dialogue inactivity theory
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
1/30
Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(1), 4366.
DIALOGUE IN ACTIVITY THEORY
Gordon Wells
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto
As a number of recent publications have shown (Beach, 1999; Engestrom, Miettinen, &
Punamaki, 1999; Nardi, 1996), activity theory is proving a useful tool for analyzing and
theorizing about workplace activity settings, in which it is relatively easy to identify material
objects that subjects transform through the use of artifacts of various kinds. It has also proved
useful in realms of symbolic activity in which texts of various kinds function as object and/or
mediating artifacts (Bazerman, 1994; Russell, 1995). However, it has not been used to any great
extent to address issues of classroom learning and teaching, in which the object is purportedly the
understanding of events, concepts, and theoretical relationships, and the mediational means - the
descriptions, narratives and explanations in speech as well as writing - through which this
understanding is achieved.
Perhaps this is not so surprising. Activity theory, as formulated by Leont'ev (1981), accounted
primarily for material activity and its outcome in the form of transformed material objects;
similarly, the artifacts that provided the mediational means tended to be material tools, such as
spears, gearshifts and computers. In more recent work, spoken and written discourse have begun
to figure in the lists of mediating artifacts, although exactly how they function as such has not
been explored in very much detail. The purpose of this paper, then, is to advance exploration of
the role of dialogue in the activity of learning and teaching.
The Activity System of Schooling
Schooling is by no means homogeneous, even within a particular country or local community,
although through much of the twentieth century the aim of curriculum planners and
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
2/30
2
administrators has mean to make it so. As I shall explain below, the reason for this variation is to
be found in the unpredictable nature and outcome of any interaction that is co-constructed. Even
with the most rigid teacher and the most passive and submissive students, there is
no certainty about how the interaction between them will unfold nor about what meanings will be
constructed (Lemke, 1985). Nevertheless, for much of the history of public schooling, it has
been assumed, in practice as well as in theory, that given the same curriculum content as object,
the same outcome will be achieved by all students in all comparable classrooms. And to ensure
that this outcome does indeed result, schooling has been regularized by the creation of grade-
level-specific textbooks that function as the principal means of homogenized curriculum
delivery (Miettinen, 1999).
However, as Engestrm points out, this pedagogic tradition, referred to as school-going, or
doing school, involves a strange reversal of object and instrument. Rather than textbooks
serving to mediate the exploration of significant educational topics as the object of the activity of
schooling:
In school-going text takes the role of the object. This object is molded by pupils
in a curious manner: the outcome of their activity is above all the same text
reproduced and modified orally or in written form. (Engestrm, 1987, p. 101;
quoted in Miettinen, 1999, p. 326.)
Engestrm (1991) gives a clear example of this process in the way in which the phases of the
moon are traditionally studied. Learning about this topic becomes essentially a matter of
construing the two-dimensional representation of the relationship between the sun, the earth and
the moon that is shown in the textbook, and being able to reproduce this relationship in response
to teacher questions or items in tests. Given the inadequacy of the textbook representation, it is
not surprising that a substantial majority of students construct seriously misconceived versions of
this relationship.
Engestrms point in presenting this example is to criticize what he calls the encapsulation of
schooling - its separation from the real world of activities, to understand and prepare for which
should be the purpose of schooling. And in the remainder of his article, he offers a number of
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
3/30
3
superior alternative approaches to the same topic. However, while agreeing with this aspect of
his argument, I believe that there is another feature of traditional schooling which, as Miettinen
(1999) and others have pointed out, is equally responsible for the barrenness of schooling
experienced by so many students. This is the mode of interaction through which lessons are
typically conducted. Referred to as the recitation script by (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), the
ubiquitous practice of conducting lessons through a succession of discourse exchanges in which
teachers ask questions about the text and/or its topic to which they already know the answer and
then evaluate the students responses and perhaps add comments of their own of various kinds
(Mehan, 1979)(Lemke, 1990), is the antithesis of the way in which knowledge is co-constructed
in settings in which knowing-in-action is consequential for the activity in progress.
Drawing on Deweys (1938) emphasis on learning by doing and by Vygotskys (1987) equal
emphasis on semiotic mediation, I have recently proposed that education be approached as
essentially an activity of dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999). My suggestion is that schooling
should be seen as fundamentally a form of semiotic apprenticeship, in which students engage
in investigations of issues, problems and questions of personal as well as cultural concern and
represent the processes and results of their knowing-in-action in contributions to a multi-modal
dialogue that is principally aimed at increasing their individual and collective understanding of
the issues and problems addressed.
