A speaker who anticipates counterarguments and then addresses or rebuts them is delivering a/ an

Citation metadata

Document controls

Main content

Abstract: 

The goal of this study was to investigate the culturally afforded contradictions that ten advanced English as a Second Language (ESL) learner encountered when they posted their paper topics and exchanged feedback strategies online and contextualized some of these strategies to draft their papers. using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), and more precisely, the notion of contradictions, the students' paper topic postings and feedback exchanges were examined within the opposing historically and politically built values, salient cultural convictions, and life experiences in which they occurred (Leont'ev, 1981b; Engestrom, 1987, 2001, 2008). An examination of students' online postings, proffered feedback strategies, and rough drafts indicated that this activity was construed on three major contradictions: (1) instructor expectations for defining topics that student-authors perceived as salient; (2) the requirements for devising thought-provoking strategies to assist student-authors in drafting their papers that then contradicted student-reviewers' efforts to maintain friendly relationships with student-authors; and (3) reviewers' construction of challenging feedback strategies online to help authors with the drafting process that contradicted their efforts as authors to draft cogent arguments by strategically avoiding materializing some of their peers' suggestions, especially counterarguments.

KEYWORDS Contradictions, Computer-Mediated Communication, Feedback Exchanges, Paper Topic Postings

Full Text: 

INTRODUCTION

In second and foreign language learning, methodological exegeses of how computer-mediated communication cultivates both collaborative and conflicting learning environments have shifted attention to transatlantic, transpacific, and global conversations between native speakers and second/foreign language learners. In such intercultural environments, students have been shown to develop more adept pragmatic, written, and oral communication skills, and intercultural competence (Sotillo, 2000; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Thorne, 2003; Belz & Kinginger, 2003; Ware & Kramsch, 2005; Bauer, deBenedette, Furstenberg, Levet, & Waryn, 2006; Basharina, 2007; Tudini, 2007; Ducate & Lomicka, 2008; Ware & O' Dowd, 2008; see also Chun, 2008 for a review of some of these studies). Kern, Ware, and Warschauer (2004) perceive such knowledge-building networked exchanges as the second wave of salient socially, culturally, and linguistically built experiences. This shift to global exchanges has also paved the way to view language learning beyond the collaborative, task or feedback-oriented activities to introduce historically generated conflict into the equation (Basharina, 2007; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Schneider & von der Emde, 2006; Thorne, 2003; Ware & Kramsch, 2005). Conflict that is built on a synergy of factors, such as historically and culturally exemplified tensions, was no longer perceived as a force that inhibited language learning, but rather as a vehicle for developing cultural sensibility and awareness, for inverting stereotypes, and for expanding linguistic competence through transformative online exchanges.

Yet, within that same institutional and classroom context, language learners from different cultural, sociopolitical, and linguistic backgrounds who are also often immersed in opposing sociopolitical ideologies, ethnic values, and cultural beliefs have not been examined to the same extent. Situating genre-instigated conflict and collaboration within this local institutional and classroom setting and also within the historically and institutionally framed theoretical-practical values of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (see Engestrom 1987; 1999; 2008), this study examines online feedback and paper topic exchanges, and the drafting of student papers. Students first posted their paper topics on genres of definition and then offered one another feedback on the discussion board of Blackboard Academic Suite 7.0. Following these online exchanges, students implemented some of the proffered strategies to draft their papers. The goal was to examine the conditions under which these instructor-imposed guidelines on paper topic postings, feedback strategies, and paper drafting led to culturally perceived tensions among student-authors and student-reviewers. Strong personal convictions, ideological beliefs, and background experiences that related to different sociopolitically established institutions or genres, such as the military service, and the argumentative nature of the course, Writing Arguments 108, often galvanized the online feedback exchanges and fueled acute discussions on various topics.

The conflicting realism of these feedback exchanges was a result of the culturally contingent tensions afforded by students' opposing beliefs on pivotal sociopolitically embedded issues, such as the highly debated concept of motherhood. unlike previous studies where contradictions were exemplified by the distinctive constructs of the culturally enacted tools of network exchanges as students from different countries and backgrounds became immersed in online transactions (see Basharina, 2007; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Thorne, 2003), the contradictions in this study were encountered when students from a local academic and classroom context were involved. These historically and instructionally enacted contradictions were framed around online feedback trajectories, the proffered paper topic postings, the different cultural experiences, and institutionally imposed expectations. More precisely, this constellation instigated contradictions in three areas: (1) between the instructor's guidelines for sharing paper topic postings on genres of substantive importance or salient value to student-authors and student attempts to preserve friendly relationships online; (2) between the instructor's call for reciprocating both demanding feedback strategies and maintaining close relationships with their classmates; and (3) between the student-reviewers' need to offer objective feedback to help their peers draft their papers, and student-authors' tendency to avoid materializing certain proffered strategies, such as counterarguments, in an attempt to provide the most cogent arguments.

Cultural-Historical Activity Theory and Contradictions

Both theoretically- and methodologically-instigated approaches to networked exchanges and contradictions in the second and foreign language contexts were framed within the theoretical lines of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Individual agents who collaboratively instigate and materialize the contextual conditions construct new culturally and linguistically framed learning opportunities (see Basharina, 2007; Engestrom, 1987, 2008; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Thorne, 2003, 2004). Learning, whether involving a complex mathematical algorithm or a salient cultural or linguistic value, does not form an individually coordinated process, but rather a dialectically afforded practice that stems from multiple interrelated historically initiated practices and collaboratively conceived forces, as well as the learner's consciousness. As Nardi (1996) notes, "the object of activity theory is to understand the unity of consciousness and activity" (p. 7). A fully-fledged and constructive approach to human activity is made up of both the collectively organized and materialized tasks and individual learners.

The route to investigating this network of intertwined cultural and cognitive factors that encapsulate historical and linguistic development lies in Lev Vygotsky's (1978, 1986) culturally envisioned framework, which argues that learning is a culturally afforded process (see Cole, 1996; Daniels, 2001; Kozulin, 1998; Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Robbins, 2003). Vygotsky postulates that development, whether it is linguistic or mathematical, stems from historically cultivated, culturally immersed activities. Learners engage in "knowledge-building" transactions afforded by mediated sign systems and symbolic tools, such as verbal exchanges, emotional expressions and body language, and material or tangible objects (see Wells, 2002). As Basharina (2007) succinctly notes, in the second/foreign language learning setting, "mediation can take the form of a textbook, visual material, classroom discourse, opportunities for second language interaction, instruction, or other kinds of teacher assistance" (p. 84).

