Annita Fjuk

Ole Smørdal

D / Intermedia

Networked Computers' Incorporated Role in Collaborative Learning

Keywords: Activity theory, conceptual frameworks, collaborative learning, networked computers

Networked computers are increasingly being used in collaborative learning. To understand what roles networked computers have in collaborative learning over distances, systems developers need conceptual frameworks that address the triadic complexity of knowledge construction, social interaction and technical issues. Some theoretical accounts of this relationship exits, but in terms of usefulness for systems design and how the role of networked is regarded, they have shortcomings. Based on activity theory, this paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding computer applications as incorporated into collaborative learning. This is operationalised by focusing on the applications as mediators for reflection and thought as well as for the social exchange processes and the learners' role-taking process.

Introduction

The rapid development and expansion of networked computers and corresponding applications have had a strong influence on the tools and methods of CSCL. Networked computers facilitate distributed learning, i.e., learning situations where the distance is not only distance in space or time as in traditional distance education [START_REF] Holmberg | Theory and Practice of Distance Education[END_REF], but includes the mediation of learning activities by a constellation of various tools (such as traditional internet services, Web-based groupware, multimedia shared spaces, videoconferencing technology, combined with text processing programs, drawing and painting programs, spreadsheet applications) with appropriate pedagogical approaches to collaboration and social interactions. These tools have become much more than value neutral instruments supporting individual actions. They shape the goals and courses of actions, increasingly taken place in collaboratively based learning environments free from time and place constraints.

These new learning environments cause a situation in which thought and meaning are articulated by the personal tools of the individuals. The core argument throughout this paper is that a computer-based instrument (together with other mediating instruments like e.g., paper and pencils) should ideally mediate the web of human actions, without hampering the alternation between them. [START_REF] Schmidt | Modes and Mechanisms of Interaction in Cooperative Work[END_REF] illustrates this point in the following way: "(...) the user should not be required to shift to a special editor and leave the world processor normally used for composing letter, writing report, etc. The same applies to CSCW facilities supporting cooperative authoring, conferencing, etc. " (Schmidt 1994, p. 68) If this is not the case, the operational conditions of the personal tools may hamper the mediation of individual and collective actions taking place in the collaborative environment.

Several researchers place emphasis on an understanding of collaboration for the purpose of systems designs (e.g., [START_REF] Schmidt | Taking CSCW Seriously. Supporting Articulation Work Computer Supported Coperative Work[END_REF][START_REF] Pea | Seeing What We Build Together: Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments for Transformative Communications[END_REF]. This emphasis is based on theories and practice related to rather conventional ways of collaborating and interacting, i.e., situations that assume copresence of collaborating actors. This is not sufficient for providing insights into design of CSCL applications. Rather, we argue, distributed collaborative learning must be understood in terms of its own conditions, and hence in terms of the interdependencies and possible contradictions between technological and non-technological aspects.

There are some theoretical frameworks that can offer particular insights into this. Actor-network theory [START_REF] Latour | Technology is Society Made Durable[END_REF] explores the roles of human and non-human elements as equals in an interactional network. [START_REF] Hanseth | Information Technology as Infrastructure Ph[END_REF] uses this theory to analyse information infrastructure development and use practices. Interactionist theory of action [START_REF] Strauss | Continual Permutations of Actions[END_REF], originated as a critical approach to the main line sociological literature, offers a rich understanding of the structural conditions of technology (among other factors) to actions embedded in collaboratively based learning arrangements. [START_REF] Fitzpatrick | Work, Locales and Distributed Social Worlds[END_REF] use this theory as a bridging link between the social and the technical to provide insights into how to design computer systems. An activity-oriented approach of psychology, widely known as activity theory [START_REF] Vygotsky | Mind in Society[END_REF][START_REF] Leontjev | Virksomhed, bevidsthed, personlighed[END_REF][START_REF] Engeström | Learning by Expanding. An Activity-theoretical approach to developmental research[END_REF], offers a rich understanding of socially based human development in which artefacts have an essential meaning to actions. [START_REF] Kuutti | Information Systems, cooperative work and active subjects: The activity-theoretical perspective Ph[END_REF] uses the theory to classify the types of work supported by information technology.

An activity theoretical account of incorporation

Quality with respect to distributed collaborative learning, we argue, is facilitated by incorporating good didactical principles with technological advances, into a new practice resting on its own conditions. If a computer application hampers the web of human actions, the level of incorporation is low and thus quality. Activity theory is a powerful framework for considering this core issue of our work. In what follows, we outline the principles that we find useful regarding this issue. [START_REF] Vygotsky | Mind in Society[END_REF] recognised the inseparable aspects of human development and the societal dimension of the educative process. He sought to define those aspects of social engagement that concern the development of mental processing. A key issue of his research was that internalisation is social by its very nature, and that intellectual development takes place on two levels. First it appears on a social level, through interpersonal processes. Then it appears on an individual level through intrapersonal processes. Mental processes and human development are derived from actions performed by a person in cooperation with others. These range of actions compromise the so-called zone of proximal development.

A basic feature of an activity-oriented approach is the principle of mediation. Human activity is always mediated by a number of instruments, both external (such as hammers, computers, etc) and internal (such as language, concepts, etc.). Herein, are the goal-oriented actions that are characterized as by having a communicative as well as an operational aspect [START_REF] Christiansen | On Organizational Competence in System Development. An Activity Approach[END_REF]. [START_REF] Leontjev | Virksomhed, bevidsthed, personlighed[END_REF] developed a hierarchical structure of activity, with inner dynamics, transformations and its own development. The driving force behind activity, action and operation is different, as can be seen in figure 1:

The hierarchical structure of activity

Figure 1.

The internal side of an activity, along with corresponding driving forces).

An activity is realized through goal-oriented processes, termed actions. An action can realize different activities as the given action may fulfil different motives. Before an action is performed, it is planned consciously. Actions are realized through operations that face conditions in the external world. Operations are typically initiated unconsciously-often even the collection of operations that accomplish the action is selected without explicit decision. The 'automatic' choice and routinesed performance are possible only for a knowledgeable and experienced person (subject). But once acquired, this ability appears as a competence for situated action. Human development is thus a process moving actions to operations, and operations into actions (e.g., instances of breakdowns). As the degree of routinisation increases, the action is moving towards operation.

According to [START_REF] Leontjev | Virksomhed, bevidsthed, personlighed[END_REF], actions are usually polymotivated; two or more activities can temporarily merge, motivating the same action.

Instrument-mediated action

Central to Vygotsky's activity-oriented approach is the instrument-mediated action, and which enrich the issue of integrating networked computers and human action. Any instrument can be understood only within the context of human activity by identifying the ways people use the instrument, the needs it serves and the history of its development (Kaptelinin 1996a). Vygotsky distinguished between two interrelated types of instruments: tools and signs. According to Vygotsky, the function of a tool "(...) is to serve as the conductor of human influence on the object of activity; it is external oriented; it must lead to changes in objects." (Vygotsky 1978, p. 55).

Examples of tools are text-processing programs, drawing and painting programs, paper and pencil, description techniques, etc. The signs have a different character and are means of thought, and reflective and conscious actions. A sign "(...) is a means of internal activity aimed at mastering oneself; the sign is internally oriented." (Vygotsky 1978, p. 55).

Examples of signs are language, writing, drawings, schemes, diagrams, all sets of conventional signs, etc. The essence of signs is that they are basic instruments for intrapersonal processes that necessarily have a communicative form. However, it is the internalisation of social dialogues into an inner dialogue that allows one to plan and monitor cognitive progress and further actions in interpersonal and communicative processes. The communicative aspect of an action is the way knowledge is constructed about the phenomenon of question, while the operational aspect of the same action is mediated by the chosen tools (e.g., paper and pencil). The outcome of the action is framed by the embedded conditions of the tools.

All signs reflect the tools and aid available for use in carrying out action. Following the instrumentmediation perspective of human activity, we can point out two interrelated roles of a computer-based instrument:

• The mediator of the communicative aspect of action (sign)

• The mediator of the operational aspect of action (tool). To develop computer-based instruments mediating actions within activity, we argue that systems design has to be aimed at understanding the communicative aspect of action (the sign-part) in order to offer good solutions for the operational aspect.

