The objective of the research presented in this paper is to enhance communication- and learning quality when pupils use computers to learn mathematics. The unit of analysis is two pupils who collaborate in a dyad and share one computer. A key issue is to gain knowledge on connections between the quality of pupils’ communication and the quality of their learning.

This research is the second phase, the intervention phase, of a design-based research project. The first phase described and analyzed this educational context and several communicative patterns were identified and reflected upon (Herheim & Krumsvik, submitted). Aspects as addressing and mutual language emerged as important factors that enhanced the quality of pupils’ communication. However, the first phase revealed interesting challenges. There were significant differences with respect to which degree the pupils managed to engage in discussions and the amount of in depth subject matter reasoning was low. These results are in line with other research: neither collaborative learning (Sfard & Kieran, 2001) nor the computer (Cuban, 2001) yields learning in it self. The second phase of the project builds on the findings of the first phase and deals with these challenges pointed out by Sfard & Kieran and Cuban.

The research question is: what are important factors in order to generate in depth communication that promotes pupils’ learning of mathematics when pupil dyads use a computer? The main focus is on communicative factors which involve both ‘pupil-pupil’-talk and ‘pupil(s)-teacher’-talk. The software type and its influence on the communication is also an essential part.

The theoretical perspective is based on a dialogic (Bachtin & Holquist, 1981; Linell, 1998; Rommetveit, 1992), distributed, and situated (Lave & Wenger, 1991) view on learning. Pupils’ learning is viewed as interplay between social interaction and pupils’ own construction. A Danish project identified several key aspects assumed conducive for pupils learning through dialogue: advocating, thinking aloud, reformulating, challenging, and evaluating (Alrø & Skovsmose, 2002). A corresponding theory derived from two UK projects, SLANT and TRAC (Neil Mercer & Wegerif, 1998; Wegerif, 2007), developed in a collaborative learning context using ICT, emphasizes the concept explorative talk. The Danish and the UK studies both underline pupils’ ownership with regards to not merely the activity but the learning goals and to the dialogue it self, to assess other pupils’ point of views, and to “engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas” (Neil Mercer & Wegerif, 1998, p. 85).

From a research literature review within this field (Herheim, submitted), four key aspects are singled out: (1) The establishing of a common ground (e.g. Stahl, 2005), (2) pupils’, teachers’, and computers' communicative roles (Lavy & Leron, 2004; Monaghan, 2005; Nussbaum et al., 2009; Sinclair, 2005; Wegerif, 2004), (3) communication characteristics (Ainley, Nardi, & Pratt, 2000; Alrø & Skovsmose, 2002; N. Mercer, 1994; Wegerif, 2007; Wyndhamn & Säljö, 2009) , and (4) software design and task structure (Fisher, 1992; Lavy, 2006; Parnafes & Disessa, 2004).

Alrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2002). Dialogue and Learning in Mathematics Education. Intention, Reflection, Critique (Vol. 29). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141 - 178. Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer. Design-Based Research Collective, T. (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. Fisher, E. (1992). Characteristics of children's talk at the computer and its relationship to the computer software. Language and Education, 7(2), 187-215. Herheim, R. (submitted). Peer Learning and Communication in Face-to-Face Computer Settings: a Review. Herheim, R., & Krumsvik, R. (submitted). Peer Communication in a Computer Context. Lavy, I. (2006). A case study of different types of arguments emerging from explorations in an interactive computerized environment. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(2), 153-169. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue: Talk, interaction and context in diaogical perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1998). Is exploratory talk’ productive talk? In K. Littleton & P. light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing Productive Interactions (pp. 79-101). London: Routledge. Monaghan, F. (2005). 'Don't think in your head, think aloud': ICT and exploratory talk in the primary school mathematics classroom. Research in Mathematics Education, 7(1), 83-100. Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as Communication: Rethinking Learning-by-Talking Through Multi-Faceted Analysis of Students' Mathematical Interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(1), 42 - 76. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79-90. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer-Verlag.