Abstract. This paper argues that for the study and facilitation of collaborative learning, existing theories of grounding such as that of Clark and Shaefer [5] cannot be applied without adjustments. When comparing collaborative learning and conversation, four dimensions can be identified where grounding at a knowledge level differs from the grounding at an utterance level. Firstly, the indirect access and the existence of a range of manifest meanings, poses the need for a notion of ‘groundedness’. Secondly, we propose providing evidence in ‘co-referenced actions ’ to be an important process as well as an additional marker to assess grounding. Thirdly, instead of simply repairing misunderstandings after they arise, ‘perspective taking ’ becomes a more prominent mechanism. Fourthly, effort into grounding is turned from needing to be minimised, into needing to be ‘optimised’. 1

The negotiation of what is to count as mutually acceptable collaborative knowledge is difficult to conduct when participants cannot interact face-to-face. We review certain related work on negotiation support and develop a concept of "knowledge negotiation" that is appropriate for collaborative learning in ALNs used in school classrooms. This concept is situated within the framework of collaborative knowledge building viewed at the group unit of analysis; it contrasts with negotiation as the reconciliation of multiple personal opinions through voting. We then describe an implementation of support for knowledge negotiation in an ALN that is currently being tested in European schools.

Abstract: The paper is a case study of technology-facilitated argumentation. Several graduate students, the first four authors, present and negotiate complementary interpretations of a diagram generated in a computer-simulated stochastic experiment. Individuals use informal visual metaphors, programming, and formal mathematical analysis to ground the diagram, i.e., to achieve a sense of proof, connection, and understanding. The NetLogo modeling-and-simulation environment (Wilensky, 1999) serves to structure the authors ’ grounding, appropriating, and presenting of a complex mathematical construct. We demonstrate individuals ’ implicitly diverse explanatory mechanisms for a shared experience. We show that this epistemological diversity, sometimes thought to undermine learning experiences, can, given appropriate learning environments and technological fluency, foster deeper understanding of mathematics and science.

A conversational method of teaching whereby the students engage each other as a key part of the learning experience achieves a higher percentage of high grades (and presumably better knowledge acquisition) than standard teaching practices. Standard teaching practices mean students often attend lectures to absorb and regurgitate the material presented during exams to test their understanding. This is what students (especially undergraduates) appear to understand as learning and the results are often disappointing. These students do not appear to be able to integrate received information with their own experience to date to create knowledge. In an attempt to improve this situation, we established a learning environment for a capstone Information Systems course where the students were driving their own learning (collaborative learning), within broad parameters established by the lecturer in charge. A key feature of this learning environment was a series of conversational workshops within which the students tested their ideas and concepts through face-to-face and online conversations among themselves. The pedagogy underpinning this approach is grounded in the belief that having to actively communicate with peers requires the articulation of current understanding with the view to change as alternative views are encountered. This paper presents the course content, curriculum structure, method of instruction and assessment for two years (2001 and 2002), discusses the approach adopted in terms of a model of collaborative learning, and looks at the outcomes from those years. For year, 2003 a plan for more structured research was put in place and that is also outlined.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a structural model of team collaboration emphasizing the cognitive aspects of the collaboration process. The model includes the domain characteristics, collaboration stages, meta-cognitive processes, information processing tasks, knowledge required for each information processing

Abstract. Over the last few years, argumentation systems have been gaining increasing importance in several areas of Artificial Intelligence, mainly as a vehicle for facilitating rationally justifiable decision making when handling incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. Argumentation provides a sound model for dialectical reasoning, which underlies discussions among students when solving tasks collaboratively in a CSCL environment. In this setting, we identify the problem of constructing Shared Knowledge and its related Shared Knowledge Awareness. While Shared Knowledge refers to the common knowledge students acquire when they work in a collaborative activity, Shared Knowledge Awareness is associated with the consciousness on the Shared Knowledge that a particular student has. This paper presents a novel approach to model Shared Knowledge construction and the associated Shared Knowledge Awareness through an automated argumentation system. 1

This project builds on cognitive science theories of the role of artifacts in learning, understanding and working. It also adapts methods of human interaction analysis – based on detailed study of digitized video recordings – to the investigation of the use of computer-based simulations and communication media in collaborative learning settings. It thereby develops and tests a methodology for the field of CSCL (computer-supported collaborative learning). This methodology allows researchers to investigate sessions of collaborative learning by describing interactions of participants with artifacts, expressed through discourse patterns and social practices. Specifically, computer support systems are also conceptualized as artifacts, so the methodology includes assessment of how particular software systems are adopted and whether their designs are effective in usage. In contrast to prevailing methodologies for educational technology that are based on psychological theories of individual learners, this methodology is grounded in social theories of human interaction and is therefore especially suited to support of collaborative learning. The project studies how a small group of middle school students learns to use a computer simulation of rocket launches as a tool for scientific knowledge-building. As the project goes on, this simulation is incorporated into an on-line environment for knowledge-building. The research methodology is then adapted for virtual collaboration and provides formative evaluation for the computer simulation, the collaboration software and the classroom pedagogy. The goal is to have the students treat the simulation as more than a video game, the communication medium as more than a chat room

her guidance, without any computer support and without any collaboration! While there is no doubt that the concerns expressed and supported in these chapters are of vital importance to CSCL research, one wonders what happened to the CSCL. The high-level concern of these chapters, which ends up ignoring the role of collaboration and technology, plays itself out at a methodological level. To see this requires reviewing the analysis undertaken in these chapters. CSCL in the university The chapter by de Jong, Diermanse, and Lutgens raises three central questions for CSCL environments such as CSILE: 1. Can these environments be integrated into curriculum at the university level? 2. Does their use promote knowledge building? 2 3. What should the role of the teacher be? Each of these questions would require a book to answer with any completeness if we knew the answers. Research today is really just starting to pose the questions. Any an

The Need for Computer Support .....................................................................................................................7 Interpretation in Design Methodology ............................................................................................................7 Interpretation in Lunar Habitat Design............................................................................................................8 The Tacit Basis of Understanding ...................................................................................................................8 The Philosophy of Interpretation.....................................................................................................................9 Computer Support for Interpretation .............................................................................................................10 The Hermes System.......................................................................................................................................12 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................12 Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................................12 RefereNces .....................................................................................................................................................12 Armchair Missions to Mars: Using Case-Based Reasoning and Fuzzy Logic to Simulate a Time Series Model of Astronaut...

In this paper, we describe our experience with the longterm, widespread use of CoWeb, an asynchronous collaborative tool that is mostly used to complement existing faceto-face groups (such as classes). The CoWeb is an openended tool that does not enforce or explicitly support specific roles or usage, yet several well-defined uses and roles have emerged over time. In our design methodology, we recognize these roles and refine our collaboration environment to better support them.