While this dialogue is absolutely central to the desired outcome, I am equally convinced that it
will be most progressive (Bereiter, 1994) when it is focused on an object that is to be constructed
and improved. This object can take many forms. In a grade two classroom that I observed, for
example, the children started by constructing elastic-powered vehicles and, when these were
functioning reasonably well, they investigated the relationship between the number of turns of
the driving elastic band around the vehicles axle and the distance travelled, on smooth as well as
rough surfaces, and with and without tires. In a grades six and seven study of the Black Death,
students identified issues they wished to investigate and one group attempted to construct an
explanation of why the physicians of that time wore a bird-like cape, in the belief that this would
provide protection against infection.
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
4/30
4
In the first of these two examples, the dialogue was carried out in collaborative action as the
students built and improved their vehicles and then subsequently in a whole class oral discussion
in which they attempted to explain the results obtained by one of the students. In the second
example, the dialogue was carried on in writing, as the students posted notes to the relevant
section of the Knowledge Wall in their classroom and responded to the notes of others (Hume,
in press). In both cases, much informal spoken dialogue also occurred as the students worked on
their vehicles and written notes, respectively.
From these two examples, two points become clear. The first is that the object that is worked
upon may be either material or symbolic - although, as Cole (1996) points out, it is always both.
In the case of the vehicle, it was both a model car and an embodiment-in-action of the principle
of kinetic energy; in the case of the doctors clothing, the contributions to the Knowledge Wall
were both hypothetical explanations and texts written on Post-it notes. This dual status of objects
is very significant. The materiality of the object is critical in allowing it to become a focus of
joint activity - something that can be sensually perceived, handled and acted upon. At the same
time, it is the symbolic aspect of the object that allows it to participate in the students
progressive attempts to increase their understanding of the phenomena under investigation.
However, it is the combination of the two modes that makes the object so important, since it
enables the teacher to mediate between the abstract curriculum devised by experts outside theclassroom and the interests and competencies of the particular students for whose educational
progress s/he is responsible.
The question I address in this paper is: How should such events be represented within the
framework of activity theory?
Models of Mediated Action
As already mentioned, Wertsch (1998) suggests that agent-acting-with-mediational-means is
the basic unit in describing human activity. This can be represented by the familiar Vygotskian
triangular diagram shown in figure 1.
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
5/30
5
Artifact
Subject Object
Figure 1. Mediated action
Whereas other species act directly upon the object of interest to them, humans on most occasions
interpose an artifact between themselves and the object of interest, thereby enabling them to act
more effectively.
What is missing from this representation, however, is the cultural and historical context within
which action occurs. This is what Leontev emphasized with his tri-stratal account in terms of
activity-motive, action-goal, operation-prevailing conditions. From his perspective, in order to
account for actual behavior, the action in progress needs to be seen both as a (partial)
instantiation of a cultural activity, with its driving motive, and also as realized through operations
selected according to the relevant conditions in the situation.
For example, in times long past, the activity of hunting involved the coordination of more than
one action - one group driving the game towards a second group who killed the approaching
animals. Those responsible for the second action, the goal of which was to kill the animals,
might select as operation either throwing spears, using slings, or shooting arrows, depending on
the artifacts available to the group and the relative likelihood of success with any of these
missiles in the terrain and prevailing conditions.
Or, to take a stereotypical example within the activity of Education, the goal of ensuring that
students learn and remember the capitals of European countries (action) might be achieved
through the use of either a quiz, in which students respond to specific questions and are evaluated
on their responses, or a worksheet on which they draw lines between the locations marked on a
map and the matching entries on a list of the names of capital cities. Both of these mediational
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
6/30
6
means of reinforcing the link between names and locations constitute operations, between which
the teacher chooses according to his/her judgement as to which would be most effective with the
particular group of students.
In order to represent the way in which action is embedded within this more complex
organizational structure of activity, Engestrm (Cole & Engestrm, 1993)(Engestrm, 1987) has
created the expanded triangle shown in figure 2.
Figure 2. Expanded Triangle of an Activity System
In this model, as Engestrm explains:
the subject refers to the individual or sub-group whose agency is chosen as the
point of view in the analysis. The object refers to the 'raw material' or 'problem
space' at which the activity is directed and which is molded and transformed into
outcomes with the help of physical and symbolic, external and internal mediating
instruments, including both tools and signs. The community comprises multiple
individuals and/or sub-groups who share the same general object and who
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
7/30
7
construct themselves as distinct from other communities. The division of labor
refers to both the horizontal division of tasks between the members of the
community and to the vertical division of power and status. Finally the rules refer
to the explicit and implicit regulations, norms and conventions that constrain
actions and interactions within the activity system. (webpage)
To return to the educational example referred to above, the class as a whole would be the
community in question and the division of labor would clearly distinguish between the different
responsibilities of teacher and students, while the rules and conventions would include positive
and negative evaluation of student responses, including perhaps the assignment of marks to
discriminate between individual performances, and the rule that students should not assist each
other by supplying information to those who do not appear to be able to supply it by themselves.