Within these theoretically afforded values, Leont'ev (1978, 1981b) delves into the notion of human activity where learning can be experienced by engaging in constructive and transformative activities that are embedded within the historically explicated practices (Lantolf, 2000; Stetsenko, 2005). Leont'ev (1981b) casts his theoretical exegesis on a tri-level hierarchical model that is comprised of "activity, action, and operation" afforded by the emerging motive, goal, and pragmatic procedural conditions (Leont'ev, 1978, 1981b). Activity forms the pinnacle of human development and knowledge construction. As humans, we are immersed in different social activities and have the ability to perform these activities by becoming active agents (Leont'ev, 1981b). We also have specific physiological, social, and biological needs that are crucial to our biological and human homeostasis, such as maintaining our required blood glucose level by eating sweets. Simultaneously, we develop certain personal or professional aspirations or needs through our interactions with close or broader community members. These prevailing needs compel us to work toward the execution and completion of a particular objectified activity. Human activity, however, should not be built on a simple historically explicated process; it requires a closer inquiry into the complex web of goal-instigated actions. As Leont'ev (1981a) explains, "The basic 'components' of various human activities are the actions that translate them into reality" (p. 59). Intentional actions result as a response to the setting of specific conscious goals, but their completion is contingent upon the different conditions under which each action takes place. For instance, an asynchronously posted paper topic will differ from a real-time paper posting which requires a spontaneous response to all inquiries.

The unique complexity of human activity also lies in how Leont'ev perceives human development occurring. Leont'ev (1981b) asserts any inquiry into culturally afforded learning activity should be based on historically driven contradictions. Leont'ev (1981b) evinces that contradictions are prompted by the duality of two pivotal constructs in human activity, its "use value and exchange value" (Engestrom, 1987, p. 32). As he states, "Everything acquires a dual aspect under the dominance of private ownership of the means of production, viz., both man's own activity and the world of objects around him" (Leont'ev, 1981b, p. 254). Historically contingent clashes then, whether "within or between activity systems," often result from the opposing angles at which we participate in everyday activities or our workplace (Engestrom, 2001, p. 133). For instance, if students are invited to offer online feedback to their peers, then they will devise feedback to aid their peers in drafting their papers. However, that feedback will still conform to their instructor's expectations in order to receive a high score in the course.

Engestrom (1987, 1999) offers a more systematic exegesis and analysis for human activity by integrating "the object, subject, mediating artifacts (signs and tools), rules, community, and division of labor" into this complex equation of activity (p. 9). using his global collaborations with a community of scholars working on activity theory, Engestrom (1999) explicates that the theoretical works and other scholarly publications in CHAT constitute some of the mediating artifacts. The subject or scholars who participate in this organization aim to engage in constructive discussions on activity theory or what activity theorists call the object of this particular activity system. The outcome is designed to immerse this community of scholars in intellectual discussions to identify innovative ways to collaborate. These scholars then determine under which conditions they would like to collaborate and which tasks they would like to undertake or what Engestrom (1987, 1999) terms the division of labor. Most importantly, Engestrom (1987, 1999, 2008) avers that contradictions form the igniting impulse of development or, as he also explicitly notes, "the driving force of change" (Engestrom, 2001, p. 133).

Engestrom (2001) distinguishes contradictions from everyday heated arguments and other forms of debate by noting that "Contradictions are historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems" (p. 137). Similar to Leont'ev, Engestrom (1987, 2001) first accentuates the defining characteristic of contradictions, namely, their duality, which is manifested as inner tensions mounted between "the use and exchange value" (p. 137). Contradictions, then, will derive "when a person is torn by two or more opposite goals" (Basharina, 2007, p. 85). Engestrom also incorporates the historically afforded clashes that evolve as innovative tools or instruments are explored and embraced, often causing tensions with assigned tasks or rules. Certain tensions also build up between the tenets of an activity system. For instance, the online exchange of paper topics (mediating artifact) may contradict with the institutionally imposed rules for relying on face-to-face encounters for discussions on paper topics. Clashes might also be experienced between the "object/motive of the dominant form of the central activity and the object/motive of a culturally more advanced form of the central activity" (Engestrom, 1987, p. 34). Consider, for example, an international student who has recently moved to the United States to experience American culture but her parents would more likely be expecting her to excel as a college student. Finally, contradictions may result "between the central activity and its neighbour activities" (Engestrom, 1987, p. 34). Kramsch and Thorne (2002), Thorne (2003), and Basharina (2007) illustrate how the implementation of delayed forums among students in different countries and institutional settings can form communication tools that generate intercultural clashes. Thorne (2003) terms these clashes to be "Clashing Frames of Expectation--Differing Cultures-of-Use" (p. 38). As he explains, "the cultures-of-use of Internet communication tools, their perceived existence and ongoing construction as distinct cultural artifacts, differs interculturally just as communicative genre, pragmatics, and institutional context would be expected to differ interculturally" (p. 38). The implementation of any form of online communication tool then is culturally and historically instigated, which then forms the igniting impulse for building tension among students.

METHODOLOGY

Engestrom (2001) perceives contradictions as historically ingrained forces of human activity that form "the driving force for change" (p. 133). For Engestrom, contradictions are not unwarranted processes or outcomes that encumber development. By undertaking this framework, this study examined how the sharing of paper topics and feedback exchanges on the discussion board and the drafting of papers often generated clashes fueled by different cultural experiences and personal convictions. More precisely, the study addressed the following three research questions:

1. How often did instructor guidelines for posting online topics generate contradictions with the students' efforts to build or reinforce further relationships with their classmates?

2. How did the requirements for devising demanding online feedback strategies clash with students' attempts to construct interrelations?

3. How did students' roles as authors and reviewers often place them in a contradictory position, i.e., proposing feedback suggestions to their peers but strategically avoiding materializing all their peers' suggestions in their own rough drafts?

Participants

Ten advanced English as a Second Language (ESL) learners enrolled in "Writing Arguments 108," the second of two consecutive level courses, opted to be part of these jointly constructed peer review activities. The course was designed to immerse advanced ESL/EFL students in argumentative discourse and was taught by the co-investigator of this study. Adhering to the academic policy of this metropolitan southwestern U.S. institution, all ESL/EFL students had to successfully pass one of the following standardized tests: TOEFL, SAT verbal, or the ACT English. Students then were required to complete "Introduction to Writing Composition 107" or an equivalent course, which introduced them to the epistemic constructs of reading and writing and the instrumental cultural values of the target language, English. Like most courses geared for the needs of ESL/EFL students in this academic institution, this section attracted a diverse body of students from Austria, China, Guatemala, India, Korea, Lebanon, and Taiwan. The eight male students, Fernando, Hong-Jin, Jamil, Jubert, Shao, Sun, Vijay, and Yao (1), and the two female students, Lucy and Yunjung, were enrolled in various academic programs, including architecture, computer information systems, economics, electrical engineering, and marketing. Seven students were in their freshman year, two in their junior year, and one in his sophomore year. Hong-Jin, Sun, and Vijay were between the ages of 18 and 19, while Jamil, Jubert, Lucy, Shao, Yao and Yunjung were in their early twenties. Fernando, a student from Guatemala, was in his early thirties. Most of the students were determined to become immersed in the American language and culture. The demographics, age, and degree enrollment are illustrated in more detail in Table 1 below.

