174 L.M. Regueras et al. presented in Table 1. These data show that students’ satisfaction was not found sig- nificantly different between the two groups: competitive and non-competitive stu- dents. This indicates that the hypothesis H1 is not supported as, although the level of students’ satisfaction with QUESTournament is higher for competitive students than for non-competitive students, this difference is not significant. In addition and in spite of the fact that QUESTournament is a competitive tool, only 19% of students defined themselves as competitive. A similar analysis has been done for the second hypothesis. Results are presented in Table 2. In this case, students’ satisfaction was found non-significantly different between the two groups: participative and non-participative students. Thus, the hy- pothesis H2 is not supported as the level of satisfaction of participative students is not significantly different from that of non-participative students. Table 1. Group comparison – Competitive and non-competitive students Competitive (n = 24) Non-competitive (n = 105) T-Test M SD M SD p Satisfaction 31.46 7.342 28.45 7.726 0.085 Table 2. Group comparison – Participative and non-participative students Participative (n = 32) Non-participative (n = 97) T-Test M SD M SD p Satisfaction 28.50 6.248 29.18 8.168 0.670 Table 3. Group comparison – Collaborative and non- collaborative students Collaborative (n = 48) Non-collaborative (n = 81) T-Test M SD M SD p Satisfaction 28.92 8.520 29.06 7.257 0.918 Finally, the third hypothesis (H3) is connected with the collaborative character of students and indicates that the satisfaction of collaborative and non-collaborative students is found to be not significantly different with regard to QUESTournament (see Table 3). 6 Conclusion First of all, the following results and contributions have been obtained with regard to the QUESTournament system, an innovative competitive e-learning tool: Motivating Students through On-Line Competition 175 − Experiences and results show that QUESTournament could be an important tool in order to adapt the current university curriculum to the new educational model of the EHEA. Some students have commented that they feel more motivated to think for themselves and try to apply the concepts studied. − A new teaching-learning methodology and the corresponding adapted assessment method have been defined. It is based on competitive active methodologies, work- ing groups and independent student learning. It aims to allow students to acquire the characteristics required by new professional profiles, for example becoming ac- tive, independent, strategic, reflective, cooperative and responsible. − Innovative strategies, such as those related to the partial assessment of students carried out by their classmates, have been proved to be very useful if the teacher instructs students properly in this assessment task. − The assessment phase has been integrated into the learning process together with documentation, tutorship, communication tools, etc. However, the students have also highlighted some negative aspects, like an excess of competitiveness and an increase of work volume. The teachers also have reported an when students dare to submit their own challenges In this sense, QUESTournament can be configured for automatic approvals of students’ challenges and assessments, according to their autonomy or the teacher’s confidence. On the other hand, the students’ level of satisfaction with regard to a competitive active e-learning tool, such as QUESTournament, has been high. In addition, in spite of the fact that this system is a competitive active tool, the students’ level of satisfac- tion has not been significantly different for the different learning styles. That is, the level of satisfaction with QUESTournament has not depended on how students de- fined themselves (participative, competitive or collaborative). Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge “la Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Cas- tilla y León” (Education Authority of the Regional Government of “Castilla y León”) for its financial support in this work. References 1. Verdú, E., Verdú, M.J., Regueras, L.M., de Castro, J.P.: Intercultural and Multilingual E- Learning to Bridge the Digital Divide. In: Shimojo, S., Ichii, S., Ling, T W., Song, K H. (eds.) HSI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3597, pp. 260–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) 2. Prince, M.: Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineer- ing Education 93(3), 223–231 (2004) 3. Higgs, B., McCarthy, M.: Active learning – from lecture theatre to field-work. Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching. All Ireland Society for Higher Education [AISHE], Dublin, 37–44 (2005) 4. Mehlenbacher, B., Miller, C.R., Covington, D., Larsen, J.S.: Active and Interactive Learn- ing Online: A comparison of Web-Based and Conventional Writing Classes. IEEE Trans- actions on Professional Communication 43(2), 166–184 (2000) 176 L.M. Regueras et al. 5. Felder, R.M., Felder, G.N., Dietz, E.J.: A longitudinal study of engineering student per- formance and retention. V. Comparisons with traditionally-taught students. Journal of En- gineering Education 87(4), 469–480 (1998) 6. Grasha, A.F.: Teaching with style. Alliance, Pittsburgh (1996) 7. Kolb, D.A.: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Develop- ment. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1984) 8. Felder, R.M., Silverman, L.K.: Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engineering Education 78(7), 674–681 (1988) 9. Burd, B.A., Buchanan, L.E.: Teaching the teachers: teaching and learning online. Refer- ence Services Review 32(4), 404–412 (2004) 10. Carver, C.A., Howard, R.A., Lane, W.D.: Addressing different learning styles through course hypermedia. IEEE Transactions on Education 42(1), 33–38 (1999) 11. Kuljis, J., Liu, F.: A Comparison of Learning Style Theories on the Suitability for elearn- ing. Web Technologies, Applications, and Services, 191–197 (2005) 12. Kim, S., Sonnenwald, D.H.: Investigating the relationship between learning style prefer- ences and teaching collaboration skills and technology: An exploratory study. In: Proceed- ings of the American Society of Information Science & Technology Annual Conference, pp. 64–73 (2002) 13. Johnson, D., Johnson, R.: Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and indi- vidualistic learning. Allyn and Bacon, Boston (1999) 14. Diaz, D.P., Cartnal, R.B.: Students’ learning styles in two classes: Online distance learning and equivalent on-campus. College Teaching 47(4), 130–135 (1999) 15. Chang, L.J., Yang, J.C., Yu, F.Y., Chan, T.W.: Development and Evaluation of Multiple Competitive Activities in a Synchronous Quiz Game System. Journal of Innovations in Education and Training International 40(1), 16–26 (2003) 16. Becker, K.: Teaching with games: The minesweeper and asteroids experience. J. Comput- ing Small Colleges 17(2), 23–33 (2001) 17. Siddiqui, A., Khan, M., Katar, S.: Supply chain simulator: A scenario-based educational tool to enhance student learning. Computers & Education (2007) doi:10.1016/j.compedu. 