1 INTRODUCTION

For as long as we know, dialogue and sharing of experience and knowledge have helped learning. When the flow of sharing made all those involved try to learn more, their working together could be called collaborative learning. Spreading of knowledge has become more formalized: Education now is a necessity and part of civil rights, for more and more people. Recently, education is one of the fields that are becoming “electronically” assisted, by information and communications technology (ICT). In this way, education can reach more people, also at a distance. Distance education is a very rapidly growing field.

1.1 Distance education as an answer to demands on education institutions

Universities, as well as school and pre-school education, face strong demands to reach more people, preferably at lower cost (Neal et al, 1997; Postle, 2002a).

“This global trend away from the perception of universities as elite institutions which perpetuate advantage, towards a more equitable higher education sector, was justified by economic development and human resource utilisation arguments, as well as those reflecting a desire for social justice.” (Postle, 2002a, p 1)

Now, this applies also for adult education and “lifelong learning”. There is a growing demand for education at all levels, ages and areas, all over the world. This applies whether you like globalisation or not. To offer education at a distance is one answer to this.

Distance education¹ meets some of these demands. Distance education has made it possible for many more learners to take part in education. This applies to those who live far away from schools or universities or have restrictions because of, e.g., work, care obligations, sickness, threat or imprisonment. Distance education is also important to learners who have

1

The expression ‘distance education’ is used here simply because it is the most commonly known and used one. Other terms often used in literature are ‘distance learning’, ‘flexible learning’, ‘open learning’ or ‘blended learning’. See Paper D for an overview.

difficulties in moving to a study locality or to communicate orally, e.g., impaired learners.

Even though it is mainly adults who study at a distance, there are also situations where children and youths have to or may profit from distance education. Also, there are families and other groups living far away from any school. Boarding schools would be an alternative for some, but all families do not appreciate that solution.

Distance education is education organised by institutions, where teacher and learners are geographically separated most of the time. Some kind of communication technology is used to bridge the distance, both for distribution of course content, and for communication between learners, teachers, and staff. (Keegan, 1988; Paulsen, 2002)

Often, distance education is seen as the “second best” alternative. Had it been possible, these learners would probably have attended the traditional, face-to-face education. But a more positive stance towards distance education is to recognise that many learners need flexibility in time and space; distance education allows them to study on their own terms. Also, distance education -- if used properly -- fosters more independent and self-motivated learners. It might even be that learners in traditional education, who are not forced to participate in distance education because of physical constraints, could benefit from the flexibility provided in part-time distance education. Distance education might offer flexibility, not just in time and space, but also in objective and method (Holmberg, 1998). The learners can be offered a freedom to form their own goals, choose literature and methods of studying. The flexibility is, however, often restricted. Economy, technology, and other practical circumstances form restrictions. E. g., if learners were offered full freedom in time so that they could start and finish a course at any time, this would restrict the pedagogic methods available to the teacher and organiser of the course.. It would, for instance, be difficult to arrange collaboration between learners if they did not attend the course during the same time span.

Another positive argument for distance education is that it makes it possible for learners to access high-quality courses in parts of the world that would otherwise not have been accessible to them. Learners may seek and combine courses from the best educational institutes in the world, instead of being restricted to what is available where they live. One well-known example is the Open University in United Kingdom, which since more than 30 years offers distance education throughout the world².

² See http://www.open.ac.uk/.

However, distance education also has several shortcomings. Dropout rates are often high (Thomas, 2000; Rovai, 2002). Distance may create not only geographical but also psychological distance: not meeting the teacher and peer learners face to face may create a feeling of loneliness and alienation. Learners expect and want more feedback from teachers than they get, but teachers do not always realize the needs of the distance learners (Waern, 1999). The learners have to be motivated and stimulated through other means than by meeting peers at school or campus (Åström, 1998). Without continuous contact with peers, learners are hindered from opportunities to challenge their understanding of the learning material and its context, and to develop their identity (Hundeide, 2003).

There are also problems of organisational changes. Moore (1994) emphasises their importance:

The barriers impeding the development of distance education are not technological, nor even pedagogical. … The major problems are associated with the organizational change, change of faculty roles, and change in administrative structures. (p 4)

One possible means to overcome some of these problems is to find the means, technological and pedagogical, that enables collaborative learning to take place in distance education.

1.2 Collaborative learning as an answer to problems with distance education

Collaborative learning³ as an instructional mode can motivate and stimulate learners to work on their studies for social reasons: they like the group of peers, and want to be accepted by and contribute to the group (Slavin, 1995, p 16; Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Collaboration between learners has proven to be beneficial for learning, especially if the purpose of the course as such is to enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills, or to introduce multiple perspectives on an issue (e.g., Gokhale, 1995; Harasim et al., 1995; Palincsar, 1987; Slavin, 1992; Uribe, Klein & Sullivan, 2003).

Another motive for introduction of collaboration in education is to prepare learners for work situations. As pointed out by Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989, p 40), being able to learn and work collaboratively in the workplace is

³ Dillenbourg suggests a broad definition (1999, p 2) of collaborative learning as being any situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together.

increasingly important. “[T]o work in teams and to co-operate in defining problems and finding solutions” are, according to Berleur and Valenduc (2001, p 76), important new skills in “the information and learning society”.

Here, ‘collaboration’ is interpreted in a more specific sense than the more open-ended concept ‘co-operation’. If a group co-operates on a project, participants might divide the task in different subtasks. Each individual works on one subtask and the group might meet only to co-ordinate the work and to merge the results. Collaboration would require two or more individuals to work together with each subtask. As Dillenbourg and colleagues (1995) put it: ”... in cooperation, the task is split (hierarchically) into independent subtasks; in collaboration, cognitive processes may be (heterarchically) divided into intertwined layers.” (p 190). Collaboration involves the idea of intent and non-compliance. To collaborate, you have to make an effort to reach a shared meaning (Schwartz, 1999), and show an active engagement in the ideas of others (Dysthe, 2003). There is, however, a social dilemma: What is reasonable for an individual to do might be less rational for the group. This might lead to ”a tension between individual and collective rationality.” (Kollock & Smith, 1996, p 109). Collaboration might lead to a loss in performance due to (a): Shifts in member motivation (not always losses) and (b): The need for coordination (Steiner, 1972, via McGrath, 1984). This implies that, for collaboration to occur, the individuals have to be motivated to work for the group, and there has to be opportunities and communication media that enable learners to “meet” in order to facilitate efficient coordination work in the group.

When introducing collaborative learning in distance education, new demands on organisations, teachers and learners arise. It is difficult to create and maintain social relations and cohesion (Thomas, 2000; Cummings, Butler & Kraut, 2002). Conflicts might occur, and they are difficult to solve at a distance (Mortensen & Hinds, 2001). To organise the collaborative work within a group imposes a heavy workload on participants (Wasson, 1996). If, for instance, learners collaborate through a forum system⁴, they have to show their presence by contributing. If they do not contribute, they are invisible (Collis & Moonen 2001). They may ask questions but do not answer others’ questions, take information but do not share, or just read ongoing discussions (Kollock & Smith, 1996). Such “lurkers” or “free-riders” cause problems for co-participants and teachers

A forum system is a system for text-based, asynchronous electronic conferences and discussions.

1.3 ICT as support for learning

For a long time, technology has been used to support learning, with greatly varying successes and failures. Various information and communication technologies are used today in many different ways and for different purposes. There has been an uncritical belief in ICT as a problem solver within education, and it is not always the pedagogical need that has initiated the introduction of technology. Sometimes, sales people and politicians have pushed the technology into the schools instead of it being pulled in by teachers and learners to fulfil needs in the education. But nowadays, the development has reached a more mature stage where it is not a question of if but how technology should be used in education. (Pedersen, 2000)

Knowledge earlier confined to experts is now accessible to everybody, which means that they become strengthened, both professionally and privately. This may form a basis for the reallocation of power and influence in society (Bradley, 2001, p 32).

ICT will not solve all educational problems. But -- given a thought-through usage and implementation in the educational organisation and course structure -- it can offer great improvements for education. ICT has changed the circumstances for distance education radically. With ICT, the time lag in communication is reduced. E-mail and the Internet have opened up possibilities for learners to communicate with each other, and to access information and experts all over the world. Video communication and the use of shared workspace on computers broaden communication also to gestures, voice intonation, and other expression nodes. Computers can also support facilitation processes, and learner and course administration. (Kanselaar et al, 2000; Paper D)

At the same time, educational needs are driving development forward, making designers continually develop new technology in order to offer better support for learning. LeCourt (1999, p 55) warns us to discuss technology and education as a dichotomy: that one or the other is controlling the development. Technology is not entirely impacted by the designer’s intentions. How we use it is also a reflection of our culture. She holds that there is a mutual influence:

Rather than changing culture, it is just as likely that technology will be ’used’ by culture to reinforce cultural ideologies already in place. More to the point, such support can easily take the form of accelerating such changes and providing new venues for the expression of particular forms of culture. Technology, in short, does not stand alone, nor is it a neutral servant. As an artifact of culture, it comes with its own locatedness within that materiality, which suggests particular functions, uses and possibilities while simultaneously being subject to the cultural contexts (and thus the

epistemologies and ideologies of those contexts) in which it is employed.

The technology causes problems, especially for those who do not have access to high-speed communication or who are not used to computers. Not all electronic forum systems are intuitive and afford collaboration.

1.4 Research on collaborative learning at a distance

Research about collaborative learning at a distance supported by ICT can be found mainly in the areas computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and distance education. CSCL research is mainly focusing on the computer use and examining learners’ collaborative learning on a detailed level, but most studies do not concern distance learning. Most studies are experimental. One exception is a study by Guribye, Andreassen and Wasson (2003, p 385 ff), who made a field study in a natural course situation, following learners during a longer time period. They identified three different aspects of communication between learners: “1) understanding the conditions for collaboration; 2) coordinating collaborative efforts; and 3) commenting on products and contributions.” These aspects need further exploration. Especially interesting would be the question of how these conditions develop and interact, as well as how they might be initiated, furthered and maintained.

Distance education research focuses more on organisational and economic issues, but also on technology and pedagogy. Most studies are conducted as field studies, taking a teachers’ perspective. Collaborative learning using forum systems has been explored and described by Hiltz and colleagues since many years (e.g., Hiltz, 1995; Hiltz and Turoff, 1993). They have described cases where this kind of learning has been more efficient than face-to-face learning. Neal (1997) described courses applying many different communication means; among those were forum systems. Collaborative learning was part of those courses. Those courses were found to be cost-effective, give good learning outcomes, and satisfied learners. However, it would be interesting to examine how ”lean” communication means, such as forum systems alone, manage to support collaborative learning.