Implementation of Forums and Procedures Followed

As part of this project, students were required to compose an argument of definition. This genre was the first introduced to the class early on in the semester. Following the curriculum of this metropolitan academic institution, the notion of argument was based on the broader ideological assumption that viewed every form of public or private discourse as an argument (see Lunsford & Ruszkiewicz, 2004; Ramage, Bean & Johson, 2007). Students were first exposed to the rhetorical constructs of this genre, the Aristotelian appeals, Toulmin's schema of stasis theory, the defining features of the genre, writing strategies and techniques, counterarguments, and multiple other techniques related to this genre. As indicated in Table 2, students were assigned several chapters from Ramage, Bean, and Johson (2007) Writing arguments: A rhetoric with reading, which provided detailed discussions and examples of actual implementation of the strategies. There were also several in-class free writing activities, collaborative group activities, and discussions of current newspaper or online articles, as well as various online activities where students critically examined the criteria implemented in various articles and evaluated short online clips. For instance, the "meatrix," a short online clip exposed students to the dire conditions present in meat processing and the inhumane treatment of animals by giant corporations. Students were invited to examine the "meatrix" in terms of logos, ethos, and pathos. Such activities offered authentic opportunities to evaluate and apply such strategies to define an argument and complete the related tasks.

The instructor then provided students with a two-page handout, explicitly discussing the requirements of the writing assignment and offered an extensive in-class discussion of the requirements for the assignment, i.e., the need to devise a well-supported and persuasive argument of definition. In the next step, a new session on the discussion board was set up. Students were instructed to post a brief ten-line description of their paper topics or a thesis statement, view their peers' paper topics, and select any of the posted topics to offer constructive feedback (see Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000). All postings could be accessed at any time before and after the drafting process. Students could select only those strategies that provided constructive suggestions or guidelines to implement in their rough drafts. Students could review, evaluate, and determine which specific strategies could help them develop cogent arguments or support their claims. Any strategies or counterarguments that could potentially enfeeble their claims or their initial positions on a particular topic could simply be avoided, without affecting their grades.

DATA ANALYSIS

Drawing on previous studies on historically explicated conflict emerging in online forums (see Basharina, 2007; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Schneider & von der Emde, 2006; Thorne, 2003; Ware & Kramsch, 2005) and the sharing of proffered challenging feedback strategies (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000), analysis examined the collaborative and often conflicting processes students participated in to aid one another with the planning and drafting of their papers. The proffered strategies were perceived to be ingrained in students' cultural and personal experiences, ideological beliefs, and values. As Kramsch and Thorne (2002), Thorne (2003), Schneider and von der Emde (2006), and Basharina (2007) have unveiled through their studies, conflict afforded by contradictory, culturally determined approaches to genres, ideological beliefs, and values can immerse students in a dialogically and interactively built online environment, which can help them expand their intercultural and linguistic knowledge. This study acknowledged that students' conscious goal was to identify constructive strategies to guide their peers through their paper topics, the planning processes, and drafting effort; and these processes were often based on conflicting edifices (Engestrom, 1987, 1999, 2008).

Using this framework as the guiding principle of analysis, attention was first placed on classifying the two sets of written protocols on the discussion board under two categories: "Paper Topic," which included approximately ten-line postings of students' paper topics, and "Peer Feedback," which consisted of all peer-feedback prompts. All prompts were easily identified on the discussion board since each feedback-related prompt appeared on the right side just below a student's paper topic, along with the title of each student's paper topic posting. In total, there were 40 threads on the discussion board, 10 "Paper Topic" postings and 30 "Peer Feedback" postings.

Two raters, the co-investigator of this study and an experienced ESL instructor met on several occasions to discuss the measures of analysis, i.e. what constituted a feedback strategy or simply an attempt to formulate more explicit feedback strategies to convey more clearly the intended suggestion, while maintaining the same focus. In those instances, suggestions were considered as a single strategy. For instance, Vijay responded to Yao's paper topic, "Human error associated to commercial airplane accidents," by raising a series of feedback-related questions that pertained to identifying the culpable parties for human aviation errors: "Whom should we blame? is [Is] it the pilots? employment [Employment] policies? Inadequate funding. [CR]" After each rater tallied the total number of proffered strategies, they compared their findings and arrived at agreement with an interrater reliability for the discussion board at 84.54%. Then, a classification system was devised to examine the nature of each strategy. In total, 5 categories were used to classify all peer-feedback strategies: (1) criteria [CR], (2) clarifications/elaborations [C/E], (3) counterarguments [CA], (4) research [R], and (5) other strategies [O].

As indicated in Table 3, under criteria, all proffered strategies that introduced the criteria for defining a topic were included. The second category, clarifications/elaborations [C/E], included reviewers' comments that encouraged their peers to either expand on or clarify certain parts of their papers. The third category, counterarguments [CA], comprised strategies intended to shed light on opposing arguments or claims. The fourth category, research [R], included reviewers' comments regarding conducting further research to strengthen their arguments. The final category, other strategies [O], consisted of all the other strategies that did not fall under the remaining four categories, such as organization, mechanics, etc. Table 3 provides a more detailed description of these strategies and offers examples of students' feedback suggestions.

Each rater identified the category under which each strategy could be classified and a discussion followed before reaching a consensus. Reviewers then numbered these strategies and tallied their total numbers in each feedback-initiated thread. Then, each rater looked thoroughly at each student's rough draft to identify and determine the total number of contextualized strategies, shared their findings, and reached an agreement regarding the total number of instigated strategies. For the discussion board, the proffered feedback strategies totaled 97 and the materialized strategies totaled 68. At the same time, the co-investigator of the study examined how these reflective feedback exchanges and culturally embedded paper topics posted on the delayed forums built on historically and culturally afforded clashes. Particular attention was paid to the tensions students faced while sharing highly controversial paper topics that were embedded in politically and socially oriented values and students' effort to maintain or reinforce their relationships with their peers. The construction of online feedback on the discussion board was also analyzed as part of these culturally experienced contradictions. For instance, student reviewers were required to offer constructive and thought-provoking feedback strategies (see Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000) to aid student authors in delivering persuasive arguments. However, such feedback constructs contradicted with student reviewers' attempts to maintain a friendly relationship with their peers. Here it is important to note that all these contradictions were treated as "sources of change and development" (Engestrom, 2001, p. 137), which helped students participate in a constructive knowledge-driven process and not as part of a process that built on conflicts that would hinder the learning process (see Engestrom, 2001; Kramsch, 1995; Schneider & von der Emde, 2006; Thorne, 2003; Wells, 2002).

