Play, learn, work. Towards a collaborative environment. Application to collaborative design virtual environments

Research methodology. Play, learn, work. Towards a collaborative environment.

Application to collaborative design virtual environments

Gonzalo Reyero Aldama

Abstract

This research is aimed at the study of online collaborative work platforms. I will depict a general background of the topic, its beginnings, landmarks, disruptive changes and finally a state-of-the art. But if we are to analyze the success or failure of these platforms, we have to understand first its primary goals, actors the environments they re-create, its actual evolvement and its future possibilities.

Depicting the evolution of collaborative design within the last 20 years, parallel to the evolution of technological tools, computer aided systems and interactive environments, and aims to establish an optimal flow from the three main actions or strategies we use in everyday action…play, learn, and work.

As an architecture teacher with 10 years’ experience on design practicing and teaching, I will specifically focus my research to current collaborative design platforms and scenarios that can take advantage of the open source technologies. I will list a current set of design tools and platforms according to intended design goals, and I will analyze individual and group behaviors in these scenarios, ever changing and subject to generational technology approach.

I will sum up my research results in a table of possible optimal scenario, human profiles and design tools combinations.

Keywords collaborative work; collaborative environments; group behavior; role assignment; team building; strategies; serious games; domains; end user; immersive learning; time sourcing; visualizations; ubiquitous technology; online deliberation; computer sociology; 3d worlds; collective imagination; crowd sourcing, time-sourcing, time-sensitive design, 4D design;

1/23




ACM indicators

D.2.2 Design Tools and Techniques.

-User interfaces.

-Human-Computer Interaction and Visualization.

Contents

Abstract....................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Keywords ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

ACM indicators .......................................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Background ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Environments/scenarios/domains. ................................................................................................................ 5

2.1. Collaborative (learning) environments/scenarios/domains. ........................................................... 5

2.2. Competitive (working) enviroments/scenarios/domains. ................................................................ 6

3. Profiles ................................................................................................................................................................. 6

3.1. Achievers ................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2. Explorers. .................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.3. Killers ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

3.4. Socializers ................................................................................................................................................... 8

4.1. Collaborative differed time platforms. ............................................................................................... 11

4.2. Collaborative real time plattforms ...................................................................................................... 13

5. Strategies .......................................................................................................................................................... 14

5.1. Profile mix inside a team ....................................................................................................................... 15

6. Conclussions .................................................................................................................................................... 21

7. Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................... 22

2/23




1. Background

For years, users have seen themselves as passive actors on a linear scenario, where interaction was understood as user-machine, and any actions undertaken by them were corresponded by a specific answer.

Caldwell (2012) argues that “Ambient media architecture can provide place-based collaborative learning experiences and pathways for social interactions that would not be otherwise possible.” [3].What I intend to do in this work is to both trace back and extend these potentialities to other life stages experiences (as defined by the author), such as playing and working, each one as a metaphor of the other terms.

(Fig.1) (Fig.2) Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology, 2D and 3D diagram

Since we are born, we adopt a linear narrative where we adopt different roles (explorer, achiever, leader, team worker...) in different circumstances and life stages, to accommodate to the environment. The way we can attune ourselves to the different profiles needed in each occasion, guided overall by empathy, determine much the final success of us as individuals and members of the group.

For cultural and (primarily) biological reasons, in an unconscious way, we adopt a role into a human group, even a role in regards to the device we are using. All this generates a complex set of relationships that settle naturally. To give a hint of how these potentialities could fit better, and which tools at hand and scenarios are optimal to develop these potentialities for the individual and common benefit, is the scope of this study.

3/23




(Fig.3) Linear narrative case scenario of a human profile. (Source: Own elaboration)

As communication technologies moved forward in the 90’s, the interaction concept broadened to user-user, so interface had to be more sophisticated, and adopt different spatialities [1] to host multi user actions. We star using computer architecture terms like domains, platforms, and interfaces that somehow represent a virtual space where actors (users) could evolve in different ways, [2].

