**9. Important preconditions for productive interactions**

Experiences from the three different studies show how the computer can be used as a tool for collaborative writing activities for students of different age groups; for students who meet every day as well as students who are distance learners. The fact that the groups and the activities in this study are so different makes the findings more general (Wegerif, 2007). Educational technology offers a new kind of room or an inter-subjective space for collaboration. The space might be compared to what (Engeström, 1998) calls a *zone of possibilities* that can help learners to renew existing knowledge and where both the individual's personal zone and the group's common zone develop according to the process of interaction (Wasser & Bresler, 1996; Hoel 2001). The fact that the texts become a common and not an individual property is discussed by Wegerif (2007). Referring to societies where oral, rather than written communication has been the norm, he claims that these cultures possess a kind of common wisdom that is absent in cultures where individual writing is more common. Educational technology by its nature offers a common space for sharing texts that makes common reflection possible. The computer has the ability of storing collaborative texts, in what one of the informants in one of the studies called a "treasure chest". Another fact is that these collaborative texts might be there for ever. Consequently

Differences and Similarities in Approach Between Classroom and Distance Learning 265

something which might make it easier for students to contribute. Still the findings underline the importance of fundamental confidence and responsibility between students in ICT supported collaboration. Finally the study shows that designing for communities of learners supported by ICT, raises challenges for teachers that are common across all areas whether these represent the stand-alone computers in the classroom, or online collaboration as well as across different age groups. Some of these challenges are

In all the three studies the students had the opportunity to meet face-to-face before they were expected to collaborate by means of the computer. This meeting seems to function as a melting pot where they got to know each other and gained confidence. When the three different studies are compared some general findings concerning the teachers' design of communities of learners supported by ICT seem to emerge. The findings show themselves in different ways throughout the three studies. However, there are some general principles. Before the teacher meets the students he or she has normally made a plan or a design for the activities. The crucial moment for creating a learning community is what I choose to call the *initial meeting*. The teacher may either take the full responsibility for the activities or abdicate. The alternative is to create a learning community with shared responsibility between students and teacher. If the students are to learn through respectful disagreement and common creativity the collaborative writing seems to be depending on a chain of activities. The preconditions are grounded on a stepwise development. When designing the teacher should be aware of the fact that the establishment of the community is fundamental for how the learning process is going to turn out. I have decided to call this the *initial meeting*. The initial meeting might be the start of the "writing-day" as in the study of the pupils' classroom or the initial meeting for student teachers in the other two studies. In the study of the distance learners the students also stressed the importance of confidence: ". You have to know each other because you cannot read body language when you are online" according to one of them. Two main concerns seem to be important in the initial part of group establishment. The first is to establish confidence between the members of the society. The second is to share a concern for development of common activities and aims. These basic concerns are rooted in the initial meeting and appear to influence the collaborative activities the students are participating in later. During these meetings the students across the studies had to show some of their personal attitudes. They were either playing together or they were talking about their experiences from their leisure time or family life. What happened during these first meetings was that students and teachers had to open up and learn to know each other as human beings. The foundation for the development of common agency (Matusov, 2001) seems to lie in the initial meeting. Students and teacher come to share a personal concern for each other. According to the experiences of the students in this study, basic trust and confidence seem to be decisive for the further collaboration. The concepts *interaction* and *counteraction* are used to illustrate the difference concerning human relations. This moment is crucial for faith and confidence and the establishment of inter-

The second concern is the development of common aims and for sharing responsibility for the learning activities or the subject. In the study of the campus students they missed the

discussed in the next paragraph.

**10. Challenges for the teacher** 

subjectivity (Rommetveit, 1985, 2008).

there is a continuous possibility for re-working of the texts. Independent of time students and teachers can visit these texts and respond to them. Again this illustrates how, in online collaboration, students have more time for reflection before they respond to other students' utterances than in oral collaboration. Accordingly the notion time and space differ from face-to-face meetings. Wegerif claims that online discussions and collaborative activities might be more egalitarian than face-to-face collaboration. The same fact is stated by students in the study of the blended environment who claim that it is easier to respond to other students' utterances in a virtual discussion.

What the study also shows is that confidence is fundamental for collaborative writing activities supported by educational technology. Whether the students are placed in front of a stand-alone computer in a class-room, or are collaborating through their computer at home, trust and faith in peers seems to be essential. This finding corresponds to other researchers results (Hoel, 2003; Sjøhelle, 2007; Wegerif, 2007). The willingness to be honest and open up, which again is a precondition for productive interactions, should be based in confidence. Other research shows that online collaboration often is characterized by anxiety, mainly because online collaborators lack the possibility of "reading" body-language (Burbules & Callister, 2000). Consequently the willingness to share and invest the inner thoughts is more limited than in face-to-face collaboration. An important precondition for online collaboration seems to be that the space within the LMS is closed for everyone other than the included members and the teacher. The most important issue for students in this study seems to be to get know each other and to have established a sense of common faith and obligation that makes collaborative writing worthwhile. The fact that the collaborative activities should be limited to the selected group seems to be a common feature throughout the studies. The way the educational technology is used as a collaborative artefact in the primary classroom ensures that nobody else than the teacher and the students are participating. Students and the teacher, who share the basic notions of inter-subjectivity, should be the only participants. Research shows that in many situations students want to avoid difficulties and conflicts and choose not to be involved in dialogues ( Burbules & Callister, 2000; Andriessen et al 2003; Koschmann, 2004).

When the students start the ICT-supported collaborative activities they enter a world of their own. In the study of the young pupils I used the metaphor "*a helmet made of glass*" to illustrate that the students went into their own world. The teacher regarded her job as fulfilled when the pupils went to the computer. They left her influence in a way. The most important finding from the SLANT-project (The Spoken Language and New Technology) also revealed that the communication taking place in front of the computer-screen was the result of a long process consisting of teachers' designing the programme, then communicating and sharing plans and ideas with the students (Wegerif & Mercer, 1997; Wegerif, 2007). In traditional face-to-face education in a classroom the teacher has the possibility of intervening and stopping the activities. When students are collaborating by means of educational technology their orientation is towards the computer-screen either they are in the same classroom or they are at home with their own computer.

Summing up, this study shows that educational technology is suited for collaborative writing; composing texts, giving feedback to other students' texts, as well as discussions. Due to its interactive abilities the computer offers an arena for collaborative reflection. The texts become independent of time and space because they are always available, something which might make it easier for students to contribute. Still the findings underline the importance of fundamental confidence and responsibility between students in ICT supported collaboration. Finally the study shows that designing for communities of learners supported by ICT, raises challenges for teachers that are common across all areas whether these represent the stand-alone computers in the classroom, or online collaboration as well as across different age groups. Some of these challenges are discussed in the next paragraph.