FINDINGS

Several historically based clashes were identified in the student feedback exchanges. However, for the purposes of this paper, attention was placed on three contradictions: (1) student-author intention to define sociopolitically oriented paper topics, such as the conscription policy in Taiwan, to meet course requirements and the possibility of challenging or weakening their interrelations; (2) instructor requirements for instigating challenging and thought-provoking feedback to assist their peers in delivering cogent arguments of definition and also maintain friendly and cooperative relationships with student-authors for future in-class collaborations; and (3) the imposed rules or requirements upon which feedback exchanges were constructed, i.e., devising insightful and challenging suggestions as reviewers, but, when drafting their papers, intentionally avoiding materializing certain strategies that could potentially weaken their argument or challenge their claims.

(1) The Instructor Requirement for Paper Topic Postings Built Tensions with Constructing Interrelations

Expectations for sharing a ten-line topic related to definitional arguments for which students had developed strong feelings or that they had experienced personally at some point in their lives set the conditions for sharing conflicting ideologies embedded in highly controversial political, cultural, and historical values and ideological beliefs. Such salient values clashed with their classmates' expectations, experiences, and cultural values and led to an intercultural and intra-class conflict that often threatened their relationships with their peers. For instance, Shao's politically-charged topic, the "Taiwanese military," opened the asynchronous forum on the discussion board and formed the catalyst in exposing historically constructed tensions embedded in political values:

Shao: When it comes to the issue that military service should be an obligation for Taiwanese males or not; there is always a debate. Some people say that it is good to learn how to be amenable and independent, while others think that it is not necessary to be taught by military services. Taiwan military service should not be required. It's a waste of time to join the army for 24 month.

1. It is waste of time;

2. Discontinue education;

3. modern military system needs sophistication intelligent;

4. This policy loses the support of people, which may exert negtive influence on the government itself

Influenced by his historically constructed service in the Taiwanese military, Shao tackled a politically driven and nationally sensitive issue, about which he felt passionate, in order to meet his instructor's expectations and the course requirements. Shao appeared unrelenting in his initial statement that the Taiwanese military service is "a waste of time." Shao placed emphasis on the initially prolonged 24-month conscription policy of 1949 instead of the 22month term that he later admitted to serving. Shao anticipated and explicitly acknowledged the counterargument that the military instills in Taiwanese males certain values, such as independence. Yet he challenged this assumption through four major arguments: (a) it is a trivial experience, (b) it hinders Taiwanese male education, (c) it requires sophisticated intelligence to compete with global threats, (d) the Taiwanese government's approval ratings are slipping because of this conscription policy. Shao asserted a real initiative by openly expressing his personal convictions on his native country's conscription policy. He did not err on the side of caution by defining a less politically sensitive issue. He was consciously aware that the class included a diverse body of students, including three from the adversary China, Hong-Jin, Lucy, and Yao. Thus, his proffered topic could have built tensions and threatened his relationship with his peers. By persistently shifting attention to this highly contentious political issue (see Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & Ryan, 1991; van Lier, 1996 for intentionality), Shao could have struck at the Chinese students' sense of national identity and other students' convictions about their own countries' conscription policies and personal experiences in the military.

Similarly, compelled by an animated, contentious, in-class discussion on whether women should continue their career path or relinquish their careers to raise their children and his personal experience as a father of two toddlers, Fernando rekindled the debate through his paper topic:

Fernando: Should woman stay at home and raise their children or should they continue they carrier and take their children to a childcare? In class we have had some discussions on what is better for a family, if a woman should stay at home and raise the kids until they are old enough, or if she should continue her carrier and live their kids at a childcare facility. I want to discuss in this paper different topics:

* What is old enough for children to be with their mother?

* What are the impacts for children that are left in a childcare when they are very young?

* If children go to a childcare facility, what characteristics should that facility have?

* What is the impact on the married couple for either perspective?

Under the umbrella of which socially ascribed female role would best serve the needs of a family, Fernando devised four broad, but interrelated, criteria through which he intended to define this sociopolitically entrenched genre in his paper. Fernando had previously asserted that women should pursue a career after toddlers turn two years old since child-caring is so physically and psychologically demanding that it puts a strain on a couple's relationship. By undertaking such a highly debated topic, Fernando was aware that the subject would unequivocally stir a debate and come into direct conflict with some of his peers' beliefs. However, motivated by his instructor's call for defining a topic in which he had a vested interest, Fernando opted for this contentious topic that, he knew, could clash with his peers' beliefs (see Lantolf & Genung, 2002; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006 for a discussion on motivation).

(2) Offering Thought-Provoking Feedback Strategies versus Maintaining Friendly Relationships with Student-Authors

Similarly, requirements for devising "challenging," but "supportive," feedback strategies in order to compel student-authors to explore further the multiple ideological positions embedded in their argument contradicted with student-reviewers' efforts to maintain friendly and collaborative relationships with student-authors (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000). For instance, Chinese students' feedback suggestions to Shao's politically assertive topic were deeply embedded in conflicting ideologies due to the mounting political tensions between China and Taiwan, and students' sense of national identity caused tensions between them:

Lucy: Good topic, I like it ... However, you need to consider why in hell they establish this policy [C/E]? There must be a reason. Call this/these major reason X. You need to define X [CR] and show that why this policy do not match the definition of X [CR] . Is voluntarism, which you suggest, fall into the definition of X [CR]? Remember we are writing an argument of definition. So make your definition clear [C/E].

Hong-Jin: Not only Taiwan have that kind of issue, many countries like Corea or Turkey all an obligation of military service. If military servise is useless like you have stated, why do countries put an obligation to it then [CA]? However, I strongly disagree that military service is a waste of time. Going to war are waste of time but not going to military service [CA] . I tend to think that military is the place where people really get trained. Think about what will happen if no one wants to get into the army. Imagine a war occurs and a bunch of soldiers who have never gotten into any trainnings go into the war [CA]. They don't follow order properly, some will even faint if they see the scene of war. War are not like what we see in the movies, where you can just grab a bunch of high-tech weapons and win the war. The U.S have the most advanced military technology in this world, why is there still dying in Iraq everyday? There is only one way for a untrained soldier in the battle field, death. There is only one way for countries that have no well-trained soldiers, annihilation.

