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

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



I concur with Mike, Mark.  There is not a *system *of activity being
negotiated here as I see. Beliefs, motives, goals, division of labour,
subject, object, outcomes. It's seems like overkill in your situation,
where content is being negotiated and renegotiated.  I am at a loss to
offer you anything more than what you are dealing with in terms of
dialogue, except you might like to see what Eugene Matusov might have to
offer.

Carol

On 16 August 2016 at 17:14, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Hi Mark
>
> It is not clear to me from your explication why you need 3rd gen AT.
> Mike
>
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016, Mark de Boer <mark.yomogi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>



-- 
Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin)
Developmental psycholinguist
Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za