Operationalising collective aspects

Although activity theory almost exclusively has dealt with individuals, approaches have been developed to expand and operationalise the concept of activity to socially organized arrangements. The concept of collective subject has been introduced to account collaboration amongst individuals, dealing with a joint activity. The collective subject can then be considered as a 'total subject' of the joint activity, and "the interrelations with the individual subjects can be comprehended through a psychological analysis of the joint activity" (A. A. Leontjev, cited in Engeström 1987, p. 70).

Such an interpretation may be problematic if the various subjects have different motives for their actions, but also with respect to analysing inter-personal processes (such as negotiation of meaning, development of shared understanding, joint production, etc.)

An essential problem with Leontjev's general structure of activity is that the instrumental and communicative aspect of activity was not brought into a unified model [START_REF] Engeström | Learning by Expanding. An Activity-theoretical approach to developmental research[END_REF]). These features have certain importance to the topic of incorporating networked computers into the total arc of collaboratively based learning environments. [START_REF] Engeström | Learning by Expanding. An Activity-theoretical approach to developmental research[END_REF] has taken these features into consideration, and as such we will apply Engeström's interpretation as a theoretical foundation for understanding the problem area.

Engeström's interpretation has been widely adopted in the computer-science field. [START_REF] Bødker | Through the Interface[END_REF], who introduced activity theory to the HCI-field, uses Engeström's interpretation to study computer-based instruments in use. [START_REF] Bellamy | Designing Educational Technology: Computer-Mediated Change[END_REF] uses the interpretation as a framework to study the relationship between technology and educational change. And finally, [START_REF] Kuutti | Information Systems, cooperative work and active subjects: The activity-theoretical perspective Ph[END_REF]-who introduced activity theory to the CSCW community-applies the structure of activity to classify the types of (cooperative) work supported by information technology. [START_REF] Kuutti | Information Systems, cooperative work and active subjects: The activity-theoretical perspective Ph[END_REF] recognizes the incorporated role of the computer. He is rather engaged in considering the different aspects of cooperative work separately, and to identify the capabilities of computer applications to support pre-defined aspects of collaborative arrangements.

Development of meaning, exchange processes and role-taking processes

The objective of Engeström's systemic model is to consider the socially based nature of human activity by including rules of communication and division of labour. In agreement with the model, we introduce three aspects that together constitute a useful basis for understanding the nature of distributed collaborative learning. The interconnected aspects are: Development of meaning and knowledge construction, exchange processes and role-taking processes. These aspects are illustrated in figure 1. The upper triangle of the model illustrates Leontjev's basic interpretation of human activity, and concerns the individual learner's actions directed towards knowledge construction and thought, -mediated by a constellation of instruments.

Figure 1. The aspects of collective activity

The model shows that a learner is not isolated but is a part of a distributed learning community, represented by the aspects of exchange and role-taking processes. The exchange processes concern the learner's actions directed towards the shared learning community, -mediated by the embedded rules of that community (laws, traditions, physical distances, etc.). The role-taking processes concern mediation of actions directed towards the shared community's division of tasks and responsibility. The last aspect, use of meaning, concerns the situated use of achieved knowledge. This aspect advocates at least two interconnected issues: First, the lasting changes where the learner's solo-capabilities are improved through a community of practice. Second, the constellation of instruments needs to be studied in use, with a focus on their role as mediators. Many computer applications are generic, and their use is shaped very differently by different communities of practice.

The problem of computer-mediated collective action

In order to analyse the incorporated nature of networked computers and actions, we find some problems by applying Engeström's model as an analytical approach: The first problem is connected to a weak recognition of the dynamic structure of activity presented by [START_REF] Leontjev | Virksomhed, bevidsthed, personlighed[END_REF]. Leontjev's structure is to some extent presented through the concept of inner contradictions. An activity itself is not only mediated by, but also develops rules, instruments and division of labour. However, the processes by which a community of individuals articulates actions and operations, and handle and develop them in the face of situated actions and contingencies, are not clearly elaborated. The evolution of collaboratively based arrangements involves actions to negotiate on perspectives and beliefs, and to handle contingencies and situated actions.

The second problem is related to the instrument-mediation, that is, to the duality between sign and tool. Collaborativecommunities are created and maintained by activities conducted through actions of individuals. As such, the duality of sign-and tool-mediation has to be present in the aspect of `Development of meaning`. However, the model is exclusively focusing on this particular duality. The aspects of 'Rules' and 'Division of work` may be viewed as structures of the communicative aspect of action. To guide systems design, the duality of sign-and tool has also to be considered with respect to the two collective aspects of human activity. Let us for a moment use asynchronous text-based e-mail systems as examples to illustrate this: These systems are well known for being obstacles for negotiations and consensus seeking. The lack of immediate feedback, the written communication style and the dominating non-verbal situations, make these types of actions both time-consuming and problematic to fulfil especially when deadlines are near. The role of an e-mail system is thus not limited to transmission of operational aspects of communication. The e-mail system also shapes the goals of the people using it, as well as the style of communication and communication rules3. A conceptual framework for understanding the role of networked computers in distributed collaborative learning [START_REF] Engeström | Learning by Expanding. An Activity-theoretical approach to developmental research[END_REF] regards contradictions as the driving force in any human activity. Contradictions manifest themselves as problems, breakdowns, clashes, etc., within the activity system itself or in relation to other systems. We have adopted this view, and analyse the quality of incorporation with respect to various contradictions. That is, contradictions concerning the instruments' incorporated role into development of meaning and, in exchange and role-taking processes. In addition we address the contradictions due to the duality of instruments. The dialectics between the aspects (c.f figure 1) is crucial in understanding collaborative learning. In any collaborative community, neither of these aspects can be considered separately, because they all influence each other continuously. Rules-mediated exchange processes influence the course of individual and collective actions. Moreover, individual and collective actions may influence and change the whole collaborative community. The collaborative community also influences what kind of instruments that are used in the web of actions, and the instruments may in turn influence the division of tasks and responsibility. In what follows we operationalise these considerations of incorporation in terms of various categories of contradictions.

The main contradictions

Although many instruments may act both as a tool and a sign, we regard this an essential property of computer applications. The framework consists of two categories or contradictions:

• The tools and sign duality in the levels of action.

• The role of computers in collective action. We distinguish between the tool and sign duality within the levels of actions. Hence, the following categories should be considered:

Activity <-> Action

Action <-> Operation

Tools

Use of tools involves thought and is targeted toward the object of the activity. The involvement of thought may stem from problems of using the tool, due to breakdowns, or due to unfamiliarity with the tool.

Use of tools is conducted automatic, due to internalisation of the tool's properties and behaviour. This is an ideal use situation, because the tool is transparent, and hence not hampers the focus on object of collaborative knowledge construction.

Signs

Signs are an aid for thought and reflection. They are targeted toward the activity itself.

Signs are unconsciously guiding the course of actions.

Table 1: The tool and sign duality in the levels of actions

It may be difficult, even impossible or unnatural, to make a clear distinction between tool and sign related to a given action. This is however not the main clue of the framework. Rather, focus should be put on the duality within the instrument.

The computer applications' incorporated role into a collective action is related to the tool -sign duality. Hence, the following categories should be considered (Examples are included):

The role of computers in collective action

Development of meaning

Tools and signs are targeted toward the object of the activity. Tools are means of changes upon the object, while signs are aiding thought and reflection upon the object. Examples: Tools: Applications for: text processing, spreadsheets, and calendars. Database management systems.

Signs: Texts, spreadsheets, paintings, databases, calendars.

Exchange processes

Signs mediate thought, knowledge and perspectives among individuals in the community. Tools are means of changes upon the object, but the interpersonal aspects involved are also focused.

Signs: e-mails, group decisions, shared meaning, joint productions (e.g., project report) Tools: e-mail applications, video conferencing systems, workflow systems, shared databases, coauthoring tools.

Role-taking processes

Signs mediate the division of tasks and responsibility in the activity, like common decisions, commitments, and work arrangements. Shared tools are means for a community to collectively make changes upon the object. Signs: Group decision, common plans (e.g., activity responsible charts), access rights, calendars Tools: Project management, etc.

Table 2: The role of computers in collective action

What to look for?

This section outlines some possible contradictions that may guide the analysis and designs.

