 1 (Mar. 2005)

    work page 2005

  16. [16]

    and Teng, K

    Chen, C.-Y. and Teng, K. -C. 2011. The design and development of a computerized tool support for conducting senior projects in software engineering education. Computers & Education. 56, 3 (Apr. 2011), 802–817. PREPRINT COPY. Find the original at http://ijits-bg.com

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    and Min, H

    Chou, S.-W. and Min, H. -T. 2009. The impact of media on collaborative learning in virtual settings: The perspective of soc ial construction. Computers & Education . 52, 2 (Feb. 2009), 417–431

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    and Pifarré, M

    Cobos, R. and Pifarré, M. 2008. Collaborative knowledge construction in the web supported by the KnowCat system. Computers & Education. 50, 3 (Apr. 2008), 962–978

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    and Maresca, P

    Coccoli, M., Stanganelli, L. and Maresca, P. 2011. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning in software engineering. 2011 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (2011), 990–995

    work page 2011

  20. [20]

    and Murphy, G

    Coelho, W. and Murphy, G. 2007. ClassCompass: A Software Design Mentor ing System. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. 7, 1 (Mar. 2007)

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Collazos, C.A. et al . 2010. CODILA: A Collaborative and Distributed Learning Activity applied to software engineering courses in Latin American Universities. 2010 6th International Conference on C ollaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing (CollaborateCom) (Oct. 2010), 1–9

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    and Kimmerle, J

    Cress, U. and Kimmerle, J. 2013. Successful Knowledge Building Needs Group Awareness: Interaction Analysis of a 9th Grade CSCL Biology Lesson. Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions . D.D. Suthers, K. Lund, C.P. Rosé, C. Teplovs, and N. Law, eds. Springer US. 495–509

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    Cubranic, D., Storey, M. -A.D. and Ryall, J. 2006. A Comparison of Communication Technologies to Support Novice Team Programming. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (New York, NY, USA, 2006), 695 – 698

    work page 2006

  24. [24]

    Dewiyanti, S. et al . 2007. Students’ experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous Computer -Supported Collaborati ve Learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior. 23, 1 (Jan. 2007), 496–514

    work page 2007

  25. [25]

    Dillenbourg, P. 1999. Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Elsevier

    work page 1999

  26. [26]

    Dillenbourg, P. 1999. What do you mean by collaborative learning? Collaborative- learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. (1999), 1–19

    work page 1999

  27. [27]

    Dunlap, J.C. 2005. Problem -based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology Research and Development . 53, 1 (Mar. 2005), 65–83

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    Duque, R. et al . 2009. Construction of interaction observation systems for collaboration analysis in groupware applications. Advances in Engineering Software . 40, 12 (Dec. 2009), 1242–1250

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    and Osman, I

    Elmahadi, I.O. and Osman, I. 2012. P erceptions towards Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: A case study of sudanese undergraduate students. 2012 International Conference on e -Learning and e -Technologies in Education (ICEEE) (Sep. 2012), 158–161

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    and Osman, I

    Elmahadi, I. and Osman, I. 2013. A study of the Sudanese students’ use of collaborative tools within Moodle Learning Management System. IST-Africa Conference and Exhibition (IST-Africa), 2013 (May 2013), 1–8. PREPRINT COPY. Find the original at http://ijits-bg.com

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    Feng, D. et al. 2006. An Intelligent Discussion-bot for Answering Student Queries in Threaded Discussions. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (New York, NY, USA, 2006), 171–177

    work page 2006

  32. [32]

    Ferreira, D.J. 2013. Fostering the Creative Development of Computer Science Students in Programming and Interaction Design. Procedia Computer Science . 18, (2013), 1446–1455

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    and Wulf, V

    Fischer, G., Rohde, M. and Wulf, V. 2007. Community -based learning: The core competency of residential, research-based universities. International Journal of Computer - Supported Collaborative Learning. 2, 1 (Mar. 2007), 9–40

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    and Vauras, M

    Gegenfurtner, A., Veermans, K. and Vauras, M. 2013. Effects of computer support, collaboration, and time lag on performance self -efficacy and transfer of training: A longitudinal meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 8, (Jan. 2013), 75–89

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    and Huang, K

    Ge, X., Dong, Y. and Huang, K. 2006. Shared Knowledge Construction Process in an Open -source Software Development Community: An Investigation of the Gallery Community. Proceedings of the 7th International Confere nce on Learning Sciences (Bloomington, Indiana, 2006), 189–195

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    and Job, R

    Ghislandi, P. and Job, R. 2005. Collaborative learning for an online higher education course: a case study. Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2005. ICALT 2005 (Jul. 2005), 245–246

    work page 2005

  37. [37]

    and de Clunie, G.T

    Giraldo, F.D., Collazos, C.A., Ochoa, S.F., Zapata, S. and de Clunie, G.T. 2010. Teaching Software Engineering from a Collaborative Perspective: Some Latin -American Experiences. 2010 Workshop on Database and Expert Syste ms Applications (DEXA) (Aug. 2010), 97–101