Nowadays, research on the relations between actions in different life stages or age group [2] have helped trace a narrative between playing, learning and working routines.

(Fig. 4) Non linear narrative case scenario of a human profile. (Source: Own elaboration)

4/23




2. Environments/scenarios/domains.

Different research experiments have been done to analyze the impact of the everyday life scenarios on our routines and actions. In a virtual technological perspective, computer scientist call these scenarios “domains” (either single user or multi user). Most interesting is the experiment conducted in Queensland university (2012) where people of different age sectors were asked where they developed their daily routines, by drawing a topological scheme and putting colored stickers onto them. [3]

Gladwell , Bilandzic and Foth found out that “…Typically places are characterized by a range of one or more activities associated with work, play, and learning. Rarely would a place have only a dot of one color. This reveals a cross correlation of such activities within multiple places…”. [3]

That has led to the notion of “environment” [4] as the milieu where we perform a specific action, as a game field with specific rules where actors (users) become players with different profiles and orientations.

It is out of lived experiences and through applied meaning that people as groups or as individuals change spaces into places. Architecture as a discipline is concerned with informing the design of physical infrastructure in a way that accommodates the conceived function of a particular space, therefore creating place. Information and Communication Technology (ICT), in particular social media, helps to overcome proximity and time challenges within physical space, thus affording social interactions that would not be otherwise possible.[3] [4] [6]

Richard Bartle (1996), described four approaches playing multi user domains (MUDs) [12] that "....arise from the inter-relationship of two dimensions of playing style: action versus interaction, and world-oriented versus player-oriented…”.

2.1. Collaborative (learning) environments/scenarios/domains.

In environments headed to a common goal (learning in this case) a collaborative atmosphere is built. As Wilson (2007) puts it: “…Current systems used in education follow a consistent design pattern, one that is not supportive of lifelong learning or personalization ….”[5]

Personal learning environment have evolved into virtual learning environments [5], but this is not new. For decades now, these learning techniques have been implemented in universities all over the world. It is remarkable case of UNED in Spain, a long distance university with more than 40 years’ experience currently engaging 260.000+ students

(Fig.7) Learning environments. Caldwell, G., Bilandzic, M., & Foth, M. (2012).

(Fig.8) Learning environments. The design reflects an integrated setting where learners are either guiding one another and/or fully engaged in acquiring knowledge for themselves and the professor acts as a facilitator guiding the learner(s), the learning process and the subjects to be

(Fig.6) Working, playing and learning spots in a house. The intensity of work, play, and learning associated with these activities is indicated by the participants’ use of coloured dots.

5/23




[9]…whose “approach is based on the ‘distance methodology’ and ‘continuous evaluation’ of the students’ work and periodic reviews.” (Romero, L.; Espinosa, I.; Espinosa, M.M.; Dominguez, M., 2015)

2.2. Competitive (working) enviroments/scenarios/domains.

Traditionally, once the learning stage is finished (before the continuous earning paradigm, a more competitive scenario is entered. Experiments now result in real actions with real consequences, and the playing and learning precedent stages are considered as a “non serious” [7] simulation of the future responsibilities. Still, an attunement phase needs to occur, because mentality needs to shift from one scenario to the next. What happens in this transition is a terrible loss of opportunity of “joy in the making”.[14]As Dougherty (2008), explained on his experiment “…generation of hackers was connected to a previous generation of tinkerers(…)Some of the old and forgotten low-tech skills are being re-discovered and married to high-tech know-how”.

That means, rediscovering the reasons and motivations for” professional” (intended as expert) work, traced back in more joyful playing and learning experiences, can reveal many potentialities and streamline many indicicual an d group workflows in a positive way.

