To learn more, view our Privacy Policy. To browse Academia. Log in with Facebook Log in with Google. Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
Need an account? Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF. Students' perceptions of a selected aspect of a computer mediated academic writing program: An activity theory analysis Australasian Journal of Educational …, Margaret Franken. A short summary of this paper. Students' perceptions of a selected aspect of a computer mediated academic writing program: An activity theory analysis.
Activity theory is an aspect of sociocultural theory and provides a model for the understanding of goal directed social activity. Like other recent developments in applied linguistics, research and evaluation in second language writing has been influenced by sociocultural theory, because it emphasises the social, rather than the individual, context of writing.
The primary purpose in carrying out this study was to illuminate the use of activity theory as a formative evaluation technique for the improvement of large academic writing courses supported through the web conferencing features of a course management system, Web Crossing. Data were in the form of international student responses to prompts made in online diaries on a weekly basis throughout the course.
An activity theory orientation guided the design of the prompts and the analysis of the data. Activity analysis allowed the researchers to appreciate the tensions and difficulties for students in managing the group processes that the web mediated instruction afforded or constrained.
The study also suggests that the set of guiding questions derived from Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy may be useful for future evaluations and research.
This particular paper however reports only on a selection of observations from the cohort. Like many other tertiary institutions in New Zealand at that time, this university was attempting to address the need to provide courses for the then increasing numbers of international students, that both reflected theoretical and research advances in academic writing for second language learners, and provided such intervention in an effective way.
Web based practices as part of the instructional design are perceived as a way to achieve these dual goals. Therefore, they have become an important focus for pedagogical investigation. In this paper, we report on two aspects of the web based programs that were likely to be unfamiliar to many of the students: the co-construction of text and peer evaluation.
One purpose of this paper is to report on how the insights gained from an activity analysis can positively affect changes in the operation of a computer mediated writing program. Another quite different purpose is to present the trialing of activity theory as an interpretative framework used for data generation and analysis. The activity theory framework has been applied by a number of researchers, but has been restricted largely to ethnographic data see for instance Prior ; Russell Furthermore, the purpose of the research was not to demonstrate a link between web conferences, or discussion forums, and second language academic writing, but to develop an evaluation procedure for iteratively improving the use of such systems, which are already widely in use.
An activity theoretic orientation The researchers in this study were guided by an activity theoretic orientation to incorporating student perspectives. Activity theory proposes that the unit of analysis, the primary observational and activity unit, consists of the contextualised setting in which human activity takes place. Activity theory is consistent with, and can be seen as a tool of, recent socio- 1 IELTS means International English Language Testing System, which establishes language proficiency standards used as benchmarks for entry into universities in English speaking countries worldwide.
Socio-cultural approaches to understanding second language writing provide an important redirection of attention away from individual cognition that has been the main focus of past research in this area. Socio- cultural approaches to research seek to illuminate interactions among participants and with the learning context. Activity theory is concerned with human social activity, rather than individual activity, as a fundamental unit of analysis in research.
Within activity systems, subjects are involved in work directed toward objects in order to attain an intended outcome. In carrying out actions by working on objects, the subject makes use of internal or external artefacts.
For example, in order to complete a piece of written work object , a student subject may make use of a word processing application external artefact while also considering a particular structure and genre of writing internal artefact learned previously. In our course, there were several related writing activities, all directed toward different specific objects different assignments. However, the intended outcomes, which motivated the activities, were the completion of the overall course and the corresponding learning.
The external artefact word processor, or plan for writing mediates between the subject and the object, and both affords and constrains the completion of the activity. For example, the word processor has been designed with features and characteristics that can support, or afford, the completion of writing object.
However, at the same time, the word processor can constrain writing, for example, by simplifying and possibly encouraging superficial aspects of document change, or enable conditions that may detract from getting the task completed.
Added to this extended model are rules that mediate between subject and community, and the division of labour or roles to mediate between object and community. In this extended model, activity is carried out within a community. Since second language writing and computer assisted language learning are socio-cultural contexts rather than merely coincidental collections of individual learners, activity theory is used to elucidate the social practices involved in a specific community of learners.
Within the activity framework, linguistic tools play a crucial role in accomplishing the goals of the activity. Within the activity of co-constructed second language writing, computers, and the web based practices they enable, are the mediating artefacts, or tools.
Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy discuss in detail the types of questions one may ask of participants from an activity theoretic stance. The questions used in the present research were organised within the salient categories of an activity system.
The structure of the activity system provided a framework to analyse the goal directed behaviour of the student groups. Appendix 1 contains a modified list of these questions. This list provided the framework for the questions we asked of the students in the present study, in an attempt to understand their perspectives on the course. These questions acted as prompts which students were required to respond to on a weekly basis.
The setting and participants The academic writing and research skills course, which provided the setting for the present study, consisted of two 2-hour classes per week for 12 weeks in the first semester of the academic year. The course covered aspects of academic writing, but in addition to this, student tasks required participation in web based conferencing, co-construction of text, and other activities such as computer mediated peer evaluation.