A further feature of this model of an activity system is the way in which it alerts one to possible
sites of tension and potential breakdown. For example, in the kind of lesson carried out
according to the recitation script (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), the division of authority and labor
between teacher and students, in which the teacher maintains the role of primary knower
(Berry, 1981) throughout, casts the students in a purely responsive role and limits their active
participation in the construction of knowledge. As a result, the outcome of the action from thestudents subject position is one of memorized information rather than the active appropriation
and transformation of geographical knowledge that the curriculum designer presumably intended.
Such tensions are the norm in any established activity system, with the result that, as points out,
the system is constantly working through contradictions within and between its elements. In this
sense, an activity system is a virtual disturbance- and innovation-producing machine
(Engestrm, webpage).
There is no question that, compared with the simple triangle of mediated action, Engestrms
representation of an activity system is much more comprehensive, particularly in the version that
shows the relationships between related activity systems (webpage, fig. 6). However, it still
appears to prioritize a unidirectional form of artifact-mediated, object-oriented action, in which a
subject, or group of subjects acting together, acts to transform an object and thereby yield a
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
8/30
8
recognizable outcome. Much more difficult to see is the reciprocal influences that participants in
a dialogue have on each other through the text that they co-construct. Similarly, this
representation does not well capture the mutual adjustments that are involved in working in the
zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1987) and the transformation of identity experienced
by one or more of the participants. It seems, therefore, that a rather different form of
representation is needed to highlight the reciprocal relationship between the semiotic actions of
subjects engaged in dialogue. As Penuel (1995) argues, the choice of methodological frame
shapes what we interpret or explain about human action.
Tools and Signs as Mediating Means
The present exploratory paper is certainly not the first attempt to understand the relationship
between artifact-mediated action and semiotically mediated interaction. Some years ago, on the
xpractice branch of the xlchc listserv organized by Mike Cole from UCSD, this subject was
discussed at some length. Arne Raeithel proposed that the distinguishing mark of sign mediated
action in comparison with tool mediated action (narrow sense) is precisely that the object of the
activity is the subject itself. Subject acts on Subject via mediational means (30 Mar 1995). In
the same message, he included two contrasting diagrams, which I here reproduce (figures 3a and
3b) as accurately as I can with my different technology:
Rules -- Community -- Distribution and Violence Control
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
Subject ----- Object ==> result for exchange
/ \ / \ with others or later self
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \Experience -- Means -- Realisation
= personal means = physical means
of orientation of production
Figure 3a. Expanded Triangle of Cooperative Production
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
9/30
9
Rules -- Community -- Rules
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
Subject ----- Subject ==> result in exchange with others
/ \ / \ or larger/later self
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
Experience -- Means -- Experience
Figure 3b. Expanded Triangle of Communication
This contrasting pair of diagrams certainly brings out some of the essential difference between
object-oriented action and subject-oriented interaction, but Raeithel was not satisfied with it and,over the next few days, he developed a pyramidal representation (shown in two dimensions, of
course) that I and others found very illuminating. To my knowledge, however, the proposal was
unfortunately never developed into a published article.
One reason for Raeithels dissatisfaction was a problem that he had himself pointed out in a
slightly earlier message, when he commented on Vygotsky's deceptively beautiful equation of
two triangles, one a representation of tool-mediated action and the other of sign-mediated
action. A sign does not have the direct causal force of a tool, rather it must be picked up by
the second subject, accepted as meaningful and legitimate, and turned into some action by
its/her/his own force. As Vygotsky never published the diagram, Raeithel surmised that
Vygotsky, too, had some misgivings about the simple equation of tool and sign. This problem
was spelled out in more detail in a subsequent message by Lemke:
I do not believe that the Subject terms in these two different triads can be
unproblematically identified with one another. The Subject of sign processes
foregrounds different aspects of agency (namely semiotic agency, the agentive
role in the semantics of verbal or otherwise semiotic processes), whereas the
Subject of tool processes corresponds more to material agency and the agentive
role in the semantic of material effective-action processes. One can make this
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
10/30
10
argument either entirely in semantic terms, or in terms of some notionally 'real'
distinction between semiotic and material aspects of action. This is not to say that
these two are separable in practice; every semiotic process is also a material one,
every material process can be semioticized. But our notions, and discursive
usages, about what a Subject is, are, I think, very different in the two cases.
