Download pdf - Assessing applications for collaboration: from collaboratively usable applications to collaborative technology

© British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 35 No 4 2004

433–442

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UKBJETBritish Journal of Educational Technology0007-1013British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 20042004354433442Articles

Assessing applications for

collaborationBritish Journal of Educational Technology

Assessing applications for collaboration: from collaboratively usable applications to collaborative technology

Lasse Lipponen and Jiri Lallimo

Lasse Lipponen and Jiri Lallimo are researchers in the Department of Psychology at the University ofHelsinki. They have conducted projects on information and communication technology and learning inschools and workplaces. Address for correspondence: Lasse Lipponen, Department of Psychology, PO Box9, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. Tel: (

+

358 9) 191 29472; fax: (

+

358 9) 191 29443;email:[email protected]

Abstract

The continually increasing number of applications said to facilitatecollaboration makes it very difficult for educators to identify and evaluate theones that are suitable for educational purposes. In this paper we argue thatfrom the educational point of view, it is meaningful to make a distinctionbetween collaboratively usable applications and collaborative technology.Collaboratively usable applications are systems that can be used forcollaboration, whilst collaborative technology is technology that is especiallydesigned to support and establish collaboration. To distinguish between thesetwo kinds of technologies, we propose four criteria for collaborative technology:its design is grounded on some explicitly argued theory of learning orpedagogical model; it relies on the idea of groupware; it provides proceduralfacilitation; and it offers representational and community-building tools.

Introduction

At present there is increasing research interest in the issue, how technology can be usedin support of collaborative learning in schools (Dillenbourg

et al

, 2001; Hoadley, 1999;Koschmann

et al

, 2001; Wasson

et al

, 2003). Applications for collaboration, such asnetworked learning environments, knowledge spaces and discussion forums, are prom-ised to afford entirely new possibilities for advancing teaching and learning practices(Koschmann, 1996a; Roschelle & Pea, 1999). They allow participants to collaborateand produce knowledge to shared working spaces (Roschelle & Pea, 1999). They canfree teaching and learning from the physical boundaries of schools and the time con-straints of class schedules, and support local and global collaboration among studentsand experts in sharing knowledge (Edelson

et al

, 1999). Further, collaborative technol-

434


© British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

ogy can store the history of knowledge construction processes for revisions and futureuse (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994).

As a consequence of the interest in collaborative learning and in the possibilities tech-nology can offer, new applications that are labeled as ‘collaborative’ appear frequently.We see problems in this situation. The main challenge is that this continually increasingnumber of applications makes it very difficult for educators to identify and evaluate theones that actually foster collaborative learning in education. Students and teachers arenot the same as experts; they have special needs that require consideration in designingtechnology for collaborative learning. In addition, when a term becomes fashionable,as is the case with ‘collaborative technology’, it is often used—that is to say, abused—for more or less anything. It is nonsense to talk about the effects of collaborative tech-nology if any technology is labelled collaborative.

In this paper we argue that from the educational point of view, it is misleading toconsider all the applications that can be used for collaboration as collaborative, and thatone should make a distinction between

collaboratively usable applications

and

collaborativetechnology

. Our approach to collaborative technology is instructional and pedagogical,not a technical one. We start with a brief look at the history of educational technology;especially we examine the emergence of collaboratively usable applications. We thenpresent four criteria for what we call ‘collaborative technology’, to distinguish it fromcollaboratively usable applications. In doing so, we admit to a normative purpose, to saywhat, in our view, should be true of such a technology. The criteria for collaborativetechnology are illustrated with some application examples. Finally, we present someconclusions and offer future directions. Keeping these points in mind, the paper con-tributes to the theoretical as well as practical understanding and development of col-laborative technology.