Lucy and Hong-Jin raised a series of counterarguments embedded in their personal ideological beliefs and their sense of national identity. In total, Lucy offered five suggestions, three related to criteria and two to clarifications/elaborations. She first complimented Shao on his paper selection, meeting the instructor's expectations for devising demanding, but encouraging strategies (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000). This feedback framework also placed Lucy in a conflict situation where she had to adhere to instructor requirements and, at the same time, balance ethnic identity, namely her convictions about the historically and politically built conflict between China and Taiwan. Lucy was aware that such dialogically enacted conflicts could hamper interrelations with Shao. Hence, she initially turned the exchange into an informal, but direct and rather confrontational discussion through her strategic use of an expletive, mirroring her emotional investment in her position (Bailey, 1983). Then she shifted attention to the strategies discussed in class for devising effective criteria to define an argument. This move from emotional involvement to a more impersonal approach could be viewed as an attempt to subside the emotional tone here. Lucy encouraged Shao to explore the underlying factors under which this conscription policy was enacted and to determine how the notion of "voluntarism" could qualify under his proposed military service.

Similarly, Hong-Jin, from China, proposed a total of three thoroughly developed counterarguments against Shao's claims on the Taiwanese conscription policy. Hong-Jin challenged Shao's core beliefs by pointing out that military service is a global phenomenon and not an isolated national policy limited to Taiwan. The potency of Hong-Jin's arguments lay in the "thought provoking" (Wells, 1999) counterarguments that he rigorously, but cautiously raised, to explore the motivational factors for enacting a mandatory military service in certain countries. For Hong-Jin, the military was an institution that offered rigorous training and structure to equip soldiers with critical surviving skills to endure combat conditions and the atrocities of war. Hong-Jin encouraged Shao to contemplate the tragic consequences for the soldiers, if they no longer served in the army: tragedy and destruction. Wars are real and are not built on scripted manuscripts in Hollywood-directed movies. Hong-Jin emphatically noted that waging a war is utterly futile, but military service is imperative and rewarding. Hong-Jin urged Shao to expand beyond his emotionally draining and unsettling experiences to weigh the broader ramifications for inexperienced and inept soldiers. Like Lucy, the overriding mechanisms driving Hong-Jin's response were the "interpersonal" edifices and cognitive involvement determined by students' opposing opinions and diverse experiences (Walther, 1996). Their firm, but opposing, beliefs led to an intercultural and an intra-class conflict. Their feedback postings also indicated a level of high motivation in planning and raising their opposing viewpoints and values, which were facilitated by the asynchronous and historical nature of the discussion board (Walther, 1996, 2007; Warschauer, 1996, 2004). As Walther (2007) postulates, "interpersonally motivated CMC users might take more time composing messages of similar length than less motivated users" (p. 2543).

Such tensions were not limited to the Chinese and Taiwanese students' opposing political convictions but also included diametrically opposite experiences in the military, as well as different perceptions about military service. Jubert, from Austria, and Yunjung, from Korea, had to contemplate the instructor's requirements for feedback exchange but also to raise instrumental counterarguments that stemmed from personal experience in or knowledge of the military:

Jubert: Good topic. However, i disagree with your perspective that it's a waste of time. Has it ever occured to you that the military could teach some sort of discipline [CA] . As a matter a fact those who are fairly lost in their lives can find a new life they can pursue in the military, which is a positive thing [CA] . I had the same point of view until i was drafted in the military and honestly it was a good experience.

Yunjung: Well, I don't even know I agree with you or not. Since service in military is mandatory for men in Korea, I have a lot of friends who has served military. They always say "I think my IQ is decreased!" or "You will never want to go there again!" something like that [CR]. However, I agree with [Jubert] that they got some kind of discipline from military. It is not just about military, but the life [CA] . They think differently as a men not as a young boy. For some people it is a good time to think what "life" is and that time would help them in entire their life.

Jubert initially applauded Shao for his topic, but then firmly disagreed with his thesis that the military service is trivial. Jubert challenged Shao's argument with an explicit and face-threatening counterargument: "Has it ever occured to you that the military could teach some sort of discipline" [CA]. Jubert viewed the military as an institution construed to serve a broader sociopolitical agenda, teaching soldiers self-discipline, self-discovery, personal growth, and offering a path to discover their purpose in life. Jubert's strategic use of the second person pronoun was a discourse move to address directly Shao and set a more confrontational tone. It also reflected his communicative intentions and greater involvement with Shao's topic (Walther, 2007) and emotional investment. Jubert invited Shao to view the military service in a more positive light and not as a time-consuming service that encumbers one's education. This exchange was fueled by a more personal transforming experience when Jubert revealed that he was also "drafted in the military." The adverbial discourse marker "honestly" reflected the illocutionary force used to emphasize his positive experience further (see Bach & Harnish, 1979). Their polar opposite experiences formed a salient feature or what Thorne (2003) has termed the "clashing frames" that fueled this feedback exchange. These conflicting ideologies were expressed at the risk of impeding relations between Jubert and Shao, as well as the instructor's expectations for enacting collaborative feedback forums.

In her feedback prompt, Yunjung vacillated between her fellow Korean friends' and Jubert's idiosyncratic experiences and her personal conceptualizations of what constituted military service. She formulated her feedback on two explicit feedback strategies, namely, one criterion and one counterargument. First, she expressed her skepticism in concurring with Shao's position that the military service is a trivial activity. Unlike her peers, Yunjung formulated her feedback on her Korean male friends' negative experiences and what they perceived to be the lack of an intellectually stimulating environment. This view corroborated Shao's central argument, guiding him through the process of expanding his defining criteria and depicting the negative valance of conscription policy. Then she confirmed her agreement with Jubert's position by acknowledging the role of the military in teaching young soldiers self-discipline. For Yunjung, the military represented a transitional stage that encouraged self-growth, self-reflection, and maturity. She rationalized that young soldiers embarked on a rewarding journey that helped them mature. Yunjung's written communication style and tone were neither confrontational nor assertive but rather wavering. Yunjung, however, had not served in the military, so she articulated her position without that subjective emotionally charged experience. Her feedback response exemplified her personal inferences about the military service which differed from both Jubert's and Shao's personal experiences (see also Scollon & Scollon, 2001).

Similarly, Sun and Jamil responded to Fernando's topic on whether women should resume or relinquish their professional life to raise their children, with Jamil rebutting Fernando's core claim that the care of two-year old children should be entrusted to a childcare facility:

Sun: This is good topic, lots of information could be include and discuss. however, u might want to take a side to argue wether woman should stay at home [C/E] . there are some point that u might need to consider 1-If women go to work, who will take care of their children while they are not at home 2the relationship between husband and wife; what will it change after woman go to work

Jamil: I absolutely wouldn't be the person I am today if my mother didn't spent more than enough time raising me and my sister when my dad has to go to work during the day [CA]. So many times I was about to commit crazy things like playing with a lighter, the electricity cables, try smoking, but thanks god that I always had the fear of my mom she might see me or my mom did caught me... So many things kids can do that are so dangerous and they are not aware of. It's for the parents to take care of these things, but when the father is, and should the main financial source of living for the house [CA], who should be taking care of he kids, helping them with there studies, serving food, educating them, teaching them? should be the maid, only school or the real mother [C/E]? When you want to get married, and get kids you should be ready for it, and capable of providing all the needs for the kids.

