Abstract: The importance of the option for one epistemological approach when
designing or choosing a learning environment is discussed in this paper. The
adequacy of a CSCL environment to learning can only be assessed through the view
of a specific learning theory. Thus we have chosen a socio-constructivist
approach of collaborative learning, based on Piaget's Genetic Epistemology to
analyze a couple of CSCL environments. We present the theory guidelines,
together with a description of the environments, and discuss them according to
those principles.
Keywords : CSCL environments, epistemology, constructivism
Approximate word counts: 5200
Men have become more and more competitive, specialized, individualist and
attached to material values over the last decades, due to established society
values. Floating against the tide, contemporary philosophers and thinkers among
which can be cited Edgar Morin and Humberto Maturana claim for a more holistic
view of situations. Their concepts are based in the belief that it is not
possible to understand the complex, globalized and interconnected today's world
through a fragmented analysis of reality.
Professor Michael Gibbon (The Economist, 1997), secretary-general of the
Association of Commonwealth Universities also sees present leading science not
as a consequence of placing one brick over another within a single discipline,
but as the result of complex problems that cut across many disciplines. For
him, either universities adapt to the changes, or they will be pushed to the
margin of science. In different words, Edgar Morin (2000) argues that a
reforming of thought is needed, which would allow full use of intelligence to
tackle those challenges and the connection of two cultures (social and
scientific), torn apart by disciplinary views of science. It is a pragmatic, not
a programmatic reform, related to our capacity to organize
thought.
Following this same line of thought, it is now usual to talk
about a Cognitive Ecology, pointing out the perception that knowledge is a
context inserted concept, and the strong inter-relation between cognitive and
social development. As Levy (1993) says:
"intelligence or cognition is the result
of complex networks where a great
number of human, biological and technical actors interact. It is no longer "me"
who is intelligent, but "me" with the human group in which I am a member,
with my language, and a whole inheritance of methods and intellectual technologies
(among which, the use of writing) "(p. 135).
The results of Doise & Mugni research (apud Dillembourg, 1995) have shown
that, in certain conditions, the work of pairs could be better than that of
individuals. From these results, it has been proved by many researchers that
learning happens at the individual level, but it may be fostered by social
exchange. Social interaction and culture play an important role in the individual's
cognitive development. This is the underlining principle of
Collaborative Learning. Adding the advances in computer science, more
specifically, communication and interaction tools, we come to CSCL - Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning. Only under the label CSCL many research
dimensions can be found, as pointed out by Pierre Dillembourg (1999) in the
introduction of a book about Collaborative Learning. As a final product of this
research field are CSCL Environments.
In our point of view, it is crucial to establish a profound liaison between
the epistemological basis of the teacher's educational conduct and the
pedagogical approach adopted in the environment design, to assure a really
effective use of these new technologies in an educational context. Without it we
will have nothing more than a pseudo-modernization of a meaningless educational
practice. In this article we intend to discuss a social-constructivist approach
of learning, developed from Piaget´s Genetic Epistemolology, and to analyze the
adequacy of resources offered by a couple of CSCL Environments under the light
of this paradigm.
As already pointed out by other researchers (Dillembourg, 1995; Panitz,
2001), there is a great controversy upon the use of the terminology "cooperative
learning" and "collaborative learning". Apparently, in English speaking
literature, the main researchers have been using "collaborative learning",
leaving "cooperative" to the area of work (CSCW). There is also such a controversy in Brazil
(Nitzke et al, 1999), but it is more related to an epistemological issue. For the sake
of this work we will use the term "collaborative", although in Portuguese we
have opted for "cooperative learning" due to the strong piagetian basis of our
works, where the construct "cooperation" has a very specific meaning. No matter
which term is used, what is really important in this research field is the
accomplishment of a group work as opposed to a simple agglutination of
individual pieces of work. To Piaget (1998), this definition is fundamental, as
it implies that the subject is in a stage in which he/she is able to do
reciprocity relations, without which he/she cannot decentralize him/herself.
While the subjects have not yet trespassed their egocentric thought period,
there will be only "two individuals unable of understanding each other, as each
one has the habit of thinking and talking to him/herself" (p.73), making
cooperation impossible.
