Littleton and Light, 1999). This work has led to dialogic and collaborative principles
in relation to technologies in education and the assertion that new technologies need
to be understood in terms of mediation rather than transmission. The analytical focus
in the majority of this research is on linguistic interaction - talk around the screen.
Some research has attempted to combine an interest in the practices and interaction of
students and the resources on screen. Building on research into the distinctive
patterns of interaction and talk some research studies have explored how the different
structures embedded in computer software affect talk (Baxter and Preece, 1999;
Anderson et. al, 1999). Nonetheless the analytical approach to screen remains rooted
in language - either spoken or written, and the multimodal resources of screen rarely
come into the realm of the analysis. The structure of computer applications is,
however, one area that has received some attention in this field. For instance,
computer learning programs with open and closed task structures have been shown to
affect patterns of collaboration and interaction differently (Anderson et. al, 1999).
Computer characters and interventions have been designed in order to mediate
specific kinds of talk between students (Mercer and Wegerif, 2002). The ways in
which different structures of interactive multimedia can be designed to impact on
user autonomy, pupil motivated avenues to learning, and to support essential aspects
of learning has also been examined (Plowman, 1996a; Plowman, 1996b;Laurillard,
1998).
The 'creative' potential of computer applications (e.g. web design and animation) in
learning has been the focus of much cultural and media studies research (e.g. Sefton-
Green and Parker, 2000; Buckingham, 2000; Lachs, 1999). Much of this work
focuses on technology use outside of formal educational sites. The ways in which
young people's engagement with new technology can give expression to young
people's self-identities (Turkle, 1995; Sinker, 2000), and youth culture more generally
(Nixon, 1998) has been a subject of study. Within the school context the ‘creative’
potential of new technologies and the lack of prescriptive assessment criteria of what
31