From single user software to collaboratively usable applications

There is a revolution in educational-technology development, beginning with softwaresensitive to individual learners, such as Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI), IntelligentTutoring Systems (ITS), and Logo, and proceeding to technology designed to supportcollaborative activities (Koschmann, 1996b). The idea of CAI programs (see Steinberg,1991) was to build software tailored to particular learners with specific needs, focusingon domain specific content representations. Designers of Intelligent Tutoring Systems(ITS; see Mandl & Lesgold, 1988) applied methods of AI research to understand skilledtutoring in complex domains. Investigators were interested in instructional compe-tence, for example, in answering the question, ‘could a computer program function asan adaptive and skilled teacher or tutor?’, one can say that CAI software and ITS-systems were both representatives of computer-as-tutor software (Crook, 1994), theformer relying on behaviourism, and the latter on information processing theory. Logo,invented by Papert (1980), emerged in counterpoint to the behaviouristic approach. Itrelied on Piagetian epistemological constructivism, and on the idea that by involvingstudents in programming, they would cultivate their general problem-solving skills(Papert, 1980). To put it briefly, one can say that CAI, ITS and Logo were designed for

Assessing applications for collaboration

435


individual learners, and teachers using them often neglected the social and collabora-tive aspects of learning.

The development of collaboratively usable applications has a rather long history. Itstarted in the late 1960s with the work of Doug Engelbart on supporting asynchronouscollaboration among teams distributed geographically (see, for example, Engelbart,1975). Engelbart and his research group developed the oN-Line System (NLS), a hyper-media-groupware environment with tools to support communication, planning, anddebugging for asynchronous use by project collaborators. Today, NLS is still recognisedas one of the most inclusive systems for facilitating wide-area collaboration. The rangeof this work has a continuum in computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) appli-cations or collaborative computing, workgroup computing, and multiuser applications,as they are also labeled (Grudin, 1994). These applications, which support people work-ing together, themselves embody a constellation of technologies that may include email,bulletin boards, videoconferencing, shared calendaring and scheduling, document andknowledge management systems, and awareness tools (Grudin & Poltrock, 1997).CSCW applications are employed in a variety of ways, ranging from organisational useto establishment of virtual communities.

In education, the research and development of collaboratively usable applications beganonly toward the end of 1980s. It is a rather new area of research and development thatrelies heavily on the tradition of CSCW. Nowadays, archetypal applications for collabo-rative learning in education include groupware, networked learning environments, andmessaging systems, such as discussion forums (Lehtinen

et al

, 1999). The developmentof and research on these applications is mainly grounded in the wide framework ofsociocultural theories of learning, and they are especially studied and developed in thefield of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). CSCL is focused on howcollaborative learning, supported by technology, can enhance peer interaction andwork in groups, and how collaboration and technology facilitate sharing and distribut-ing knowledge and expertise among community members (Koschmann, 1996b;Lipponen, 2001).

From collaboratively usable applications to collaborative technology

It is not easy to make a clear conceptual or functional distinctions between varioustechnologies. At first sight, this difficulty appears to apply to the differentiation betweencollaboratively usable applications and collaborative technology. Partly, the difficulty isa consequence of the fact that almost any technological setting, could, in some way, beused in support of collaboration (we recognize that there are many different interpre-tations of the term ‘collaboration’, but in this context, we simply mean people learningor working together; for various interpretations of the concept, see Lipponen

et al

,2004). To illustrate how very dissimilar technologies can be used for collaboration,consider the following two examples. First, imagine a pair of students working at thecomputer, running a simulation program in biology. By creating a point of sharedreference (Crook, 1994), the simulations on the screen can help the students to collab-orate. This referential anchor can function as a ‘concrete’ and shared representation,

436



and be used in the students’ collaborative activities (Hakkarainen

et al

, 1998). In thiscase, the technology, the software developed for the individual user, can be utilised incollaboration. However, the simulation program does not, by itself, support wide-areacollaboration.

As a second case, consider email; it has been a communication tool in schools anduniversities, for several years. A common way of utilising email is the exchange ofmessages between distant schools, cross-school research projects, and ‘ask the expert’arrangements. Email has also been a tool for teachers to deliver information to studentsor to give personal supervision. Originally, email was designed for one-to-one commu-nication, but with mailing lists, a larger group of users can exploit e-mail in sharingdocuments and in commenting on each other’s work (Lehtinen

et al

, 1999). Despitethese ‘collaborative’ features, email does not organise discussion very much and doesnot scaffold learning in a pedagogically meaningful way. As pointed out by Roschelleand Pea (1999), email and most of the Internet tools and discussion forums availableare not robust and simple enough for use in average classrooms; they do not translateto the classroom setting, and do not organise conversations well for learning.