It is the co- construction of text which is the activity reported upon in this paper. Class Forum permits students to interact in a class and group discussion area, and to post group texts and group comments, as well as make individual private postings in personal folders. Appendix 2 also includes a description of the task requirements for the course aligned to the time when the responses to diary entry prompts were to be posted. While the diary entry prompts were written for students to reflect on aspects of the course at the time, they were referenced also to the categories and questions from Jonassen and Rohrer Murphy as listed in Appendix 1.
The students in the course were mainly, but not exclusively, from China. However, all shared the fact that they were entering the New Zealand university experience for the first time. As such, they were not expected to have had much experience with co-construction of text, nor to have had that experience in a computer mediated format. Method Data collection and analysis The data in the present study consisted of the individual reflective diary entries that students posted on the web for only their teachers to see.
Private diary entries, in the same web medium we were researching, were a non-intrusive way of collecting reflective data. Though, in comparison to other forms of collecting reflective data, the posted reflections were further removed from activity than would be, for example, situated protocols Smagorinsky, Furthermore, the diary entries could be seen to have ecological validity in that the teacher engaged in a process of feedback on issues raised in the diaries, sometimes on a one to one basis and at other times with the whole class in the shared discussion area.
The data were generated in the context of course requirements and activities. However, consent was gained from students to use these sources of data for research purposes. As a situated study of writing, this study also sought additional data in the form of teacher reflection. However, as this is not within the scope of the present paper, the teacher self-report data is not considered here.
A study of greater scope would seek to employ additional methods of data collection such as interviews with the teacher and selected students, classroom observations, and a more extensive collection of writing samples. The data were analysed by the two researchers and the class teacher.
The coding categories were based on the components of the activity theory model: subject, mediating artefact, object, rules, community, and division of labour See Appendix 1. These categories represented starting points for the analysis and interpretation of data. The coding categories were then applied on a sample of the reflective diaries with refinement of categories. Having categorised the data, a further interpretive perspective was applied, that of affordances and constraints.
Affordances, a concept developed by Gibson , allows us to view activity, and the technology that mediates activity, in terms of the potential and the limitations that are presented to learners.
In this sense, technology is not responsible for learning or change. It is in this sense that the activity system, the interaction of technology, learner, and object enables learning and change.
Inclusion of student perspectives allows us to better interpret how a technology may or may not work for students in ways not necessarily anticipated by the teacher. Observations of the data The activity of co-construction Students were initially assigned to work in groups of about 9 or 10 members.
These were later reduced to four or five members. The activities reported on in this paper for these two group arrangements were to co- construct an introduction for an essay, and later a full 1, word essay. Many academic writing courses in New Zealand universities, particularly in the area of business writing, expect students to work in groups not only to generate ideas and plans for writing but also to construct the text Holmes , personal communication.
This course therefore sought to provide students with the experience of co-constructing text. The observations reported below are generated from the prompts about co- construction and are organised according to the particular aspect of activity theory they elucidate, including affordances, roles, rules, and mediating artefacts. The recognition of affordances in group work For many of the students in the course, group work itself was a new requirement, but one that was received with enthusiasm, despite the fact that they had had no part in negotiating the composition of the groups.
The following two students demonstrate very positive feelings after an initial meeting with members of their group. This group work system is superb. JSC 2 I am very satisfied with my group. All of them are very nice. LF 2 Students initially perceived a number of particular affordances through the group work.
Some identified these affordances as language based, while others recognised that affordances lay in the ideas that would be shared by participants of a group. CGD 1 There are eight people in my group so anyone can give me some advice and suggestion after that I can collect some good idea to write the task which I have.
CGD 2 In my group, many members come from different countries. We have our own ideas based on our own cultural background. Teamwork can make us exchange our ideas and get more information. LF 1 These perceptions endured for a number of participants, even though they clearly acknowledged some difficulties in achieving the object of the activity, which was at this later point to co-construct a full text, a more challenging activity than the previous. LF7 Even I We will not get a good grade, We will be happy because we got valuable benefits or learnt from e.
However, it was a reminder to the teacher and researchers that the activity system operated beyond the classroom. I am very happy that I can make friends with other members in this group.
SF2 I have met people from different countries, talked to each other and worked together… I think I am in a wonderful group…. So, my group is a mix- cultural group. LFL 2 My group was great. They love working together like they have known each other for years. Rather, the teacher expected the students to negotiate the manner in which the co-construction activity would proceed, using both physical e.
Nor did students declare a need to specify a procedure. I am sure that our first assignment will be done successfully…I think teamwork is the best way to do this task so far. LF 2 We will meet soon to talk about the assignment, and we will do the first task successfully. I am sure of it. All the members work very hard and provide many useful opinions for group report.
SF 3 Some of us did a good job before discussion. All of us wanted to improve the task constantly and we spent a lot of time even on a word. LF 3 A number of other students however at this time acknowledged difficulty, stating that working in groups had not met their expectations. AE explains the change in her perceptions of the task in her third diary entry. Before we started working together, I thought it could be easy that we work as a group, but now I have found it is very hard. Anyway, we will try our best to reach agreement on the task….
