dialogue inactivity theory

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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


8/30

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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


16/30

16

it up. C takes the

book.

06 J \OK . J


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


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


19/30

19

48 or \blowed J


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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 .


dialogue inactivity theory

Documents