Hence, when referring to

collaborative technology

, what is one actually speaking about?Among researchers, including those in academic fields, the term collaborative technol-ogy is understood in at least two main senses. Commonly, every application that hasthe potential to support collaboration is considered as collaborative technology(Roschelle & Pea, 1999). In a few cases, however, a clearer definition for collaborativetechnology has been given. According to Roschelle (1995), collaborative technologyenables and scaffolds the construction of communal ways of seeing, acting and know-ing, and production of shared knowledge and new practices for successful future action.Whilst this definition is absolutely fair, it still is too general to characterise genuinecollaborative technology.

To help educators (and researchers and software developers) to indentify and evaluatethose collaborative applications that actually foster collaborative learning in education,we propose the following distinction between collaboratively usable applications andcollaborative technology: by

collaboratively usable applications

we refer to any technolog-ical application or system that can be used for collaboration. By

collaborative technology

,we denote a technology that is especially designed and tested (ie, is grounded on carefultheoretical and empirical analyses) to support and establish collaboration in education.Collaborative technology fulfils the following criteria: (1) its design is grounded on someexplicitly argued theory of learning or pedagogical model; (2) it relies on the idea ofgroupware in supporting wide-area collaboration; (3) it supports users’ activities byproviding advanced procedural facilitation or socio-cognitive scaffolding; and (4) itoffers a variety of representational and community building tools.

The first criterion we proposed for collaborative technology was that the design ofcollaborative technology is explicitly grounded on some particular learning theory orpedagogical model. For instance, the design of the Knowledge Forum (the former CSILE,


437


Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment, see Scardamalia

et al

, 1989)rests on the theory of collaborative knowledge building, articulated by Scardamalia andBereiter (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Bereiter, 2002). The background of the devel-opment of knowledge building is in research on the psychology of written composition,expertise, and progressive problem-solving. Writing, for example, can be seen as one ofthe most important tools of thinking in our present society (Bereiter & Scardamalia,1987; Olson, 1994). It has a crucial significance in explication and articulation of one’sconceptions. Thus the externalization of ideas by writing, making thinking visible,should help students to reflect on their own and others’ ideas and share their expertisein problem solving. Therefore, collaborative technology is designed to encourage stu-dents to use writing as a medium of collaborative learning and between-student com-munication. In addition, as stated earlier, CSILE, for example, has been empiricallytested at schools for more than ten years (although certain research questions have yetto be definitely answered), and the research findings have been fed back for furthercycles of design of the system. (We do not propose, here, to address the empiricalevidence as to the value of CSILE and its successors, but see Lamon

et al

, 1996.)

A well-known example of an educational groupware that fulfils our second criterion isthe already mentioned CSILE. CSILE’s development took place over a decade, beginningin 1986. CSILE architecture was built on a local area network, and the software packageconsisted of server, which managed the classroom database, and the client, whichcommunicated with the server from other computers on the network. The latest line ofdevelopment in collaborative technology that supports wide-area collaboration is inter-net-based applications that are platform independent such as CaMILE (Collaborativeand Multimedia Interactive Learning Environment, see Guzdial & Turns, 2000), andFLE3 (Future Learning Environment, see Muukkonen

et al

, 1999). These applicationscan be accessed with any internet-linked computer with web-browser.

The third criterion of educational collaborative technology is that it supports users’activities by providing advanced procedural facilitation or socio-cognitive scaffolding,for instance, by offering ways to structure discussion. Through their studies on writingresearch, Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) developed a set of external prompts(cue cards), called procedural facilitations. Procedural facilitation is a scaffoldingmethod used to help reduce beginning writers’ cognitive burden; it takes the form ofprompts that help them engage in expert-like writing process. This idea of proceduralfacilitation is implemented, for example, in Knowledge Forum, CaMILE, and FLEenvironments.