1.5 From the general to the specific

From this general picture we notice that introduction of collaborative learning in distance education may be problematic. Although there has been extensive research done in these areas, there are still questions to be answered: How to manage new demands on organisations, teachers and learners? Which problems appear, and which new possibilities are created? What is the role of ICT in this picture? How do processes of collaboration and communication develop, and how do they interact with each other, with the learning of course content, and with application of technology? To explore this, there is a need for long-term, ethnographic studies in natural settings, taking a holistic view on the situation and following developmental processes.

A distance course can be described and analysed with the components in the Plant Metaphor, Figure 1.1.

With the Plant Metaphor, the aim is to illustrate the mutual dependence between all components. (This metaphor, like most others, should not be drawn too far.) The learners, forming the flower, attract the main interest in this picture. Their knowledge is blossoming through the support from course content and the education organisation, and is erected by communication between learners, and between teacher and learners. The teacher forms the base for the learning situation, creating a fertile learning environment through the use of technology and pedagogy. Group and learning processes develop as the plant grows. A fertile ground and a favourable environment will stimulate a healthy development in the groups of learners. Eventually, the flower will spread seeds, which will grow and develop new knowledge.

It is important to take a holistic view and consider the interplay between different components in a human activity like this (Engeström, 1987). If one of these components is changed, the effect on the others should be considered. (Fåhræus, 2000; Eason, 1991). It is possible to consider different planes: the individual, the interpersonal, and the community. One can be put in focus at a time, bringing it to the foreground, but it is important to realize the interplay between all components and all planes, keeping the background in mind (Rogoff, 1995).

1.6 Objectives, goals and delimitations of this work

Here, the overarching objective has been to explore and describe what happens when collaborative learning is introduced in natural distance-education situations, supported by ICT, and how learners and teachers perceive this. Exploring and describing problems, possibilities, and processes in a systematic way would create a base for how to improve the pedagogic approaches and activities, and the ICT systems. The goal has been to present a broad picture of problems, opportunities and processes, and to present ideas to how these could be improved and supported by organisations, teachers, learners, and ICT designers.

Field studies were conducted in two university courses that were using group work and discussions at a distance through forum systems. Another field study explored distance education in Australian schools, where collaborative learning was being considered. A mainly qualitative approach was applied in these field studies, using ethnographic methods in close and prolonged contact with learners and teachers. A literature study focused on distance education and its consequences for secondary schools. The studies are presented in Papers A – F.

I deliberately chose to focus on the use of a simple and inexpensive technology, accessible to many people (forum system, telephone or radio). The reason was twofold: (1) to study technology that might provide new opportunities to as many learners as possible, and (2) to avoid too much focus on technology; the important aim was to explore technology in every-day use.

Since learning results would be practically incommensurable between natural settings (Dysthe, 2003), they were not evaluated according to outcomes of the learning of course content.

My intention has not been to suggest collaborative learning to be used in all situations and for all kinds of learning. But distance-education learners should not, according to my opinion, be denied the opportunities to learn collaboratively together with peer learners when relevant.

1.7 Contributions

Contributions from the research presented here will help to fill in gaps between (a) educational visions, theories, and experiments on the one hand, and (b) how distance-education and collaboration is brought about in practice--from the points of view of those engaged in the process: organizations, teachers, learners, and system designers.

This was done by means of ethnographic studies of distance-education activities in natural settings. Experienced and observed problems, possibilities and processes are described and synthesized as:

• The model of a Triple Helix, illustrating the three intertwined developmental processes of: (1) content learning, (2) developing group communication, and (3) learning how to collaborate.

• Detailed suggestion as:

1. o Suggestions for school organisations on the introduction of collaborative learning at a distance.

2. o Tips to teachers about how to support these developmental processes and in other ways avoid problems and take advantage of possibilities with collaborative learning at a distance.

3. o Design ideas for ICT support of collaborative learning at a distance.

4. o Checklist for collaborative learners, helping to take advantage of opportunities.

1.8 Overview

The research Papers A – F make up the base of this work.

Chapter 2 describes how this research is positioned within the intersection of the research areas of computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and distance education. In Chapter 3, the sociocultural perspective on learning is introduced. The framework of Activity Theory by Engeström (1987) and a model for the analysis of sociocultural activity by Rogoff (1995) are presented. An overview of the six papers and methods used are found and discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 gives a summary of the main results from the studies. In Chapter 6, results from the studies are analysed in terms of theories mentioned above. Conclusions are drawn and synthesized in a model. Detailed suggestions are given in four appendices: "Suggested Options for School Organisations”, ‘Tips for Teachers’, ‘Ideas for Innovative Systems Designers’ and ‘Check List for Collaborative Learners’.

2 RECENT RESEARCH IN COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND DISTANCE EDUCATION

Research presented here is positioned in the intersection of two research areas: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and Distance Education. Relevant examples of research will illustrate what is typical in each area. Within both CSCL and distance education research, ICT has central roles–and they differ.

2.1 CSCL research area

Within the general area of learning through technology, CSCL established itself as an independent research area through the CSCL conference organized in 1995. Since then, there have been five international CSCL conferences and one European. The focus has varied over these years from experiments in real-life settings to detailed examinations of different learning procedures; later also towards evaluation and frameworks for analysis (Dillenbourg, Eurelings & Hakkarainen, 2001a).

Compared to distance education, researchers in the area seem to be more interested in theoretical foundations. Theories are borrowed from social sciences, epistemology and pedagogy, but technological innovations are also central. This became obvious, as the latest conference was named “Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Design for change in networked learning environments”. (Wasson et al, 2003a)

Research within CSCL has varied as to theoretical framework, object of study, methods used and perspective. Most researchers lean on a sociocultural perspective on knowledge and learning (Dysthe, 2003; Stahl, 2003; Ludvigsen & Mørch, 2003). Some use activity theory as a framework (Caeiro, Anido & Llamas, 2003; Guribye et al, 2003); others use social network analysis (Lally & de Laat, 2003; Beck, Fitzgerald & Pauksztat, 2003; Reffay & Chanier, 2003).

The most common kind of study presented at the latest CSCL conference was where the researchers designed a computer system that supported a certain kind of collaborative task. Almost as common was another kind of study, where the pedagogic design was the object of study. A few studies combined these two. Experiments or quasi-experiments⁵ were conducted to demonstrate how the system and/or the pedagogic design could be used and what implications it may have on collaboration and/or on learning. Data were collected and analysed, normally through quantitative methods. But these were often combined with some kind of qualitative investigation about the learners’ perception of the experiences. The environment was typically a laboratory or a more course-like situation, where learners were given tasks to perform under controlled conditions during a restricted time (ordinarily less than two weeks) (Slavin 1992). Some examples will be reviewed here, picked from the proceedings of the latest CSCL conference in Bergen, Norway (Wasson et al, 2003).

Zumbach & Reimann (2003) have developed a system producing automatic feedback to scaffold problem solving and interaction. The use was demonstrated through a controlled experiment and long-time intervention in an asynchronous “problem-based learning” course. The researchers presented graphs visualizing the learners’ motivation and contribution history. Groups using this tool performed better than the control group, both concerning knowledge and quality of problem solutions. They also produced more contributions and expressed a higher degree of reflection. However, the researchers did not note or comment on the learners’ developmental process during the course.

A similar example was presented by Rummel et al (2003). However, this experiment tested a pedagogic design for promoting collaboration through modelling and through scripted collaboration. Via a desktop video conferencing system, 36 pairs of learners were given one problem case to solve during a few hours. Both the modelling and the scripted group produced better results than the control group. The modelling gave the best results. Here, it is interesting to notice that the individual part of the work process seemed to be easily neglected when learners did not get any of these supports. This is especially important, as the most successful pairs showed longer individual work phases.

A quasi-experimental design is like an experimental design but lacks, e.g., random assignment (Dane, 1990).

A typical example of a quasi-experiment was presented by Mulder et al (2003). They developed a questioning tool and compared the effects of this with a human facilitator. Learners were given a design task to solve collaboratively via videoconferencing for 90 minutes. The teams, of 4-7 learners, were placed in two different rooms to simulate a distributed learning situation. Learning effects and shared understanding were evaluated through self-scoring and expert judgement. The results were statistically analysed and showed that “perceived shared understanding increased over time, and that teams with both a facilitator and the tool understood each other best.” But the authors also found that teams without tool and facilitator posted most questions. My interpretation: The unaided process of knowledge construction without tool and facilitator may have been even more efficient and generated an even deeper knowledge.

These examples are used here to illustrate some of the problems that researchers encounter when doing experiments in this area. The circumstances were so different from real-life settings that any general conclusions drawn are very risky. Learners in short-time experiments do not have time and opportunity to get to know each other and understand each other’s goals or competences. They may not have had time to get familiar with the tool and adapt to it. The researchers seldom notice development over time. There are reasons to assume that the experimental subjects are more positive than the average to the kind of system that they have agreed to test. Researchers within education quite seldom have the opportunity to randomly distribute subjects between experimental groups (Dysthe, 2003).

The focus in CSCL research is often on the system and on how learners use the system. The teacher is often in the periphery of the study. One exception is presented by Petrou & Dimitracopoulou (2003). They explore synchronous collaborative problem solving in a realistic school context with colocated learners. They test a system that allows the teacher to inspect or share multiple learners’ screens from one computer. The authors conclude from their results that the tool had positive effects on teachers’ strategies.

A small proportion of the studies within CSCL have been conducted as field studies in natural course situations, following learners during a longer time period. One example similar to the kind of studies I have conducted was reported by Guribye et al (2003). They made an intervention where traditional teaching was exchanged for collaborative learning with the aid of a groupware system TeamWave Workplace™ and other computer tools. They used an ethnographic approach for data collection and grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in the analyses. Three different aspects were identified of communication between learners: “1) understanding the conditions for collaboration; 2) coordinating collaborative efforts; and 3) commenting on products and contributions.” (Guribye et al, 2003, p 389). They concluded: “Collaborative efforts are just as much about understanding the conditions for collaboration and co-ordinating work and use of communication technology, as it is a matter of collaboratively constructing knowledge about the topic at hand.” (ibid., p 392)

Some studies have focused on research methods or analytic methods, e.g., measuring degree of social activity (e.g., Reffay & Chanier, 2003). The use of these methods can then be demonstrated in an empirical study analogous with those mentioned earlier. A few studies are entirely theoretical. E.g., Puntambekar & Young (2003) are proposing shared theories and methodology for CSCL, and Stahl (2003) describes how meaning-making is a central issue to CSCL research.