Therefore, it is very important to stress, that independently of which term
is used, the meaning attached to it is the same, and for that we quote Roschelle
(apud Dillembourg, 1999): "...a coordinated synchronous activity that is the
result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a
problem". In this definition, the need of something to be accomplished together
is explicit, for what a strong negotiation is needed, as the solution must be
shared and not "glued together".
As presented in the Introduction, and to answer the question posed at the
title of this work, it is fundamental to have a very clear picture of the
meaning of "learning". Results presented by Lipponen (1999) , about the
introduction of CSCL in elementary and secondary schools in Finland, indicated
that the main challenges are those related to pedagogical practice, which, in
turn, are directly related to the prevailing view of learning.
For many centuries knowledge has been taken as a fluid, that may be poured
from a "magnun sabere" professor, that knows everything, to a "tabula rasa"
student that knows nothing. In Latin origin languages, the word for teaching
comes from the Latin word "insignare", which means transmission of knowledge or
information useful or essential to education and instruction. This concept,
which represents a behaviorist learning theory "is most ubiquitous in schooling
off all ages" (Clough, 1999). In other words, the epistemological basis for
education, at all levels, in the majority of current institutions is the belief
that it is possible for the teachers to "insignare" the students.
Coming along in this direction, Pfister (1999) takes a very common position
among computer scientists, as he defines "for simplicity, that knowledge can be
described as a collection of facts; and that the term "fact" is used extremely
generically, including cognitive units such as propositions, rules, productions,
etc."
During the past century, Jean Piaget conducted many scientific studies about
the way humans acquire knowledge, and they point to another direction. In his
Genetic Epistemology (1990), Piaget considers that cognitive development occurs
as a consequence of an interaction between the subject and the object, source of
his interest. The human brain works based on signification schema (a term
introduced by Jean Piaget that refers to an internal representation of external
experience in terms of a symbol, a representational outline, a percept or a
concept), which are in permanent adaptation through continuous and simultaneous
process of assimilation (the schemas of the subject are modified to adapt and
incorporate the elements of the object) and accommodation (the elements of the
object are modified by the action of the subject). Therefore, a disequilibrium of
this process is necessary for cognitive development. This
disequilibrium will
promote the construction of new schema upon those already existing, leading to a
growing spiral connected to many others through nets of individual significance.
In this context, learning is the result of a process occurring through the
relationship between the one who teaches and the one(s) who learn(s), and even
among those, who are learning. Nevertheless, the construction of knowledge
will be individual, which means that each one will learn in his/her particular
manner.
There is another concept created by Piaget, which is still not very much
discussed in literature, but helps a more complete understanding of the
knowledge acquisition process, and consequently, of learning. We are talking
about the notion of reflective abstraction (Piaget, 1995). The theory of
abstraction demonstrates how new ideas can be constructed in the thought. With
it, Piaget could more thoroughly show why new knowledge could not be taught in a
deterministic manner, and why this knowledge comes neither from the apprentice's
maturation nor from the teacher's or the teaching material imposition, or even
from sheer empirical experience.
Piaget states that any new knowledge is constructed because it is extracted
from the coordination of the actions or the coordination of the coordination of
actions, and not directly from the observable (objects and actions). He,
therefore, demonstrates that it is not enough to show contents for the students
to learn. It is necessary to create situations for them to establish
relationships, to establish relationships between relationships, to generate
renewed constructions and to recreate the notions that are expected from him/her
to learn. That is how the comprehension of knowledge is achieved.
Translating these concepts to a pedagogical plan, it is perceived that the figure of a teacher that "teaches" a student becomes incoherent and a new role must be drawn for the teacher. In this view, the teacher will help, stimulate and afford the student the 'construction" of his knowledge, through a participative process. That is the reason why the application of Piaget's theory to education takes the name of Constructivism.
The importance of the social or cultural influence in personal development is
growing steadily in the society in which we live in, as it can be seen in the
work of today's philosophers, among which there can be mentioned Pierre Levy
(1993), Edgar Morin (2000) and Humberto Maturana (1999).