Examples of scaffolding tools or procedural facilitation are Knowledge Forum’s ‘Think-ing types’, a feature that scaffolds students’ knowledge building process. When studentscreate notes, they are asked to identify the type of their note (for example, ‘Problem’,‘My theory’, ‘I need to understand’, ‘This theory cannot explain’, ‘A better theory’,‘Putting our knowledge together’). Other scaffolds that KF offers are ‘Rise above’, tosupport making syntheses; ‘References’, to see all references to a particular note; ‘Buildon’, for a user to expand others’ ideas, just to mention a few.

438



Another example of scaffolding tools is the CaMILE environment’s prompting set-up.CaMILE provides scaffolding in the form of distinct anchors through external Webpages, offering prompts that suggest what to write or how to start discussion. In asimilar vein as Knowledge Forum, CaMILE offers a repertoire of procedural facilitation.When creating a note, CaMILE asks students to identify a note type that best describesthe type of the note they intend to write. The student makes this choice by selectingfrom a pop-up menu of options. CaMILE note types include New Idea, Rebuttal, Revi-sion, Comment, and Question. The note types can be adapted according to the contextof the discussion.

Sometimes these scaffolding tools are called

widgets

. According to McLean (1999),widgets are computational entities or software-user interface elements that displayinformation and allow the user to manipulate the information display or to accomplishproblem-solving. Widgets can, for instance, support meta-communication (communi-cation about the learning processes), and enhance interaction by performing notifica-tion, reminding, managing the calendar, prioritising, and managing the agenda(McLean, 1999). As pointed out by Pea and others (Pea

et al

, 1999), ‘These [scaffolding]tools all scaffold learning by prestructuring the kinds of contributions learners canmake, supporting meaningful relationships among those contributions, and guidingstudents’ browsing on the basis of socio-cognitive principles’ (p. 33). The idea is thatwith the support of scaffolding tools, students are able to engage in more complexcognitive activities than without them. In addition, scaffolding tools of collaborativetechnology should be flexible and tailorable, and allow users to add as many scaffoldsas appropriate. Flexible scaffolds make cultural and situational adaptations possible (Lin& Hatano, 2001).

Fourthly, collaborative technology offers a variety of representational and commu-nity building tools. An example of an environment that embodies collaborative rep-resentation tools, is the CoVis (Learning through Collaborative Visualization)network (Edelson

et al

, 1996). In the CoVis network, there are scientific visualisationtools, including graphics, images, colour and motion to present large quantities ofdata in a manner that allows the user to observe patterns in a large dataset, visu-ally, in an image. The same tools are used by professional scientists. The advance ofthese simulations is that they can make abstract phenomena ‘concrete’ by makingthem visible, creating representations for manipulation and testing. For mutualcommunication and for remote, real-time collaboration, students use a collaborativetechnology called CoVis Collaboratory Notebook. The Collaboratory Notebook is agroupware application especially planned for students’ collaboration in scienceprojects. Characteristic of the CoVis environment is that the collaboration tool andthe visualisation software are tightly integrated. All the visualisation tools automati-cally generate a log of the whole experimenting process. A student can take a copyof the log and put it into the Collaboratory Notebook. Once the log is there, the stu-dent can annotate the log with comments and thus use it as a tool for reflection andcollaboration.


439


In addition, educational collaborative technology may contain community-buildingtools, such as knowledge awareness and group awareness tools (see Furugori

et al

,2002). These tools may, for instance, use information from user profiles to help studentsworking on the same kinds of projects to network with each other. Or, they may searchfor and screen information that other students with the same background have foundinteresting and useful. Educational use of these kinds of awareness tools helps managea relatively large number of messages in databases, handle the threaded structure ofdiscourse, and facilitate community building. By offering this repertoire of tools, collab-orative technology scaffolds communal ways of constructing and producing sharedknowledge. In doing so, educational collaborative technology has the potential to helpto transform the learning community towards more advanced learning activities.