(xlchc, 2 April 1995)
As both Raeithel and Lemke make clear, material tools and semiotic signs play different roles in
activity. While they may both be directed in some sense to the same object, the agency of the
users of signs and tools is of a different kind, as is the way in which they bring about their
transformative effects. As the recipient of a semiotic action, the addressee is more likely to
produce a rejoinder or to perform a relevant material action him/herself than to be transformed in
any significant material way. A sign can, therefore, be considered only metaphorically as a tool.
But, as just suggested, there is a further distinction that needs to be considered with respect to
signs. Some signs are used to cause another subject to perform an action, as in the case of
verbal commands and traffic signals. It is in these cases that the sign most closely approximates
a material tool in mediating action - although the action is typically performed through the
agency of a subject other than the one who issues the sign. However, many signs are notintended to direct another subjects action, or at least not immediately. Instead, their function is
to contribute to the construction and exploration of a possible world (Bruner, 1986) that is
collaboratively undertaken through the successive contributions that the participants make to the
emerging text of dialogue. Although ultimately anchored in the actual material world of the
participants past and present experiences, the relationship between words and world can
range from directive through descriptive to hypothetical or purely imaginary (cf. Searle,
1976) and, in most forms of dialogue, is negotiated rather than unilaterally imposed.
Dialogue, then, is different from tool-mediated action in a number of ways. First, although it
requires the production and exchange of utterances in some material medium, the action that is
performed is one of meaning, which is only indirectly related to the material utterance acts
through the semiotic conventions of the community. Second, it is not the co-participants who are
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
11/30
11
the object of the speakers utterance act - except in the sense that the utterance is directed to
them; rather, the object is the issue, problem or topic that is the focus of their joint consideration.
And third, while a material artifact may be one intended outcome of their joint action, as, for
example, in the case of a political communiqu, a film script or the formulation of a theory, this
is not necessarily the case. Much dialogue of significance to the participants yields no overt
material artifact - unless a technological device is used to record the interaction; instead, the
outcome to which the participants aim is an enriched understanding of the object, both
individually and collectively.
However, it does not follow from these differences that dialogue, unlike tool-mediated action,
has no impact on the material world. Much dialogue is intimately related to the actual world,
either as planning for or reflecting on actions to be or already performed. And, even where the
relationship is more tenuous, as in artistic, philosophical or scientific discourse, the meanings
made "can come to color and change our perception of the 'actual' world, as envisioning
possibilities in it not presently recognized" (Wartofsky, 1979,p. 209).
Thus, material and semiotic actions should not be thought of as mutually exclusive alternative
forms of joint activity. Frequently, they occur simultaneously or alternate as phases in the same
activity; in either case they are in important ways complementary. As well as distinguishing thedifferent modes in which tools and signs mediate activity, therefore, it is equally important to try
to understand what might be called their intertextuality (Lemke,1996).
In the remainder of this paper, I shall attempt to carry this program further through an exploration
of a particular episode of interaction in a grades four and five classroom in Metro Toronto that
was video-recorded some years ago. In fact, a copy of the initial transcript of this episode was
what prompted some of Raeithels diagrammatic suggestions discussed above. While I have a
somewhat different account to suggest, my proposal is essentially a further contribution to the
dialogue that was carried on by email at that time.
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
12/30
12
Planning to Make a Model from Junk Material
Two girls, Linda and Janet (age 9 yrs), are working together to carry out an assignment set by
their teacher. Along with the other members of the class, they are to collaborate as a pair in
making a "technology" object (i.e. something that serves or might serve a purpose), using
collected junk materials that are to be found in the classroom. They are also to write individual
entries in their learning logs about what they are doing. At the beginning of the episode, they
have not yet decided what to make. Janet has already written some preliminary thoughts in her
journal, which she reads aloud to Linda to get the activity going. This prompts Linda to start
writing her journal entry. While she does so, Janet picks up an illustrated book, An Early Start to
Technology (Richards, 1990), and looks at the pictures. One of these sparks her interest and she
describes it to Linda, who also looks at the book. Turning to the next page, they see a picture
of a model land yacht. As they discuss what materials they might use and how it would work,
they gradually arrive at an agreement to make a boat on wheels, as they decide to call it. They
then turn back to writing about this decision in their learning logs, complete with a rough
drawing of the object to be made. Altogether, the episode last about 15 minutes and consists of
some 25 interactional sequences and over 125 'utterances'.