Although Piaget has been criticized for not having privileged the importance
of the social in cognitive development (Lourenço, 1994), he has also considered
the importance of interactions. For him "it is precisely the constant exchanges
of ideas with others that allow us to decentrate and assure the possibility of
inner coordination of the relationships and the actions are, in fact, interactions, which
are "conducts modifying one another, [...] or forms of cooperation, which mean
operations mutually performed or in reciprocal correspondence" (p.22). It may be
important to stress again, that Piaget's understanding of interaction is more
than a simple exchange between people or between the subject and the object of
his/hers interest. Interaction means exactly simultaneity between agents and,
hence, knowledge happens where they meet and not only in one of the
participants. Subject and object, or student and teacher or student and mate are
not a binary opposition, but a dialectic dyad. This dyad is, consequently,
dynamic, and results in changes in both participants, as one constitutes the
other by the very own opposition, which characterizes them (Franco,
1999).
Proceeding with Piaget's work, Perret-Clermont (1980) has concentrated her studies at the influence of social interactions in cognitive development, emphasizing the importance of the socio-cognitive conflict in an interactionist and constructivist approach. For her, "social interaction does not merely offer a kind of "intellectual nourishment" to assimilate, but rather stimulates an activity of accommodation, and it is this which creates new development" (p.174).
According to Dillembourg et al (1995), this perspective is the basis for a
socio-constructivist approach of collaborative learning. One of the differences
between this approach and the other two (socio-cultural and shared cognition) is
to be based on a dialectic and dynamic process. This means that even two
students with the same level of development may benefit from the interaction, as
each one will be participating from his/her perspective, what may favor a
conflict situation, thus leading to learning.
At previous sections we had the intention of underlining the importance of an
epistemological option to create or choose a method or work environment for
education. Teachers' main concern is usually with the amount of material to be
transferred to their students, with some attempts of improving aesthetic pattern
of the transmitted information. Modern computing technology fits perfectly for
that goal, with its amazing capacity of adding colors, movement and sound to the
transmission of information. However, this is an underutilization of the
potentiality offered by the new technology to the improvement of
learning.
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning - CSCL Environments have been,
therefore, developed thinking about an intelligent use of computing technology.
These environments take advantage not only of storing huge amount of information
but, mainly, of communication and interaction among people at a speed,
efficiency and cost never reached by any other existing system. In our context,
CSCL environments are characterized by a social-constructivist approach, which
underlining principles may be summarized by the importance of the contribution
of the group in the individual construction of knowledge by the subject.
In our analysis, we have studied two environments designed to support
Distance Education that, in our opinion, show very different characteristics and
help us to evaluate the relationship between the environment and a pedagogical
view.
AulaNet (Figure 2) is an environment based on the Web, developed at the
Software Engineering Laboratory-LES-of the Computer Science Department at
PUC-Rio, to create and support distance education courses. This research project
began at July 1997 "due to the perception that information technology (Internet,
Intranets, WWW, etc) could supply solutions for Web-based education and
training, which are crucial aspects of the growing information society" (Eduweb,
2001).
The objectives of AulaNet are: (a) promote the Web as an educational
environment; (b) contribute to pedagogical changes, giving support to
re-creation; (c) encourage the evolution of knowledge (as much for the students
as well as for the instructors); and (d) create knowledge communities (Lucena et
alii, 1998).
The focus of the environment design is support teachers in course creation.
Using AulaNet, the teacher does not need to know any Internet programming
language to create, change or offer distance education courses, as the
environment provides separation between contents and navigation. A set of
communication, coordination and cooperation mechanisms are offered, so the
teacher can customize the interface and navigational structure of his/her course
according with the objectives that have to be achieved in the learning
process.
The environment is based on a cooperative approach, in a groupware point of
view and stays away of metaphors adopted by a great number of actual
environments, which simulate classrooms, libraries, blackboards and so on
(Lucena et alii, 2000). In this point of view, cooperation means the possibility
of contributing to the workgroup, not necessarily through peer
interactions.
For Lucena et alii (2000), in AulaNet, the cooperation concept must be
understood as the material prepared by the teacher and, under a constructivist
point of view, the creation of space for anyone's contribution (other teachers
and students). Among these mechanisms, there are tools for material download and
suggestion of teachers and/or students as co-authors.
Communication tools support the information exchange between teachers and students. These mechanisms are: mail, interest group, discussion group, newsgroup and chat. Coordination tools support the workgroup organization: agenda, course news, teacher evaluation, enrollment and automatic messages. Assessment tools are: tests, test results, exercises and exercises results. Cooperation tools supply the means to promote learning, problems solution and workgroup that is, the means to share ideas and information.