Conclusions

Research and development on collaborative applications is a rather new and fast-grow-ing area. Even so young, it already represents a radical change in the history of educa-tional technology. However, the increasing number of applications for collaborationmakes it very difficult for educators to identify the ones that are suitable for educationalpurposes. In this paper, we stated that from the educational point of view, it is mean-ingful to distinguish between collaborative applications and collaborative technology.Collaborative applications are systems that can be used for collaboration, whilst collab-orative technology, as we see it, refers to technology that is especially designed tosupport and establish collaboration. To make the distinction between these two kindsof technologies, we proposed four criteria for collaborative technology: its design isgrounded in some explicitly argued theory of learning or pedagogical model; it relies onthe idea of groupware; it provides procedural facilitation; and it offers representationaland community building tools. Collaborative applications lack one or more of thesequalities.

In order to utilise all the possibilities of collaborative technology, and to develop moreinnovative technology that is accessible to teachers and students, researchers and soft-ware developers definitely need to understand more about designing collaborative tech-nology. Designing collaborative technology calls for linking multiple perspectives, andexpertise from different disciplines. It is an area where technological expertise shouldmeet, for instance, psychological, philosophical, and pedagogical expertise. Only bycombining multiple points of view can one expect to provide technology that is suitablefor educational purposes. While combining multiple perspectives in designing technol-ogy, promoters of collaborative technology should make explicit the theories of learningand instruction that motivate their work and that are embedded within their designs.

In this paper, we have proposed four general suggestions as criteria and design principlesfor collaborative technology. But, if learning is a highly situated and context-dependentactivity as proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991), our proposal might increase the designchallenge of collaborative technology. From the situated perspective of learning, thedesign of technology should be based on the idea of technology as social practice (Such-

440



man

et al

, 1999). This idea means that technology is understood within the sites andin the relations of its everyday use. The implication is that an active involvement ofpractitioners in the design process should be allowed in order to make technology moreresponsive to local needs. In other words, more room should be given for local culturaland pedagogical practices of designing technology (see Kensing & Blomberg, 1998).

Taking into the account the general criteria we have proposed and the situationalperspective of designing technology, it appears that with the design of collaborativetechnology there is always some interplay between some general criteria and somespecific cultural or pedagogical need. This model is evidently applicable to the way thatKnowledge Forum, FLE and CaMILE, for instance, have been developed.

In this paper, our focus has been mainly on technology. However, collaborative technol-ogy provides only an advanced technology infrastructure for learning, and does notitself guarantee good learning results. One should not only focus on developing tech-nology but also on developing the social context for learning. The ideal would be coevo-lution of technology and social practices; it implies that the design and development oftechnology should be very flexible and tailorable (Lipponen & Lallimo, 2004).

It is a challenge to design collaborative technology for educational purposes. But, thereis a more fundamental challenge: to understand and utilise the potential power ofcollaborative technology requires re-examining one’s assumptions of what learningand knowledge are all about.

References

Bereiter B (2002)

Education and mind in the knowledge age

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Bereiter C and Scardamalia M (1987)

The psychology of written composition

Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Crook C (1994)

Computers and the collaborative experience of learning

Routledge London.Dillenbourg P, Eurelings A and Hakkarainen K (Eds) (2001)

European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. The proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Netherlands: University of Maastricht.Edelson D C, Gordin D N and Pea R D (1999) Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning

through technology and curriculum design

Journal of the Learning Sciences

,

8

, 391–450.Edelson D C, Pea R and Gomez L (1996) Constructivism in the collaboratory

in

B G Wilson (ed)

Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design

Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology Publications.

Engelbart D C (1975) Coordinated information services for a discipline- or mission-orientedcommunity

in

R L Grimsdale and F F Kuo (eds)

Computer Communication Networks

Leyden:Noordhoff.