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    Giraldo, F.D. et al. 2011. Applying a distributed CSCL activity for teaching software architecture. 2011 International Conference on Information Society (i -Society) (Jun. 2011), 208–214

    work page 2011

  39. [39]

    and Kang, M.J

    Glassman, M. and Kang, M.J. 2011. The logic of wikis: The possibilities of the Web 2.0 classroom. International Journal of Computer -Supported Collaborative Learning . 6, 1 (Mar. 2011), 93–112

    work page 2011

  40. [40]

    Gokhale, A.A. 1995. Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. Journal of Technology Education. 7, 1 (1995)

    work page 1995

  41. [41]

    Hadwin, A.F. et al. 2006. Toward Standards for Reporting Research: A Review of the Lliterature on Computer -Supported Collaborative Learning. Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (Washington, DC, USA, 2006), 1007–1011

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    Hammond, M. 2005. A review of recent papers on online discussion in teaching and learning in higher education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks . 9, 3 (2005), 9 – 23

    work page 2005

  43. [43]

    Harrer, A. et al . 2005. The Effects of Electronic Communication Support on Presence Learning Scenarios. Proceedings of th 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (Taipei, Taiwan, 2005), 190 – 194. PREPRINT COPY. Find the original at http://ijits-bg.com

    work page 2005

  44. [44]

    Hernández-Leo, D. et al . 2007. Free- and Open -Source Software for a Course on Network Management: Authoring and Enactment of Scripts Based on Collaborative Learning Strategies. IEEE Transactions on Education. 50, 4 (Nov. 2007), 292–301

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    Hevner, A.R. et al . 200 4. Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28, 1 (Mar. 2004), 75–105

    work page 2004

  46. [46]

    and Cockburn, A

    Highsmith, J. and Cockburn, A. 2001. Agile software development: The business of innovation. Computer. 34, 9 (2001), 120–127

    work page 2001

  47. [47]

    Howley, I. et al . 2013. Gaining Ins ights from Sociolinguistic Style Analysis for Redesign of Conversational Agent Based Support for Collaborative Learning. Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions . D.D. Suthers, K. Lund, C.P. Rosé, C. Teplovs, and N. Law, eds. Springer US. 477–494

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    and Narayanan, N.H

    Hübscher-Younger, T. and Narayanan, N.H. 2003. Authority and convergence in collaborative learning. Computers & Education. 41, 4 (Dec. 2003), 313–334

    work page 2003

  49. [49]

    and Narayanan, N.H

    Hübscher-Younger, T. and Narayanan, N.H. 2003. Constructive and Collaborative Learning of Algorithms. Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (New York, NY, USA, 2003), 6–10

    work page 2003

  50. [50]

    and Bodemer, D

    Janssen, J. and Bodemer, D. 2013. Coordinated Computer -Supported Collaborative Learning: Awareness and Awareness Too ls. Educational Psychologist . 48, 1 (2013), 40 – 55

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    and Johnson, R.T

    Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. 1999. Making cooperative learning work. Theory Into Practice. 38, 2 (1999), 67–73

    work page 1999

  52. [52]

    and Johnson, D

    Johnson, R. and Johnson, D. 1994. An Overview of Cooperative Learning. Creativity and Collaborative Learning. J. Thousand, R. Villa, and A. Nevin, eds. Brookes Press

    work page 1994

  53. [53]

    Kahrimanis, G. et al . 2006. A Model for Interoperability in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2006 (Jul. 2006), 51–55

    work page 2006

  54. [54]

    and Demetriadis, S

    Karakostas, A. and Demetriadis, S. 2011. Adaptation patterns as a conceptual tool for designing the adaptive operation of CSCL systems. Educational Technology Research and Development. 59, 3 (Jun. 2011), 327–349

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    and Chatti, M.A

    Kilamo, T., Hammouda, I. and Chatti, M.A. 2012. Teaching Collaborative Software Development: A Case Study. Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Software Engineering (Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012), 1165–1174

    work page 2012

  56. [56]

    Kirschner, P.A. 2001. Using integr ated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Learning and Instruction. 10, (2001), 1–9

    work page 2001

  57. [57]

    and Charters, S

    Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. 2007. Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering

    work page 2007

  58. [58]

    Kitchenham, B. et al. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology. 51, 1 (Jan. 2009), 7– 15

    work page 2009

  59. [59]

    and Porras, J

    Knutas, A., Ikonen, J. and Porras, J. 2013. Communication Patterns in Collaborative Software Engineering Courses: A Case for Computer -supported Collaboration. PREPRINT COPY. Find the original at http://ijits-bg.com Proceedings of the 13th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (New York, NY, USA, 2013), 169–177