Although many of the systems and pedagogic designs that are explored in CSCL research would be possible to use in a distance-education setting (or ‘distributed learning’, which is the term normally used), most CSCL research is not conducted in distance-education situations. The interest is mostly not focused on the fact that learners are separated geographically, but on the fact that they are using computerised equipments and systems.

2.2 Distance education research area

During many years, most research within distance education has been descriptive or explorative case or field studies. Teachers have changed an existing course into a distance-education course, or built a new one, and then a researcher, often the same person as the teacher, has described what happened. The study described in Paper A is of this kind. Such research has helped to give many ideas about where the problems are and different ways of tackling and solving them (e.g., Fåhræus, 2000; Gokhale, 1995.). It has also given structures and definitions of concepts and course types, as will be described in the following text. (Here, the different researchers’ own terminology will be used. For instance, ‘online learning’ is used for distance educaton supported by ICT.)

Moore presented already 1972 a theory for classification of distance education. 1986 he had further developed this and introduced the concept “transactional distance” as a pedagogic concept describing the psychological and communicative distance that has to be bridged in order for teachers and learners to reach each other. (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). According to Moore, the transactional distance depends on the degree of structure and dialogue in a course.

Mason (1998) has classified online courses in three models, according to the content and didactic support they are giving. In the “content+support” model, the content is a course package and there is a clear division between the content and the support. The second model, “wrap around”, uses already existing material, with tailor-made materials (textbooks, CD-ROM resources or tutorials) wrapped around it. The learners are given more freedom and responsibility to adapt the studies to their individual needs. The online interactions and discussions occupy about half of the learners' time in this model. In the third, “integrated model”, the content is created dynamically by teachers and learners in collaboration during the course. Most of the course takes place online through discussion, accessing and processing information, and carrying out tasks within learning communities.

As more courses are given at a distance and teachers get more skilled in designing and teaching these courses, the research has become more sophisticated. Like in CSCL, experiments are conducted, but not very often. Focus has been more on organisational and economic questions: How to introduce distance education in traditional organisations? How to teach more learners without increased expenses? Lately, quality issues are also considered, as in the recent conference EDEN (the European Distance education Network), which used the title “The Quality Dialogue: Integrating Quality Cultures in Flexible, Distance and eLearning” (EDEN, 2003).

Two focuses can be identified in recent distance education research, on technology and on pedagogy.

Technology is always a hot issue within distance education, and the expectations are great on ICT to ease the burdens on the teachers and provide for bigger classes. Postle (2002a) describes five generations of distance education technology: (1) The traditional Correspondence Model, based on printed material with surface mail as the main communication means; (2) The Multimedia Model, using print, audio- and videotape, computer-based learning and interactive video; (3) The Telelearning Model with audio- and videoconferencing and TV/radio broadcasting; (4) ´The Flexible Learning Model, using interactive multimedia and Internet-based WWW resources. The fifth generation has been called (5) The Intelligent Flexible Learning Model. New supports here are automated response systems and access through campus portals to institutional processes and resources. My research is positioned around Generation 4, except Paper F, which describes a Generation 1 organisation on its way up the ladder up to and including Generation 3.

Neal (1997) described technology use at courses conducted in a corporate setting. A variety of technology and communication means was combined, such as videoconferencing, audioconferencing, Internet-based conferencing, Email, IRC⁶ and a Web site. Technologies were evaluated according to cost and availability, and how appropriate they were for the course. Experiences from technology use were analysed and a table was generated, showing for which situation each technology is best suited. Benefits and difficulties are described. Learners valued networking and sharing experiences with each other, and by the end of the course, they felt comfortable with each other.

Although many researchers within distance education use the term ‘interactive’ about a course or a course material, this does not always imply that the learner interacts with a teacher, let alone with peer learners (Fåhræus, Gunnarsson & Jungnelius, 2001). But also within distance education research, technology for collaborative learning is mentioned. Since many years, Roxanne Hiltz and her colleagues have conducted comprehensive field studies of courses using “asynchronous learning networks” (Hiltz, 1995). Their comparative studies show that learners learn more and are more satisfied when using such networks as compared to face-to-face learning. Other researchers have studied discussions and dialogues, and how they can be supported by teachers and technology (Hietala, 1998). Today, learning management systems are in focus for the technological development (Paulsen, 2002).

Much research within distance education integrates the technological and the pedagogical perspective. McLoughlin & Oliver (1999) discussed the role of technology in teaching and learning from a sociocultural perspective. They emphasized the use of technology as “social and cultural resources that learners can use for communicating with others, for expressing ideas and for constructing and representing knowledge.” Further, “The computer can therefore be seen not as a replacement for a teacher but as a means of organizing interactions between learners and as a support, or as a scaffold for communication.” (ibid., p 36) The way that technology is supporting learning outcomes depends on which instructional approach the teacher applies. There are three steps to a learning outcome, they argued: from ‘Knowledge recall’ via ‘Comprehension’ to ‘Synthesis & evaluation’. Typically, in the first step, one-way technology is used and the pedagogical approach is teacher-centred. Typically, in the second step, the technology is interactive and the pedagogy is learner-centred. To reach Synthesis & evaluation, collaborative technology has to be used and a pedagogy that is collaborative group-centred.

In pedagogic development and research, one can notice an interest in different learning styles and how this influences the motivation and possibility to learn collaboratively. Svensson & Magnusson (2003) have introduced

⁶ Internet Relayed Chat, an easy-to-use synchronous communication technology.

four group types concerning work orientation and roles of group members. They were classified by four metaphoric group types: Crew, Team, Peers and Crowd. They stated that these group types should not be perceived as static, rather as something to consider when organising collaborative learning. Postle (2002b) identified three types of learners: Independent, Interactive and Collaborative. He held that designers ought to address all three. In my opinion, it is important to have a flexible view, both on groups and on “personalities”. A group may shift back and forth between group types. An individual might act as Independent in one situation, and prefer Interaction or Collaboration in another situation.

A great deal of the research could be classified as normative: Pedagogic structures are presented, which are to be used as models for the design of distance education courses and for how they should be conducted.

Salmon (2000) has introduced a five-step model describing how a teacher or e-moderator ought to guide learners into online learning. She holds that “CMC offers the ‘affordance’ of online socializing and networking” (ibid., p 28), but that it is not the technology in itself that creates the social interaction but the e-moderator and the course design. She has built her model on action research at Open University, UK. She has made content analyses of around 3000 messages and used focus groups. She got a rich source of qualitative data. For each of the steps or stages, she described what kind of support (technical or moderating) that is needed. She pointed out that: “Even those participants who are very familiar and comfortable with e-mail need some support in understanding the collaborative and collegiate environments offered by conferencing. Some learners need help with appreciating the shift in the teaching and learning approach that accompanies increased use of CMC” (ibid., p 71). According to her, this shift includes more self-directed learning, working in multi-skilled teams, and to cooperate rather than to compete, to handle information rather than knowing everything, and to become critical thinkers. Her experience makes her think that this requires “a staged but extensive process, to be undertaken online rather than through more traditional teaching or training.” (ibid., p 72)

Salmon’s model describes a process that the teacher or moderator orchestrates for the individual learner to go through: (1) Managing the technology;

(2) Sending messages; (3) Use of learning material; (4) Taking part in closed and (5) Open conferences. The teacher or moderator should plan for and support each of these steps. The process is described as one-directional and the steps have to be taken one after the other, by the individual learner. She has not identified this as a group process.

Collis & Moonen (2001) have suggested a pedagogic model, the ‘U Approach’ (Figure 2.2), describing the interplay between flexibility and the degree of learner activity and responsibility. The model describes a process within a course or pedagogic activity and can also be used to classify a course. The authors claim that participation in distance learning must involve contribution: If you are not contributing, you are not seen. But a course can involve moments of individual studies, as well as collaborative activities, depending on what phase you are regarding. The teacher needs a strategy. This includes the idea that a course contains three cycles: “before”, “during” and “after” activities.

The “before” activity is when the learners prepare themselves for a learning event by reading material etc. This phase contains mainly acquisition and the flexibility is high. The “during” activity is the focal event, e.g., a lecture or group work. During this, the flexibility is restricted, as many people, both teacher and learners, have to be co-ordinated. Learners can both acquire knowledge and contribute to the learning during this phase. After this focal event, learners can get follow-up tasks to do actively, both individually and in groups. The “after” activity is again more flexible. This process is shown in the model as a U-shaped arrow. Different courses can have this arrow placed more to the left or right, depending on the degree of learner activity, and higher or lower, depending on the degree of flexibility.

This model focuses on learner involvement and the process within a course. It does not say anything about the technology, and it builds on the sociocultural view on learning as a mainly social activity, but accepts that learning activities can be both individual and social. Compared with the models presented by McLoughlin & Oliver (1999) and Collis and Moonen, I would say that a course could make use of all the different technologies and pedagogic approaches, in different phases of the U-model.

2.3 The role of ICT in CSCL and distance education research

In both research areas, ICT has important positions, but its role is slightly different. To most CSCL researchers, the computer support is the main interest and collaborative learning is where it is applied. The computer can be used as a communication means between people, but it has also been used as a tool for reaching and presenting information, e.g., through agents (Baggetun & Dragsnes, 2003; Ayala, 2003; Dolonen, Chen & Mørch, 2003), or through external representation (Suthers et al, 2003) and video, or 3D environments (Iacucci, Pain & Lee, 2003; Jensen et al, 2003). In some cases it has been used for simulation (Sugimoto et al, 2003), programming (Louca et al, 2003; Tholander, 2003), play (Dai et al, 2003) or contest (Moshaiov, 2003).

Within distance-education research, the computer is almost always there as a means for communication, but it is normally not in focus. It is sometimes the source of problems, and therefore, a reason to discuss. Different choices of means are discussed, e.g., whether videoconferencing is better than forum systems in a specific situation. Some researchers develop and/or test computer functions to support the teachers’ work. Lately, different kinds of “intelligent” systems have drawn interest.