Contradictions due to the duality of instruments

These categories of contradictions relate to the duality within instruments [START_REF] Vygotsky | Mind in Society[END_REF], i.e., the double function of computers as tools and signs. We have observed that the tool function may hamper the sign function, and vice versa. An example is: A multiple user database may be designed so that the individual users cannot know of, and cannot interfere with, each other's actions. (This is common, and is enforced by serialisability protocols in shared databases.) The problem occurs due to the missing mediation of the other users' actions. Hence, situations where collaboration would be appropriate are hidden by the computer system [START_REF] Sørgaard | A Discussion of Computer Supported Cooperative[END_REF].

Contradictions between different instruments

These categories of contradictions relate to the constellation of instruments used. A large number of computer based and non-computer based instruments are present in any collaborative situation. These may be designed with different modes, paces, heuristics, etc. in mind. Table 2 gives an example where activity responsibility charts function as signs for making joint plans regarding who is doing what and when. Berge (1997) developed a Web-based groupware aimed at supporting distributed project-based learning. The learners' joint activity of filling in the charts was considered a central part of the collaborative processes. The original layout and format found in the paper-based forms were emphasised by the course designers. However, the implementation of these forms in Web implied problems. The charts include circles to be filled in, and this was complicated to implement by the technology used (CGI scripts). The result was that the learners used the original paper-based forms. To make common plans, the learners faxed the forms back and forth. This implied extra work for the individual as well as it constrained effective communication amongst the distance learners. Thus, the constellation of instruments used hampered the collaborative processes, and the level of incorporation was rather low when it came to use.

Another example associated with this category of contradiction is: Cf. the quote in the introduction [START_REF] Schmidt | Modes and Mechanisms of Interaction in Cooperative Work[END_REF].

Contradictions due to the levels of action

These categories of contradictions relate to the hierarchical structure of activity [START_REF] Leontjev | Virksomhed, bevidsthed, personlighed[END_REF]. We have observed that computer applications have been designed with one particular level in mind, not taking into consideration the dynamic interplay between them. An example is: A MOO/MUD application is fundamentally based on a room metaphor, and may as such help novice users to engage in interaction with limited training. However, this can be an obstacle for an experienced user.

Contradictions between the aspects of collective actions

These categories of contradictions relate to the dynamic relationship between development of meaning and, the exchange and role-taking processes [START_REF] Engeström | Learning by Expanding. An Activity-theoretical approach to developmental research[END_REF]. We have observed that individual computer applications hamper the actions directed towards exchanging materials in collaborative learning [START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF]. A word processing program is a potential tool for linking thought and articulation of it into writings. Using a word processor is shortly routinesed, and works as mediators for individual knowledge construction and development of meaning. [START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF] shows that routine actions become problematic ones, when a special function is to be used, like integrating a picture. The produced text may not appear as appropriate signs in communication. The level of incorporation is then low, since the individual learner's needs might conflict the collectively oriented processes. This category of contradiction is associated with the previous one, that is, the operation is not conducted automatically,thoughts are directed towards the tool itself.

A second example is: If versions managements and remote editing are considered as important for making a common project report, the designer's role is to find co-authoring tools that keep track of this. A brilliant Web-based solution that keep track of co-production, does not necessarily guarantee that it supports our arguments of incorporation. The level of incorporation is high, first if these exchange processes do not hamper the mediation of the other aspects.

A final example is: Consider a video conferencing system with a shared workspace. Seeing the collaborators' facial and bodily expression may be used to control access to the shared workspace. However, bad image quality may hamper this important aspect of awareness of the others' intentions and views [START_REF] Kuzuoka | Can the GestureCam be a Surrugate?[END_REF].

Contradictions between multiple activities

These categories of contradictions relate to [START_REF] Leontjev | Virksomhed, bevidsthed, personlighed[END_REF] view on polymotivated actions, i.e., two or more activities can temporarily merge, motivating the same action, thus creating a contradiction between the involved activities. An example is: A secretary is involved in different activities. The mediating instruments in these activities may be different (Framemaker, Word and LaTex/UNIX, Mac, PC), and thus constituting a hamper in collaboration because of the weak incompatibility between the instruments.

Concluding Remarks

This paper has proposed a framework for systems developers in their process of structuring their understanding and analysis of a problem situation, in which computer-based instruments are incorporated into distributed collaborative learning. An essential feature of the framework is the duality between tool and sign. This two-sided role differs from situation to situation, and what role a computer application occupies has to be considered with the situation at hand.

The computer-based instrument occupies the interrelated roles as a sign for thought and reflection and as a tool for operationalising the same action. The fundamental issue is to first consider computer applications in connection with signs, since these types of instruments have a fundamental meaning to a collaboratively based learning environments in which mediation of thought, perspectives and common decisions have a central and shared position.

The framework has shown to be powerful in analysis and designs. First: It focuses on the social and instrumental dimensions of learning. This focus goes beyond an interpretation of collaboration anchored in physical worlds, upon which many computer systems for collaborative learning are being developed. In line with traditional school-education, systems design is often driven by an understanding of transforming collaborative instruction in physical domains into computer-based equivalents. Simulating classrooms, course rooms and the like manifests this. There is no clear correspondence between such thinking in systems design and what impact it has on social interaction and learning. What counts for a learner, is not associations to classroom education, but pedagogical and technological instruments that effectively support their interactional needs. Second: The framework is particularly useful for learning situations that builds on the Web as technological platform. Web offers its users instruments for simple interactions such as searching, browsing and exchanging information. Instruments like e-mail, news and hyperlinks, are integrated parts of most browsers and thus of human interaction. When extending the functionality of Web, the established patterns of how Web is used must be incorporated into systems design. This is an important factor for motivating the use of it in learning situations.

Concluding, although activity theory views interpersonal processes and cooperative activities as the foundation for human development, the concept of collective action is not thoroughly developed. The interrelation between individual and collective oriented action is important when it comes to understand and analyse the complexity of distributed collaborative learning. With basis in [START_REF] Engeström | Learning by Expanding. An Activity-theoretical approach to developmental research[END_REF] model of collective activity, the collective action has to be enriched with other theories on action and interaction. This is an issue for further work.

Acknowledgements

Many ideas presented here were developed in a technical report written by Markku Nurminen and the authors.

Bibliography

Annita Fjuk, annita.fjuk@telenor.com, (Dr. Scient.) is the leader of the eLearning group at Telenor FoU, and has been involved in the area of collaborative tele-learning and distance education since the late 1980s. Her main interests throughout her research are the interwoven relationship between learning and technology in designs and development. Ole Smørdal, ole.smordal@ifi.uio.no, (Dr. Scient.) is scientific programmer in the systems development group at the Department of Informatics, University of Oslo. His research interests include the interwoven relationship between human work and technology in systems analysis and design. Full address: INTERMEDIA at University of Oslo, Box 1161, Blindern 0318 Oslo, Norway.


Hans Christian Arnseth

Sten Ludvigsen

Barbara Wasson

Anders Mørch

Collaboration and Problem Solving in Distributed Collaborative Learning

Keywords: distributed collaborative learning, discourse, social interaction, technological tools

published or not. The documents may come

Introduction

Collaborative learning is a complex phenomenon, and research is conducted on many different analytical levels and from a range of different theoretical and methodological perspectives. The present study represents an attempt to analyse the use of technological tools for distributed communication, collaboration and problem solving as a discursive activity. Our theoretical perspective and analytical orientation are influenced by Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (CA) [START_REF] Atkinson | Structures of social action[END_REF][START_REF] Button | Ethnomethodology and the human sciences[END_REF][START_REF] Heritage | Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology[END_REF][START_REF] Hutchby | Conversation Analysis. Principles, practices and applications[END_REF].

Recent developments of advanced information and communication technologies have spawned a great deal of research on how these technologies feature in different learning activities. The related issue of cognition, or the relation between cognition, collaboration and different kinds of ICT-tools has also been, and is, an issue that is both prominent and widely discussed within the field of CSCL [START_REF] Dillenbourg | What do you mean by collaborative learning?[END_REF], Lehtinen et al, 2000[START_REF] Littleton | Learning with computers. Analysing productive interaction[END_REF][START_REF] Vosniadou | International perspectives on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments[END_REF].

