Abstracts - Earli

where participants create common objects. In these zones different temporalities intersect.Considering this, it is of particular interest to study the ways in which such objects mediate thelearning process. This paper discusses the concept of time in learning with particular reference toits potential for understanding learning in and through intersecting trajectories of participation(Dreier, 1999; Dreier, 1997; Ludvigsen, 1998). We will use empirical data to illustrate what wecan achieve analytically when using multiplicity of timescales and intersecting trajectories ofparticipation as central concepts in the study of learning. The temporal-spatial aspects oftrajectories of participation are generally overlooked within cognitive theories of learning.However they are accounted for in a variety of ways within socio-cultural perspectives oncognition and learning. In ethnomethodological informed studies or situated activity systems timeis both constitutive of, and constituted within, participation in organised settings (Rawls, 2005;Goodwin, 2002). In cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) temporality is conceptualised inrelation to the development of institutional activities. Different timescales are accounted for inepisodes, phases and trajectories of lifecycles of specific production projects (Saari, 2003;Toiviainen, 2003). Temporality is also connected to the use of artifacts or specific tools in learningenvironments (Goodwin, 2002; Krange, submitted; Moen, 2006).Breakdowns between teachers, educators and designers in elaborating new technologiesasprecursors of change in education to dialogic thinkingBaruch Schwarz, The Hebrew University, IsraelReuma de Groot, The Hebrew University, IsraelMany tools and activities have been developed for enhancing strategies leading to learningprocesses in classrooms: for example problem-solving strategies such as inquiry based, or casebasedstrategies. In the research design process, researchers, designers, educators, and teachers aregenerally actively involved. It is well accepted that not only the tools are refined in a cyclic way,but the very theories on which the primary design is based. The design of appropriate tools is avery demanding task, since designers generally rely on observations in school of users to refine thetechnologies and to test them. Developing technologies for fostering dialogic thinking andargumentation seems a more straightforward process: The practices involved in the elicitation ofargumentation are already well known by teachers as well as students since argumentation isembedded in informal settings (disputes, informal conversations, etc.). Since teachers ‘know howto argue’, and also ‘know the domain they teach’, technologies seem to have the potential tofacilitate practices to which participants are familiar in other settings. We will see in this paper thatthe familiarity people have about argumentation and its elicitation raises challenges in the designcycle. Knowledge about argumentative practices is implicit in teachers and students, and itsexternalization mediated by tools for facilitating it stresses ideological beliefs concerning howteachers should function in school talk. The design process is then far from being smooth butrather leads to breakdowns among teachers, educators, designers, and researchers since beliefsunderlying school talk often conflict with dialogic principles. These participants in the designcycle not only have to learn how to use new tools designed for them, but the design of the tools ispart of a social process in which their organization, beliefs and identities are at stake.Changing objects in knowledge creating practicesAndreas Lund, InterMedia, University of Oslo, NorwayTrond Eiliv Hauge, InterMedia, University of Oslo, NorwayIn this paper we ask – and examine – how the object(s) of specific learning activities qualifycollective knowledge creation practices (Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola, & Lehtinen, 2004). Such– 393 –