Comparing the communication between peer students via an ICT tool with a face-to-face meeting means considering the compensating role of the tool: Focus is on the restrictions that the tool puts on the communication. Instead, looking at technology as a means to take a course at a distance implies considering the facilitating role of the tool. It allows us to do more than we could do before we used this tool. (Hansen et al, 1999). If we just regard the technology as compensating us for not being able to meet face to face, then such simulated meetings would not be considered as good as the face-to-face meetings. We then miss the extra benefits that this technology is able to give us in its facilitating role (Fåhræus et al, 1999, p 122).

Most distance education researchers view ICT as something necessary but evil, which can be of some help. Hence, they mainly consider the compensating role. CSCL researchers primarily view it as an exciting tool to explore and develop to create new possibilities, for instance collaborative learning. Here, the facilitating role of ICT is dominating.

2.4 Comments on other related research

There are several other research areas with relation to the present work, e.g., research on Small Groups (McGrath, 1984), are mainly focusing on pedagogy and learning. The journal ‘Educational Technology and Society’ represents both the pedagogic and the technology areas. Many other parts of ICT research also touch upon learning and collaboration aspects. E.g., Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and World Wide Web (WWW) has often been analysed in learning situations. Those areas are not described here, but have given minor contributions to the present work.

3 THEORIES GUIDING THE ANALYSES

A sociocultural perspective was taken in the research reported here. Engeström’s framework Activity Theory is one approach within this perspective, which has provided a model, “the cycle of expansive learning” which is applied for analysis of the learning processes. As a complement, Rogoff’s analytical model for the analysis of sociocultural activity was used.

3.1 The sociocultural perspective on learning

There are several different theories and views that could be included in a sociocultural perspective on knowledge and learning. Important advocates are John Dewey (1859-1952), George Herbert Mead (1868-1931) and Lev S. Vygotsky (1886-1934). Both Dewey and Mead had a pragmatic view: Knowledge is created through practical group work in a cultural community. Vygotsky stressed the importance of not only the cultural but also the historical context. Common to them is the view that knowledge is constructed through collaboration within a physical and social context. (Dysthe, 2003)

The motivation to learn is inherent in the social and cultural expectations in a community. A person is motivated by the wish to be accepted, appreciated and valued for contributing to the group or community. A teacher or a group of learners may stimulate and encourage learning. However, more important is the interaction and the taking part in discussions, which provide ideas, concepts and theories that the learner adopts and use to make sense of the world and to develop an identity. (Dysthe, 2003)

3.2 Engeström’s theory about learning by expanding

Activity Theory (Engeström, 1987) is built upon work by Vygotsky (1930/1978) and offers an instrument for the analysis of the inner dynamic relations and historical change of human activity (Figure 3.1).

The object of analysis is an activity as a contextual, ecological, and mediated phenomenon. The activity is oriented towards an object and a motive. The instrument can be both a physical object, like a hammer, or, e.g., a method or communication medium. The instrument as such suggests different possible uses and it influences the subject and the community as well as the object. There is a mutual influence: the subject and community adapt the instrument as well as rules and division of labour to suit the object.

INSTRUMENT

RULES COMMUNITY DIVISION OF LABOUR

Figure 3.1 The structure of human activity (Engeström, 1987, p 78)

In an organisation, there exist many activities that can be described as activity systems with the same internal structure. Each activity is realised by goal-directed actions, subordinated to conscious purposes. And these actions are carried out through operations.

Each corner in the triangle symbolizes the mediating role. Together, the corners point at the need of processes of expansive learning to go through.

Expansive learning is learning what is not yet there by means of actions of questioning, modelling, and experimentation (Engeström, 1987). Its core is the collaborative creation of new artifacts and patterns of practice. (Engeström, Engeström & Suntio, 2002, p 216)

Expansive learning can be initialized by contradictions. A contradiction is a clash between individual actions and the total activity system. Contradictions occur at four different levels. Primary contradictions are conflicts within each node of the structure, e.g., conflicting objects and motives, or a system that is difficult to handle. Contradictions between two nodes are called secondary. They could depend on old rules or organisations. One example is when rules for face-to-face communications are tried in an online environment, e.g., collaborative learning. The tertiary contradictions may appear when new, culturally more advanced objects or motives are introduced. If we also consider activities in the neighbourhood, we can encounter quaternary contradictions. An example of this is when a government prescribes that collaborative learning should be applied in school education. (Engeström, 1987; 2001)

Engeström describes a cycle of expansive learning containing five steps (Figure 3.2). Expansive learning is initiated by a primary contradiction inherent in the need state in Activity 1. Actions lead to a secondary contradiction. This causes a dilemma, which could only be solved collaboratively, by thought experiments, dialogue, etc. (Transforming 1). The solution invokes new object/motive constructions by modelling, in order to anticipate the new activity. This is now applied and generalized (Transforming 2). New actions are carried out corresponding to the new activity, but during Transforming 2, there are still some remaining traces from the old activity. In the last step, the new activity (Activity 2) is consciously and reflectively consolidated. (Engeström, 1987, p 188-190)

A qualitatively new situation is created from contradictions and dilemmas. Expansive learning is about searching for something new; something that combines what exists and what could be possible. Inventing a new instrument or a new way of using an instrument can solve a dilemma. It demands experimentation and trying artefacts for new uses. Normally, these learning processes take a long time. (Engeström, 1987)

The intensive formation of a historically new activity system within a limited community of collective (e.g., workplace, school, family, trade union) is typically a matter of months and years. During such a period of creation, there appear iterative transitions back and forth between the phases of the cycle.” (p 191-192)

Discussing if a teacher intentionally can initiate expansive learning by activating a contradiction, Engeström (1987) holds that this is possible:

The prerequisite is that the teacher works his way from the inside of the activity to be developed. This means that the teacher takes as his point of departure the double nature and inner contradictions of the leading activity of his pupils. He works out the zone of proximal development⁷ of this activity, first analytically and historically, then as a hypothesis, and finally in the form of practical tasks. The teacher acts as the devil’s advocate, confronting the learners with the contradictions of their own vital activity in a bare form. (p 187-188)

If a group gets stuck in a contradiction without collaboratively finding a solution, there is a need for a “springboard” (Engeström, 1987).

The springboard is a facilitative image, technique or socio-conversational constellation (or a combination of these) misplaced or transplanted from some previous context into a new, expansively transitional activity context during an acute conflict of a double bind character. The springboard has typically only a temporary or situational function in the solution of the double bind. (p 287)

This could be a usable idea or technology and could originate from another source or situation, outside the actual group work. But its application has to be specific to the situation at hand (Engeström, 1987).

3.3 Rogoff’s model for analysis of sociocultural activity

Rogoff (1995) has presented a way to study and analyse sociocultural activities on three planes: personal, interpersonal and community planes. She emphasises that these are “inseparable, mutually constituting planes comprising activities that can become the focus of analysis at different times, but with the others necessarily remaining in the background of the analysis.” (p 139). Rogoff characterises the processes on the three planes as ‘apprenticeship’, ‘guided participation’, and ‘participatory appropriation’, respectively:

When Rogoff uses the metaphor of apprenticeship in the community plane, she provides a model that involves active individuals participating in activity with the purpose to develop mature participation. The idea focuses on the specific nature of the culturally organized activity involved, and also to its relation to the economic and political practices of the community around it. It helps us to examine the institutional

⁷ The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is an expression introduced by Vygotsky. “It is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.” (Vygotsky, 1930/1978, p 86)

structure and cultural technologies with its purposes,

constraints, resources, values and goals.

The second metaphor, guided participation, focuses our attention in the interpersonal plane and on the processes and systems involved when people communicate and coordinate efforts. This includes face-to-face and side-by-side activities as well as more distal arrangements. The guidance involves direction offered by cultural and social values and social partners. Participation could be observation, as well as hands-on involvement. This provides a perspective that can help us to understand learning and development, and how the nature of guidance and participation varies. This includes both deliberate instruction and incidental impact from comments, actions or objects, encouraging or discouraging people in one direction or the other.

The metaphor of participatory appropriation offers an instrument to analyse the individual plane, how individuals change through their involvement in activity. Cognitive development occurs in the communication and decision-making processes, while individuals transform their understanding of and responsibility for activities. According to this view, the individuals are interdependent, taking active roles, and these roles are dynamically changing.

Rogoff’s model of analysis provides us with a way to study the learning that takes place as a change of behaviour during discussions. Rogoff uses an appropriation perspective on learning:

People, by themselves and with companions, puzzle out how to manage a new situation on the basis of their own and their shared history, to reach their own and their shared goals, through subtle and explicit communication indicating the ‘kind’ of a situation in which they are involved. (ibid., p 159)

People act on the basis of previous experience, and contribute to an event by taking part in it. This transforms the sociocultural activity, and the personal, interpersonal and cultural processes that constitute it. This approach can help us to analyse developmental processes involved when individuals participate with others in cultural activity. By combining the three perspectives, patterns can be found in the conduct of sociocultural activities, observing both similarities and differences.

4 OVERVIEW OF PAPERS A – F

Six studies are reported in Papers A – F. Three of them explore university courses concerning computer use in society. Learners interacted mainly through a forum system. The special character of forum communication impacted communication and collaboration processes. One paper summarizes these results and deduces a first list of tips to teachers and systems designers, aiming to help to reduce problems and take advantage of collaborative-learning opportunities. One paper is a literature study done for the Swedish School Board, giving an overview of research on distance education, with focus on secondary-school use. The studies build on each other, successively deepening and broadening the understanding of processes taking place when collaborative learning is introduced in distance education.

4.1 Research questions guiding the studies

In what way can collaborative learning be arranged within distance education? Which problems appear, and which new possibilities are created? How can ICT support this? These were questions I was thinking about when I started my research. I approached the area by arranging a distance education course together with my colleague Sirkku Männikkö (Fåhræus & Männikkö, 1997; Männikkö & Fåhræus, 1997). Through this experience, as a teacher and as a researcher, I got a broad impression of problems and opportunities. Based on those, I chose some questions to study in more detail. During the studies, my interest in the learners’ views grew stronger. I also realized the importance of the developmental processes. The following questions concerning collaborative learning in distance education were addressed in the studies described here:

• How do collaborating learners create group cohesion? (Papers A and B)

• How do learners develop communication strategies? (Papers A, B and F)

• How can the teacher support this development? (Papers A and C)

• Can an introduction about human communication improve the electronic communication within the collaborating groups? (Paper B)

• How can ICT be used by the teacher while grading and giving feedback to learners? How do learners perceive this kind of feedback? (Paper B)

• How do learners describe their own learning and group processes during group discussions? (Papers B and E)

• How is collaborative learning introduced in a traditional distance education environment? Which are the driving forces and the impediments? (Paper F)

• How can the distance education teacher arrange a fertile learning environment and support the process towards collaborative learning? (Papers A, B, C, E and F)

• What functions in a forum system would be of help to support teachers and learners to learn by collaboration? (Papers B and C)

4.2 Context, focus and results of each paper

All learning is situated in some kind of context (Karlgren, 2003). The learning described in Papers A, B and E is situated in a course context, and, more precisely, in a group situation where learners learn from and with each other through a forum system. The teacher is present, primarily as the one who has created the situation and a structure, and given the learners tasks and sources of knowledge to explore. The teacher can also be more or less active in the group situations, as a model or as a “scaffold”. The environment of the study described in Paper F is the distance education systems in Australia.

