Appropriating the use of a Moo for collaborative learning

The study presents an analysis of the activities of professional teachers while they use a text-based computer-mediated communication system called a Moo. The teachers, who are geographically distributed, attend a professional training course in education and information technology. The focus is on the appropriation process with regard to using the artifact within their learning and teaching activity. In order to analyze this process, participants’ text-based communication was logged and the data was treated both quantitatively and qualitatively. We found that interaction through the artifact brings a modification in the organization of the classroom discourse and in particular in the teachers’ communication schemes. We observed that the teachers-as-students attending the online training used the artifact mainly for the establishment and maintenance of relationships. They appropriated the features of the artifact that allowed them to ‘talk’ and exchange personal experiences rather easily. They did not however, elaborate online information shared with the others. q 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[1]  Teresa Cerratto,et al.  Chatting to Learn and Learning to Chat in Collaborative Virtual Environments , 2000 .

[2]  Kjell Granström,et al.  Private Communication between Students in the Classroom in Relation to Different Classroom Features. , 1996 .

[3]  Malin Sveningsson.  Creating a sense of community : Experiences from a Swedish web chat , 2001 .

[4]  S. Herring.  Computer-mediated communication : linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives , 1996 .

[5]  Joan Bliss,et al.  Learning Sites: Social and Technological Resources for Learning , 1999 .

[6]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Chapter 1 (Introduction) What do you mean by 'collaborative learning'? , 1999 .

[7]  Rjoè,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work , 2005 .

[8]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Activity theory and individual and social transformation. , 1999 .

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

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

[11]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology , 1993 .

[12]  Jan Rune Holmevik,et al.  Mooniversity: A Student's Guide to Online Learning , 1999 .

[13]  C. Belisle,et al.  Integrated cognitive engineering at the interface: a tool mediation perspective , 1997, Proceedings Second International Conference on Cognitive Technology Humanizing the Information Age.

[14]  Steven G. Jones.  Information, Internet, and community in the information age: notes toward an understanding of community , 1998 .

[15]  Elizabeth D. Mynatt,et al.  Network Communities: Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed ... , 2004, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[16]  Daniel Pargman,et al.  Code Begets Community: On Social and Technical Aspects of Managing a Virtual Community , 2000 .

[17]  J. Petraglia.  Reality by Design: The Rhetoric and Technology of Authenticity in Education , 1998 .

[18]  Pavel Curtis,et al.  Mudding: Social phenomena in text-based virtual realities. , 1997 .

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

[20]  Mark S. Schlager,et al.  TAPPED IN: a new on-line teacher community concept for the next generation of internet technology , 1997, CSCL.

[21]  Amy Bruckman,et al.  Effects of CMC on student participation patterns in a foreign language learning environment , 2001, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[22]  C. O'Malley.  Designing computer systems to support peer learning , 1992 .

[23]  Teresa Inés Cerratto,et al.  Problems in orchestrating MOO activity , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[24]  Paul Light.  Collaborative learning with computers , 1993 .

[25]  Paul Lewis.  Teachers, learners, and computers : exploring relationships in CALL , 1998 .

[26]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Learner-centered design: the challenge for HCI in the 21st century , 1994, INTR.

[27]  Amy Bruckman,et al.  Community Support for Constructionist Learning , 2004, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[28]  J. Wertsch.  Mind as action , 1998 .

[29]  Brian McKenna,et al.  Virtual Community , 1998, Online Inf. Rev..

[30]  Teresa Cerratto-Pargman.  The use of synchronous text-based environments for teacher professional development , 2001 .

[31]  P. J. Newman,et al.  M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture , 2001 .

[32]  Thierry Chanier,et al.  How Social Network Analysis can help to Measure Cohesion in Collaborative Distance-Learning , 2003, CSCL.

[33]  Jerry Andriessen,et al.  Learning through synchronous electronic discussion , 2000, Comput. Educ..

[34]  L. Vygotsky.  Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[35]  Pascal Béguin,et al.  Designing for Instrument-Mediated Activity , 2000, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[36]  M. Baker.  A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues , 1994 .

[37]  A. N. Leont’ev.  The Problem of Activity in Psychology , 1974 .

[38]  Mark S. Schlager,et al.  Building Virtual Communities: Evolution of an Online Education Community of Practice , 2002 .

[39]  P. Kollock,et al.  Managing the virtual commons : Cooperation and conflict in computer communities , 1996 .

[40]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  Moving Practice: From Classrooms to MOO Rooms , 2004, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[41]  M. Cole.  A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition , 1993 .

[42]  Elliot Soloway,et al.  Learning theory in practice: case studies of learner-centered design , 1996, CHI.