[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory



Hi Mark,

I think the issue is really complex.  Are the students using the open forum to make the poster better for presentation or to advance the thinking that the poster represents.  If it is the first then I don't think you can think of it as the type of progressive thinking the Knowledge Forum for instance is looking to create through student interactions.  It is instead the students looking to use the technology to advance their needs within the larger system (a good poster means a better grade).  On the other hand if you can show that the students are really changing each other's thinking about what's on the poster (and I am not sure you can from the dialogue you presented here) then you can make an argument for augmented thinking, for progressive development of thinking, I am guessing for 3rd generation activity theory.

I think Kai Hakkarainnen and Sammi Paavola have written some really interesting stuff on this.  Take a look at some of their articles.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Mark de Boer
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 10:04 AM
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
Subject: [Xmca-l] 3rd generation activity theory

Hello!

I have not posted in a very long time. I am hoping that someone can help out with my question(s).

I am working with data from a group of 4 students, they are collaboratively working on a project. Most of their collaboration is done using an online forum, although there is some-face-to-face time. They are working in the L2, English, their L1 is Japanese. Their project was to investigate pet bottle use on campus and give a poster presentation on their findings.

They have done some preliminary work, such as a survey to students, some interviews, some general research and have begun to work on their poster.
(all dialogue is being shared in the online forum).

The dialogue in the forum looks something like this:

1. Student A: 'Let's begin working on our poster'
2. Student B: 'I made my poster, please check' (poster1 file an attachment in the forum) 3. Student C: 'I've made some small changes, and I added some information'
(poster2 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster1) 4. Student D: 'Student C's ideas are good, I made some changes too.'
(poster3 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster 2) 5. Student B: 'I think that we should put the following contents in our poster (suggesting a list of topics concerning pet bottles and pet bottle
use) Please give me your opinion.
6. Student C: 'I made a poster about (topic a), please check' (poster4 file an attachment in the forum, originally poster3)

And so forth. This occurs the bouncing back and forth of the file, each student adding or changing something, expressing what they have done in the online forum. There are about 120 lines of data, with over 80 files being shared.

I have used Longacre's analysis to prove that this is procedural dialogue, and Bereiter's discussions of progressive dialogue to prove that this is progressive dialogue, but I have gotten stuck on the concept of 3rd generation activity theory to show that this is a joint construction of the object of the activity, and that there are a number activity systems at work.

What I want to show is that there is evidence of dialogue that pushes the creation of content. The learners are working from basically nothing, they only have been given a project of what to investigate, but the rest of what they do is up to them. They decide content, they decide what to present, and they decide who does what within their group. So, as someone makes a suggestion, as in 1 and 5, content follows based on the suggestion.
I also want to show that there is evidence that the content created also causes more dialogue to occur. So as content is uploaded, as in 2, 3, 4, and 6, students respond with evaluation, changes to the content, and additions to the content.

I can understand what happens between 1 and 2. This is a simple case. But between 2, 3, and 4 it becomes complicated. In 2, B uploads a file and requests evaluation. C downloads the content, makes changes, and uploads it in 3. The language in the forum in 2, I would like to argue that it is a tool, to inform the others that there is content for them to look at, but that this is actually a case of the content in 2 creating the reason for dialogue in 3. But at the same time, content is changed and uploaded in 3.

In my efforts to understand this data, I have turned to two places, Engestrom's chapter from 1999, Innovative learning in work teams, and Daniels book 2001, Vygotsky and Pedagogy, mostly chapter 3, the discussions of Activity theory 3rd generation as a starting point.

I want to argue that the learners are jointly constructing the object of the activity, and that object is what Bereiter and Wells refer to as the improvable object. The dialogue influences the content and the content influences the dialogue. Can this be argued as 3rd generation activity theory? I am thinking it can be, I actually think it is a perfect fit to the model, but I am alone reading these materials without anyone to bounce these ideas off of. My confusion lies in that this is with second language learners in a general English course, and most of the instances of language learning discussions center around the structure of the language, not the use of the language.

Eventually, my final argument is that through this interaction, instances of dynamic assessment occurs between learners, because not only are they sharing files and constantly changing them, but occasionally Student B may upload a file with content and Student A (or other) will make a suggestion to Student B who will then change their poster file again and upload it.
Again, much of the discussion of dynamic assessment and language learning occurs around the structure of the language, so I'm certain that this is a new field of study with respect to joint construction of an object coupled with instances of dynamic assessment in a language learning environment.

I know there is probably much more I can write, but not to bog down the readers here, I am interested in thoughts or opinions on what is happening with the data.

Respectfully,

Mark