An Activity Theory Exegesis on Conflict and Contradictions in Networked Discussions and Feedback Exchanges
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.2.367-388Keywords:
Contradictions, Delayed Computer-Mediated Communications, Feedback Exchanges, Paper Topic PostingsAbstract
The goal of this study was to investigate the culturally-afforded contradictions that 10 advanced English a Second Language (ESL) learners encountered when they posted their paper topics and exchanged feedback strategies online and contextualized some of these strategies to draft their papers. Using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and more precisely the notion of contradictions, the students’ paper topic postings and feedback exchanges were examined within the opposing historically- and politically-built values, salient cultural convictions, and life experiences in which they occurred (Leont’ev, 1981b; Engeström, 1987, 2001, 2008). An examination of students’ online postings, proffered feedback strategies, and rough drafts indicated that this activity was construed on three major contradictions: (1) instructor expectations for defining topics that student-authors perceived as salient, such as the Taiwanese military that contradicted student-reviewers’ beliefs and efforts to reinforce their relationships with their peers; (2) the requirements for devising thought-provoking strategies to assist student-authors in drafting their papers that then contradicted student-reviewers’ efforts to maintain friendly relationships with student-authors; and (3) reviewers’ construction of challenging feedback strategies online to help authors with the drafting process that contradicted their efforts as authors to draft cogent arguments by strategically avoiding materializing some of their peers’ suggestions, especially counterarguments.
References
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as a regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314-342.
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. MIT Press
Bailey, F. G. (1983). The tactical uses of passion: An essay on power, reason, and reality. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (V. W. McGee, Trans.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 11(2), 82-103. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/basharina/default.html
Bauer, B., deBenedette, L., Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., & Waryn, S. (2006). The cultural project. In S. L. Thorne & J. A. Belz (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 31-62). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.
Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53, 591647.
Chun, D. M. (2008). Computer-mediated discourse in instructed environments. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 15-45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512.
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The selfdetermination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 325-346.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Ducate, L. C., & Lomicka, L. L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9-28.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Oriental-Konsultit Oy.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp.19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical conceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Ilyenkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays on its history and theory. Moscow: Progress.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457476.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260.
Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education. London: Harvard University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1995). Embracing conflict versus achieving consensus in foreign language education. ADFL Bulletin, 26(3), 6-12.
Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as a global communicative practice. In D. Cameron & D. Block (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 83-100). New York: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introduction to sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Genung, P. B. (2002). “I’d rather switch than fight”: An activity-theoretic study of power, success, and failure in a foreign language. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp.175-196). London: Continuum.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981a). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981b). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Lunsford, A. A., & Ruszkiewicz, J. J. (2004). Everything’s an argument (3rd ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ramage, J., Bean, J., & Johson, J. (2007). Writing arguments: A rhetoric with reading. New York: Pearson Longman.
Robbins, D. (2003). Vygotsky’s and A. A. Leontiev’s semiotics and psycholinguistics: Applications for education, second language acquisition, and theories of language. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). ‘Vygotsky’s neglected legacy’: Cultural-historical activity theory. Journal of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Schneider, J., & von der Emde, S. (2006). Conflicts in cyberspace: From communication breakdown to intercultural dialogue in online collaborations. In S. L. Thorne & J. A. Belz (Eds.), Internetmediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 178-206). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html
Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes on activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 70-88.
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 38-67. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html
Thorne, S. L. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and the object of innovation. In K.van Esch/O. St. John (Eds.), New insights into foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 51-70). Germany: Peter Lang.
Tudini, V. (2007). Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat rooms. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 577- 601.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. New York: Longman.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538-2557.
Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Towards an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 190-205.
Ware, P. D., & O’ Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/ wareodowd/default.html
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26. Available at https://calico.org/journalTOC.php
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. M. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 15-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (2002). Learning and teaching for understanding: The key role of collaborative knowledge building. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints. Advances in Research on Teaching, 9 (pp. 1-41). Boston: Elsevier/JAI Press.
Wells, G., & Mejia Arauz, R. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379-428.