In the left diagram, The circles represent an individual ‘person’ and the lines represent ‘resources’ connecting people as each person’s public and social space overlap in a coworking network. Coworking is mobile, where resources and people change in space and time. (Fig.9). This diagram shows how Little people interact with the whole group, only with their “next in line” partner. A network like this, influenced by the industrial paradigm, is very vulnerable in terms of self-consciousness, sense of belonging to a up and personal reward.

Many studies have made evident the positive effect of empathy and group awareness in work environments [3] [7] [8]

3. Profiles Following and combining some of the methodology and discoverings of the Bartle test of gamer’s psychology [12], the gamification theories [8] and the 6 thinking hats paradigm [13], I consider there are dominant profiles and attitudes in relationship to the according scenarios.

A taxonomy of players was developed by Andreasen and Downey in 2001 [17] following the principles indicated by Bartle five years earlier, in 1996[12]. It is very interesting to observe that the word “player” or “game”

(Fig.9) Coworking Network. “Defining a Culture”: The Paradigm Shift Toward a Collaborative Economy)

(Fig.9) Personal bubbles and realms

6/23




here can be swapped by “learner” or “worker” without any loss of meaning. I can´t help but just quote some of these, in my opinion, brilliant excerpts.

3.1. Achievers “…These are players/learners/workers who prefer to gain "points," levels, equipment, status and other concrete measurements of succeeding in a game/learning environment/work environment. They will go to great lengths to achieve rewards that confer them little or no gameplay/learning/work joy, simply for the prestige of having it…”

Single-player appeal to the Achiever.

“…Every game/learning task/work project that can be "beaten" in some way caters to the achiever play style by giving them something to accomplish. Games/tasks/project that offer special movies, extra endings, or other bonuses for beating it with a 100% completion rating appeal to achievers…”[12][17][18]

Multi-player appeal to the Achiever.

“…One of the appeals of online gaming to the Achiever is that he or she has the opportunity to show off their skill and hold elite status to others. “They value (or despise) the competition from other Achievers, and look to the Socializers to give them praise. As they achieve more, they are no longer easy targets of the Killers and may enjoy their new position on the chain. These gamers also tend to like seeing their user names at the top of scoreboards and ladder systems. They like to compare themselves to other gamers from around the world...”. [17]

3.2. Explorers. “…Explorers have a tendency to dig around and prefer discovering areas, creating maps and learning about hidden places. They often feel restricted when a game-learn-work dynamic expects them to move on within a certain time, as that does not allow them to look around at their own pace…” [17]

Single-player appeal to the Explorer

“..Combat and gaining levels or points is secondary to the Explorer(…)The Explorer will often enrich themselves in any back story or lore they can find about the people and places in-game. Whereas an Achiever may forget about previous games as soon as they've conquered them, the Explorer will retain rich memories about what they experienced …”[17]

Multi-player appeal to the Explorer

“..The Explorer benefits much the same way as the Achiever does in the massively multi-player environment, as they are surrounded by people

7/23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Achievers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Single-player_appeal_to_the_Achiever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Multi-player_appeal_to_the_Achiever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Explorers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Multi-player_appeal_to_the_Explorer




who will benefit from their wisdom. They often meet other Explorers and can swap experiences, and most often, Socializers do not mind listening either. Interaction with Killers is usually (though not always) negative, as hostile Killers would interfere with exploration...” [17]

3.3. Killers They thrive on competition with other players, and prefer fighting them to scripted computer-controlled opponents

Single-player appeal to the Killer

“…These gamers love to sow destruction, so games that are high in carnage, action, and destructible environments are definitely a plus. Many of these gamers also enjoy the opportunity to depart from the norm of being "the good guy" who comes to save the day. Instead, they will play on the side of evil or conquest. On the flip side, Killers also represent the archetype which is most interested in affecting their environment, so sandbox games in which they can take a direct hand in building (or destroying) a virtual society will appeal to them as well…”[17]

Multi-player appeal to the Killer

“..For most, the joy of being a Killer results from a friendly competitive spirit. They're in it for the sport, trying to read their opponent's moves and generally acting with honor.

