This article demonstrates the evaluation of a German Computer and Law (C&L) seminar, which has been conducted in an experimental, distributed manner with five institutes co-operating. The evaluation was dedicated to the question, in which way the course supported cooperative learning among the students of the different participating institutes. As a result, most students concentrated upon writing their individual papers, which were to be placed on the learning platform afterwards. Additional cooperative functionalities such as forums and annotation were used for an intensification of tutor-student cooperation, but the intensified tutoring was not accompanied by more student-student cooperation. A concentration on most active students took place. The empirical results are based on interviews and on interaction analysis, as well. In the context of the interaction analysis, the article describes the active-reception criterion which has been adopted focusing on inter-student activities. The limits of the criterion are discussed, which is given by educational goals to be evaluated and the educational scenario implemented. The article points out the opportunity for related automatic evaluation.
CleesmanR., & HeilesonS. B. (1999). Supporting problem-based learning in groups in a net environment. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL1999), Palo Alto, CA.
3.
De PaulaR.FischerG., & OstwaldJ. (1999). Courses as seeds: Expectations and realities. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL 1999), Palo Alto, CA.
4.
DuffyT. M., & JonassenD. H. (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction.Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
ErtmerP. A., & NewbyT. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(40), 50–72.
6.
GreenoJ. G.SmithD. R., & MooreJ. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In DettermanD. K. & SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition and instruction (pp. 99–167). Ablex Publishing.
7.
HuberB., & RöhrF. (2004). Ergebnisse der begleitenden Evaluation von RION [Results of the evaluation of the RION project]. In SchinzelB.TaegerJ.GornyP.DreierTh., & HolznagelB.. E-Learning im Hochschulverbund, Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
8.
JansenW. v.d.HoovenH. M.JägersH. P. M.SteenbakkersG. C. A. (2002). The added value of e-Learning. Paper presented at the Informing Science and Education Conference (IS2002), Cork, Ireland.
9.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1989). The computer and the mind. An introduction to cognitive science. London: Fontana.
10.
JonassenD. H.McAleeseT. M. R., & DuffyT. M. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to technology in higher education. In DuffyT. M.LowyckJ., & JonassenD. H. (Eds.), The design of constructivistic learning environments: Implications for instructional design and the use of technology. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
11.
KerresM. (1998). Multimediale und telemediale Lernumgebungen: Konzeption und Entwicklung [Digital multimedia learning platforms: Design and development]. München: Oldenbourg.
12.
KienleA., & WessnerM. (2005). Principles for cultivating scientific communities of practice. In Van den BesselaerP.De MichelisG.PreeceJ., & SimoneC. (Eds.), Communities and technologies 2005, Doordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
LeutnerD. (1992). Adaptive Lehrsysteme, instruktionspsychologische Grundlagen und experimentelle Analysen [Adaption training system, basic principles of the psychology of instruction and experimental analyses]. Weinheim: Beltz.
15.
MoallemM. (2001). Applying constructivist and objectivist learning theories in the design of a Web-based course: Implications for practice. Education Technology & Society, 4 (3), pp. 113–125.
NettB. (2003). Identifying learning scenarios for a MOO in an academic learning context. Paper presented at the IADIS Conference “e-Society 2003,” Lisbon, Portugal.
18.
NettB., & RöhrF. (2002). JurMOO—Cooperative spaces in computer & law teaching. Paper presented at the Conference on Advances in Infrastructure for e-Business, E-Education, E-Science, and E-Medicine on the Internet (SSGRR2002), Alquila, Italy.
19.
NettB.RemmeleB.SchinzelB. (2004). Anforderungsanalyse und Zielbestimmung im Projekt RION. In SchinzelB.TaegerJ.GornyP.DreierTH., & HolznagelB. (Eds.), E-Learning im Hochschulverbund. Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
20.
NonakaI., & TakeuchiH. (1995). The knowledge-creating company.New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
RemmeleB.NettB.RoehrF.SchinzelB.StinglB., & WalloschkeT. (2002). Diversify, diversify, diversify! Why gender mainstreaming in educational media does not mean one size fits all. Montreal, Canada.
22.
RemmeleB., & WalloschkeT. (2004). Entwicklung hypermedialer Lernarrangements im Seminarbetrieb des Verbundprojekts RION [The development of educational hypermedia in seminars of the RION project]. In SchinzelB.TaegerJ.GorneyP.DreierTh., & HolznagelB. (Eds.), E-Learning im Hochschulverbund. Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
23.
RogoffB.MatsuovE., & WhiteC. (1998). Models of teaching and learning: Participation in a community of learners. In OlsenD. R. & TorranceN. (Eds.), The handbook of education and human developments. New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 338–414). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
24.
SchinzelB. (2001). E-Learning für alle: Gendersensitive Mediendidaktik [E-learning for all: Gender-sensitive media didactics]. In ErnstU. (Ed.), Gender und neue Medien [Gender and new media]. Innsbruck, Austria: Universitätsdruckerei Innsbruck.
25.
SchmidtS. J. (1994). Kognitive Autonomie und soziale Orientierung. Konstruktivistische Bemerkungen zum Zusammenhang von Kognition, Kommunikation, Medien und Kultur [Cognitive autonomy and social orientation. Constructivist remarks on the relation before cognition, communication, media and culture]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
26.
SchönD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
SiebertH. (1999). Pädogogischer Konstruktivismus. Eine Bilanz der Konstruktivismus—Diskussion für die Bildungspraxis [Educational constructivism. A balance of the discussion about constructivism for educational practice]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Luchterhand.
29.
SkinnerB. F. (1963). Reflections on a decade of teaching machines. Teachers College Record, 65, pp. 768–777.
30.
SpechtM. (1998). Adaptive methoden in computerbasierten Lehr-/Lernsystemen (No. 24) [Adaptive methods in computer-based learning/teaching systems]. St. Augustin, Germany: GMD Research Series.
31.
SpiroR. J.FeltovichP.JacobsonM., & CoulsonR. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In DuffyT. M. & JonassenD. H. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
StinglB. (2004). Neue Medien in der Hochschulbildung: Problemfelder und Perspektiven. In SchinzelB.TaegerJ.GornyP.DreierTh., & HolznagelB. (Eds.), E-Learning im hochschulverbund, Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
33.
SuchmanL. A. (1987). Plans and situated action. The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