Furugori N, Sato H, Ogata H, Ochi Y and Yano Y (2002) COALE: Collaborative and AdaptiveLearning Environment

in

G Stahl (ed)

Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning2002

(pp. 493–495) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Grudin J (1994) Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers

Communicationsof the ACM

37

, 92–105.Grudin J and Poltrock S E (1997) Computer-supported cooperative work and groupware

in

MZelkowitz (ed)

Advances in Computers

Vol. 44 (pp. 269–320) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.


441


Guzdial M and Turns J (2000) Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum


9

, 437–469.Hakkarainen K, Järvelä S, Lipponen L and Lehtinen E (1998) Culture of collaboration in com-

puter-supported learning: Finnish perspectives

Journal of Interactive Learning Research

9

, 271–287.

Hoadley C (Ed.) (1999)

Proceedings the International Conference on Computer Support for Collabora-tive Learning 1999

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Kensing F and Blomberg J (1998) Participatory design: issues and concerns

Computer SupportedCooperative Work

7

, 167–185.Koschmann T (Ed.) (1996a)

CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm

Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

—— (1996b) Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: an introduction

in

T Koschmann(ed.)

CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm


Koschmann T, Hall R and Miyake N (Eds) (2001)

CSCL2: carrying forward the conversation

Mah-wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lamon M, Secules T, Petrosino A, Hackett R, Bransford J and Goldman S (1996) Schools forthought: overview of the project and lessons learned from one of the sites

in

L Schauble and RGlaser (eds)

Innovations in learning. New environments for education

Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Lave J and Wenger E (1991)

Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation

Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Lehtinen E, Hakkarainen K, Lipponen L, Rahikainen M and Muukkonen H (1999)

Computer-supported collaborative learning: a review of research and development

The J.H.G.I Giesbers Reportson Education 10. Netherlands: University of Nijmegen.

Lin X and Hatano G (2001) Cross-cultural adaptation of educational technology

in

T Koschmannand N Miyake (eds)

CSCL2: carrying foward the conversation


Lipponen L (2001) Computer-supported collaborative learning: from promises to reality (Doc-toral dissertation, University of Turku, series B, Humaniora, 245).

Lipponen L, Hakkarainen K and Paavola S (2004) Practices and orientations of CSCL

in

J Strijbos,P Kirschner and R Martens (eds)

What we know about CSCL in higher education

Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lipponen L and Lallimo J (2004) From collaborative technology to collaborative use of technol-ogy: designing learning oriented infrastructures

Educational Media International

41

, 2.Mandl H and Lesgold A (Eds) (1988)

Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems

New York:Springer-Verlag.

McLean R (1999) Meta-communication widgets for knowledge building in distance education

Proceedings the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 1999

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Muukkonen H, Hakkarainen K and Lakkala M (1999) Progressive inquiry with a networked

learning environment FLE-tools

in

C Hoadley (ed)

Proceedings the International Conference onComputer Support for Collaborative Learning 1999

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Olson D R (1994)

The world on paper: the conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Papert S (1980)

Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas

New York: Basic Books.Pea R, Tinker R, Linn M, Means B, Brandsford J, Roschelle R

et al

. (1999) Toward a learningtechnologies knowledge network

Educational Technology Research and Development

47

, 19–38.Roschelle J (1995) What should collaborative technology be? A perspective from Dewey and

situated learning in J L Schnase and E L Cunnius (eds)

Proceedings the International Conferenceon Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. 1995

Bloomington, IN: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Roschelle J and Pea R (1999) Trajectories from today’s WWW to a powerful educational infra-structure

Educational Researcher

43

, 22–25.

442



Scardamalia M and Bereiter C (1994) Computer support for knowledge-building communities


3

, 265–283.Scardamalia M, Bereiter C, McLean R S, Swallow J and Woodruff E (1989) Computer-supported

intentional learning environments

Educational Computing Research

5

, 51–68.Steinberg E R (1991)

Computer-assisted instruction. A synthesis of theory, practice, and technology

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suchman L, Blomberg J, Orr J E and Trigg R (1999) Reconstructing technologies as social practice

American Behavioral Scientist

43

, 392–408.Wasson B, Ludvigsen S and Hoppe U (Eds) (2003)

Proceedings the International Conference onComputer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.