For others, it's more about power and the ability to hurt others or the thrill of the hunt...” [17]

3.4. Socializers There are a multitude of gamers who choose to play games for the social aspect, rather than the actual game itself.

Single-player environments appeal to the Socializer

“…Socializers tend not to be attracted by single player experiences. Since their objective is not so much to win or explore as it is to be social, there are few games that the Socializer enjoy based on their merits. Instead, they play some of the more popular games so that they can use their experience to socialize with others who have played them, or use the multi-player features. However, there are some games designed with their play style in mind …” [17]

Multi-player appeal to the Socializer

“…The online environment is very appealing to the Socializer, as it provides near limitless potential for new relationships. Socializers start filling up their

8/23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Killers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Single-player_appeal_to_the_Killer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Multi-player_appeal_to_the_Killer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Socializers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Single-player_appeal_to_the_Socializer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Multi-player_appeal_to_the_Socializer




friend lists as soon as they start meeting people, and get to know them better through private messages and sometimes even voice chat. They take full advantage of the ability to join guilds or kinships in many online games, and form fast friendships and try to help other people out. They are compatible with just about everyone; even Killers will often get along with the more respectable Socializers…”

4. Platforms: space, place, time

A platform is the virtual “plateau” where user can pursue a goal (playing a game, learning a topic, accomplishing a task) using a given set of tools. The more they appropriate this “space” and the tools available, the more they will turn into a “place”

Time (time-sourcing, time-sensitive design, 4D design.)But time is also a key element, many times forgotten into virtual environments, time is the linking element between virtual and physical environment. The deadline or finishing time of a game, learning task or project is key to the strategies undertaken to accomplish a certain goal (score before a given deadline, set a record, be a deadline-meeter, an achiever)

Regarding the three typical scenarios I am analyzing, I will establish different terms:

Scenario action Target Game (field) play Win the game School/University learn Pass the exam Workplace work Finish the project

It is interesting how the “Game” is an scenario in itself, an immersive environment that doesn’t need an specific location, except for physical game fields with specific rules , while learning and working have been traditionally linked to specific places. More specifically, learning has different connotations depending on the level of studies, and different physical typologies host these different specifications.

“There are not many universities in the world that, like the UNED, have to deal with the problem of having students scattered all over the globe; and who have to work as a team. For example, a grou of four students where one is an architect and is in Buenos Aires, another is an industrial designer and lives in Frankfurt, a third is a civil engineer and is in Santa Cruz de Tenerife and the last one is an industrial engineer and lives in Madrid.” (Romero, L. et al.) [9]

9/23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_(computer_gaming)




Although it is a vast challenge to portrait a whole picture of the topology of collaborative platforms, even more specifically those referred to design tasks, I think there is a key element to differentiate them, whether by presence or by absence. The temporal character of actions taken into these platforms, and its impact of these actions on the whole group. We could argue there are, from this perspective, two kinds of platforms, being the initial ones “a-temporal“ or “asynchronous”, where actions followed a certain sequence but could alter their order and recurrence without impact.

(Fig. t) Evolution of interfaces. (Source: Own elaboration)

And more recently, thanks to better ICT tools, platforms have appeared that perform actions and achieve tasks in real time, more accordingly to real world behaviors.

To give an example. A chat space such as whatsapp or messenger, even email application, constitute asynchronous environments…demands will be responded (or not), but not instantly, or at least in a temporal orderly line. Messages can be answered instantly or in the span or days…that “a-temporal” condition affects the whole system, and is opposite to the “temporal”, instant condition of a phone call.

10/23




4.1. Collaborative asynchronous platforms/tools (specific to design).

Again, we must differentiate the synchronous or asynchronous character of a given platform or set of tools, and the use or misuse that a person can take away from it. This study is not aimed to pontificate about this but rather to point, based on a specific experience, at some optimal ways to use and profit these tools.