Sun, from Taiwan, cautiously, but firmly, reminded Fernando that his proffered paper topic was multifaceted and multidimensional, thus compelling Fernando to contemplate carefully these multiple ideological positions before drafting his paper. Sun identified a major limitation in Fernando's paper topic: there was no explicit discussion of Fernando's position on this highly contentious genre. Sun invited Fernando to explicate his position on the issue more clearly by explicitly stating whether women should assume the role of a child provider or continue their professional career. Sun then reiterated two of Fernando's major claims: when women rejoin the workforce, who should assume the child-rearing and child-caring responsibility, and how would the dynamics and relationships among the married couples be affected? Through his "responsive attitude," Sun neither confirmed his agreement or disagreement with Fernando's major claims nor did he construct counterarguments to rebut Fernando's thesis (Bakhtin, 1986). Instead, he accentuated the importance of further clarifying the criteria through which Fernando intended to define his argument. Sun's goal was thus to challenge Fernando to refine his argument by explicitly indicating his personal position on this contentious sociopolitical issue.

Jamil, on the other hand, appeared to be a staunch supporter of the conventional spouse roles, with women assuming the primary role as childcare providers and men being the sole breadwinners. Jamil had previously debated Fernando over what he perceived to be the need for mothers to be engaged solely in child-rearing and child-caring practices. To counteract Fernando's position, Jamil offered an elaborate and personal account of how his mother's active involvement in his and his sister's lives helped shape their personalities. Jamil's mother served more than as a childcare provider since she protected him and his sister, instilled values in them, assisted them with their homework, offered proper nutrition, and guided them. He firmly believed that the mother's role was indispensable and salient. Mothers are responsible for a child's physical, psychological, and emotional wellbeing. His thoroughly devised counterarguments were intended to challenge the core assumptions of Fernando's argument by highlighting the instrumental role that mothers play in children's lives and the need for mothers to embrace their role and responsibilities. Jamil also encouraged Fernando to clearly indicate who should assume the roles and responsibilities of childcare. In his closing remark, he reiterated his position, indicating that one has to seriously contemplate and be ready to bear the financial and child-caring responsibilities that marriage and parenthood entail. These feedback strategies were embedded in Jamil's personal experiences and salient beliefs, which could challenge his interrelations with Fernando. At the same time, these strategy suggestions were constructed according to the instructional guidelines for devising engaging, but demanding, feedback suggestions.

(3) Devising Challenging and Insightful Feedback Strategies as Reviewers while, as Authors, Avoiding Contextualizing Some of those Strategies

After exchanging paper topics and reciprocating feedback on the discussion board, students composed their papers on definitional arguments. However, the material tenets upon which the feedback exchange and drafting processes were constructed were grounded on contradictions. As reviewers, students possessed the capacity to establish an online feedback system that was conducive to knowledge-building strategies that were often embedded in conflicting ideological beliefs, counterarguments, multiple criteria, and other interculturally and intraculturally infused ideas stemming from the instructional material and personal and political convictions (see Goffman, 1959; Walther, 2007). In total, the students proposed 97 feedback strategies on the discussion board, 38 criteria [CR], 14 clarifications/elaborations [C/E], 25 counterarguments [CA], 11 research-related [R], and 9 other relevant strategies [O]. Collectively, they materialized 68 strategies, 29 criteria [CR], 13 clarifications/elaborations [C/E], 12 counterarguments [CA], 7 research [R], and 7 other-related strategies [O]. The number of materialized strategies was relatively high, since 68 out of the 97 strategies were given some form of consideration in the students' rough drafts. The student-authors assessed the epistemic values of both the proposed strategies and the materialized strategies that would help them fortify their arguments and solidify their grades by delivering compelling arguments. The student-authors asserted a more decisive and autonomous role and gained a voice and simultaneously maintaining their emotional involvement in this process (van Lier, 2004). Their emphasis was placed on articulating a cogent definitional argument by drawing on the proposed criteria and refining their intended claims to deliver more coherent and cohesive messages.

Interestingly, students clung to their values and strategically avoided contextualizing 13 out of the 25 counterarguments. These counterarguments could have compromised their initial positions and required extensive exegeses, grounded in research to support their claims. This tendency to devise counterarguments as reviewers when constructing thought-provoking feedback while, as skillful writers, to systematically and purposefully avoiding contextualizing them in their papers could be perceived as a contradiction. The underlying reason here lies in the critical thinking and writing skills that student-reviewers and student-authors were anticipated to acquire through feedback-construction and paper drafting and the skills that they actually developed during this process. Students were required to pose counterarguments during their feedback exchanges but, in the process, they also learned to avoid addressing counterarguments in their papers. Consider, for instance, Hong-Jin's inquiry about Shao's topic: "Going to war are waste of time but not going to military service [CA]." In his paper, Shao did not address, challenge, or contradict that counterargument since it directly contradicted his own position. Shao might have not considered this counterargument as a catalyst for empowering his position. Further, Shao was well aware that he did not have to meet the exigencies of all the proposed strategies. Shao overtly contested Yunjung's counterargument by explicitly stating: "However, I agree with [Jubert] that they got some kind of discipline from military. It is not just about military, but the life [CA]. They think differently as a men not as a young boy." In his rough draft, Shao then implemented his close friend's military experience to dispute the thrust of Yunjung's claim that "boys" attain affective maturity in the army:

Yunjung's suggestion neither changed Shao's mind nor deterred him from his goal of presenting compulsory service as a trivial activity, limited to menial, rote clerical tasks, and physically demanding drills with no attested health benefits. Shao acknowledged the wide array and conflicting exegeses regarding mandatory military service, but only as a venue to fortify his own initial position and avoid presenting a tenuous argumentative paper.

Similarly, as an author, Fernando strategically avoided contextualizing Jamil's claim that women's sole, socially enacted role should be that of childcare provider. Fernando thwarted Jamil's claim on the grounds that child-rearing was a physically, psychologically, and emotionally demanding task that placed an extra burden on the mother:

Fernando perceived such childcare practices as counterproductive since, instead of fostering an intellectually stimulating environment, a stay-at-home mom would take her frustration out on her child. If children were enrolled in a pre-school, then they would be immersed in an intellectually stimulating environment. In return, mothers could rest or resume their professional obligations or regain their energy to be fully devoted to their children. Consequently, instead of explicitly addressing Jamil's counterargument in his paper and noting his disagreement, Fernando fortified his own position by addressing the psychological and emotional benefits that mothers and children enjoyed when children were enrolled in a pre-school. Similar to Shao, Fernando, as an author, deflected counterarguments while, as a reviewer, he devised counterarguments to help his peers construct more effective arguments.