The episode was of particular interest to me for two reasons. First, I was fascinated by the wayin which the decision to make the model land yacht emerged from a combination of their talk and
the entries they were writing in their learning logs; and second, the role of the illustrated book in
the decision greatly intrigued me. There were other features of interest as well: the way in which
the two girls negotiated their relationship with each other (although they had been in the same
classroom all year, they had not worked together before), and also with a pair of twin girls,
recently arrived from a non-English-speaking country, who were working at the same table; the
large part played by non-verbal communication in their negotiations, particularly Janets
dramatic gestures; and the way in which the teachers instructions affected the girls construal of
the task. In fact, the episode is far too rich for one paper to do justice to all these issues so, in
what follows, I shall focus only on the first two, and then only in a summary fashion. My
intention is to use this example of classroom interaction to illustrate an alternative way of
conceptualizing and representing diagrammatically the interplay between tool- and sign-mediated
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
13/30
13
action in the context of joint activity.
As I wrote in my message to Raeithel, My main question is: Is the interactional discourse
between J and L best seen as a further means, or as the activity itself? Or, putting it
differently, is what's going on best diagrammed as in the first of your two versions, as in the
second, or in some combination of the two?
Co-Constructing Artifacts and Meanings
At one level, the object of the activity, of which this episode is the first actional realisation, is to
construct a working model (1) from junk materials. (In a subsequent episode several days later,
the girls do, in fact, engage jointly in the material action of constructing the model and then in the
action of propelling it with the air current produced by a hair dryer.) At a second level, the object
is the construction of a specification (2) of an object (1) to be constructed according to the
criteria specified by the teacher. And at a third level, the object - achieved during this episode -
is to reach a decision (3) on what object (1) to make. In addition, there is a fourth object, to be
worked on in parallel with all of the others, which is to make entries in their learning logs (4)
describing and reflecting on the processes involved in (1) - (3). What is particularly interesting is
that none of these objects exist in advance of the activity; each has to be co-constructed with themediational means available.
A second interesting feature of the activity is the relationship among the constitutive actions.
Apart from the creation of log entries, which is supposed to continue throughout the activity,
these actions form both a temporal sequence, each being dependent on the outcome of the one
that preceded, and a sequence of a different kind, which might be described as the progressive
externalization of an idea. Writing about writing, (Smith, 1982) describes the somewhat similar
process of externalizing an idea in the creation of a publishable text (although in most cases -
unlike here - this is carried out as a solo activity). In his view, writing involves a progressive
specification of what one wants to say, which is only fully discovered and achieved in
engagement with the actual words on the page. That is to say, meaning is emergent; it does not
pre-exist the activity, simply waiting to be given linguistic and material embodiment in the
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
14/30
14
written text. In many respects, this applies also to Janet and Lindas creation of the land yacht.
In writing for publication, there are frequently external constraints that have to be
accommodated, and a wider community who may provide assistance and whose envisaged
response provides a larger contextual purpose (motive) for the activity. There is also a wide
variety of mediational means, including other examples of the genre (model texts), sources for
ideas (reference books, suggestions from other people), and the dialogue (usually with self) in
which these other material/semiotic artifacts are construed, evaluated, and transformed for use if
appropriate for the action in progress. These features also apply to the land yacht activity as a
whole, and to varying degrees to each of the constitutive actions.
In this context, it is instructive to consider the final action, that of making the material object so
that it would actually sail. In putting together the land yacht, the two girls first gathered
together the selected material parts - a block of wood, several lengths of dowel, the caps of four
film canisters, a square piece of fabric, glue, and some small nails - and the tools they would
need - a hammer, a ruler, and a saw. Then they began to assemble the parts though a process
involving operations of cutting, glueing and hammering. They also involved a considerable
amount of trial and error: the mast did not stand firmly on the first attempt and two of the wheels
would not turn. These problems required both deliberation and modification of the initialoperations, now consciously performed as stepped-up goal-directed actions (cf. Leontevs
(1981) distinction between action and operation).
In this constructional action, the girls acted jointly as subject; there was no fixed division of labor
between them, although within the wider community there was such a division, with the girls
carrying out the material actions and the teacher and one or two peers offering advice, even when
not requested to do so. The rule of using junk materials was carefully followed (glue and nails
were excluded from this regulation) and the requirement that their land yacht should be able to
sail was always in the background. However, while the intended outcome is clear, it is less
easy to be certain about either object or mediational means.