Dillenbourg’s (1999a) definition of collaborative learning (see Section 1.2) contains the expression “two or more people”. Here, mainly small learning groups (3-10 individuals) are studied, but to some extent also larger groups (up to about 50).

Paper A describes a course called “Spin a web between the school and the world”, which was given by my colleague Sirkku Männikkö and me. The paper was presented by me⁸ at a conference in New Zealand July 1998, but it is based on our common work, a course paper and a paper (Männikkö & Fåhræus, 1998), presented at the IFIP conference the same year. The course was a 6-months part-time distance course for in-service secondary teachers about how to introduce the Internet in their teaching. Participants formed groups around their own project ideas. They communicated through

⁸ The publishers unfortunately omitted Männikkö’s name at the publication of this paper.

a text-based forum system FirstClass⁹ during the whole course. Only during three days at the beginning and three days at the end did the whole class meet physically. Learners’ behaviours in forum discussions were observed, diaries were collected and the electronic dialogue analysed.

The findings gave a broad description of group behaviour, technology adaptation, and communication strategies. The groups were formed with the objective to learn and the task was problem solving. We noticed that the groups passed through sequential stages, common to face-to-face groups: The first stage is when participants get to know each other and find out how to behave in the group. In the next stage, distribution of influence is decided upon, which often causes conflict. The fourth stage is when task performance is in focus. The most successful groups had passed the first two stages already during the first meeting.

Communication technology, in this case FirstClass, caused problems for some learners, but they regarded this as a challenge to overcome, which they did through discussions and by help from technically more skilled peers. Parallel discussion threads created problems in chat sessions, but during the course they developed a competence to handle this. The groups developed strategies for group cohesion by giving fast and frequent feedback to each other, thus continuously keeping in touch. They also found that chat was an important complement to the mainly asynchronous communication.

Both in Paper B and in Paper E the environment of research was a course called “People, Computers, and Society”. This course was given to campus students at the Department of Computers and Systems Sciences at Stockholm University, but it was given as a part-time distance course during ten weeks with only one three-hour lecture in the beginning. The learning revolved around three to five themes. Learners were divided into groups of five to seven, and each group had to choose and read articles about each theme. Each group should produce a contribution to a common discussion about each article, and another group was to act as opponent of that contribution. Each learner should also take part individually in the common discussion around each theme. Common discussions and teacher instructions took place asynchronously through a text-based forum system, KOM2000 (Palme, 2000). Most of the group communication was also going on in the forum system, even if some of the groups met face to face occasionally.

The study described in Paper B was a field experiment with two objectives:

(1) to test whether an introduction about human communication in a forum

⁹ A commercial forum system. For more information, see (http://www.softarc.com/).

system would improve the quality of the group discussion and (2) to try out special functions in the forum system for grading. The first objective was addressed by an experiment where half the group was invited to a face-toface, experiential session about human communication before the course started. The other half was invited to a technical session where three forum systems were presented. My hypothesis was that the experiential session would improve group discussions more than the technical. The second objective was addressed by using a forum system equipped with grading functions intended to help the teacher to administer and disseminate her judgements on the learners’ contributions as formative assessments during the discussions. The grading functions had been specified by me and programmed by my colleague Torgny Tholerus.

Data was collected through two questionnaires, and interviews with learners and the teacher. Activity theory (Engeström, 1987) guided the analysis. The following main conclusions were drawn: The grading functions give the teacher a substantial help, but the most important instrument for the learning is the communication that leads to a lively discussion. The qualitative feedback that learners get from this interaction is more crucial than the quantitative feedback from the teacher’s grading. This study did not give enough support for the hypothesis that an introduction about human communication would improve the quality of the group discussion.

Paper C is a summary of my licentiate thesis (Fåhræus, 2000), presented at the CSCL conference 2001, about problems and opportunities met when learning collaboratively through forum systems. It is mainly based on Papers A and B. Paper C describes the special characteristics of computer-mediated communication as independent of place and time, text-based, and having a permanent and technological character. It states that these characteristics influence collaborative learning in that they can both augment and impede the efficiency of collaborative learning. From these consequences, tips are deduced to teachers and to designers about corresponding support functions, which ought to be added to forum systems. The paper contains a list of these tips, which is an excerpt from my licentiate thesis (Fåhræus, 2000).

Paper D is a literature review with focus on the use of distance education in secondary schools. The report is written in Swedish with a 24-page summary in English. It was carried out in collaboration with Lars-Erik Jonsson for the Swedish School Board. In this report, we give a historic background to distance education and its impact on education in Sweden. Different kinds of distance education are identified. Pedagogic aspects are illuminated theoretically and from the perspectives of organisations, teachers and learners. Several course approaches are presented and discussed. An outlook to distance education for young people in five other countries is presented.

The use of technology in distance education is described and evaluated. Finally, consequences are analysed using Activity Theory (Engeström, 1987), and suggestions are given to secondary schools.

Paper E describes a study concerned with material collected during three course occasions of the course “People, Computers, and Society”. The learners were given the task to describe their group and learning processes. The material was analysed through a grounded-theory process and they show that the task given to the learners made them reflect upon their processes and they may have learnt from that. Teachers are also helped by these reports to better understand learners’ experiences. The building of a cohesive learning community required opportunities to develop shared values and to form a group identity. It took time and effort for the learners to develop the skill to learn through e-discussions. The technology was not intuitive. To move into a new learning culture, to develop a way to communicate asynchronously, and to collaborate at a distance was difficult, and not all learners managed to do so during the course. Those who managed, witnessed that they experienced a valuable learning process.

Paper F describes, not one course, but several school systems, namely distance education in Australian school education. 41 learners were interviewed and observed, and 11 online lessons were observed in three states (Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia). Several teachers, school leaders, technicians and parents were also interviewed. The main communication was conducted through mail, telephone or radio, but in some cases, computer-based communication was used. For example, one class tried Blackboard¹⁰, a commercial product providing a common writing area, where learners and teachers could write and draw pictures seen by everybody simultaneously.

Focus in the study was on collaborative learning supported by computers. Collected material was analysed through Activity Theory. The results show that collaborative learning in different forms exists, but that the obstacles are enormous. The expensive infrastructure and the correspondence traditions are delaying changes, but expansive actions (Engeström, 1987) initiated by new technology, a strong interest from many learners, and engaged teachers have started a dynamic development towards more collaborative learning.

¹⁰ For information on Blackboard, see http://www.blackboard.com/.

4.3 Research methods used

I have chosen to explore natural course situations by a mainly qualitative approach in order to find out what happens when distance education learners get the opportunity to learn collaboratively. This situation is very complicated because so many components are intertwined: Learners and teachers, organisation, pedagogy, technology and the content of the course. It is impossible to isolate one factor or a few factors and study them without considering the others. The outcome is dependent on, among other potential factors, both teachers’ and learners’ earlier experiences of collaborative learning and distance education, why they have chosen to teach or study at a distance, their attitudes to collaboration, and their entire situation. Are the learners working on a computer of their own or do they have to go to a school or study centre to access course material and to communicate with peers? Are they full-time learners, or taking a part-time course in parallel with full-time work? All these, and many more factors influence the outcome of collaborative learning. This blurs research results and makes it impossible or at least difficult to draw certain and generalizable conclusions.

By doing experiments, some researchers manage to show that in those situations, with those learners, their technology and/or pedagogy were successful. Still, this does not prove that this would be true in a natural course situation. This kind of experiments requires that you can control most variables, and you are not able to follow learners for a long time. Second-order effects (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991) are not yet at hand. Hence, the researcher might miss some important phenomena, which would not be visible in this very restricted viewpoint and during this very short period of time.

By applying a qualitative approach in the field studies, I wanted to get both a broad and a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) of the field. Natural distance education courses were followed and examined, each during a long period of time (10 to 20 weeks). By this approach, the gap is reduced between the observer and those observed. The voices of learners and teachers come through in diary notes, in the electronic dialogues, and in unstructured interviews. Processes could be observed as they developed. Interpretations were aimed at illustrating the perspectives of teachers and learners. This was both supported and impeded by the fact that teacher and researcher was the same person in two of the studies (Papers A and E). It supported the interpretation, since the researcher herself experienced being a teacher, but it might impede by decreasing the openness to other views and opinions. (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 1994; Miles & Huberman, 1994)

4.3.1 Methods of Data Collection

5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM STUDIES A - F

The studies resulted in descriptions of situations where learners and teachers experienced problems and opportunities. There were also processes described, which each were situated in a specific social, cultural and historical context. Similar processes occurred in different contexts, but each process was specific for its context. Finally, the studies resulted in recommendations to teachers, learners, system designers and school organisations.

5.1 Problems, opportunities, and solutions

Problems, opportunities, and solutions arose when collaborative learning in distance education was introduced. These were experienced (a) by learners, and (b) by teachers. For instance, learners found that feedback was delayed and that it was difficult to agree upon decisions in the asynchronous communication. Teachers found it problematic to engage passive learners. At the same time, the independence of time and place gave learners the opportunity to reflect and to go back and read earlier contributions. Teachers could easily distribute information to the learners, and arrange for resource persons to be available. According to the analysis in Paper C, these problems and opportunities were mainly caused by the character of electronically mediated communication, namely:

• Independence of time and place

• Permanence

• Text-based mode

• Dependency of technology

• Dependency of task

These characteristics may either augment or impede the collaborative learning (Figure 5.1)

Solutions to the problems were deduced and presented in Paper C as a list of tips to teachers, and corresponding support functions that a forum system ought to contain. These tips aimed at helping teachers to reduce problems and take advantage of opportunities. (A more detailed list can be found in Fåhraeus, 2000.)