DISCUSSION

As Engestrom (2008) postulates, "contradictions play a central role as sources of change and development ... The activity system is constantly working through tensions and contradictions within and between its elements. Contradictions manifest themselves in disturbances and innovative solutions. In this sense, an activity system is a virtual disturbance- and innovation-producing machine" (p. 205). Online transactions are defined, structured around, and performed within contradictory historically afforded values through which students shape their online exchanges, feedback discourse, and learning (see Basharina, 2007; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Thorne, 2003). It is instrumental, then, to embrace and explore these historically and institutionally afforded tensions to identify some of the strategies students implement to confront or overcome these tensions and enhance their learning. In this study, the framework of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory offered a path to investigate three instrumental contradictions that students encountered while participating in these online feedback transactions and drafting process.

First, the design and implementation of paper topic postings, where students evoked discussions on topics enclosing salient values and significance to them (see Wells & Arauz, 2006), generated tensions. As illustrated, topics dwelling on highly sociopolitically embedded ideologies, such as the Taiwanese conscription policy and women's role, generated tensions among students who held opposing culturally and historically determined beliefs, values, and experiences. Based on the data analysis, students' historically afforded experiences mediated their paper topic postings and evoked tensions with their peers' opposing ideological beliefs. A succinct and categorical definition of the Taiwanese conscription policy delivered an open invitation to challenge any students who perceived the military service as productive and rewarding. Second, the enacted feedback trajectories generated tensions, with student-reviewers investing in counterarguments embedded in their often opposing historically and culturally devised values and ideological beliefs. These feedback dynamics could have ultimately challenged student-reviewers relationships with student-authors. Third, as demonstrated, students proved to be motivated to articulate counterargumentative ideologies, but then did not include their peers' counterarguments in their own papers. Investing time and energy on deflecting counterarguments or on empowering their positions as authors by raising more persuasive supportive arguments proved to be a more effective strategy in drafting their papers than acknowledging and rebutting each proffered counterargument separately.

These three identified contradictions, which formed the impetus through which the students' collaboratively enacted online exchanges, were explored by being situated within the contradictory institutionally and instructionally devised values. The contradictory values offered a more comprehensive view into students' opposing ideological beliefs, feedback strategies, and practices. At the same time, it was demonstrated that tensions based on opposing intercultural beliefs and values could be experienced within the local classroom context since students' ideological beliefs were proven to be both diverse and opposing. These opposing experiences and beliefs formed the catalyst through which students constructed their identities and infused their own values in their paper topics, feedback exchanges, and papers. Consequently, feedback exchanges in any online forum or even the classroom context should be devised by contemplating how such instructional and pedagogical tensions can help students express their different and often antithetical ideological beliefs. Such contradictions could form the igniting force to energize the learning processes further by immersing students in thought-provoking and culturally devised learning environments that expand beyond the conventional instructional activities. Identifying such contradictions could also guide instructors in devising more effective, immersive student-oriented activities (see Roth & Lee, 2007). Trying to downplay the role of contradictions in any activity would be counterproductive since it would ignore students' genuine attempts to transform their environment, learning, and collaborative exchanges (see Engestrom, 2008).

Pedagogical Implications

The findings of this study would seem to corroborate Engestrom's (1987, 1999, 2008) exegesis that "contradictions generate disturbances and conflicts, but also innovative attempts to change the activity" (p. 206; see also Ilyenkov, 1977). The three contradictions discussed in this study shed some light on students' attempts to shape and gradually change their paper topic posting, feedback exchange, and writing processes. These online transactions compelled students to transform the emerging feedback dynamics by evoking feedback discussions in which they strove to complete the task-at-hand, share their historically- and politically-derived ideologies, and preserve friendly interrelations. Through their thought-provoking topics and online feedback discussions, students transformed these online feedback transactions and their papers by contextualizing or strategically avoiding materializing certain strategies. Initially, the thrust of this activity was to define an argument that enclosed salient values and offer feedback; however, what actually catalyzed these exchanges were students' instigated topics which were embedded in historically- and culturally-contradictory values. Students' intended goals were no longer simply mediated by their need to construct thought-provoking feedback, but also affected by their salient cultural experiences and often opposing values of sociopolitically constructed genres.

As Lantolf & Genung (2002) correctly note, "motives and goals are formed and reformed under specific historical material circumstances" (p. 191). This gradual, yet inevitable, change in the feedback exchange conditions led to new tensions, but also guided students to draft their papers by contemplating or strategically avoiding their peers' feedback suggestions (see Lantolf & Genung, 2002; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006 for a more detailed discussion on the change of historically afforded learning conditions). Even though learning occurs within such evolving historically entailed conditions, it is not always feasible to anticipate the topics or the proffered feedback strategies. What drives these forums is the diversity in students' linguistic, cultural and personal experiences and how these instrumental experiences have shaped students' ideological beliefs. Not all students have strong convictions or knowledge about a particular sociopolitically enacted genre. For instance, Jamil's topic on the prolonged and atrocious wars that Lebanon had to endure mainly due to historical, political, and religious factors did not generate heated discussion or feedback suggestions. Only Vijay offered a brief feedback response to Jamil, indicating his interest in hearing a "Lebanese person's opinion on the palestine issue." Instead of devising suggestions on topics that students had no solid knowledge of, they focused on sociopolitical topics pertaining to their region or cultural and personal experiences or on genres for which they held strong ideological convictions. Instructors cannot expect that all instigated topics will receive equal attention or the same level of thought-provoking feedback. In-class or online discussions on such genres can help broaden students' knowledge, which, in return, can assist student-authors by raising critical questions to help them examine the multiple ideological constructs embedded in that genre.

Further, in some instances, prior knowledge of students' personal beliefs might be required to develop a better understanding of their position when defining a particular genre. For instance, in his paper topic posting, Fernando did not explicitly indicate that he was a staunch supporter of women's resuming their employment after childbearing. He had previously initiated an in-class discussion on this particular genre, sharing his personal convictions on the issue. In a large classroom context, it is not always feasible to engage students in discussions that enable them to share their personal values and beliefs on such genres. At the same time, more introverted students might not share their ideological beliefs at all. However, it is critical to be fully aware of students' values to identify the emerging tensions, classify their feedback suggestions, and determine the type of feedback strategies that eventually do materialize in students' papers.

