A Reflective CSCL Environment with Foundations Based on the Activity Theory

Users need more evolving CSCL systems allowing them to coconstruct their groupware environment. As a response to this problem, this paper presents how we are trying to define more foundational relationships between human and computer sciences. Starting from studies of the contribution of human science to CSCW, we present some approaches similar to ours. We finally present DARE, our new meta-groupware. DARE takes elements coming from both human and computer sciences defining a boundary abstraction with its conceptual model. Its design is mainly rooted in Activity Theory and advanced software design strategies like open implementation. DARE particularly emphasises on co-construction and expansiveness properties of human activity and may be defined as more than a meta-groupware, but as a reflective groupware.

[1]  S. L. Star,et al.  Social science, technical systems, and cooperative work: beyond the great divide , 1999 .

[2]  Jeremy Roschelle,et al.  Scaleable Integration of Educational Software: Exploring The Promise of Component Architectures , 1998 .

[3]  Robert Lewis.  APPRENDRE CONJOINTEMENT : UNE ANALYSE, QUELQUES EXPÉRIENCES ET UN CADRE DE TRAVAIL , 1998 .

[4]  Lorraine Sherry,et al.  Issues in Distance Learning , 1995 .

[5]  Claude Viéville.  An Asynchronous Collaborative Learning System on the Web , 1998 .

[6]  Gregor Kiczales,et al.  Beyond the Black Box: Open Implementation , 1996, IEEE Softw..

[7]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Computational reflection , 1987, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[8]  Paul Dourish,et al.  On "Technomethodology": Foundational Relationships Between Ethnomethodology and System Design , 1998, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[9]  Jakob E. Bardram,et al.  Designing for the dynamics of cooperative work activities , 1998, CSCW '98.

[10]  Simon M. Kaplan,et al.  Introspect: a meta-level specification framework for dynamic, evolvable collaboration support , 1996 .

[11]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[12]  James Paul Dourish,et al.  Open implementation and flexibility in CSCW toolkits , 1996 .

[13]  Kurt Sandkuhl,et al.  Redesigning CSCW-systems for network computing-experience from the HotCon project , 1998, Proceedings of the Sixth Euromicro Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Processing - PDP '98 -.

[14]  B. Nardi.  Studying context: a comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition , 1995 .

[15]  B. Nardi.  Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction , 1995 .

[16]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  Book review: The Art of the MetaObject Protocol By Gregor Kiczales, Jim des Rivieres, Daniel G. and Bobrow(MIT Press, 1991) , 1991, SGAR.

[17]  K. Kuutti.  Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research , 1995 .

[18]  V. Kaptelinin.  Activity theory: implications for human-computer interaction , 1995 .

[19]  A. Roger Kaye,et al.  Participative modelling and design of collaborative distance learning tools in the COLEARN project , 1993, Teleteaching.

[20]  L. Suchman.  Plans and situated actions , 1987 .

[21]  Donald F. Ferguson,et al.  Support for Enterprise JavaBeans in Component Broker , 1998, IBM Syst. J..

[22]  Jakob Hummes.  Software components for cooperation : a solution for the "get help" problem , 1998 .

[23]  Kari Kuutti,et al.  The Concept of Activity as a Basic Unit of Analysis for CSCW Research , 1991, ECSCW.

[24]  A. N. Leont’ev,et al.  Activity, consciousness, and personality , 1978 .

[25]  Susanne Bødker.  Activity Theory as a Challenge to Systems Design , 1990 .

[26]  Ellen Tove Christiansen,et al.  A conceptual toolbox for designing CSCW applications , 1994 .