Short list of optimal tools and platforms

• Data sharing platforms: Google drive, Dropbox, boxnet.. • Design repositories: bibliocad, autodesk library, 3d warehouse, • Tools : Autocad, Microstation, proE, Catia.

Through an analyze of many tools in the market, a chart of 15 assited design tools have been selected, in terms of shareability, degree of collaboration vs competitiveness (i.e.: results attached to skills)

company web software Image brief definition (company web site)

work profile

shared thinking

cloud based free external

refs

autodesk

http://www.autodesk.com/products/mudbox/overvie

w

Mudbox Digital painting and sculpting software

competitive yes no no no

Easytoyhttp://www.livesforce.com/index_eng.ht

ml

easytoy3D modeling software

sketch-based modeling3D painting method

competitive yes no no no

autodesk Fusion 360 Digital painting and sculpting software

collaborative yes yes no no

Blender Foundation

http://www.blender.org/

Blender

Free to Use. Free to Change. Free to Share. Free to Sell Your Work.

Blender is FREE SOFTWARE.

competitive yes yes yes no

Trimble sketchup

3D modeling software

SketchUp is 3D modeling software

that's easy to learn and incredibly fun to use.

competitive yes no yes yes

clara clara.io clara

full-featured cloud-based 3D modeling, animation

and rendering software tool that runs in your web

browser

collaborative yes yes yes no

11/23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Single-player_appeal_to_the_Explorer




(Chart A) Optimal design tools according to their degree of shareability, shared thinking potential and collaborative vs competitive spirit (to complete)

autocad 2d competitive yes no no yes

Bentley Microstation collaborative yes no no yes

autodesk autocad 3d competitive yes no no yes

Rhinoceros competitive yes no no yes

autodesk REVIT collaborative no no yes

Dassault Catia competitive yes no no yes

Graphisoft Archicad competitive yes no no yes

Autodesk Autodesk Inventor

collaborative no no yes

12/23




4.2. Collaborative synchronous platforms/tools (specific to design).

• Short list of optimal tools and plattforms • Real time collaboration spaces: team viewer, remote desktop,

gotomypc. • Real time design engines: clara.io, autocad 360, autodesk formit

Human profiles Classically, real time performing, demanding environments attract certain human profiles, while more background, discrete, asynchronous tasks that delay reward, drive other profiles. Neither ones nor the others are better or worse, again I will insist on an agnostic approach. We could sum up a typical set of human roles/attitudes in fig.10

(Fig.10) Human profiles.

13/23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test%23Single-player_appeal_to_the_Explorer




Real time environments optimal profiles: the entrepreneur, the overachiever, the hacker, the gamer, the designer, the killer, the socializer, the cheerleader, the superhero, the villain

Real time environments optimal profiles: the achiever, the underachiever, the cheerleader, the thinker, the invisible man, explorer, the wise guy, the villain.

Some of these examples we understand perfectly, some relate to both fields, or not particularly to anyone.

5. Strategies The target of our analysis is here…how to approach a group, or society as a group, with our better weapons… as Goleman says “…I would say that IQ is the strongest predictor of which field you can get into and hold a job in, whether you can be an accountant, lawyer or nurse, for example….”[19]

When it comes to build a team, human profiles tend to position themselves (strategy) according to the rest of profile types, and their recurrence. That is, each person has a dominant profile and tries to assert it within the group, however, different conditions such as the excess of that dominant profile, or the absence of other profiles, can sometimes force the “weakest links” to pay an “emotional toll” and renounce to their natural profile for the benefit of the group [20]

14/23




(Fig.10b) Human profiles balanced mixing tendencies

5.1. Profile mix inside a team

We will propose here an ideal combination of tools and profiles to build a good design . Romero et al. refer to this precisely, when the talk about the benefits of spontaneous team building. “…When the group is formed in an autonomous way, it works better than when the group is created by tutors, that is, the teams work better if the students organize themselves. Here the ‘‘commitment’’ variable becomes an important value...“ [9]

