The role of a whiteboard in a distributed cognitive system. P. Dillenbourg 1 and D. Traum 2 1 TECFA, School of Education and Psychology, University of Geneva, Route de Drize 9, 1227 Carouge Switzerland. Phone +41 (22) 705.96.93 2 UMIACS, A. V. Williams Building 9, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 USA Phone: +1 (301) 405-113 Address for correspondence: Pierre.Dillenbourg@tecfa.unige.ch Abstract . This contribution reports the results of an empirical study on computer- supported collaborative problem solving. This study aimed to analyze how two users build a shared solution during collaborative computer-mediated problem solving. The collaborative environment included a text-based virtual reality - a MOO environment - and an elementary whiteboard. Our initial hypothesis was that the whiteboard would enable partners to draw schemata to repair the misunderstandings which inevitably occur in dialogue, like we draw a sketch on the napkin during a meal. The results contradicted this hypothesis. The whiteboard does not simply support verbal interactions. Instead, it appears as the central space of interaction, because the information displayed is persistent and because partners can assume shared visibility. The whiteboard reifies the problem states and hence plays an implicit but important role in mutual regulation. The content of information being mediated through the whiteboard varies from pair to pair. The difference between pairs can be expressed as different configurations of a distributed cognitive system, in which the collaborative functions implied by the task are allocated to different tools, but in which the whiteboard generally appears as the central tool. 1. Theoretical framework The distributed cognition theories (hereafter ’DC’ theories) offer an interesting theoretical framework to study collaborative problem solving. The common point of these theories is to consider that cognition is not bound to the processes which occur in our brain, but extends to the social and physical environment in which one acts and reasons. 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. This study belongs to the first approach: we look at rather short periods of time (2 hours) between two people who 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,