5.2 Developmental processes

The studies have resulted in descriptions of developmental processes that took place while learners struggled to come to grips with how to learn collaboratively at a distance, and how teachers supported these processes. In parallel with learning the course content, learners had to figure out and construct their own way of how to collaborate and how to communicate through the forum system. Some of the processes concerned mainly collaboration, some mainly communication, but many processes concerned both, and they were also integrated with the content-learning process. Here follows examples of developmental processes, some illustrated with excerpts from learner-group reports or interviews with learners.

5.2.1 Processes mainly concerning collaboration

5.3 Recommendations

Paper C contains a list of tips to teachers and corresponding design ideas.

Paper D concludes with suggestions directed to the Swedish School Board about the introduction of distance education in upper-secondary schools.

6 ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND SYNTHESIS

The resulting situations, processes and recommendations summarized in Chapter 5 will here be further analysed using the theories offered by Engeström (1987) and Rogoff (1995), described in Chapter 3. As conclusions, the metaphor of a Triple Helix is introduced, and checklists are presented for system designers, teachers, potential collaborative learners, and organisations.

6.1 The activity system of collaborative learning

Collaborative learning at a distance can be looked upon as an activity system with course content as an object, and learning as the outcome. The system here focused uses collaborative learning and a forum system as its main instruments. The learner is the subject and the learner belongs to a community of learners, a group including teacher (Figure 6.1).

Collaborative learning Forum system

Rules Group Division of labour

Figure 6.1 Collaborative learning as an activity system (Figure 3.1 specified)

The developmental processes that were identified as results of the studies concern the object, the instruments, rules and division of labour. Each developmental process can, in turn, be illustrated as an activity system. For instance, the process to master technology has technology as object and the mastering as outcome. One of the instruments is peer help. A rule might be that questions are put in a certain forum, where also answers are published. One kind of division of labour could be that those who have a problem put a question to everybody, and those who know the answer give it to everybody (Figure 6.2).

Peer help

Where to put questions Class Who asks and answers

Figure 6.2 Mastering technology as an activity system (Figure 6.1 specified)

6.2 The cycle of expansive collaborative learning

To find out how these processes are initiated and driven forward, we can use Engeström’s concept of contradiction and the model of expansive learning (See section 3.2). Let us consider a situation when a group of learners, who are used to face-to-face collaboration, gets a task to discuss a topic of their own choice through a forum system that is new to most of them (Figure 6.3).

In the first step (Activity 1: Observing a contradiction), the learner meets a primary contradiction: problems to use the technology. This may be solved by asking peers for help. Now, the group is ready to attack the first part of the task: to choose a topic. They start a discussion about possible topics to choose, but soon they notice that the discussion tends to go on forever, without any decision. This is a dilemma, which could only be solved collaboratively (Transforming 1: Dilemma). They have to reconsider the object of the activity. The aim is not just to discuss but also deciding on topic (Object construction: Decision). This is an entirely new activity, needing other instruments and rules. The group decides to try synchronous communication. This is now applied and later generalized to other occasions (Transforming 2: Application). By reflecting on the situation, they find that decision-making is generally difficult in asynchronous communication and start reflecting upon this (Activity 2: Reflection).

As a second turn along this cycle, the learners might experience a contradiction when they try to conduct a discussion through the forum system the same way as they do face to face. Such discussions are situations where someone expresses an opinion and someone else immediately responds to this opinion. More people get engaged, and contribute by giving support or opposition to the first opinion. The dialogue goes on sequentially: only one utterance is heard at a time, and all participants hear them in the same order, at the same time. Discussions through forum systems (asynchronous, text-based) are different. You do not immediately get a response, and you have plenty of time to think over what you read and to formulate your own contributions. You can read the contributions in any sequence, e.g., all contributions from one participant, or all contributions within the same topic. You choose which contributions you respond to and how you label your answer.

6.2.1 Initiation of development

Learner groups experiencing these differences might react along different lines. Some might struggle to keep the model from face-to-face discussions, others might manage to expand their behaviour and create their own model that works well in their specific situation. The group that fails to come through and develop an effective discussion needs some kind of “springboard” or other help. If they cannot find it themselves, the teacher needs to provide them with it. It might be enough to give a hint about a similar situation through which the group can get an idea about a solution. Or the teacher might be forced to give more direct help by indicating a solution.

We might expand the example and consider a situation when a new learner joins the group. Imagine that this new member questions the whole idea of collaborative learning. This may force the group to re-evaluate their objectives and their views on learning and knowledge. Those processes include the development of a common understanding that each individual can benefit from the collaboration and also contribute to the group’s learning. This might mean that they sacrifice efficacy for broader perspectives. They then care for the group and the individuals in it. (Kollock & Smith, 1996)

As we see from these examples, several processes are going on in parallel, and influencing each other: While the learners try to solve the task concerning the course content (to choose a topic and discuss it), they are also going through a process developing their communication skills (mastering technology, choosing relevant medium), and developing a group cohesion helping their collaboration (experiencing help from each other, getting to know each others competencies, negotiating common values). These processes can support each other. Further, they are situated in the specific context (group of learners, task, etc.). Attacking a new task may induce the need to choose another instrument or rule. A new member entering the group may imply that, e.g., the division of labour, and even the object, has to be renegotiated.

Salomon & Perkins (1998) hold that individual and social learning can interact and support one another in what they call a “reciprocal spiral relationship”; the two kinds of learning complement and influence each other dynamically.

6.2.2 Different planes

Looking at the individual plane according to Rogoff (1995), we can see that learners try to make appropriations from the group members’ behaviour and experiences. It even happens that they change their stated attitudes. A learner who experienced a better learning process when the work was done in collaboration with the group, appreciated this and was prepared to use it in similar situations. The new means and conditions for future activity build on the current situation (Waern & Rabardel, 2003). The appropriation process demanded (1) that the learner experienced the actual behaviour in the group work with the task, and (2) that the group together reflected over what had happened. Thus, the collaborative process supported the content-learning process. In this case, we could not notice an explicit process to renegotiate objectives for the activity. It rather became a byproduct of the process that was recognised afterwards.

At the interpersonal plane, we can notice impact from the teacher on the processes, as well as impact from technology and from other persons, such as parents. A distance learner in the Australian study (Paper F) who got to hear that she was very good at studying individually, and who saw that her parents avoided collaboration with others, this learner may well have stuck to the behaviour to work alone with her studies. This was strengthened by the fact that radio communication made it difficult to hear the other remote learners; also, roots from “evil” trees cut off the telephone connections at times. Then, when a possibility to communicate effectively with peers was offered, there was a completely new situation. One learner in Australia (Paper F) was asked what she thought would happen if she and her peers would be offered the possibility to talk to each other in a telephone conference without the teacher. She answered that then they would just talk nonsense. She could not spontaneously imagine a situation where they would discuss the subject matter and learn more about it through collaboration. But other examples show that when a teacher gave learners a task to find material about a topic and then present their summaries to their peers, a fruitful collaboration appeared between the learners. The technology as such and the possibility to communicate did not create a learning community, but in guided participation, a combination between technology, relevant tasks, encouragement and support from the teacher made the group develop a new, constructive collaboration. Through this, they could break away from the common learning culture. The technical and social support for communication supported the developmental processes for learning and collaboration.

At the community plane, we can look closer at how the community around the learners is impacting and impacted by the development. The Swedish upper-secondary teachers (Paper A) ordinarily were not given the resources from their organisations that would have been needed to take time off for studies. They had to manage their studies in parallel with work. Through the distance course, they got the opportunity to develop networks between teachers in different parts of the country. This might well last and develop further, after the course. The development of well-working communication behaviour during the course may generalise and be continued in further collaboration implying more learning.

6.3 Conclusions

When collaborative learning is introduced in distance education with ICT support, there is a spiral of intertwined developmental processes. These processes are situated in specific historical, social, cultural, and technical contexts. They may support each other, and together speed up and improve learning. Processes occur spontaneously in most groups. However, in some cases they are impeded by culture and technology, and action has to be taken to overcome problems. The processes may be initiated and encouraged by organisations, teachers and individual learners. By developing relevant ICT systems, systems designers could also contribute to better collaborative learning at a distance.

The situated developmental processes can be grouped together in three roughly parallel threads: a Triple Helix of learning processes (Figure 6.4):

• The processes of learning course content

• The processes of developing communication skills and instruments

• The processes of learning to collaborate

If we were to draw a picture of a specific realistic and everyday process, it might not look all that even. There would be jumps and dips up and down, and even processes spiralling back in reversed direction. An upward-bound Triple Helix should be regarded as something to strive for.

6.3.1 Detailed recommendations

Based on these conclusions, the studies and other research, my own experience with systems development and organisational development in industry, commerce and government, as well as experiences as a learner and as a teacher, I have produced four lists:

• Suggested Options for School Organisations (Appendix 1)

• Tips for Teachers (Appendix 2)

• Check List for Collaborative Learners (Appendix 3)

• Ideas for Innovative System Designers (Appendix 4)

Those lists should be seen as preliminary, they could never be complete.

REFERENCES

Alvesson, A., & Sköldberg, K. (1994). Tolkning och reflektion: vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod. (Interpretation and reflection: philosophy of science, and qualitative method.) Lund: Studentlitteratur.

van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). Comparing graphical and textual preparation tools for collaborative argumentation-based learning. In

B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 5-10). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ayala, G. (2003). Towards lifelong learning environments: agents supporting the collaborative construction of knowledge in virtual communities. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 141-150). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Baggetun, R. & Dragsnes, S. (2003). Designing pedagogical agents for CSCL. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 151-156). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Beck, J.R., Fitzgerald, W.J., & Pauksztat, B. (2003). Individual behaviors and social structure in the development of communication networks of self-organizing online discussion groups. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 313-322). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Berleur, J., & Valenduc, G. (2001). The information and learning society: a critical analysis. In G. Bradley (Ed.), Humans on the net. Information & communication technology (ICT), work organisation and human beings. Stockholm: Prevent.

Bradley, G. (2001). ICT and Humans: how we will live, learn and work. In

G. Bradley (Ed.), Humans on the net. Information & communication technology (ICT), work organisation and human beings. Stockholm: Prevent.

Bradley, G. (Ed. 2001). Humans on the net. Information & communication technology (ICT), work organisation and human beings. Stockholm: Prevent.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, Jan-Feb. 1989 (pp 32-42).