“…Contrary to what one might think, the groups were not formed by similarity of qualifications but, rather cleverly, the students themselves tended to form multidisciplinary groups. When forming the groups, there seems to be no distinction by age or sex…” [9]

15/23




(Fig.11) 6 thinking hats. Strategies. (Source: Own elaboration)

It is also interesting the chart devised by Mario Herger (2014), where different game tools where analyzed in work contexts, and some immanent characteristics were discovered. The transition play-work-learn is described here as game-serious game-simulation-gamification

Play Game

Serious game

Simulation Gamification Enterprise Gamification

Spontaneous Yes No No No No No Rules No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Goals No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Structured No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Real World Outcome No No Yes/No Yes/No Yes Yes

In System No No No Yes/No Yes Yes

It is interesting to see how the more structured the dynamic is, the more result oriented, to a real world outcome it is, underestimating the value of spontaneous dynamics to reach professional solutions

16/23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_(activity)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation




(Fig.12) Map of Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology. (Source: Own elaboration)

Mixing this gamer profile map and projecting it along the life cycle, including learn and work scenarios stickers onto them , we will see certain invariants that go along with us as humans during our whole life, based, as many psychologist agree, on our first childhood years.[2][11]

17/23

http://www.gamerdna.com/quizzes/bartle-test-of-gamer-psychology?cobrand=




(Fig.13) Map of Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology. Playing tools. (Source: Own elaboration)

Seeing specific examples of the games people play, universally known, we understand much better the meaning and extents of these studies, and how they can be used for the benefit of learning and workgroups.

Even non scientific studies put on the table the term “lego people” as opposed to “playmobil people”…that is “ this narrative lego vs playmobil people is in the bottomline of many psychological research nowadays. Still, the terms don´t allow for them to be used openly.

(Fig.15) Map of Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology. Learning tools. (Source: Own elaboration)

Bringing it to the field of working tools, and more specifically design tools in professional environments, there is clearly a set of tools that can be, or should be used in a natural way in certain contexts and professional workgroup ambients, while others respond to different conditions. It is not the natural human tendency to use them, but instead, the market requirements (cost, deadline, quality of the project/product) that rule these combinations.

18/23






(Fig.16) Map of Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology. Working tools. (Source: Own elaboration)

19/23





(Fig.17) Map of Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology. Design collaborative and non-collaborative scenarios and tools. (Source: Own elaboration)

Once again, it is interesting to note that some of these uses don’t happen the way they were supposed to occure when these tools were designed.

(Fig.18) Optimal design tools mixes. (Source: Own elaboration)

20/23





(Fig.18) Chart of possible optimal teambuilding scenarios, result oriented. (Source: Own elaboration)

First thing to clarify is that the profiles indicated in these charts are not based on a “one to one” ratio. Not every single one of them corresponds to one person. Even more so, one person can hold several of these profiles as a personal balance. What I am trying to define here is a sort of recipe of relative quantities of ingredients to achieve a certain goal.

Many observations can be drawn from these diagrams, elaborated from data collected from personal experience and academic and professional surveys, that do not reflect absolute thrust but tendencies.

As we can see in(Fig.18) typically, profiles like “the ninja” or the “superhero” are more aggressive and tend to over perform in short term, fast rewarding tasks...still they need to complement with a thinking profile.

Instead, other mid or long term design tasks demand a more complex mix of profiles and tools. I can’t help but repeat again that these results have to be filtered out to different cases, and theres a growing tendency towards the “one case, one time project”…that is, a project whose conditions are so singular that cannot be replicated in the same way.

6. Conclussions The results of this research have been drawn from over 15 years’ personal experience in architecture practicing and teaching, as well as surveys

21/23




collected along these years I assume these results may have a personal distortion, but they are based on a arguably good mix of academic and corporate environments.