The environment of the Distance Education Course of the National Program of
Computers in Education (ProInfo) of the Ministry of Education (Brazil) was
initially developed to support the Teachers' Continued Education for the
Program. Nowadays, the platform is available for other courses, through anyone
connected to the Ministry.
In this environment, users can assume different roles: as students, guides
(teachers that orientate students in Seminars and Learning Projects),
"workshopers" (teachers responsible for the elaboration and attendance of
activities developed in workshops) and monitors (trainees that help students'
activities), besides the Articulation group, created to manage the environment.
The environment offers four modules: Support (Apoio), Library (Biblioteca),
Learning Projects (Projetos de Aprendizagem) and Workshops and Seminars
(Oficinas e Seminários), as it can be seen in Figure 3.
Support Module holds activities related to the organization (or
administration) of resources, with tools such as Agenda, Attendant (accessed by
chat), News/Events, Tools (download area), Forum, e-mail, Statistics and
Evaluation. In the Library Module are stored any bibliographic
references, such as reference texts, articles, course production, books,
magazines, thesis and Internet links.
The Learning Projects module offers a series of resources to create
and publish projects developed by the students, as Projects Data Base, Projects,
Webfolios and Notepad. In any of these spaces, students can publish new texts as
well as access material published by their colleagues.
Finally, the Workshops and Seminars module allows access to workshops
and seminars offered by the course. While Seminars have the purpose of promoting
the discussion and reflection of course relevant themes, Workshops offer
resources for implementation and exploration of software, necessary to Learning
Projects implementation.
The two environments presented have been tested in courses promoted by this
University e typify two different categories, considering the characteristics
and available resources. As mentioned in the Introduction, this analysis is
performed under the light of a social-constructivist paradigm, as derived from a
learning approach developed from Piaget's Genetic Epistemolology, discussed in
the previous section.
Aulanet could be characterized as a learningware environment, which combines
characteristics of courseware with many forms of interaction (interaction
between apprentices and interaction between apprentice/instructor). The main
focus of this environment is to allow interaction among participants in the
discussion of material previously prepared by the teacher. A few resources help
the teacher to create and publish (in the Internet) a new course. The
environment is easy to use either by the teacher or by the students, which have
access to all tools through an always-visible menu (named as "remote control").
Nevertheless, facilities offered to the teacher privilege exposition of support
material and information transmission.
This kind of environment maintains a behaviorist approach of learning, as the
teacher is still the main knowledge producer, which will "transfer" it to the
students. Such a behavior does not encourage knowledge development under a
constructivist point of view. According to Piaget, easy access to material
proposed by the teacher does not guaranty learning. For learning to occur the
student has to make relationships over relationships, what may be instigated or
helped by the teacher, but never constructed by him/her in the student's mind.
In this kind of environment the student is not challenged to make his/her own
reinvention of the notions (adaptation), which are been transferred. Thus,
he/she does not have the chance to climb a new step in a growing spiral of
individual significance.
At Aulanet, students' participation occur almost only through
discussion lists or by performing works, exercises and tests, which are not
shared with classmates, as it would be expected in collaborative learning. As a
matter of fact, they serve, mainly as an evaluation resource, based on the
traditional right x wrong system. This behavior is explained by the description
of "cooperation mechanisms", which are understood as tools to help teachers
prepare materials to be presented, and not as a means of exchanging ideas and
constructing a share understanding of a problem. Students' participation in the
elaboration of this material is planned, but only with the permission of the
teacher, in special cases and not as a methodological procedure, as there is no
space to publish students' work.
Analyzing this environment from the point of view of the presented model
(Fig.1), it can be inferred that a very important stage, according to
collaborative learning principles - formalization- is impaired. At a
formalization stage students share the results of their search, analysis and
synthesis, which are exposed to be appreciated by and discussed with the
classmates. They may then take advantage of all the benefits brought about by
the social-cognitive conflicts, which may promote learning. Besides, due to the
few possibilities to build a shared work, this environment would not be
characterized as collaborative, but as cooperative. The students have
difficulties to share the construction of a common work, what they can do is
assemble pieces of work that could have been created separately and simply fit
to constitute a whole.
The Proinfo environment has a more open structure, which could also be
used for instructionism, but allows a learning process more similar to that
foreseen by a social-constructivist theory.