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    and Ichikawa, T

    Kokubo, M., Nakamura, M. and Ichikawa, T. 2007. Learn ing Communities for Information Systems Design Class with Process Model Approach. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference, KES 2007 and XVII Italian Workshop on Neural Networks Conference on Knowledge -based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems: Part III (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007), 499–506

    work page 2007

  61. [61]

    LeJeune, N. 2003. Critical Components for Successful Collaborative Learning in CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 19, 1 (Oct. 2003), 275–285

    work page 2003

  62. [62]

    Liccardi, I. et al . 2007. The Role of Social Networks in Students’ Learning Experiences. Working Group Reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (New York, NY, USA, 2007), 224–237

    work page 2007

  63. [63]

    and Sudweeks, F

    Lim, H.L. and Sudweeks, F. eds. 2013. Innovative Methods and Technologies for Electronic Discourse Analysis:. IGI Global

    work page 2013

  64. [64]

    and Wang, K

    Liu, C. and Wang, K. 2012. Analysis and Modeling of Computer -Supported Collaborative Learning System. 2012 International Conference on Control Engineering and Communication Technology (ICCECT) (Dec. 2012), 1026–1028

    work page 2012

  65. [65]

    Lonchamp, J. 2005. A Structured Chat Framework for Distributed Educational Settings. Proceedings of th 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (Taipei, Taiwan, 2005), 403–407

    work page 2005

  66. [66]

    Marcos-García, J .A. et al. 2007. A Role -Based Approach for the Support of Collaborative Learning Activities. e-Service Journal. 6, 1 (Fall 2007), 40–58

    work page 2007

  67. [67]

    Marcos, J.A. et al . 2006. Adapting Interaction Analysis to Support Evaluation and Regulation: A Case Study. Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2006 (Jul. 2006), 125–129

    work page 2006

  68. [68]

    and Coccoli, M

    Maresca, P., Stanganelli, L. and Coccoli, M. 2011. Managing a Software Project Leveraging Students’ Cooperation: On the Road to Eclipse (OTRE) Experience. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Product Focused Software Development and Process Improvement (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 96–100

    work page 2011

  69. [69]

    Martínez, A. et al . 2003. Combining qualitative evaluation and social network analysis for the study of classroom social interactions. Computers & Education. 41, 4 (Dec. 2003), 353

    work page 2003

  70. [70]

    and Harrer, A

    Martinez-Mones, A., Dimitriadis, Y. and Harrer, A. 2008. Interaction -Aware Design for Learning Applications Reflections from the CSCL Field. Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2008. ICALT ’08 (Jul. 2008), 539–541

    work page 2008

  71. [71]

    Martinez-Mones, A. et al . 2005. Multiple Case Studies to Enhance Project -Based Learning in a Computer Architecture Course. IEEE Transactions on Education . 48, 3 (Aug. 2005), 482–489

    work page 2005

  72. [72]

    and Collazos, C.A

    Martínez, R., Guerrero, L.A. and Collazos, C.A. 2004. A model and a pattern for the collection of collaborative action in CSCL systems. In J. Mostow & P. Tedesco (Eds.) ITS 2004 Workshop on Designing Computational Models of Collaborative Learning Interaction (2004), 31–36. PREPRINT COPY. Find the original at http://ijits-bg.com

    work page 2004

  73. [73]

    and Vojinovic, O

    Milentijevic, I., Ciric, V. and Vojinovic, O. 2008. Version control in project -based learning. Computers & Education. 50, 4 (May 2008), 1331–1338

    work page 2008

  74. [74]

    and Dybå, T

    Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T. and Dybå, T. 2010. A teamwork model for understandi ng an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology . 52, 5 (2010), 480–491

    work page 2010

  75. [75]

    and Barnes, T

    Nickel, A. and Barnes, T. 2010. Games for CS Education: Computer -supported Collaborative Learning and Multiplayer Games. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 274–276

    work page 2010

  76. [76]

    Okamoto, T. 2004. Collaborative technology and new e -pedagogy. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004. Proceedings (Sep. 2004), 1046 – 1047

    work page 2004

  77. [77]

    and Fortes, R.P.M

    Pansanato, L.T.E. and Fortes, R.P.M. 2005. Strategies for Automatic LOM Metadata Generating in a Web -based CSCL Tool. Proceedings of the 11th Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web (New York, NY, USA, 2005), 1–8

    work page 2005

  78. [78]

    and Meiszner, A

    Papadopoulos, P.M., Stamelos, I.G. and Meiszner, A. 2013. Enhancing software engineering education through open source projects: Four years of students’ perspectives. Education and Information Technologies. 18, 2 (Jun. 2013), 381–397

    work page 2013

  79. [79]

    Petersen, K. et al . 2008. Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (2008), 1

    work page 2008

  80. [80]

    Phelps, A.M. et al. 2005. An Open-source CVE for Programming Education: A Case Study. ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Courses (New York, NY, USA, 2005)

    work page 2005

Showing first 80 references.