Grounding in computer-supported collaborative problem solving

Theoretical framework

As Salomon (1993), we deliberately use the plural for distributed cognition theories. The broad range of theories can be classified with respect to their main source of influence. Some contributions, such as Hutchins (1995) heavily rely on concepts borrowed from cognitive science (information flow, memories, buffers,...), while other contributions such as Lave (1991) are inscribed in the continuation of socio-cultural theories. The empirical studies conducted on each side differ by their scale: while the former analyze in details the interaction in a small group, solving a task during a short period of time, the latter study the culture of larger groups doing a variety of tasks over a long period of time. While the former explores the inter-psychological plane, the latter addresses the social plane¹. This study belongs to the first approach: we look at rather short periods of time (2 hours) between two people who do not know each other very well and have a clearly defined task to do. We feel not only more comfortable with the conceptual framework, but also prefer its 'constructive' flavor: "The question is not how individuals become members in a larger cognitive community as they do in apprenticeship studies. Rather the question is how a cognitive community could emerge in the first place" (Schwartz, 1995, p. 350). We adopt a functional rather than a socio-historical view of culture, i.e. we aim to understand cultural tools as a group adaptation to its environment.²

The notion of distributed cognitive system covers different group sizes. It can be a single agent plus a tool. Pea (1993) reported for instance the case of a forest ranger who had to measure the diameter of a tree, i.e. to measure the circumference of the tree and divide it by p. Since it is non trivial to divide mentally by 3.14, she took a tape and put a mark every p in such a way that, when she put the tape around the tree, she could directly read the diameter. Then she did not perform any more the computation in her head, the tool was doing the computation for her. A distributed system can include two agents, two agents using an artifact (Hutchins; 1995), it can be a small group, a 'community of practice' (Lave, 1991),... and wider and wider distributed systems until the whole society. The term 'system' is actually vague enough to apply more or less to anything. Even an individual can be viewed as a distributed cognitive system, as in Minsky' society of mind metaphor (1987). What does our understanding of group processes gain from considering a group as a single cognitive system? This question has been addressed by Salomon (1993), Perkins (1993) and Nickerson (1993). We will provide our personal answer in the final discussion of this research (section 7).

The term 'distributed' roughly indicates that different functions are performed by different components of a cognitive system, i.e. by different agents or tools. Other researchers (Resnick, 1991) prefer the term 'shared' to indicate that the different components of the system share some understanding of the task. These two terms refer to antagonist forces, we rather say 'shared despite distributed' (Dillenbourg, 1996). The distribution of functions has its advantages (reduced cognitive load, variety of viewpoints, ...) but is also increases the group heterogeneity: if different agents have different skills, different knowledge, different preferences, the group may hardly function as a group. If, despite this heterogeneity, the agents interact well enough, they may come to build a shared understanding of the task and to function really as a single cognitive system. In other words, 'distributed' refers to the conditions of collaboration while 'shared' describes an achievement.

• 
  The user and the software can be viewed as a single cognitive system (Woods & Roth, 1998; Dillenbourg, 1995). Research in human-computer interaction aims to find the optimal distribution of subtasks over partners, according to their respective cognitive skills (Dalal & Kapser, 1994)
  
• 
  In computer-supported collaborative learning, the software plays a role, positive or negative, in the collaborative process. Roschelle & Behrend (1995) observed that learners use the computer graphical representation to test their mutual understanding under increasingly tighter constraints. Conversely, when courseware provides immediate feedback, it may prevent pairs to argue about the quality of their answers, hence missing opportunities to justify or explain it. The shared workspace used in this research can be viewed as a shared working memory for the whole cognitive system (the pair + the tools).
  
• 
  A computer software can also be viewed as a tool which mediates the culture of community of practice, or at least the way this culture is reified into a concrete artifact by the developer team. For instance, in other development projects, we had explicit requests to design training software which does not only cover the specific training objectives, but also convey the culture of the enterprise.
  
• 
  Computer networks create specific communities, such a Internet newsgroups. These communities have specific features such as a high geographical dispersion, a semi-anonymous participation, ... Their culture reflects these features as well as the specificity of medium (e.g. e-mail groups use 'smilies', while MOO groups use EMOTE verbs).