The main difference between the two environments is how learning is proposed
to the students. In the first one, the starting point is texts, presentations,
slide shows or reference texts supplied by the teacher to the students, typical
of a behaviorist approach, as mentioned before. In the second one, the knowledge
base is formalized through projects to be developed by the students and shared
with the group in individual Web folios. In this context, the environment is
designed to support this sort of activity, and not the transmission of contents
by the teacher. As a consequence, in a project based learning strategy
(Fagundes, 1999), as this, the students should follow all the stages proposed by
the presented model (Fig.1). During this practice, students are in a continuous
stage of equilibrium / disequilibrium stimulated by teacher's challenges and
classmates responses, promoting a constant process of adaptation, which may lead
to learning.
At this environment, the choice of themes to be developed in the projects may
be guided by the teacher or can be freely chosen by the students. Any way, it is
very important that whatever choice is taken, the answer to it must fulfill
students' needs, as according to Piaget (1998), it is fundamental for a lesson to
have meaning, as "it only answers to a need if the embedded knowledge
corresponds to the reality experienced and spontaneously lived by the child"
(p.59).
Discussion tools available at both environments are practically the same
(electronic mail, discussion lists, etc.), but the kind of communication and the
discussion topics established in each one is what differentiates educational
practices at those environments. While at Proinfo interactions support
individual (or groups) project construction, at Aulanet they are specific over
themes proposed and directed by the teacher. This is a fundamental difference
according to Piaget's understanding of interaction, which should be dynamic,
dialectic and reciprocal, as previously discussed.
In both environments a prioritization of individual construction can be
perceived. Even at Proinfo environment, which allows a strong interaction and
offers many tools to promote socio-cognitive conflicts, there is no space for a
shared or group work construction, as it would be desirable in a truly
collaborative learning environment, based on a socio-constructivist
approach.
Even though these environments have been projected for distance
education, they can be, and have been, utilized as a support for mixed or
in-class strategies. In these experiments it was noticed that students still
prefer personal contact than electronic mail or forum, showing that, although
relatively well acquainted with new technologies, they still do not constitute
them.
In this same direction, the pleasure afforded by the possibility of
"seeing" or even "hearing" their partners was perceived in distance education
courses. As a consequence, the importance of including more resources to support
multimedia communication, such as video conferencing, must be
emphasized.
The attachment to old paradigms is clearly noticed in the introduction of
constructivist practices. A constructivist approach to learning obliges the
students to think and make decisions instead of copying, memorizing and
repeating information. The first moments are always traumatic, but the results
after a period of adaptation have been rewarding.
Practice with different CSCL environments has demonstrated how important is
previous planning in the success of the introduction of a new methodology. The
objectives to be met must be very clear for the teacher. The teacher's
epistemological view of the pedagogical practice must also be very well defined
and he/she must know the characteristics and particularities of the students.
It is very important to emphasize that this work did not intend to look for
any kind of value or quality assessment, on the contrary, its intention was to
evaluate adequacy of different CSCL environments to a specific epistemological
learning approach. With this we expect to have demonstrated that in order to
evaluate the worthiness of any learning environment, it is very important to
make the choice for one learning paradigm to start with. This is the only way to
answer correctly if any CSCL environment really constitutes a learning
environment.
An option for a social-constructivist paradigm goes beyond allowing students
participation. It brings along the understanding that the student is an active
subject, not only to choose tasks, but also to build knowledge and point new
directions for the course, in a collaborative and interactive manner with
his/her classmates, with teachers, with the computer environment as well as with
external agents. We can, therefore, conclude that the adoption of an adequate CSCL
environment can lead to a good contribution to the learning process, specially when the teacher does not
simply want to transpose his\her in-class practices to a distance one, neither
want to just make concessions for the student to "learn alone", but is willing
to think over the very own meaning of teaching and learning.
Upon reflection over these considerations he/she may opt for a certain
pedagogical approach and choose the kind of environment best suited to his/her
choices. Other way around, the teacher will be making a
"pseudo-modernization" of
his/her pedagogical practice, which is very seductive due to the glamour
associated to it, but in reality does not promote any cognitive gain neither for
the teacher, even less for the students.
Dillembourg , P. (1999) What do you mean by "collaborative learning"? in
Collaborative learning: cognitive an computational approaches, Elsevier, Oxford,
UK.
Dillembourg, P. et alli (1995) The evolution of research on collaborative
learning, in Learning in humans and machines: towards an interdisciplinary learning science, Ed. S. P.Reiman, Elsevier, Oxford , UK , p.