Cao, Y., & Greer, J. (2003). Reflection, awareness and scaffolding. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 183-188). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Caeiro, M., Anido, L., & Llamas, M. (2003). A critical analysis of IMS learning design. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 363-368). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world. London: Kogan Page.

Cummings, J.N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.

Dai, J., Wu, M., Cohen, J., & Klawe, M. (2003). Primeclimb: designing to facilitate mediated collaborative inquiry. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 31-36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dane, F. C. (1990). Research methods. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.

Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999). Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999a). Introduction: what do you mean by "Collaborative learning"? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (pp 1-19). Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995). The Evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann, & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines. Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp 189-211). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Dillenbourg, P., Eurelings, A., & Hakkarainen, K. (Eds.). (2001). European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning in Maastricht, The Netherlands, March 2001.

Dillenbourg, P., Eurelings, A., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001a). Introduction. In

P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (p ii). Proceedings of the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning in Maastricht, The Netherlands, March 2001.

Dolonen, J., Chen, W., & Mørch, A. (2003). Integrating software agents with FLE3. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 157-162). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dysthe, O. (Ed.). (2003). Dialog, samspel och lärande (Dialogue, interplay and learning). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Dysthe, O. (2003a). Sociokulturella teoriperspektiv på kunskap och lärande. (Sociocultural theory perspectives on knowledge and learning.) In O. Dysthe (Ed.). Dialog, samspel och lärande. (Dialogue, interplay and learning). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Eason, K.D. (1991). Ergonomic perspectives on advances in human-computer interaction. Ergonomics, 34 (6), (pp 721-741).

EDEN (2003). Proceedings of the conference “The quality dialogue: integrating quality cultures in flexible, distance and eLearning”, Rhodes, Greece, June 2003.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Dept. of Education, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14 (1):133

56.

Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. & Suntio, A. (2002). Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. (pp 211-224) In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.) (2002), Learning for life in the 21st century: sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Blackwell Publishing.

Fåhræus, E. R. (2000). Growing knowledge: how to support collaborative learning e-discussions in forum systems. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University/Royal Institute of Technology, Report series No. 2000-005.

Fåhræus, E.R., Gunnarsson, H., & Jungnelius, M-L. (2001). Flow in the Interaction - a Model for assessment of the interactivity in Web-based courses. In H. Hoyer (Ed), Proceedings of the 20^th World Conference on Open and Distance Education, April 2001, Dusseldorf, Germany.

Fåhræus, E., & Männikkö, S. (1997). Väv ihop skolan med världen. (Spin a web between the school and the world.) Report to DUKOM, a Swedish Governmental Committee.

Fåhræus, E.R. (Co-chair), Chamberlain, B. (Co-chair), Bridgeman, N., Fuller, U., and Rugelj, J. (1999). Teaching with Electronic Collaborative Learning Groups. Report of the ITiCSE'99 Working Group on Creative Teaching of Electronic Collaborative Learning Groups. In SIGCSE Bulletin - Inroads, Volume 31, Number 4, December 1999 (pp 121 - 128). The Working Group Reports of the 4th Annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Education ITiCSE'99, Cracow, Poland, June 27 - July 1, 1999.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: toward an interpretative theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Technological Education, 7 (1).

Guribye, F., Andreassen, E.F., & Wasson, B. (2003). The organisation of interaction in distributed collaborative learning. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 385-394). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hansen, T., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Lewis, R., & Rugelj, J. (1999). Using telematics for collaborative knowledge construction. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (pp 168-196). Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: a field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Harrison, S., & Dourish, P. (1996). Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative systems. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Conputer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Boston, USA. Nov. 1996, pp 67-76.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (Eds.). (1992). Interaction in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning. Cambridge University Press.

Hietala, P. (1998). Procedural facilitation in Web discussions. In G. Davies, (Ed.), Proceedings of the XV. IFIP World Computer Congress, Vienna and Budapest, 1998 (pp 445-454).

Hiltz, S. R. (1995). Teaching in a virtual classroom. In Proceedings of ICCAI’95, Hsinchu, Taiwan.

Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation. Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original work published 1978).

Holmberg, C. (1998). På distans. Utbildning, undervisning och lärande. (At a distance. Education, instruction and learning.) SOU 1998:83. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.

Hundeide, K. (2003). Det intersubjektiva rummet. (The intersubjective room.) In O. Dysthe (Ed.). Dialog, samspel och lärande (Dialogue, interplay and learning). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Iacucci, C., Pain, H., & Lee, J. (2003). Practices of collaborative authoring with video episodes. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 239-248). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Jensen, N., Seipel, S., Nejdl, W., & Olbrich, S. (2003). CoVASE: collaborative visualization for contructivist learning. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 249-254). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kanselaar, G., DeJong, T., Andriessen, J., & Goodyear, P. (2000). New technologies. In R-J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.). (2000). New learning (pp 55-81). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Karlgren, K. (2003). Mastering the use of gobbledygook

- Studies on the development of expertise through exposure to experienced practitioners' deliberation on authentic problems. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University/Royal Institute of Technology, Report series No. 2003-009.

Keegan, D. (1988). On defining distance education. In D. Stewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: international perspectives (pp 6-33). London/New York: Routledge.

Kollock, P., & Smith, M. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In S. C. Herring (Ed.). Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Pp 109-128).

Lally, V., & de Laat, M. (2003). A quartet in E: investigating collaborative learning and tutoring as knowledge creation processes. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 47-56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

LeCourt (1999). The ideological consequences of technology and education: the case for critical pedagogy. In M. Selinger, & J. Pearson (Eds.). (1999). ´Telematics in education: trends and issues (pp 51-75). Oxford: Pergamon.

Louca, L., Druin, A., Hammer, D., & Dreher, D. (2003). Students’ collaborative use of computer-based programming tools in science: a descriptive study. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 109-118). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ludvigsen, S., & Mørch, A. (2003). Categorization in knowledge building: task specific argumentation in a co-located CSCL environment. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 67-76). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Mason, R. (1998). Models of online courses. ALN Magazine Vol. 2, Issue 2

– Oct. 1998. URL: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/vol2_issue2/Masonfinal.htm .

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

McLaughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (1999). Pedagogic roles and dynamics in telematics environments. In M. Selinger, & J. Pearson (Eds.). (1999). ´Telematics in education: trends and issues (pp 32-50). Oxford: Pergamon.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: SAGE Publications.

Moore, M.G. (1994). Administrative barriers to adoption of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol.8, No.3.

Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education - a systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(3), 212-238.

Moshaiov, A. (2003). New breed of computer supported student contestseLearning by and for tele-collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 135-140). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Mulder, I., Graner, M., Swaak, J., & Kessels, J. (2003). Stimulating questioning behaviour: a study on learning and understanding in video-based design teams. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 421-430). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Männikkö, S., & Fåhræus, E. R. (1997). Creating places for teaching and learning. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Technology and Education (ICTE'97), Oslo, Norway.

Männikkö, S., & Fåhræus, E. R. (1998). "Are you still there?!" - About mediated communication in teaching and learning. In G. Davies (Ed.), Proceedings of the XV. IFIP World Computer Conference, Teleteaching '98 Distance Learning, Training and Education, Vienna and Budapest. (Pp 667678).

Neal, L. (1997). Virtual classrooms and communities. Presented at GROUP 97, Phoenix Arizona, USA. Available at ACM digital library.

Neal, L., Ramsay, J., & Preece, J. (1997). Report on the CHI 97 Special Interest Group on Distance Learning, SIGCHI Bulletin.

Palincsar, A.S. (1987). Reciprocal teaching: field evaluations in remedial and content area reading. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.

Palme, J. (2000). KOM2000: advanced, distributed forum software. URL: http://cmc.dsv.su.se/kom/kom-summary.html

Paulsen, M.F. (2002). Online education systems in Scandinavian and Australian universities: a comparative study. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. (October - 2002). URL: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v3.2/paulsen.html

Pedersen, J. (2000). Tekniken styr inte utvecklingen. (The technology does not control the development.) In U. Riis (Ed.), IT i skolan mellan vision och praktik (IT in the school between vision and practice.) (pp 29-38). K.almar: Skolverket.

Petrou, A., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2003). Is synchronous computer mediated collaborative problem-solving ‘justified’ only when by distance? Teacher’s points of view and interventions with co-located groups, during everyday class activities. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 441-450). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Postle (2002a). 2000-2002 Research plan for DEC. URL: http://www.usq.edu.au/dec/Research/index.html

Postle, G. (2002b). Emergence of fourth generation technologies. (The international development program).

Puntambekar, S., & Young, M.F. (2003). Moving toward a theory of CSCL. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 503-512). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Reffay, C., & Chanier, T. (2003). How social network analysis can help to measure cohesion in collaborative distance learning. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 343-352). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In Wertsch, J. V., del Río, P. & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural Studies of Mind. Cambridge University Press.

Rovai, A.P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, April 2002. URL: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v3.1/rovai.html

Rummel, N., Spada, H., Caspar, F., Ophoff, J.G., & Schornstein, K. (2003). Instructional support for computer-mediated collaboration: results from process analyses. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 199-208). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating - The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. In D. Pearson, & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.). Review of Research in Education, 23, 1-24.

Schwartz, D. L. (1999). The productive agency that drives collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp 198-218). Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.

Selinger, M., & Pearson, J. (Eds.). (1999) Telematics in education: trends and issues. Oxford: Pergamon.

Simons, R-J., van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (Eds.). (2000). New learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Slavin (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.). (1992). Interaction in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp 145-173). Cambridge University Press.

Slavin (1995). Cooperative learning. Theory, research, and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: new ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Stahl, G. (2003). Meaning and interpretation in collaboration. In B. Wasson,

S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 523-532). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded Theory, procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.

Sugimoto, M., Kusunoki, F., Inagaki, S., Takatoki, K., & Yoshikawa, A. (2003). Epro2: design of a system and a curriculum to support group learning for school children. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 303-312). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Suthers, D., Girardeau, L., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic roles of external representation in face-to-face and online collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 173-182). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Svensson, L., & Magnusson, M. (2003). Crowds, crews, teams and peers: a study of collaborative work in learning-centre based distance education. URL: http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/

Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken – ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. (Learning in Practice – A sociocultural perspective). Stockholm: Prisma.

Tholander, J. (2003). Constructing to learn, learning to construct: studies on computational tools for learning. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University/Royal Institute of Technology, Report series No. 2003-008.