LIMITATIONS

Even though the study generated interesting findings for the historically attained contradictions that student-authors and student-reviewers encountered in this process, it has several limitations. First, the study was conducted during the spring semester of 2007 in a single classroom, for the course entitled Writing Arguments 108, where a total of only 10 students were enrolled. Therefore, no effort should be made to generalize these findings due to the implementation of the qualitative measures of analysis, the small sample of students involved, and the rather limited duration of this particular study (see Kern, 1995). If a larger pool of students and instructors had been involved in these online transactions, then more light could have been shed on the nature of feedback strategies, the construction of conflicting ideologies, and historically perceived tensions among students. Teacher-student dynamics and guidelines for different feedback assignments could also have offered a more comprehensive understanding of the tensions students encountered in this feedback process.

Second, it should be noted that the taxonomy of the five devised categories represents a rather broad classification system, and in some cases there was overlapping when classifying these strategies. Some of the categories, such as criteria, were tentatively developed based on Ramage et al.'s (2007) explication of definitional arguments, which entailed defining principles and matching counterparts to define a term. However, in this study, the criteria emerged as a strategy comprised of peer-devised strategies intended to guide student authors in defining their arguments through the implementation of a series of constructs. There were no preexisting, clearly defined measures present based on an explicitly defined classification system under which all categories could then be classified and quantified. Instead, the two raters often had to ponder multiple interrelated factors, such as students' ideological beliefs expressed in class, affective factors, intended goals, and the instructional material and its context, before determining in which category each strategy could be classified.

CONCLUSION

Instead of trying to downplay the role of contradictions and focus on delineating a successful collaborative online activity (see Engestrom, 1987, 2008), this study has demonstrated that contradictions can be implemented to cast a critical role on how these feedback trajectories are experienced and shaped online. The instructionally derived contradictions and students' conscious attempts to transform these online dynamics through their paper topic postings, feedback exchanges and paper drafting provided a glimpse into how students utilized these forums to overcome tensions and to change their learning experiences and their writing (see Lantolf & Genung, 2002; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). The three afforded contradictions students experienced during this process demonstrated that diverse culturally structured ideologies conveyed through paper topic postings could challenge the interrelations with student-reviewers. The guidelines for feedback exchanges were also construed on tensions, with students striving to reconcile the need to devise demanding strategies with the need to reinforce relationships with peers online. At the final drafting stage, clashes were also experienced when reviewers attempted to devise challenging feedback strategies, such as counterarguments, while authors were compelled to construct persuasive definition arguments, leading them to omit certain proffered strategies, such as counterarguments, intentionally.

Future studies should be devised to include a larger pool of student-participants and instructors to determine more precisely how contradictions are experienced and resolved online and how historically devised tensions can aid students in acquiring new techniques and strategies for argumentative discourse. These feedback dynamics should also be investigated in more detail in terms of how different guidelines, requirements, and expectations set the conditions for different historically structured tensions. Interviews regarding how students perceive, deal with and overcome such contradictions could also offer better understanding on how students transform these feedback exchange conditions and their learning. Closer attention should additionally be placed on students' perceptions of such contradictions, so that instructors can identify some of the strategies that students do implement to overcome or reconcile such culturally afforded contradictions.

REFERENCES

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as a regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.

Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314-342.

Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. MIT Press

Bailey, F. G. (1983). The tactical uses of passion: An essay on power, reason, and reality. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (V. W. McGee, Trans.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin, TX: University of Texas.

Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 11(2), 82-103. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/basharina/default.html

Bauer, B., deBenedette, L., Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., & Waryn, S. (2006). The cultural project. In S. L. Thorne & J. A. Belz (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 31-62). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.

Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53, 591-647.

Chun, D. M. (2008). Computer-mediated discourse in instructed environments. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 15-45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512.

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 325-346.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Ducate, L. C., & Lomicka, L. L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9-28.

Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Oriental-Konsultit Oy.

Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp.19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical conceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.

Engestrom, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Ilyenkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays on its history and theory. Moscow: Progress.

Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.

Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260.

Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education. London: Harvard University Press.

Kramsch, C. (1995). Embracing conflict versus achieving consensus in foreign language education. ADFL Bulletin, 26(3), 6-12.

Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as a global communicative practice. In D. Cameron & D. Block (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 83-100). New York: Routledge.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introduction to sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P., & Genung, P. B. (2002). "I'd rather switch than fight": An activity-theoretic study of power, success, and failure in a foreign language. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp.175-196). London: Continuum.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leont'ev, A. N. (1981a). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

Leont'ev, A. N. (1981b). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Lunsford, A. A., & Ruszkiewicz, J. J. (2004). Everything's an argument (3rd ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ramage, J., Bean, J., & Johson, J. (2007). Writing arguments: A rhetoric with reading. New York: Pearson Longman.

Robbins, D. (2003). Vygotsky's and A. A. Leontiev's semiotics and psycholinguistics: Applications for education, second language acquisition, and theories of language. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). 'Vygotsky's neglected legacy': Cultural-historical activity theory. Journal of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.

Schneider, J., & von der Emde, S. (2006). Conflicts in cyberspace: From communication breakdown to intercultural dialogue in online collaborations. In S. L. Thorne & J. A. Belz (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 178-206). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html

Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes on activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 70-88.

Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 38-67. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html

Thorne, S. L. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and the object of innovation. In K.van Esch/O. St. John (Eds.), New insights into foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 51-70). Germany: Peter Lang.

Tudini, V. (2007). Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat rooms. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 577-601.

van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. New York: Longman.

van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.

Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538-2557.

Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Towards an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 190-205.

Ware, P. D., & O' Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/ wareodowd/default.html

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26. Available at https://calico.org/journalTOC.php

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. M. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 15-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (2002). Learning and teaching for understanding: The key role of collaborative knowledge building. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints. Advances in Research on Teaching, 9 (pp. 1-41). Boston: Elsevier/JAI Press.

Wells, G., & Mejia Arauz, R. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379-428.

STELLA K. HADJISTASSOU

Arizona State University

NOTE

(1) All names are pseudonyms used to protect student identities.

AUTHOR'S BIODATA

Stella Hadjistassou holds a Ph.D. in Rhetoric/Composition and Linguistics from Arizona State University. She is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the KIOS Research Center for Intelligent Systems and Networks, working on developing and implementing educational material in virtual learning environments for ESL engineering students. Her research work includes studies on microgenetic development, culturally contingent contradictions, real-time and delayed feedback exchanges, instructor's role in virtual learning environments, and the collaborative and conflicting constructs among ESL learners online. Stella has taught multiple courses at Arizona State University, including sociolinguistics, ESL, Technical Communication, Grammar, and English Composition. She has also published several book chapters, articles, and encyclopedia entries. Her research has been funded by the Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation and more recently by the European Union.

AUTHOR'S ADDRESS

96 Kennedy, Apt. # 102

Pallouriotissa

Nicosia, 1047

Cyprus

E-mail:

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 Equinox Publishing, Ltd.

Source Citation

Gale Document Number: GALE|A295172089