In one sense, the object was the collection of materials that was assembled, but from another it
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
15/30
15
was the envisaged outcome - or, alternatively, the specifications for the outcome artifact - that
constituted the object that was transformed and given material realisation through the
constructional action. The mediational means certainly included the material operations with
hammer and glue-gun; they also included the intrapersonal (egocentric speech) and interpersonal
discourse that selected and controlled the material operations. But the illustration of a land yacht
that originally caught the girls attention continued to play a mediating role, now as a visual
representation of the genre of material artifact to be produced.
Against this account, let us now set an account of the action of reaching a decision about what to
make. The evidence on which this account will be based is constituted by an augmented
transcript of the first x sequences of the recorded episode (figure 4). A key to the symbols and
codes used will be found in Appendix 1.
Figure 4. Starting to Construct a 'Boat on Wheels'
Ref. Spk Text Gaze Gest Seq Ex MDiscourse
CodeComments
The two girls are sitting on two
adjacent sides of an octoganal
table. Both are busy writing in their
science logs, though Janet seems to
be writing more than Linda. Theywork in silence for about a minute.
Then both pause and look up. An
Early Start to Technology is open in
ront of them. Also at the same
table, X and Y are preparing to
make a similar artifact.
L brushes her hairback with her hand; Juses both hands to
arrange her hair in a
much moredramatic movement. J
continues writing; Lstares into space, herhead supported by r
hand, elbow on table.
After 5 secs, she
speaks
01 LWhat are we `planning on\making?
L
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
16/30
16
it up. C takes the
book.
06 J \OK . J
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
17/30
17
Constraint
18just while we figure something
\out? ..
19 (to C) \Thank you [R]
F
(>C) G:
[N-V Act]
(>J) A:Thank
C releases the books
and J takes it
20 L Where's the \eraser? (? to self) [6 ] [to self]L takes eraser fromthe containeron thetable and uses it
21 L.. Po 8 N I D: Joint Taps new picture with
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
18/30
18
Action pencil
32 L Let's look through some \more . 9 N ID: Joint
ActionL sits up straight.
33 J Let's see- R G: StallJ turns to the next
page
34 L Yes, because you *have to use- beable to use \/junk with this
L L
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
19/30
19
48 or \blowed J
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
20/30
20
*`decided to make that \boat? E
63 J I think we should *\make thatJL
E/
GzR
G:
OpinionHead nod on 'make'.
64L \OK . it should be- L
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
21/30
21
matter to agree that object (3), the decision, has been co-constructed and to move on to object (2),
the development of a specification of (1) in terms of the materials to be used and the means for
making the model function. Creating written entries in their log books about (2) and (3) serves to
give their decisions more objective status and to make it easier for them to function as additional
artifacts to mediate the next phase, that of material construction.
In this action, as well as in the final one, oral discourse is a further, indispensable mediational
means, both coordinating the joint activity as a whole, as well as its constituent actions, and
enabling the two girls to manage their interpersonal relationship in such a way that both feel that
they are participating on personally satisfying, if not entirely equal, terms. Although there is not
space to explore it further here, it is also interesting to note in this respect how the non-verbal
dimensions of the discourse contribute to both these achievements. Sequence 10 provides a
particularly clear example, as Janet taps with her pencil on the illustration of the land yacht to
indicate the referent that is the object/outcome of their decision, and uses a combination of
pausing, intonation and gesture to make it (unspokenly) clear that, although the suggestion came
from Linda, it is her endorsement that is necessary for the suggestion to advance to the status of
intended object (1) of their joint activity.
Representing Dialogic Interaction and Activity
By now it is abundantly clear that it is no easy matter to represent diagrammatically the
multidimensional complexity of this - or any other - activity. In the first place, the temporal
sequence of the different types of constitutive action requires more than one diagram, if only to
show how artifacts created as the outcome of one action become mediators in subsequent phases.
As Engestrm (webpage) has also shown, each diagram needs to include many activity systems
in order to show the antecedent activities in which the key features of the focal diagram achieved
their current status. In the present case, for example, the rules that the models should be
constructed from junk materials and that progress should be individually recorded in the
students logbooks were established in a previous episode, in which the division of labor between
teacher and other community members was clearly apparent. Similarly, the compilation of the
reference book and its availability in the classroom were outcomes of activities prior to and
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
22/30
22
independent of the use that Janet and Linda made of it to mediate the various phases of their joint
activity.
Even more difficult is to show the shifting relationships among the various mediational means
that the girls employed to achieve the goals of the different phases of the activity. All phases
included material artifacts, visuographic representations of meaning (written texts and
illustrations) as well as the multi-dimensional exchange of meanings that we refer to as spoken
discourse. In their different ways, sometimes reinforcing each other and at other times relatively
independently, all these means contributed to the progressively increasing dialogic understanding
which was itself both mediator and outcome of the activity.