Thomas (2000). Evaluating the effectiveness of the Internet for delivery of an MBA programme. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37 (2), 97-102.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), pp 384-399.

Uribe, D., Klein, J.D., & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. ETR & D. Vol. 51, No. 1, 2003 (pp 5-19).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waern, Y. (1999). Absent minds. Journal of Courseware Engineering, December.

Waern, Y., & Rabardel, P. (2003). From artefact to instrument in the design and use of artefacts to support learning. Interacting with computers, No. 6.

Wasson, B. (1996). Instructional planning and contemporary theories of learning: is this a self-contradiction? In P. Brna, A. Paiva, & J. Self, (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp 23-30). Lisbon: Colibri.

Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S. & Hoppe, U. (2003a). Introduction: designing for change in networked learning environments. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, &

U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp xvii-xx). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S. & Hoppe, U. (2003b). Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wells & Claxton (2002). Learning for life in the 21^st century: sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Woodruff, E. (1999). Concerning the cohesive nature of CSCL communities. In Proceedings of the CSCL Conference 1999.

Zumbach, J. & Reimann, P. (2003). Influence of feedback on distributed problem based learning. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe, (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning in Bergen, June 2003 (pp 219-228). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Åström, E. (1998). Utvärdering av distansutbildningsprojekt med IT-stöd. (Evaluation of distance-education projects with IT-support.) SOU 1998:57. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Suggested Options for School Organisations

Dear Colleague,

Not one organisation is the other alike. Those suggestions are among the ones given to the Swedish School Board when they considered introducing distance education in upper-secondary schools. They might be of some value also under other circumstances.

E.R.F.

• Consider the whole historical and cultural context in the organisation before introducing collaborative learning at a distance.

• It might be a good idea to start in a small scale, but don’t forget to evaluate it before deciding about a continuation.

• Listen to colleagues in other schools and other countries. These are lots of experience out there.

• Consider changes in work organisation to adapt to the new situation. For instance, collaborative learning at a distance may require new time schedules for both learners and teachers.

• Collaborative teamwork may improve the situation.

• Give teachers and other team members a fare chance to learn about collaborative learning at a distance.

• Choose a technology that “affords” collaboration.

• Produce a list of examples of group tasks that demand collaboration among learners.

• Produce a list of tasks that stimulate discussions about “netiquette”.

Please e-mail any suggestions to evafaahr@dsv.su.se or post at

http://www.dsv.su.se/~evafaahr/

This would make it possible to have a collaboration to improve the list.

Appendix 2 Tips to Teachers

Dear fellow teacher,

There are no simple answers to what a teacher should do to improve collaborative learning at a distance, but there might be some help to get from the following list of tips.

E.R.F.

• If possible, arrange for a face-to-face meeting before the online discussion starts. Tell learners to exchange some information about themselves, their context, and background.

• Make sure that learners have the required knowledge about the used technology. Introduce a discussion about the impact of technology on human communication and the symbolic meaning of it. This discussion might result in consensus rules for the communication.

• Create a special “place” for social learner interaction.

• Be attentive to how learner groups manage to develop expansive learning processes. Only if necessary, help them. This can be done by indicating similar situations that can provide “springboards”, or by giving more directly situated help.

• Plan enough time for the expansive learning processes. If there is not enough time available, it might be wiser not to introduce collaborative learning.

• Initiate expansive learning by giving provoking tasks through the following steps (from Engeström, 1987):

1. o Find out the developmental level of the group, analytically and historically

2. o Formulate a hypothesis about a contradiction that would initiate the needed expansive learning process

3. o Create a task that confronts the contradiction

• Declare when informal language is accepted. Be aware of the time it takes for each collaborating group to develop a language culture and for new learners to adjust to it.

• Make learners aware of the time delay in asynchronous communication and its consequences. Delayed feedback can discourage activity. Make learners aware of this problem and help them find a communication pattern that works.

• Formulate the task so that the knowledge of each member is valued, especially of those who are silent or inactive.

• Give tasks that force or stimulate learners to communicate their thoughts and to collaborate. Such tasks are additive (group productivity is the sum of effort of all members) or conjunctive (all group members must succeed).

• Consider different kinds of activities, such as seminars, debates, simulations or games, role-play, discussion groups, project groups, transcript-based assignments, brainstorming, Delphi techniques, and nominal group techniques.

• Introduce a forum for mutual help between learners.

• Stress the responsibility that each learner has for the whole group.

• If possible, arrange synchronous communication means, e.g., chat, telephone conference, or face-to-face meeting, for decision-making.

• Tell learners to go back and reflect on their own learning and group processes. This might help learners to build meta-knowledge about how to learn and how to collaborate. This can be done through writing diaries or by acting on other learners' contributions.

• Decide if you need insight in the communication between members in a group. If you choose to follow the communication in a group, declare to the members that you are doing so and why. Be specific about your role, so that the learners know if they are to report or put questions to you and if they can expect you to comment on their discussion process or on the topic discussed.

• Give enough feedback and support for learners to feel confident and fade out support as soon as learners manage without it.

• There are many ways to follow up learners' learning process. Formative assessment is preferred, since it allows us to perform corrective actions during the course. One way to follow up a group discussion is to read all contributions, but this is very time consuming. Other instruments are self-evaluation and peer-evaluation.

Please e-mail any suggestions to evafaahr@dsv.su.se or post at

http://www.dsv.su.se/~evafaahr/

This would make it possible to have a collaboration to improve the list.

Appendix 3 Ideas for Innovative System Designers

Dear Fellow Practitioner and/or scientist,

Based on my research results and the analysis, I have derived some ideas for ICT design solutions that would help to initiate and maintain the situated developmental processes. I list some of these ideas in Paper C; some are inspired by other research.

E.R.F.

• A forum system should have the ‘affordance’ to collaborate by immediately showing learners a place for communication with peers. Presentations of peer learners should be easily accessible. (Paper C)

• Communication of different modes should be possible, e.g., threaded discussions, comments to given contributions, attachments to contributions, links to web pages, chat function, streaming video clips. This would stimulate groups to discuss and create their own way of using the communication means. (Paper C)

• ‘Smileys’ and other symbols or labels should be possible to add to contributions. This would stimulate discussions about style and tone in the communication. (Paper C)

• Each group should be able to create their own group identity (Woodruff, 1999), and place for collaboration (Harrison & Dourish, 1996), through the use of colour or other symbolic means.

• A calendar would initiate discussions about time scales, deadlines and frequencies in the communication. There could be a reminder functions to keep the awareness of agreements. (Paper C)

• Grading functions could help the teacher to evaluate and give feedback to learners. (Paper B)

• Characteristics of the ongoing collaboration should be visualized, e.g., in a diagram showing quality of learners’ exploration (van Amelsvoort & Andriessen, 2003), members’ participation and motivation (Zumbach & Reimann, 2003).

• The system should show who is available for collaboration (Haake & Schummer, 2003; Cao & Greer, 2003).

Please e-mail any suggestions to evafaahr@dsv.su.se or post at

http://www.dsv.su.se/~evafaahr/

This would make it possible to have a collaboration to improve the list.

Appendix 4 Check List for Collaborative Learners

Dear Fellow Learner,

Please help! You are the central person here. Find out what works! Share with others! You are welcome to include me.

E.R.F.

• Before really starting, decide on group membership and responsibility.

• At outset, allow more time for “How shall we work?” discussions.

• Be generous at outset. Go on with others who go on with that.

• Feel free to experiment with forms of communication (e.g., debate, role-play, pair interviews and “jury”).

• Have courage to ask for help. (You may expect surprises of learning how many like to help!) Try first with peer learners. If need be, try teachers. If hopeless, try outside help.

• Get familiar with technology – as needed, and to the best of your ability.

• Make sure you agree on goals.

• Make sure you agree on group rules.

• Weigh and keep track of both your own goals and the goals of the group.

• Encourage others to work towards the goals of the group.

• If you get angry, you are part of a new problem.

• If it is no longer “your” group, get out. You may seek out others. If you no longer like groups at all, it is a new problem of your own.

Please e-mail any suggestions to evafaahr@dsv.su.se or post at

http://www.dsv.su.se/~evafaahr/

This would make it possible to have a collaboration to improve the list.

Paper A

Fåhræus, E.R. and Männikkö, S. (1998). Closer at a Distance: Learning via Conference Systems. In A. Clair (Ed.), Proceedings for NACCQ’98, Auckland, New Zealand, pp 127-136.

Paper B

Fåhræus, E.R. (2000). Student Interaction Stimulates Learning beyond Grading in Asynchronous Electronic Discussions. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University/Royal Institute of Technology, Report series No. 00-008, 27 pages. (A shorter version, 5 pages, is accepted for presentation at the Second International Conference in Multimedia and ICTs in Education, December 2003, Badajos, Spain.)

Paper C

Fåhræus, E.R. (2001). Collaborative Learning through Forum Systems – Problems and Opportunities. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning in Maastricht, The Netherlands, March 2001, pp 213-221.

Paper D

Fåhræus, E. R. & Jonsson, L-E. (2002). Distansundervisning – mode eller möjlighet för ungdomsgymnasiet? (Distance education – Fashion or facility in upper-secondary schools?). Forskning i fokus, nr. 1. Kalmar: Skolverket. . (208 pages, in Swedish. Here only the 24-page English summary is included.)

Paper E

Fåhræus, E.R. (2003). How Students See Group and Learning Processes in Asynchronous e-Discussions. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference on World Wide Web Applications, September 2003, Durban, South Africa (13 pages, in press).

Paper F

Fåhræus, E.R. Distance Education Students Moving Towards Collaborative Learning - A field study of Australian DE Students and Systems. (12 pages.) Accepted 2003 for publication by the "Educational Technology & Society" (ISSN 1436-4522).

Paper A

Fåhræus, E.R. and Männikkö, S. (1998). Closer at a Distance: Learning via
Conference Systems. In A. Clair (Ed.), Proceedings for NACCQ’98,
Auckland, New Zealand, pp 127-136.
The second authors name was unfortunately omitted by the publisher.

Paper B

Fåhræus, E.R. (2000). Student Interaction Stimulates Learning beyond Grading in Asynchronous Electronic Discussions. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University/Royal Institute of Technology, Report series No. 00-008, 27 pages. (A shorter version, 5 pages, is accepted for presentation at the Second International Conference in Multimedia and ICTs in Education, December 2003, Badajos, Spain.)