2007.05.00 18. Lawrence, R.: Teaching Data Structures Using Competitive Games. IEEE Transactions on Education 47(4), 459–466 (2004) 19. Philpot, T.A., Hall, R.H., Hubing, N., Flori, R.E.: Using games to teach statics calculation procedures: Application and assessment. Computer Applications in Engineering Educa- tion 13(3), 222–232 (2005) 20. Fasli, M., Michalakopoulos, M.: Supporting active learning through game-like exercises. In: Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference of Advanced Learning Tech- nologies, ICALT 2005, pp. 730–734 (2005) 21. Yu, F.Y., Chang, L.J., Liu, Y.H., Chan, T.W.: Learning preferences towards computerised competitive modes. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning 18(3), 341–350 (2002) 22. Buerck, J.P., Malmstrom, T., Peppers, E.: Learning Environments and Learning Styles: Non-traditional Student Enrollment and Success in an Internet-based Versus a Lecture- based Computer Science Course. Learning Environments Research 6(2), 137–155 (2004) 23. Gadt-Johnson, C., Price, G.: Comparing students with high and low preference for tactile learning. Education 120, 581–585 (2000) 24. Regueras, L.M., Verdú, E., Pérez, M.A., de Castro, J.P., Verdú, M.J.: Application of TIC- based active methodologies in the framework of the new model of university education: The educational interaction system QUEST. International Journal of Continuing Engineer- ing Education and Life-Long Learning (IJCEELL) 17(6), 447–460 (2007) Motivating Students through On-Line Competition 177 25. Bures, E.M., Abrami, P.C., Amundsen, C.: Student motivation to learn via computer con- ferencing. Research in Higher Education 41(5), 593–621 (2000) 26. Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., Ives, B.: Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly 25(4), 401–426 (2001) 27. Fallows, S., Ahmet, K.: Inspiring Students: Case Studies in Motivating the Learner. Kogan Page, Ltd, London (1999) 28. Levy, Y.: Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers & Educa- tion 48, 185–204 (2007) 29. Kuh, G.D.: Assessing what really matters to student learning. Change 33(3), 10–17 (2001) 30. National Survey of Student Engagement: Engaged Learning: Fostering Success for All Students. Annual Report (2006), http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2006_Annual_ Report/docs/NSSE_2006_Annual_Report.pdf 31. Sahin, I.: Predicting Student Satisfaction in Distance Education and Learning Environ- ments Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 8(2) (2007) 32. Walker, S.L., Fraser, B.J.: Development and validation of an instrument for assessing dis- tance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research 8(2), 289–308 (2005) F. Li et al. (Eds.): ICWL 2008, LNCS 5145, pp. 178–186, 2008. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008 Collaborative Learning Tool Applying to C Programming Language Wen-Chih Chang and Kuen-Chi Chen 707, Sec.2, WuFu Rd., Department of Information Management, Chung Hua University Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C. earnest@chu.edu.tw, m09510016@chu.edu.tw Abstract. Collaborative learning, which includes activities of interaction be- tween learners, share knowledge each other, and cooperate in finishing some tasks, is a popular research topic in the past decades. The essence of collabora- tive learning is that active participation is significant in the learning process and that learners share the valuable knowledge to the other learners in traditional classroom. Nowadays, computers and information technology (IT) become a general component on a lot of aspects of education. The combination of col- laborative learning and information technology is commonly called “Computer Supported Collaborative Learning” (CSCL), and that is currently having much attention. Therefore, we have developed a friendly server / client tool, which embedded voice and text chat communication to support collaborative learning via internet. Learner can study from group's collaborative learning, find and solve the problem of C programming language designing through communicat- ing and discussing. Besides, it makes users gained the experience and knowl- edge of program designing efficiently. 1 Introduction The traditional way of learning C programming language [1], students' individual learning is the main method. In traditional learning, students are stipulated to com- plete the teacher's designated homework after class. In individual learning, every stu- dent must proceeds at their own pace to accomplish the study goal without other classmates' help. But in these processes, the students may encounter a lot of problems, for example, they may have some trouble in designing the structure of program, or they make some errors and cannot solve the problem in the process of compile and debug. These problems will make learners lose the interest of C programming lan- guage, and they may give up to studying. Collaborative learning has offered a chance to learners working together to reach a common goal. And collaborative learning uses a way of group-learning, with class- mates learning together to increase their own and other classmates' awareness [2, 3]. Learners’ co-operation and teamwork always support collaborative learning. Through enhancing information sharing and supporting the group process, effective collabora- tive learning might be reached. Improving the learner’s participation and ameliorating join actively in knowledge construction by assisting creation, exchange, and analysis of information during learning group interactions, it will be made possible to increase . L.K.: Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engineering Education 78(7), 674–681 (1988) 9. Burd, B.A., Buchanan, L.E.: Teaching the teachers: teaching and learning online. Refer- ence. educational interaction system QUEST. International Journal of Continuing Engineer- ing Education and Life-Long Learning (IJCEELL) 17(6), 447–460 (2007) Motivating Students through On-Line Competition. learning. Through enhancing information sharing and supporting the group process, effective collabora- tive learning might be reached. Improving the learner’s participation and ameliorating join