Much of the earlier research on computers and learning was dominated either by attempts to delineate how technological tools affect reasoning, conceptual understanding and problem solving, or how issues concerning problem solving strategies and collaboration processes and -patterns affect the use of different artefacts [START_REF] Koschmann | Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction[END_REF].

With the emergence of CSCL the importance of social practice and sociocultural and material artefacts for thinking and problem solving has been emphasised. In spite of this shift, cognitive processes are often understood as something that is displayed in and triggered by discourse. Therefore, even though the focus is on the interplay between technology and social action, essentialist assumptions of technology, culture, as well as a communication model of language, are often retained. These conceptions can lead to problems when accounting for the relationship between artefacts, cognition and social interaction.

We believe there is a need for studies that examine how technology actually features in social activities -in this case, how participants negotiate the meaning and usability of different tools. Psychological topics, such as perception, problem solving, remembering and reasoning, are also approached as something that is closely intertwined with social action, and which is managed in social interaction as a part of participants' practical concerns. Their understandings are founded on culturally shared procedures for constructing meaning in context. These procedures do not determine social action in any simple sense, but the participants reflexively invoke and orient to them in discourse [START_REF] Schegloff | Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition[END_REF].

Theoretical framework

The development of shared knowledge Two recent and very promising attempts of understanding the relationship between interaction and different tools are pursued by [START_REF] Baker | The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks[END_REF] and [START_REF] Dillenbourg | What do you mean by collaborative learning?[END_REF][START_REF] Dillenbourg | The long road from a shared screen to a shared understanding[END_REF]. They emphasize the importance of shared knowledge as a prerequisite for collaborative learning in distributed learning environments. Their understanding of language use is founded on [START_REF] Clark | Using language[END_REF] research, especially his key concept grounding as a category for describing the development of shared knowledge. Grounding is a process dependent on participant's beliefs, their knowledge, available artefacts and other resources. Different tools create specific constraints and affordances for the grounding process, and thereby for learning.

In studies conducted within this framework, researchers are primarily concerned with categorising collaboration and communication according to degrees of shared understandings. For example, Dillenbourg and Traum (1999) adapted Allwood et al.'s four communication functions (access, perception, understanding, agreement) as classification categories for representing degrees (or levels) of shared knowledge in virtual workspaces.

According to this notion of language use, common knowledge is founded on inter-mental transmission of information elements which are coordinated in the communication. With such a view there is a tendency to study what [START_REF] Edwards | Discourse and cognition[END_REF] calls "frozen moments". These moments are either concocted for illustration, or are recorded in experimental settings. In many cases analyses of such moments are useful and valuable, but it can be problematic to apply categories identified in such analyses to explain naturally occurring interaction.

CA and Ethnomethodology

We use Ethnomethodology and CA as theoretical and methodological tools for analysing computer mediated interaction. Within this framework social interaction is understood as accountable action, and the issue for analysts is to describe how people make sense of each other and their surroundings. Culture and cognition are not understood as determinants of meaningful conduct. This is not to say that peoples' actions are totally idiosyncratic and coincidental. On the contrary, the ways people make sense of their world are founded on shared procedures that enable them to co-ordinate actions with others and participate in meaningful communication.

Important concepts that account for these aspects of action are indexicality and reflexivity. Actions are indexed to the situation of their occurrence. The sense or meaning that particular actions have for participants, and for analysts, are tied to the local circumstances of their production [START_REF] Suchmann | Plans and situated actions[END_REF]. The concept of reflexivity refers to how situations are the product of the participants organized activities. Social reality is dynamically produced, maintained, or altered as both a process and a product of ordinary action [START_REF] Heritage | Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology[END_REF].

CA is in many ways the application of Ethnomethodology to the study of talk. Two complementary ways of describing CA is first as the systematic study of how talk performs social actions, and second, as the practical management of intersubjectivity (Edwards 1997:117). Heritage, paraphrasing Garfinkel, defines intersubjectivity as: the intersubjective intelligibility of actions ultimately rests on a symmetry between the production of actions on the one hand and their recognition on the other... this symmetry of method is both assumed and achieved by the actors in settings of ordinary social activity (Heritage, 1984:179) This depiction includes much of what CA-researchers understand as all pervasive in talk -its' sequential organisation.

Collaborative construction of mutual understanding

Within this framework the analytic interest is not primarily concerned with the categorisation of collaboration and communication according to degrees of shared understandings. The concern is rather with how knowledge is invoked and deployed as part of societal member's practical concerns.

It was one of Sacks' (1992) seminal insights that talk and behaviour are designed by reference to how they will be heard and perceived. By saying or doing what we do in a particular sequential position, a particular reading of that action is made relevant for the recipient. The sequential organisation of interaction provide the participants with a set of resources for acquiring mutual understanding [START_REF] Schegloff | Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition[END_REF]. This understanding is continually shaped and reshaped during the course of the interaction. Establishing the relevant context for making inferences of meaning is not easily solved. For participants it is a problem concerned with how they should respond to different utterances and actions.

The next turn proof procedure, which refers to how speakers (and analysts) by examining the recipients answer receive confirmation of his understanding of the utterance, is an important resource for managing intersubjectivity and joint understanding in talk. Through this and other related practices such as repair, participants continually construct and display their understandings, and negotiate each other's positions in the interaction [START_REF] Schegloff | Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition[END_REF]. But even if participants manage to establish understandings and repair misunderstandings through talk, this does not provide rock solid evidence of mutual understanding. Language provides a set of resources that enable participants to show each other which parts of their shared knowledge are relevant for making the interpretations necessary for some locally contingent purpose. The fact that people understand each other and are able to achieve the necessary alignment to solve some common problem is due to practical work by the participants.

Before we continue to describe the method and analysis, it is necessary to introduce the learning scenario and the groupware system in which this work is situated.

Research setting

The DoCTA project Project DoCTA (Design and use of Collaborative Telelearning Artefacts) aims to bring a theoretical perspective to the design of ICT technologies that supports the sociocultural aspects of human interaction and to evaluate its use. In the first phase of project DoCTA (June 1998 -December 1999) we focused on the design and use of technological artefacts to support collaborative telelearning aimed at teacher training [START_REF] Wasson | Project DoCTA : Design and use Of Collaborative Telelearning Artefacts[END_REF]Wasson & Mørch, 1999). Various scenarios utilising the Internet were used to engage the students in collaborative learning activities. The VisArt Scenario [START_REF] Wasson | Design and evaluation of a collaborative telelearning activity[END_REF] produced the data used in this study.

VisArt and TeamWaveWorkplace

The VisArt scenario involved students taking courses at three educational institutions (University of Bergen, Nord-Trøndelag College, Stord/Haugesund College) in Norway. Teams comprised of 3 students, 1 student from each institute, collaborated to design a learning activity. There were no opportunities for the teams to meet face-to-face. TeamWaveWorkplace i (TW) was used as the main information and communication technology. The VisArt activity took place during February and March 1999. One week of training in using the TW tool and in collaboration proceeded three weeks of design activity. In the design activity, the teams designed TW room for learning about some topic they agreed upon. TW is based on the metaphor of shared networked places. 1 shows a TW room with user-defined configuration of some of the tools. The team members are in the room as indicated by the icons along the top of TW-the happy face, the text data, and the picture, respectively.

Method

Ethnomethodology and CA imply certain analytical commitments and guidelines [START_REF] Pomerantz | Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the Study of Social Action as Sense Making Practices[END_REF]. First one should be cautious with letting the analysis be dominated by researcher stipulated categories. This is related to the problem of deciding which parts of the context that is relevant for determining the meaning of particular actions. According to [START_REF] Sacks | Lectures on Conversation I and II[END_REF], any action, situation or identity can be formulated in a variety of ways. This poses a methodological problem when doing research and when drawing inferences on the basis of empirical data. Second the detailed analysis of actions as they occur sequentially is emphasised. The third issue is related to the understanding of rules and the relationship between rules and actions. Rules are treated as situationally invoked and closely related to specific activities.

