**10. Challenges for the teacher**

264 International Perspectives of Distance Learning in Higher Education

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

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 &

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

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,

they are in the same classroom or they are at home with their own computer.

students' utterances in a virtual discussion.

Callister, 2000; Andriessen et al 2003; Koschmann, 2004).

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 intersubjectivity (Rommetveit, 1985, 2008).

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

Differences and Similarities in Approach Between Classroom and Distance Learning 267

with peers they disagree with but still have confidence to. Creativity and imagination is also important when students are challenged beyond the limits of what they could possibly have managed on their own. Another important finding is that the assignments the students are going to answer or the tasks they are going to solve are performed in a way that enhance the possibility for creativity and different opinions. The students in the blended environment asked for assignments without any correct answers. They had

Designing and conducting group activities has always been a challenge for teachers. When should she leave the students to work on their own, and when should she intervene or just be available? The challenge of designing for collaborative activities supported by ICT is no less complicated. According to Webb & Cox (2004) teachers in ICT supported education should be able to plan activities that enable students to exercise control over their learning and to provide appropriate support or scaffolding when students need it. When the students are collaborating in these three case studies, it is the result of a long process. Still in the design of the programme the teacher should be aware and conscious of how the performance of the assignments should facilitate or block the aim of the teaching and learning programme. If the aim is to support creativity and argumentation then this has to be built into the activities and the expected outcome in terms of the way the assignments are performed as in the *creative story* and the *creative assignment*. This is important in all kinds of group activities, but even more in ICT supported activities where students are left alone

Throughout the three studies, findings show that the students want the teacher to be an active part of the collaborative process. The small pupils clearly stated that they wanted the teacher to read and comment their texts and to be available when they needed her. The campus-students express that they want the teacher to read their texts, to make comments and to be there. The teacher should be the only person outside the group with admittance to the closed space within the LMS. The study shows that the students missed the teacher who

"I missed the teacher who could conduct the process. We were fumbling. We thought maybe we had misunderstood the articles, and when we gave feedback it was perhaps

They missed the teacher's participation. The students claim that even though the teacher has another position when students are collaborating online and in distance, he or she should still be watching the learning activity and the process going on, and be a "visible" participant in the groups. The theory of a community of learners is based on the fact that the teacher should have a double responsibility. As well as carrying responsibility for the design, the teacher should be oriented towards the students' activities (Matusov & Rogoff, 1995; Rogoff & Gardener, 1999). This means that the teacher should not take control of all the activities taking place. Nor should the teacher abdicate and leave the responsibility to the pupils alone. In a community of learners teacher and students have a shared responsibility for learning. The first is for the teacher to contribute to building a confident learning society. Second, the teacher needs to take into account that the collaborating

discovered the productivity of being creative together.

**10.1 Where should the teacher be?** 

not so fruitful as it might have been.

with the computer.

was absent.

opportunity of sharing the aims and responsibility for the ICT supported activities. One student says:

"What I reacted to most was that we heard a lot from the teacher educators about pupil's autonomy and pupils' interests and how important it was to speak to them, take them seriously and listen to them. But as students we experienced quite the opposite. So I felt no kind of motivation".

The teacher left the students without telling them why they had to do all the different ICT supported activities. They were left on their own. In the other two studies the initial meeting was used as a meeting arena where the students and the teacher were sharing goals. This does not mean that the teacher met without any plans for the activities. What it means is that the teacher through the design had made a plan. Through the initial meeting, the teacher shared his or her plans with the students permitting the students access and potential ownership to the aims. They got a shared focus for the activities (Matusov, 2001). The students in the blended environment missed the opportunity to share the aims of the activity. This turned out to be a significant problem for many of them. They simply did not understand why they had to do all the ICT-supported activities.

According to the findings the initial meeting between teacher and students is decisive for the development of the further collaborative process. The term initial is here understood as the moment when the teacher initiates the activities for the group. This might be every day or during a longer period of time. The initial meeting is critical for establishing a common basis or platform for further collaboration. The initial meeting has a double purpose. It serves as a foundation for development of common human agency as well as a basis for development of common aims for the learning activities. The shared responsibility and mutual obligation seems to be important. Tom in the distance-learning study says:

"Knowing that the other members spent a lot of time on my text I just had to do the same. Otherwise I would never have done it".

Three different notions of inter-subjectivity are relevant in order to explain the concept; as *having in common,* as an *arena for respectful disagreement* and as *human agency* (Matusov, 2001). The notions of inter-subjectivity as *having in common* and as *human agency* are relevant for understanding the importance of the activities in an educational context understood as a community of learners in all three studies. The third analytical concept is *respectful disagreement* as a reflective tool for understanding a community of learners. Referring to Bakhtin (1981) there seems to be an agreement underpinning the fact that different perspectives drive dialogues (Mercer, 1995; Engle & Conant, 2002; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Based on an article of Lillejord & Dysthe (2008) the question on whether a conflict or a dispute is productive or unproductive is raised. A common finding for all the three studies is that it seems to be important to have a confident basis for collaboration. Otherwise *counteraction* and no collaboration is the result. If this sense of trust is present the students seem to develop productive interactions from disagreement as well as agreement. In the study of distance learning the students explicitly claim that they appreciate difference and different opinions. The pupils in 2nd grade might well disagree, but what seems to be just as important is the possibility of using creativity and imagination. Students in the study seem to develop *productive interactions* from arguing with peers they disagree with but still have confidence to. Creativity and imagination is also important when students are challenged beyond the limits of what they could possibly have managed on their own. Another important finding is that the assignments the students are going to answer or the tasks they are going to solve are performed in a way that enhance the possibility for creativity and different opinions. The students in the blended environment asked for assignments without any correct answers. They had discovered the productivity of being creative together.