Figure 5. Representation of Dialogue in Joint Activity
Division
Of LaborCommunity
Rules and
Conventions
Subject Subject
Outcomes:
Material &
Semiotic
Artifacts
Artifacts
Tools
Artifacts
Tools
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
23/30
23
One thing seems to be clear, however, and that is that to represent each phase of action as either
object-oriented, mediated by tools, or subject-oriented, mediated by signs, does not do justice to
the nature of collaborative joint activity. In figure 5, therefore, I have tried to find a way of
representing the simultaneous and complementary contribution of both modes of action to an
outcome which is both material and ideal'.
For the sake of simplicity of representation, this version of the diagram represents a dyad
engaged in joint activity. However, there is no limit, in principle, to the number of participants
who may be jointly involved. Each participant is represented by an expanded triangle of the kind
created by Engestrm (1987). All the participant triangles (both in this version) share a common
base, indicating that the co-participants are members of the same community and subject to the
same rules and division of labor. Most importantly, they are acting on the same object, which is
represented in the center of the diagram - though, of course, this does not mean that they construe
it in exactly the same way. Each also brings to the activity his/her personal kit of resources,
drawn from the pool available within the community as a whole. These include both material
and semiotic artifacts, as well as the semiotic practices involved in dialogic interaction.
The major change is in the way in which the relationship between subject(s), object, and outcomeis represented. This is shown, first, as a separate triangle for each participant and, second, as a
triangle that subsumes the individual triangles, representing the participants joint action in
transforming the object into the outcome. The outcome itself is multi-faceted, being both
material and ideal.
In phase one of the construction of the land yacht, the outcome is largely ideal: the decision to
construct a boat on wheels and the initial specification of this artifact. But it also has a material
aspect in the utterances that make up the text of the dialogue and the entries that have been
made in the girls learning logs. In the final phase, the outcome is primarily material: the
working model of a land yacht. But this phase also has an ideal aspect in the meanings that have
been co-constructed in the accompanying discourse.
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
24/30
24
A further implication of this representation is the potential two-way relationship between
outcome and mediational means. Clearly, the mediational means contribute to the achievement
of the outcome. But outcomes may also contribute as mediational means. Frequently, over the
course of an activity, the material artifacts created as outcomes of one phase serve as mediational
means in a subsequent phase, as Engestrm (webpage) makes clear. In the example discussed
here, the written and drawn specification of the artifact-to-be-constructed in phase one play a
mediating role in the final phase. However, on the ideal plane, the meanings co-constructed in
the dialogue may enrich the individual participants understanding in the situation and thus
amplify their personal resources both at the time and in future situations (Wells, 1999).
Joint Activity and Interaction in the ZPD
Perhaps the greatest advantage of this way of representing collaborative action within an activity
system is that it highlights the interaction between the participants who are engaged in joint
activity. Some form of dialogue, whether in speech, gesture, or demonstrative action is almost
always necessary for the participants to achieve the degree of intersubjectivity with respect to the
action to be performed that is necessary for the coordination of their individual contributions.
This is particularly the case when one of the participants requires assistance in order to contribute
effectively to the joint activity. Providing this support is what Vygotsky (1987) described as'working in the zone of proximal development,' when, in the division of labor, one participant is
more expert in performing the action in question. As various researchers have shown (e.g.
Rogoff, 1990; Wells, 1999, chap. 9; Wertsch, Minick, & Arns, 1984), dialogic assistance can be
provided in any or all of the modalities mentioned above as the action proceeds and the object is
transformed into the intended outcome.
In such situations, the interaction is ancillary to the focal action and is contingently responsive to
the need for assistance displayed by the novice and construed by the more expert participant. On
other occasions, the dialogue may become the focal action in one phase of the activity, as the
more expert participant interrupts the material action in order to explain or demonstrate some
feature in order that the novice may be able to participate more effectively in a subsequent phase.
Nevertheless, the object of the joint activity still remains the focus of attention.
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
25/30
25
As I have argued above, however, the object of the action may also be a semiotic artifact - a text
or diagram already produced, a plan of action, or a theory under development - referred to as
tertiary artifacts by Wartofsky (1979). In such case, the dialogue is constitutive (Halliday,
1993; Martin, 1992); although it is still an operation deployed to achieve the goal of the action,
and hence is oriented to the object of the action, it is the dialogue itself that constitutes the
primary action, with material action (other than the discourse) playing an ancillary, supporting
role.