We have examined selected records of the participant's interaction from the VisArt scenario. ii We are in the process of segmenting the interaction data, which implies that this analysis is to be perceived as primarily an illustrative and preliminary analysis. We transcribed the chat and the text on the post-it notes. To grasp the relation between these aspects and other things the students did, for example how and where they moved their markers; we subjected the recording to repeated viewing. iii We have transcribed the interaction as it happens sequentially. We've used a format that explicates all the text that is being written by the participants-Post-It entries indicated in plain text, Chat entries in italics-with additional descriptions of relevant actions in square brackets. This might decrease readability, but we believe that this information is necessary and relevant for the analysis. Note that the indication of pauses is not necessarily accurate in real time, due to different machine capacities and configurations.

Analysis Collaboration as joint action

In the particular activity from which this extract is selected, the participant's task goal is to create a learning environment on the topic of alternative energy sources for pupils in 6 th grade. Such an activity involves different actions concerned with specifying and negotiating the task and formulating suggestions for how the task should be interpreted, understood, and carried out. All of these issues involve reflection and negotiation about the goal of learning activity, the knowledge domain, the resources that should be available, and the skills and knowledge required by the target pupils. In the following extract some of these issues are specified and negotiated in actual interaction.

The participants, Susan, Tony and Paul, are interleaving between different activities and tools. The tools they utilize are Post-Its and the Chat. The Post-Its function as a kind of collective memory for the group in that it enables them to save their specifications of the task for later reworking. What is being typed in the post-it is character-by-character visible to the others in the room. When it is necessary to pose questions, requests or suggestions due to some specific need, the Chat function is used for quasi-synchronous communication. With the Chat, the typer has to hit enter before the others see what has been typed.

Specifying and negotiating main task

Susan's question in line-2 is a request for an explanation of what Tony is doing (line-1) and is to be heard as referring to the writing in the Post-It note. Her sentence is sequentially indexed to the previous activity he was doing, indicated by the use of his name and the reference to place. Tony perceives the question to be directed at him. Their utterances display that they have the necessary alignment. Let us speculate what Susan might have meant by her utterance. What was it that she tried to convey by using those specific words? The utterance could be doing at least three different things. First it could be a straightforward question. She was simply wondering what he was going to write, and what relevance it might have for their task and problem solving process. Second it could be oriented to the fact that since Tony erases from the Post-It, he is held accountable for explaining he did it, perhaps because in group activities there is a social norm stating that individual actions be co-ordinated with others actions and expectations. Since Tony neither explains why he erases something from the post-it note, nor produces another sentence that replaces it, he has in some way violated a social norm to which Susan calls attention.

A third possible interpretation could be that she is orienting to a possible interruption of Tony's action. The Post-It allows only one to write at a time. In this case she orienting to her own actions as they might be violating commonly accepted norms concerned with interrupting others. One thing that counters this interpretation is that she might have formulated her self differently if she wanted to convey that she tried to avoid blame for interrupting Tony. She might have started the sentence with for example "I'm sorry, but what …". When analysing naturally occurring interaction we encounter problems when trying to establish the meaning of an utterance seen in isolation. We need to look into the sequential unfolding of the activity to establish how the participants make sense of each other's utterances.

If we look at Tony's answer in line-5 we see that the second interpretation of Susan's question is most likely correct. It is obvious that Tony doesn't treat Susan's utterance as a simple request for information. On the contrary, he is arguing for the requirement of a problem solving strategy, and he is also orienting to the activity as a collaborative effort.

The participants orient to and invoke norms governing interaction. In this particular case Tony does this to perform a particular local action. He is managing accountability by arguing for a particular problem solving strategy. Susan does not argue with Tony's account. She simply continues to write on the post-it note. A question that arises is concerned with what it is with how Susan's utterance is put together that make this particular reading relevant. It is difficult to establish exactly what it is with her utterance that makes Tony's utterance appropriate, because the sentence does not have any features of delivery that are common in talk, like intonation, pressure and so on. Perhaps it is the use of the personal pronoun, which in some way constructs Tony as a group member with certain obligations. The sentence also has certain directness to it. It is somehow confronting Tony. Her utterance makes an account of what he is doing relevant. He can not simply say, "Well I was just writing something". He has to account for what he was writing and how it was related to the activity they were engaged in. His actions are accountable to the groups' collaborative efforts. Susan does not go through any efforts to repair her utterance either. This indicates that Tony interpreted it appropriately. Instead Tony elaborates on his account and reiterates their common task goal in line-10.

Orientation to social rules and norms

Another interesting aspect concerning how the participants are sensitive to each other's actions are how Susan, while engaged in specifying the task, explicitly invites the others to join in (line 6) if they have comments. Since no one responds to her invitation she continues writing. She co-ordinates her activities with the others, by explicitly inviting them to partake in the process.

In collaborative activities like these there might be an objection if someone takes too much control. In that sense her actions can be interpreted as managing this potentially delicate issue. She's managing accountability in the sense that she later might be held accountable for not inviting the others to collaborate in the problem solving process. In this sense the sentence "more" does two different things. It is both an invitation to participate, and an orientation to the social rules and norms that govern collaboration processes. Collaboration processes are composed of locally situated actions like these, where participants do not necessarily co-ordinate mental representations, but are sensitive to norms and rules governing social interaction.

Need for quick acknowledgement

After reiterating their task goal in line-10 and perhaps requesting acknowledgement in line-11 Tony gets it from Paul in line-12. It is interesting to note that Paul is answering using the post-it note instead of the chat. Although he erases it immediately, it is perhaps an indication of the need for making quick answers when this is appropriate. Chat does not provide the same opportunity for giving an immediate answer [START_REF] Garcia | The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication[END_REF].

Question or assertion?

In line-13 Susan introduces a new topic by asking a question, or at first it appears to be a question. If we take a closer look it might be read as an assertion since in line-14 she underlines that this is the preferred way to interpret the utterance. Tony shows that he interpreted it this way in line-15 and agrees with Susan's assertion. Paul agrees in line-17 and Susan's acknowledges this in line-18.

The establishment of some kind of joint focus or common interpretation is a presupposition for doing joint problem solving. But it is also important to notice that this can conflict with individual work. The relations between individual work and collective decision making are continuously negotiated. This is illustrated in this particular case by the way the participants co-ordinate the production of statements in Post-Its with the actions of the others.

We now turn our focus on two thematic issues concerned with the interactional management of references to knowledge and objects to perform specific tasks, and how constraints and affordances provided by technological tools interacts with the activities of the participants.

Invocation of knowledge and objects

An important aspect of co-ordination and collaboration is related to the use of reference terms to attract the other participants' attention to specific places or objects that somehow are important to perform some joint task. Issues concerned with how this invocation works, for example how it is related to the particular sequencing and selection of terms and what implications this has for the problem solving process, are important topics to pursue further. There are to instances in this particular extract where these issues are played out in interaction. One concerns the reference to place and selection of recipient, and the other concerns the invocation and reiteration of common knowledge. Susan's question in line-3 together with Tony's answer in line-5, is an example of how participants make sense of each other's actions on the basis of specific terms. It is obvious for Tony that Susan is referring to him and to a particular place in the room. It seems to be the case that terms like there and here are used to refer to specific places and locations in the environment. Complex terms are not used if some simpler term is available and appropriate for the participants.

Another issue is related to Tony's invocation of common knowledge in line-10, which in this case, is the main task that they are supposed to solve. The object is invoked to perform a particular local action. It is tied to his response to Susan's question in line-3. The selection of terms is, in this way, tied to local contingencies. It can therefore be problematic to infer to cognitive understandings from the participant's use of concepts, or to infer a participant's understanding of complex knowledge on the basis of these kind of situated actions. Issues concerned with individuals private understandings are as we can see closely intertwined with publicly accountable action.

Technological tools and social actions

As we mentioned above a problem with Chat is its quasi-synchronous character. The sequential aspects of talk become rearranged, because the utterances are not necessarily related even if they appear in next positions [START_REF] Garcia | The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication[END_REF]. There is a delay between the production and the posting of the utterance, and this might pose problems for the participants' sense-making processes. It does not seem to be a substantial problem in this extract. This might be due to the character of their interaction. They are not really in need of continuous synchronous communication. The main activity is to specify subtasks and the chat is mainly used as a co-ordination tool. However, perhaps Paul's utterance in line-12 is an indication of a minor problem with Chat. He uses the Post-It to respond to Tony's question in line-11, because this particular tool gives the opportunity for immediate feedback.