I still think that teamwork is the best way for this kind of task, although it is not easy to do it. LF 3 Anyway, we can finish the group work. I have no idea what the point we will get. No matter how the result is good or bad, we can finish it… just I hope that group work will go better. We have some problems now, but it can be all right. KHC 3 Many of the problems with group work seemed to arise from the fact that the students did not appear to have means by which they could establish a successful working relationship, such as strategies for dealing with emerging problems and conflict, a shared understanding of procedure, and the assignment of roles in the co-construction of text.
The only area cause me concern is how to discuss this essay together with my group members. Do we have to write our own assignment first, then discuss about it or just write the group essay together? I need to find the best way of writing a group essay. LFL 7 Mitchell, Posner and Baecker usefully document three different strategies or stances that the students in their study used to carry out the task of collaborative writing.
The second involved parallel writing, in which writers individually enter text at the same time in the same document, but in different regions. The third stance was as joint writers where writers worked closely on one section of a document. AE, in her third diary entry, expresses her frustration with the joint writing process her group initially adopted. Because it was first time, and we did not have any experience before, so we did not ask that everyone took a part of the group work.
It means we work all together and it was our mistake this time. I think for next one it could be better if we do each part with one or two members of the group and in the end when we put it all together there will not be any confusion…. Now I think working on an assignment personally is easier, because some of the students are confused still. They have done their work but in the meetings that we had they wanted to write it in group again instead of choosing the best part of each others writing and it makes work very hard.
One particular group bypassed computer interaction and met face to face in order to carry out this approach. After the first meeting we decided that everyone must done his or her individual research and report first. Then we met together again holding a discussing meeting. During that meeting, everyone showed individual work and we talked about that through sentence to sentence.
Firstly, we chose the best one from all individual works for the group-project draft sentence. Then we discussed that and changed it into the best style….
It wasted us lots of time and we cannot get the same opinion. LFL 3 Rules mediating subject and community Many students had concerns about the difficulties their group faced in trying to achieve consensus necessary for the construction of a group text.
Well each person has done his or her individual work but when we met together, the problem appeared. Everyone has his or her own opinion. LFL 3 LFL articulated what other students may have felt, that English as the mediating language an internal artefact or tool is one source of difficulty. In addition, the diverse opinions and beliefs that the students brought to the tasks could also be considered internal or cognitive artefacts. It is too hard to find exactly the same idea or to persuade other people to believe you especially English is not my own language.
LFL 7 Prompts about the change in group size in the sixth diary entry resulted in largely positive comments indicating the belief that this would solve a number of problems associated with group work, particularly that of attempting to get the necessary consensus for jointly constructed text. Fewer people will have fewer versions of the assignment.
Translate PDF. Activity theory and SLA The history and development of activity theory Activity theory, or cultural historical activity theory CHAT , is an interdisciplinary approach to human sciences and a commonly accepted name for a line of theorizing and research established by the founders of the cultural-historical school of Russian psychology, L. Vygotsky, A. Luria, during ss. It is not only a psychological theory per se, but also a broad approach that develops novel conceptual tools for tackling theoretical and methodological questions in the social sciences today.
In the second generation theory developed by A. Language, being determined by the broader socio-historical milieu, is realised in dialogues by interlocutors whose multiple perspectives are constructed according to the structure of the activity they are engaged in Moro, The internal contradictions within the elements of an activity system are the potential force of development if they are properly resolved.
At the same time, there are two basic intertwined processes operating at every level of human activity: internalization, the reproduction of culture; and externalization, the creation of new artefacts and production of new activity structures during the process of transformation. Agency is not only intentionality but also a cultural informed attribute shaped by participation in specific community of practices.
Agency can explain why and how learners act. Second Language Education and Activity Theory Language learning is connected with cultural, social, institutional and discursive forces, where language is considered a cultural artefact that mediates thinking and communication between people and within an individual. In the classroom, even when operationally learners appear to adopting the same behaviours, cognitively they are always engaging in the activity differently and even direct the activity in specific ways according to their different individual history, goals and motives.
It is not necessary that all learners in the classroom have the same goal of learning. Activity theory, like many other theories, has a number of unresolved problems e. Some philosophers and psychologists dismiss it altogether due to its alleged expression of totalitarian ideology, representing human beings as mere executors of plans, orders and standards imposed from the outside. While the formulation and elaboration of some ideas of this theory were influenced by the ideological and political climate at the time and place of its origin, there is great potential for new directions to be forged, and SLA is a fruitful ground for this to happen.
References: Davydov, V. The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. Engestrom, R. Punamaki Eds. Perspectives on Activity Theory, pp. Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization.
Punamaki Eds Perspectives on Activity Theory, pp. The future of activity theory: A rough draft. Sannino, H. S econd L anguage A ctivity theory: understanding second language learners as people, in M. Breen Ed. London: Longman Lantolf, J.
0コメント