Polyphony, conflict and argumentation in networked and face-to-face exchanges among advanced English as a Second Language (ESL) learners.

摘要

The goal of this study was to investigate through qualitative and quantitative constructs of analysis how 10 English as a Second Language students enrolled in an advanced writing course engaged in polyphony, conflict and argumentation during real-time, delayed and face-to-face (FTF) feedback exchanges. The emerging polyphony on these forums was embedded in the mismatch of salient cultural convictions, values, life experiences, and in the selection of highly controversial genres. Through the arguments of definition and evaluation students examined in their two papers, they instigated feedback dialogues where the impetus was placed on challenging feedback strategies, salient interrelational dynamics and the implementation of some of these strategies in their rough and final drafts. The delayed forums afforded opportunities for feedback strategies that were more confrontational than the real-time Collaboration Sessions and FTF encounters, where students were more cautious in their articulation of contradictory values.;Such feedback exchanges also emerged within contradictory edifices: first, their instructor's expectation for devising demanding feedback strategies and the articulation of opposing views often contradicted students' need for maintaining friendly relationships with their peers. Second, the nexus between the intended outcome, i.e., scoring a higher grade, and students' role as reviewers were often contradictory since students, as reviewers, were expected to offer multiple suggestions, but, as authors, they often avoided contextualizing several strategies in their papers, especially counterarguments. Third, the unequal distribution of power between the instructor and students through the grading system often led students to solicit their instructor's assistance while avoiding contextualizing several of their peers' strategies in an attempt to improve their grades.;In terms of qualitative analysis, Chi-square, X2, measures indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in the number of proposed or implemented strategies in a particular forum. However, Chi-square tests administered to examine 3 out of the 5 categories under which all strategies were classified, (1) criteria [CR], (2)clarifications/elaborations [C/E], (3) counterarguments [CA], (4) research [R] and (5)other strategies [O], indicated that the number of instigated and proposed criteria was higher on the Collaboration Sessions, while the number of proposed clarifications/elaborations was higher than the other strategies, i.e. counterarguments.