In another group (illustrated in figure 2) the participants found a way around this problem when they needed to communicate synchronously, that is, when they needed to co-ordinate some activity, recall and discuss earlier work that had been done, and plan future activities. The participants used the Post-Its as a Chat, that is, they created a chatroom by placing Post-Its beside each other and by putting their names as headings. These tools provided them with the opportunity to monitor what the others where saying and respond at the appropriate time. By organising their communication in this particular way, it became easier for the participants to monitor each other's utterances. This is important when doing synchronous interaction because the participants can co-ordinate and make sense

Figure 1

 1 Figure 1 Screen shot of group working together using TeamWave

i http://www.teamwave.com ii Their online interaction was recorded using a screen cam. (www.lotus.com).iii We are in the process of segmenting the data and we have only used data from one of these segments in this paper. iv This is an wareness function in TeamWave, that displays in text what the selected participant is doing in the room.

Author's adresses

Hans Christian Arnseth (h.c.arnseth@ped.uio.no) Department of Educational Research, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1093, 0317 Oslo, Norway Sten Ludvigsen (sten.ludvigsen@intermedia.uio.no) Intermedia, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1161, 0318 Oslo, Norway Barbara Wasson and Anders Mørch (barbara.wasson@ifi.uib.no, anders@ifi.uib.no) Department of Information Science, University of Bergen, P.O. Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway


Annita Fjuk

The Complexity of Distributed Collaborative Learning: Unit of Analysis

Keywords: Activity theory, unit of analysis, collaborative learning, tele-learning

The problem area of this paper is manifested in the new conditions that characterise distributed collaborative learning. The core argument is that distributed collaborative learning implies an interconnected complexity that can only be properly understood by extending the unit of analysis from technology and pedagogy themselves to real-life social contexts in which networked computers are being used. Experiments and small-scale field trials are only steps towards a deeper understanding of how complex relationships create conditions for learning. The argumentation is built on three elements; (1) activity theory as a powerful framework that informs analysis, (2) empirical studies of distributed collaborative learning, and (3) how the theoretical foundation and the practical experiences should be integrated into new designs.

Introduction

Research within CSCL has focused on instruction and learning that takes place within classrooms (Roschelle 1996;[START_REF] Neuwirth | Learning to Write: Computer Support for Cooperative Process[END_REF] and across classrooms [START_REF] Pea | Seeing What We Build Together: Distributed Multimedia Learning Environments for Transformative Communications[END_REF], and in some cases across distances between geographically dispersed individuals [START_REF] Kaye | Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing[END_REF][START_REF] Sorensen | Learning in Virtual Contexts[END_REF][START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF]). These different types of studies could be categorised in terms of [START_REF] Crook | Computers and the Collaborative Experience of Learning[END_REF] distinction between interaction around and through computers. When learners are interacting around the computer they use various computer-based applications as shared resources in their collaborative knowledge construction. When learners are interacting through computers the learners must create a common ground within a virtual space as the point of reference. This latter, but increasingly important, issue of CSCL is termed distributed collaborative learning [START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF][START_REF] Wasson | Projects DoCTA: Design and use of Collaborative Telelearning Artefacts[END_REF]. Distributed collaborative learning is used to designate new forms of learning where the distance is not only distance in space or time as in traditional distance education [START_REF] Holmberg | Theory and Practice of Distance Education[END_REF], but includes the mediation of learning activities by information-and communication technologies (such as traditional internet services, Web-based groupware, multimedia shared spaces, videoconferencing technology, interactive 3D applications, etc.) with appropriate pedagogical approaches to collaboration and social interactions. The problem area of this paper is manifested in the new conditions that characterise distributed collaborative learning as a phenomenon.

Based on a number of case studies [START_REF] Sorensen | Learning in Virtual Contexts[END_REF] and [START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF] arrive at the conclusion that distributed collaborative learning is a product of complex interconnections between several aspects, such as: theories of learning and instruction, subject domains, teacher's roles, delivery institution's educational praxis and tradition, organisational and administrative arrangements, costs, properties of ICT (information-and communication technology) and available software, geographical distances between co-learners, etc. Any changes associated with one of these aspects will inevitably influence and change the others. The problem area of past CSCL research is, however, that they mirror a partial thinking with respect to these aspects [START_REF] Sorensen | Learning in Virtual Contexts[END_REF]. Such approaches though do not provide inspiration for distributed collaborative learning as a new phenomenon relying on its own specific conditions. We argue that the profound changes in the area of collaborative learning caused by ICT and networked computers can only be properly understood by extending the unit of analysis from technology and pedagogy themselves to real-life social contexts in which ICT is used. This core argument throughout the paper is outlined by first presenting activity theory as a powerful framework that informs analysis and designs associated with distributed collaborative learning. Thereafter the paper presents findings from exploratory studies to illustrate the link between the unit of analysis (based in theory) and real-life experiences. Finally, the paper presents issues for further work to exemplify how the combination of theory and practice should inform new designs of distributed collaborative learning situations.

Adequate Unit of Analysis

The problem area within most CSCL research in general, and in distributed collaborative learning in particular, is that their ecological validity could be considered low, since most studies are experiments or small-scale field trials [START_REF] Ludvigsen | Health Education in Virtual Environments[END_REF]. Studies that build on perspectives from language sciences and the cultural-historical activity theory [START_REF] Baker | The Role of Grounding in Collaborative Learning Tasks[END_REF] are limited to experimental settings, or field trials where the time span of the learning activities is of short duration [START_REF] Dillenbourg | Does a shared screen make a shared solution[END_REF]. Such studies provide with supplements to prior experiences and knowledge, but do not in any strong sense provide insights into how real-life use situations develop over a certain period of time. Contingencies and unforeseen happenings as a result of novelty may constrain the learners' collaborative processes unrealistically, and thus the total experiences of the new situations. In contrast, established deliveries of distributed learning, ideally combined with long-term studies that are aimed at understanding the processes from the participants' viewpoint, provide more realistic insights into the new area of learning.

Moreover, the research tendency is that the activities, mediated by ICT, constitute the unit of analysis themselves, rather than additional and interconnected aspects that are manifested in the distributed situations [START_REF] Fjuk | Articulation of Actions in Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF][START_REF] Ludvigsen | Health Education in Virtual Environments[END_REF]. This issue is nicely illustrated by the work conducted by [START_REF] Muukkonen | Collaborative Technology for Facilitating Progressive Inquiry: Future Learning Environment Tools[END_REF]. The authors studied how university students participated in a learning environment where intensive progressive inquiry was the purpose of the instructional activities. The authors found that the students' participation was partly influenced by other but interconnected activity systems. They argue that the students are part of a large number of small courses, which means that they are not used to carrying out intensive in-depth research to improve their knowledge.

The additional unit of analysis in a study conducted by [START_REF] Wasson | Projects DoCTA: Design and use of Collaborative Telelearning Artefacts[END_REF] is a scenario in which the educational purpose was that the students should create a shared product. The students did so, however, without sharing information and concepts. The three groups of students that took part in the scenario were constrained in various ways for fulfilling the requirements for their courses, which implies different motives for taking part in the scenario. This resulted in lack of motivation associated with collaboration and joint production. Thus, if we view a student's collaboration in the activity system, we actually see how important it is to understand how this activity system is related to other activity systems the student participates in.

Both studies indicate that there are tensions between how to prioritise activities in different activity systems, and that broader aspects related to the curriculum design influenced the learners' activities. This leads us to the core issue throughout the paper, that is, distributed collaborative learning must be understood and considered in terms of a complex mix of various interconnected activity systems.

Sociocultural Perspectives

In recent years a series of alternatives to standard cognitivist approaches to learning and cognition have evolved. These approaches are situated action [START_REF] Suchman | Plans and Situated Actions. The problems of human-machine interaction[END_REF], situated learning [START_REF] Lave | Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation[END_REF][START_REF] Greeno | The ?Situativity? of Knowing, Learning, and Research[END_REF], distributed cognition [START_REF] Hutchins | Cognition in the Wild[END_REF], cultural psychology [START_REF] Cole | Cultural Psychology. A once and future discipline[END_REF], mediated action [START_REF] Wertsch | Voices of the Mind. A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action[END_REF], and activity theory [START_REF] Engeström | Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research[END_REF][START_REF] Engeström | Perspectives on Activity Theory[END_REF]. In spite of different terminologies, research traditions, and methodological preferences, the approaches share the assumption that learning has to be understood as actions and activities integrated in a complexity of social, institutional, cultural and historical practices. The unit of analysis is widened from viewing the individual as a "solo learner" to including the learner's practice in relation to activities in communities of practice.

