Theoretical framework

mean-ings within an interactive collective context (Stahl, Koschmann &

Suthers, 2006; Stahl & Hesse, 2007). The asynchronous dialogue thereby becomes a discussion and conversation in which partici-pants are mutually dependent on each other. Those who write and those who read are co-authors, and shareholders in a common ne-gotiation, cooperating to develop a meaning and shared under-standing of certain ideas expressed in literature and theories.

However, other studies, for example Lipponen et al. (2001) and Jakobsson (2006), show that students in these types of learning en-vironments are not always active participants in collaborative knowledge-building communities of the kind described above. In-stead, it is argued that this kind of courses may result in relatively superficial or unreflective re-productions. These studies observe that the teachers tend to focus on organisational and administra-tive tasks, such as scheduling or the construction of individual signments and examinations. Furthermore, teachers implicitly as-sume that participants are interested in discussing, and that they are able to use different arguments as a tool for their own knowl-edge building. Such assumptions may not always be warranted.

Therefore, it is important to investigate more about different ways in which students can use their own and others texts to develop in-dividual and collective learning in distance education.

1986, 2004b) theoretical framework of dialogues, as well Rom-metveit’s (1992; 2003) concepts of meaning potentials and Toul-min’s argument pattern (1958). The CSCL perspective (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning) is here related to the theoretical approach in both socio-cultural theory, and Bakhtin´s theoretical framework. The element that distinguishes this perspective, as a whole, from other approaches to learning is an emphasis that is not possible to understand learning solely from individual actions or development. Dialogue exchange is a dynamic process, and many individual actions and complex chains of utterances combine to produce effects. Learning always arises as a product of dialogue processes, aiming to create meaning.

In the theoretical framework developed by Bakhtin (1981, p.

293), every utterance, spoken or written, is always formed by a voice, and expressed from a particular viewpoint or perspective. Voice shall here be understood as person’s utterance, including meaning of own and others’ words from different contexts, and expressed from a particular viewpoint or perspective. Bakhtin (1981, p. 427) talks about a `discourse´ [Rus. slovo] in the dia-logue, and points to social and ideological differences within a sin-gle language. In Bakhtin´s account, the notion of utterance is inher-ently linked with that of voice. It is “the speaking personality, the speaking consciousness. A voice always has a will or desire behind it, its own timbre and overtones” (1981, p. 434). In other words, the utterances contain dialogic overtones, which can, for example, be composed of assertions regarding the world, ontological conclu-sions, or hypotheses regarding a phenomenon. Meaning is the product of difference, and no utterance can ever be subjected to a final interpretation. For Bakhtin, meaning can never be grounded in identity. Learning is, in other words, seen as a collective process, in which the person who writes or speaks is interdependent on those who read or listen, as co-authors in a collaborative construc-tion of meanings.

Rommetveit (2003) uses the terms ‘shareholders’ and ‘co-authors’ as metaphors, in order to describe a situation in which knowledge and understanding are socially distributed amongst people. He points out that a pluralistic culture and experience builds upon interpreted dialogues, where mutual understanding is

fixed through negotiations. In these negotiations, meaning poten-tials arise, that can be understood as the range of meaning-mediating possibilities that emerge during dialogues between peo-ple. With potential, Rommetveit means that the word or utterance that a person chooses is connected to the situation in which she finds herself, as well as the knowledge and experience she carries with her. Meaning potential can also be understood as a sample space, which is composed of all the possible ways to understand or interpret statements.

How readers deal with texts, and how they use the resources of texts to determine what they mean – or rather, some possible meanings - is important in distance learning and education. Toul-min (1958, pp. 95-107) proposes a model, where the process of a valid argument is connected to an appropriate form. In this con-text, we will proceed cautiously and avoid the philosophical issues, to instead concentrate on the present issues of a more straightfor-ward nature. Toulmin (1958, pp. 98, 101, 103) describes how this can be achieved with an argument model containing six elements.

Three are mandatory, while the remaining three are more volun-tary or optional, since they are frequently found, but not always.

The basic argument model consists of three mandatory elements: C (claim), D (data) and W (warrant). The extended argument model includes the three optional elements; Q (qualifier), R (rebuttal) and B (backing).

The difference between Bakhtin’s framework of dialogues (1981;

1986, 2004a; 1986, 2004b) and Toulmin's argument model (1958), is that Bakhtin’s theories are based on the dialogic relation-ship between subject and object, including the phenomenon and causal association, as well as relationships between different indi-viduals’ utterances and feelings. Toulmin’s argument model, on the other hand, is based on practical relations, or the approach when the objects are formulated in the argument. That is, the action space of claims, data and warrants, where the applicability of the argument more or less confirms and/or refutes.

In the thesis, it is argued that language is the link for communi-cation with others, but also develops the internal dialogue or thought process that changes our understanding of the world. In that way, there is a parallel development of language and concepts,

because people use communication for mutual development of un-derstanding, and problem solving in collaboration with others. The term ‘mediation’ is used in socio-cultural theory, to highlight the difference or the development zone, between what the students al-ready know, and what they can achieve with assistance from others (Vygotsky, 1978; 1988; Wertsch, 1991; 1998). This view is based on the idea that the ability to master and appropriate new or nego-tiated experience, expressed orally or in writing, also implies that people have a relationship with themselves and others. ‘Appropria-tion’ is in this sense not only a concept that concerns a mechanical transfer or a passive acceptance, but also implies a mutual creation of meaning from different arguments and responses (Bakhtin, 1981: 1986, 2004b; Wertsch, 1991; 1998; 2007).