In educational institutions, working in the zpd frequently takes this latter form, as the teacher
attempts to inform students through an exposition of a new topic or procedure, or leads them in a
discussion of an issue that is assumed to be of interest or concern. But, as a considerable body of
recent research has shown (e.g. Forman, in press; Swain & Lapkin, in press; Wegerif &
Scrimshaw, 1997), it is not necessary for there to be a clear difference in expertise for
participants to assist each other in their zones of proximal development. Whenever the dialogue
that occurs in joint activity leads to an increase in individual as well as collective understanding,
there is opportunity for each participant to appropriate new ways of doing, speaking and thinking,
and thus to augment the mediational resources that they can draw on, both in the present and in
future activities.
Figure 6 represents the situation of relative inequality in expertise with respect to the action in
progress. This is apparent from the greater toolkit of resources available to the more expert for
participating in the ongoing action. However, as already suggested, by participating in an action
undertaken jointly, in which the deployment of the resources by the more expert is made overt,
there is an opportunity for the less expert to appropriate (some of) these resources and thereby to
become more able to participate effectively. From another perspective, such situations provide
an occasion for the shaping of the novice's identity - by the novice if the participation of the more
expert is willingly accepted, or by the 'teacher' if co-participation is imposed.
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
26/30
26
Figure 6. Appropriation of New Resources in the ZPD
However, as I have suggested elsewhere, the zpd may apply in any situation in which, while
participating in an activity, individuals are in the process of developing mastery of a practice or
understanding of a topic (Wells, 1999, p.). In other words, there does not have to be a general
inequality in expertise for participants to learn from and with one another. This was certainly the
case for Janet and Linda, as they carried out the sequence of actions that transformed their idea
into a functioning model land yacht and, in the process, came to a fuller understanding of the
principles involved in 'sailing' and of the material practices necessary to transform bits and pieces
of junk into a boat on wheels. Furthermore, the learning opportunity provided by the activity as
a whole was, I believe, considerably enhanced because of the interpenetration of tool-mediated
and sign-mediated actions.
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
27/30
27
Notes
1. Bereiter characterizes discourse as progressive when it results in progress, in the sense thatthe sharing, questioning and revising of opinions leads to "a new understanding that everyone
involved agrees is superior to their own previous understanding" (Bereiter, 1994 a, p.6).
2. Think, for example, of the brief commands and facial gestures that enable two or more
removal experts to coordinate their actions in getting a large and unwieldy piece of furniture
up a spiral staircase; or the exaggerated bow movements and head nods of the leader of a
small musical ensemble, as they perform a piece of chamber music.
References
Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman
& P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric . London: Taylor and Francis.
Beach, K. (1999). Consequential transitions. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearso (Eds.), Review of
Research in Education (Vol. 24, pp. 101-139). Washington, DC: American Educational ResearchAssociation.
Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive
discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3-12.
Berry, M. (1981). Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approch to
exchange structure. In M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Studies in discourse analysis .
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
28/30
28
Bellknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Cole, M., & Engestrm, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Macmillan.
Engestrm, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engestrm, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of
school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 243-259.
Engestrm, Y. (n.d.) Cultural Historical Activity Theory Webpage,
http://www.helsinki.fi/~jengestr/activity/6a.htm
Forman, E. A. (in press). Forms of participation in classroom practice: Implications for learning
mathematics. .
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and
Education, 5, 93-116.
Lemke, J. L. (1985). Using language in the classroom. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.
(Republished by Oxford University Press, 1989).
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. orwood, NJ: Ablex.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J.V.Wertsch (Ed.), The
concept of activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 37-71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
29/30
29
Martin, J. R. (1992). English texts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Miettinen, R. (1999). Transcending traditional school learning: Teachers' work and networks of
learning. In Y. Engestrm, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity
theory (pp. 325-344). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nardi, B. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer
interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Raeithel, A. (1995) Messages to xpractice, xlchc, 30 March - 4 April, 1995
Richards, R. (1990). An early start to technology. London: Simon &Schuster.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Russell, D. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In J. Petraglia
(Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51-77). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, F. (1982). Writing and the writer. New York: Holt Rinehart.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (in press). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3).
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The
collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39-285). New
-
8/13/2019 Dialogue Inactivity Theory
30/30
30
York: Plenum.
Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models, representation and scientific understanding. Boston: Reidel.
Wegerif, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (Eds.). (1997). Computers and talk in the primary classroom.
Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wertsch, J. V., Minick, N., & Arns, F. J. (1984). The creation of context in joint problem
solving. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.