Activity theory constitutes a rich framework for studying different forms of practices as developmental processes, with individual and social issues interlinked at the same time (Kuutti 1996). An important feature of activity theory is that the system is driven by a collective motive that extends beyond the level of individual intentions. Activity systems are not reducible to a sum of individual actions, they have "...cyclic rhythms and long historical half-lives" [START_REF] Engeström | Polycontextuality and Boundary Crossing in Expert Cognition: Learning and Problemsolving in Complex Work Activities[END_REF]. In other words, activity theory affords analyses of social phenomena on different levels; activity -at the level of social systems; action -at the level of the individual learner acting intentionally; and operation -at the level of the concrete operation, procedure or behaviour. To fully understand an activity, its history and development should be taken into consideration. This expands the unit of analysis even beyond the context of one given activity system. In an activity system there are potential contradictions or tensions between all components of the systems [START_REF] Engeström | Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research[END_REF]. Contradictions are used to indicate 'misfit' within elements of an activity, and between different developmental phases of a single activity. Contradictions manifest themselves as problems, breakdowns, clashes, etc., within the system itself or in relation to other systems (Kuutti 1996). An individual's actions will be affected by three major factors: the tools used, the community she/he belongs to and its explicitly or implicitly expressed rules, and the division of labour within that community. These factors interact in the creation of the social practice, and contradictions within the system influence the whole collaborative situation. When the unit of analysis expands to the interaction between different activity systems, the complexity that we are dealing with increases. Figure 1 illustrates these issues, with the focus on distributed collaborative learning.

Figure 1: Activity analysis of distributed collaborative learning and some levels of contradictions (Inspired by Engeström (1987))

Using activity analysis on distributed collaborative learning would include all use activities, ICT and tool producing activities, all teaching and knowledge construction activities, as well as changes and contradictions in the use activities. This complexity makes it difficult to identify and delimit the activity systems that are of interest for the analysis [START_REF] Bødker | Applying Activity Theory to Video Analysis: How to make Sense of Video Data in Human-Computer Interaction[END_REF]. As such, we do not need to analyse all the systems, but to be aware of contradictions between the activities a learner is influenced by in her/his collaboration. Figure 1 illustrates how a learner's relationship to the distributed community is mediated by certain didactical principles, institutional traditions as well as the community's collection of computer-based artefacts. Furthermore, the community's commitment to the development of a shared learning environment and individual knowledge is mediated by the roles embedded in the collaboration (e.g, the power each yields, tasks each is responsible for, etc.). The figure also illustrates how contradictions associated with didactical principles and ICT solutions are leading to production of new didactical principles and ICT solutions, respectively. In analysis, and in designs also, this complexity can be operationalised in terms of questions like: How do the constellation of artefacts serve as mediators for the learner's actions directed towards cognition, and the development of a shared learning community? How do the didactical principles mediate the learner's collaboration in the distributed community? How do established institutional traditions mediate the community's distributed work and progress? The next section focuses on these areas of tensions aimed at giving guidance for further designs.

Experiences from real-life situations

This section provides real-life experiences provided through an exploratory study of distributed collaborative learning situations that are designed, organised and delivered by two Scandinavian educational institutions. The study, conducted by [START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF], is particularly interesting because of the following issues:

• The target group is part-time adult learners that are committed to work and family. They are separated by physical distance during the majority of their collaborative learning processes and are linked by text-based and asynchronous communications systems and some shared interest in achieving knowledge on a specific subject domain. The areas of text-based, asynchronous communication systems are still the most active [START_REF] Lehtinen | Computer supported collaborative learning: A review of research and development[END_REF].

• The institutions have delivered various distance and open learning approaches since the late 1980s. As such, the experiences provided through their long-term deliveries differ from research results gathered from experiments or small-scale field trials. [START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF] studies clearly indicate that designs of distributed collaborative learning situations must be sensitive to potential contradictions within and between various activity systems. The learners' collaboratively oriented processes were constrained by aspects found in triadic relationships between pedagogy, technology and organisation. The technological aspects concern properties of the available computer applications (Web-applications, text processor, painting programs, spreadsheets, etc.). Examples of pedagogical aspects are: theories of learning and instruction, potential learning goals with respect to interaction, subject domains, teacher's roles, etc. Organisational aspects concern the delivery institution's educational practice and tradition. Typical dimensions include: course structures, presentation of subject matters, organisational and administrative arrangements, institutional history and philosophy, costs, etc. Because of the interwoven relationships between the aspects, it is complicated, sometimes even impossible to consider what aspects that are most critical with respect to distributed collaboration. In what follows, we point out some issues of this triadic complexity.

Several researchers emphasise a dynamic interaction between individual and collective activities, since the embedded actions are in interaction and reciprocally affect each other [START_REF] Hutchins | Cognition in the Wild[END_REF][START_REF] Perkins | Person-plus: ?d distributed view? of thinking and learning[END_REF][START_REF] Salomon | Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (s.xi -xxi)[END_REF]). This necessary interaction, however, constitutes a possible area of tension when it comes to use of the artefacts. Since the first reported experiments with usage of asynchronous and text-based communications systems in distance learning (Harasim 1990;[START_REF] Kaye | Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing[END_REF], the literature has been rich in emphasising this interaction. In contrast to pre-printed material, text elaboration is not based on a static text, as in textbooks, but on something dynamic and modifiable created by the learners. The textual dialogues persist in a linear record whose history can be examined during the subsequent course of social interaction. This introduces a new dimension of reflection, allowing the learners to examine the ongoing discussion in a way that is impossible in oral discussions. As such, an individual's understanding, presented in written contributions to a discourse, act as stimulants or mediators for the co-learners' reflection and understanding. However, the ICTs used implied breakdowns when it comes to an operationalisation of opposed alternatives in argumentation, joint construction of problems and negotiation of meaning. Collaborating learners in [START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF] study experienced this challenge in the following way: "We did not do a good job of (…) digging deeply into our studies. It was only superficial digging, where we did not succeed in coming to grips with the subject. Possibly because our basic knowledge was not certain enough, but also because the mutual challenge did not come off in CMC [Computermediated communication] [START_REF] Fjuk | Articulation of Actions in Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF])

(...) Then it later became evident (…) that we had not been able to discuss our way to arrive at a conclusion about a common understanding [and this] created a lot of problems in the project organisation." (Translated in

In order to challenge each other's understanding, to negotiate meanings and to make the interactions innovative, good internal and external conditions with respect to collaboration are particularly important. The artefacts hampered the mutual dependent interactions of individually and collectively oriented action, since they did not become integrated parts of operationalising the didactical principles that include negotiation and argumentation.

These studies clearly indicate that distributed collaboration is mediated by the embedded conditions found in the ICT used. However, pedagogical and organisational practices surrounding their use are as important as mediators of human activities as are the technological ones. Institutional traditions may impose frames for social interactions in terms of specific pedagogical and didactical conditions, and in terms of economy and technological requirements and selections. Concerning the latter, the institutions' technological profile logically creates an expectation in the learners that the selected solution implies a functionality that can operationalise the actions found crucial with respect to the pedagogical method. If this is not the case, it clearly constitutes obstacles for fulfilling their role as responsible co-learners of a shared collaborative environment. Moreover, [START_REF] Fjuk | Drama as a Metaphor for Design of Situated, Collaborative Distributed Learning[END_REF] show how the institutional tradition, with respect to pedagogical profile and course design, implicitly guides new designs in directions other than planned. This was manifested in the choice of language used to describe the expected roles and actions of the learners. If the course guide described expected collectively oriented activities (like negotiation of meaning, brainstorming, etc.) in the distributed context as 'reading' and 'writing' activities, this may imply a contradiction to the necessary dynamic and spontaneous processes that many collectively oriented activities require.