189-211.
Eduweb (2001) AulaNet Guide. Available at the Internet: http://guiaaulanet.eduweb.com.br/english/historicoi.htm
Fagundes,
L. C., Sato, L., and Maçada, D. (1999) Aprendizes do futuro: as inovações
começaram. Editora do MEC, Brasília, Brazil
Franco, S. R. K. (1999)
Piaget e a dialética. In Becker, F. and Franco, S. R. K. Revisitando Piaget.
Mediação, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Levy, P. (1993) As tecnologias da
inteligência - O futuro do pensamento na era da informática. Editora 34, Rio de
Janeiro
Lipponen, L (1999) The Challenges for Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning in Elementary and Secondary Level: Finnish Perspectives,
Proceedings of CSCL99 (Palo Alto, CA, December 1999), Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. Available at the Internet: http://kn.cilt.org/cscl99/A46/A46.HTM
Lourenço, O. M.
(1994) Além de Piaget? Sim, mas devagar. Editora Almedina, Coimbra,
Portugal
Lucena, C.J et alii (1998b). AulaNetTM - An Environment for the
Development and Maintenance of Courses on the Web. In: International Conference
on Engineering Education. August, 17-20, 1998. Rio de Janeiro,
RJ.
Lucena, C.J, Fuks, H.H., Milidiú, R., Laufer,C., Blois, M., Choren,
R., Torres, V. and Daflon, L. (1998) AulaNet: Helping Teachers to do their
Homework. Lab. de Engenharia de Software. Depto. de Informática, PUC-Rio. Rio de
Janeiro, 1998.
________. O AulaNet e as novas tecnologias de informação
aplicadas à educação baseada na web (2000). Proceedings of the VI CIED
(Brasília, Brazil, August 2000). Available at the Internet: http://www.abed.org.br/antiga/htdocs/paper_visem/carlos_jose_pereira/carlos_jose_pereira_de_lucena.htm
Maturana,
H., and Nisis, S.(1999) Transformacin en la convivencia. Dolmen, Caracas,
Venezuela
Morin, E.(2000) A cabeça bem-feita. Bertrand, Rio de Janeiro,
Brasil.
Nitzke, J. A., Carneiro, M. L. F., Geller, M. F., and Santarosa,
L. C. M. (1999) Avaliando aplicações para criação de ambientes de aprendizagem
colaborativa.," in Proceedings of X SBIE (Curitiba, Brazil, August 1999
Panitz, T. (2001) Distinction between definitions of collaborative and
cooperative learning. Available at the Internet: http://mathforum.org/epigone/cl/sayjelnol/jayktby7jnzb@forum.swarthmore.edu
Perret-Clermont,
A. N. (1978) Desenvolvimento da inteligência e interação social. Instituto
Piaget, Neuchatel, Swizerland
Pfister, H-R, Wessner, M., Holmer, T., and
Steinmetz, R. (1999) Negotiating about Shared Knowledge in a Cooperative
Learning Environment Proceedings of CSCL99 (Palo Alto, CA, December 1999),
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Available at the Internet: http://sll.stanford.edu/CSCL99/papers/monday/pfisterwessnerS93.html
Piaget
J. (1998) O espírito de solidariedade na criança e a colaboração internacional
in Sobre a pedagogia, Ed. S. Parrat, Casa do Psicólogo, São Paulo, Brazil, pp.
59-78.
Piaget, J. (1990) Epistemologia genética. Martins Fontes, São
Paulo, Brazil.
Piaget, J. (1973) A explicação em sociologia, in Estudos
sociológicos. Companhia Editora Forense, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp.
17-113.
Piaget, J.ean et alii. (1995) Abstração reflexionante. Artes
Médicas, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Rosnay, J. D. and Rodrigues, J. N., (2001)
À procura do 5º paradigma para a gestão, Available at the Internet: http://www.janelanaweb.com/digitais/rosnay.html
Souza,
R. S., Menezes, C. S. D., and Souza, D. S. (2000) Inserção da Informática na
Educação - Uma proposta baseada no processo de aprendizagem, Proceedings of XI
SBIE (Maceio, Brazil, November 2000), p. 191-198.
The Economist, (1997)
The knowledge factory - a survey of universities, The Economist. London, UK
.