The results, though, are neither directly translatable to other design fields nor constitute a predictable model of future evolvements. More studies will be undertaken in the near future, while these new technologies (and other new ones) penetrate into society.

As Scott Wilson (2007) puts it “It is one of the invariant laws of technology that any new system must co-exist with previous systems, while that in the case of (…) should lose, eventually, its status as the dominant design, the technology will be around us for a long time to come” [5]

While many of these tools have a recent appearance and may become quickly obsolete in confront to others, It must be notated that design tools “per se” are not holders of a “psychological profile”, but instead tend to drive users to a certain work routine. These are indeed, work routines driven by software misuse [10]. Hopefully, these “negative” misuses (those not opening unexpected tool potentials) can be addressed and corrected successfully.

7. Bibliography

[1] Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991), Situated Learning, Cambridge University Press, New York

[2] Turkle, S., Taggart, W., Kidd, C. D., & Dasté, O. (2006). Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship. Connection Science. doi:10.1080/09540090600868912[LINK]

[3] Caldwell, G., Bilandzic, M., & Foth, M. (2012). Towards visualising people’s ecology of hybrid personal learning environments. In Proceedings of the 4th Media Architecture Biennale Conference on Participation - MAB ’12 (pp. 13–22). doi:10.1145/2421076.2421080[LINK]

[4] Weiss, A. (2007), Creating the Ubiquitous Classroom: Integrating Physical and Virtual Learning Spaces, in The International Journal ofLearning, Vol. 14, No. 3, www.Learning-Journal.com. [LINK]

[5] Wilson, S., Liber, P. O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., & Sharples, P. (2007). Personal Learning Environments : Challenging the dominant design of educational systems. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 3, 27–38. doi:10.1080/10494820701772652 [LINK]

22/23




[6] Liber, O., & Johnson, M. (2008). Personal Learning Environments. Interactive Learning Environments. doi:10.1080/10494820701772645

[7] Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning ? Lifelong Learning, 2, 1–8. doi:10.1080/19415257.2011.643130

[8] Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working Alone Together: Coworking as Emergent Collaborative Activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. doi:10.1177/1050651912444070

[9] Romero, L.; Dominguez, I.; Espinosa, M.; Dominguez, M. Team Work Aptitude Development in the Field of Concurrent Engineering through ICT Tools: Collaborative Engineering. (2015) [Ingenierıa del Diseño. Design Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED) [LINK]

[11] Castañeda, L., & Soto, J. (2010). Building personal learning environments by using and mixing ICT tools in a professional way. In Digital Education Review (Vol. 18, pp. 9–25).

[12] Richard Bartle (1996), "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who suit MUDs,"http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm/ Consulted January 2015

[13] De Bono, E. (2003). Six Thinking Hats. Six Thinking Hats - Business Summaries, 1–5. doi:10.1590/S0034-75901988000100011

[14 (2008). The Joy of Making. In Proceedings - 2nd IEEE International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning, DIGITEL 2008 (pp. 8–12). doi:10.1109/DIGITEL.2008.51

[15] Mario Herger (2014). Enterprise Gamification - Engaging people by letting them have fun. EGC Media. p. 32.ISBN 978-14-70000-64-6

[17] Erwin Andreasen; Brandon Downey (August 2001). "The Mud Personality Test". The Mud Companion (1): 33–35. ISSN 1499-1071.

[18] Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology http://www.gamerdna.com/quizzes/

[19] Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 1091–1100. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.12.003

[20] Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The revolutionary new science of human relationships. New York, New York: Bantam Dell.

23/23

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-14-70000-64-6

http://web.archive.org/web/20000818064001/http:/www.andreasen.org/bartle/stats.cgi

http://web.archive.org/web/20000818064001/http:/www.andreasen.org/bartle/stats.cgi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Serial_Number

http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1499-1071


http://www.gamerdna.com/quizzes/

Play, learn, work. Towards a collaborative environment. Application to collaborative design virtual environments

Documents