Concerning pedagogical and didactical conditions, they did not seem to be spawned and rethought with respect to the creation of a fertile, technological and distributed ground for the specific needs of social interaction. In contrast to rather traditional forms of collaborative learning, the collaborating learners are situated in and are committed to various but sometimesdifferent social contexts, like work organisation, family, neighbourhood, technological infrastructure, etc. The individual learner's commitment to the shared distributed learning environment is thus constrained by the conditions manifested in the individual's social contexts. These conditions may have significant bearing on the learner's perspectives and beliefs, coordination of time, commitment and responsibility to the colearners and their shared task. It thus seems that the more interdependence there is between the individuals' activities, resources and ICT uses, the of distributed collaboration increases. The distributed nature of learning and the interdependent activities (such as negotiations and opposed perspectives in argumentation) constitute a contradiction and require intensive meta-communicative interactions like planning and explicit articulation of individual and collective activities. This is in resonance with Wasson et al's findings (2000), that conclude that distributed environments result in new and other collaborations patterns compared to traditional forms of collaboration. According to [START_REF] Wasson | Projects DoCTA: Design and use of Collaborative Telelearning Artefacts[END_REF], collaboration patterns define sequences of interaction among collaborating learners. One example is what the authors term coordinated desynchronisation which describes how coordination of activities between collaborating learners changes after they have identified a common goal. The study shows that the learners gradually shift from communicating synchronously to asynchronously. By having simulated real-time meetings, the collaborating learners agree upon a goal to pursue, divide their work and then work more or less asynchronously to accomplish it. Another collaboration pattern is constructive commenting [START_REF] Wasson | Projects DoCTA: Design and use of Collaborative Telelearning Artefacts[END_REF] which describes commenting and feedback behaviour. Feedback is required to keep each other up to speed and moving in the right direction towards a common goal. The learners of [START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF] study claimed that they had progressed too far in their own process of knowledge construction before they received feedback on ideas and thoughts. A major effect of this was a reduced sense of responsibility since it appeared as if there was no one to commit oneself to. If feedback from co-learners represented a contradiction to prior knowledge and thought, the learners often did not have the capacity to follow it up and to negotiate upon their own thoughts. The learners of the study concluded:

"In some cases it is difficult to solve problems and if this happens too often or if we come to a standstill or do not understand each other, then the energy disappears" (translated in [START_REF] Fjuk | Articulation of Actions in Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF] In conclusion, past designs concerning distributed collaborative learning seems to have been marked by an approach of using networked computers as add-ons to existing pedagogical and organisational practice. However, we need to know the principles of educational traditions in order to change them with respect to new technologies and concepts. Creative and new ways of thinking that will work in practice are dependent on prior understanding of the knowledge, experience and principles that underpin that tradition of praxis. This reality of new distributed learning situations clearly indicates that the learners' social interactions towards a shared learning environment must be viewed in terms of interconnected activity systems. It is therefore crucial to explore which conditions the distributed environment imposes on the social interactions that are found crucial for developing a common learning environment.

Further Work: New Designs

Based on activity theory and past exploratory studies, we have discussed how distributed collaborative learning develops contradictions that lead to new production activities. Figure 1 illustrates this issue regarding rules (e.g., associated with didactical principles and institutional traditions) and constellation of technological artefacts. This section provides some first steps and suggestions towards new designs associated with these two interrelated activities.

We argue that an awareness of contradictions becomes important to approach design of distributed collaborative learning environments, that is, designers must think in terms of both interdependencies and possible conflicts in order to understand, explain and control changes associated with distributed collaborative learning environments. Thinking in contradictions, eliminates the borders between pedagogical, technological and institutional aspects [START_REF] Fjuk | Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning[END_REF]. Our central issue with respect to designs is to view networked computers as incorporated parts of the individually and collectively oriented actions [START_REF] Fjuk | Incorporating networked computers in collaborative learning[END_REF]. This means that the constellation of artefacts must serve as tools for thinking, reflection and interpretation, as well as for social interaction and collaboration. Concerning the former, the cognitive artefacts, examples are word processing programs, drawing and painting programs. These types of artefacts may in turn serve as powerful mediators for social interaction since they are basic for planning and monitoring collective progress. The operational aspects of these actions are mediated by e-mail systems, chat systems, videoconferencing solutions, web-based groupware, textbooks, etc. The learner's focus in one particular situation is of vital importance for framing the use of the artefact and meaning making process. The artifacts serve as tools within an activity system, but they are potentially part of several activity systems (or collective activities). Artefacts are only temporarily bound to one activity system.

Based on this interwoven and dialectical relationship between individual and collective actions, and its mediating artefacts, designs should then consider which artefacts that serve as potential mediators of given didactical principles, and what new ones that are needed to be developed to support them. But, available artefacts may impose a rethinking of the collaborative learning method and corresponding principles. To organise good interactional conditions, we suggest that a mix of various artefacts must be available for the distributed learning environment. It is necessary to offer the learners various ways of combining synchronous and asynchronous modes of interactions, in terms of text, audio and video, to allow them to use the artefact that serves as mediator in the web of human actions. This combination has a twofold effect: First, by offering the learners opportunities to take part in synchronous interactions, they will be better able to incorporate these interactions into their own reflections and thoughts through an asynchronous mode. Furthermore, the reflective dimension of asynchronicity will stimulate the learners to actively take part in the synchronous interactions. Being a part of such a technological environment, the learner may create her/his own portfolios of reflections and thoughts (mediated by e.g., text-processing or drawing programs), as well as formulate comments and questions to co-learners and tutor (through e.g., e-mail, chat, discussion groups etc.) while participating in socially oriented activities mediated by various synchronous videoconferencing solutions. Through constituting a personal entrance to the learning scene, it enhances the overview of learning expectations, learning content, learning goals, learning methods as well as the individual and collective activities [START_REF] Sorensen | Collaborative Learning in Virtual Contexts: Representation, Reflection and Didactic Change[END_REF]. Second, the learners may use the artefacts they are familiar and/or confident with, associated with the situated object of the interactions. As such, the use of artefacts is conducted automatically, due to internalisation of the artefact's properties and behaviour. This is arguably an ideal use situation, because the tool is transparent in collaboration, and hence does not hamper the focus of the object of collaboration.

How the activities towards new productions should be organised in practice is dependent on aspects like subject matter, pedagogical method and approaches, levels of interdependencies between learners and resources, study location, time, history and tradition of the institutions, etc. This will in turn influence how combination of technological artefacts will be used and mediate the planned learning activity.

Concluding remarks

The core issue throughout the paper is that distributed collaborative learning is a complex phenomenon that must be sensitive to aspects found in triadic relationships of pedagogy, technology and delivery institution. This complexity must be integrated both as unit of analysis and in design of new situations. Furthermore, experimental settings are too limited, as a unit of analysis as well as to understand learning in complex multidimensional environments. We clarify this argument by relying on perspectives from activity theory, combined with experiences gained from real-life practices of designing and delivering distributed collaborative learning.

Activity theory has its strengths as analytical tools describing complex relationships, and the relation between objects, participants and different aspects of social organisations. This approach needs to be developed further to be able to give more detailed accounts of learning activities especially related to the understanding of learning in discourse. We need approaches that are sensitive to different levels of analyses and give reasonable accounts for how these levels are related to each other.

How the theoretical foundation and practical experiences should be integrated into new designs is shown in suggestions for further work. We do not believe that a specific design of learning environments can predict how learners will collaborate and what they will learn. Rather, we do think that the insight which is demonstrated by the sociocultural perspectives gives reasonable directions for understanding the complexity of distributed learning processes. By understanding this complexity we can create more robust and valid learning environments where higher order processes could be realised.

Acknowledgement

Special thanks to Network for IT-Research and Competence in Education for funding parts of this research. We would also like to thank Tove Kristiansen, Knut Lundby and Ole Smørdal for giving insightful comments on drafts of this paper.

Bibliography

Annita Fjuk, annita.fjuk@telenor.com, (Dr. Scient.) is the leader of the eLearning group at Telenor FoU, and has been involved in the area of collaborative tele-learning and distance education since the late 1980s. Her main interests throughout her research are the interwoven relationship between learning and technology in designs and development. Sten Ludvigsen, sten.ludvigsen@intermedia.uio.no, (Dr.polit) is Associate Professor at InterMedia. InterMedia is an interdisciplinary research center at the university of Oslo. He is involved in several projects where various aspects of computer based collaborative learning are studied. Full address: INTERMEDIA at University of Oslo, Box 1161, Blindern 0318 Oslo, Norway.