THE FORUM TESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in the TESOL profession It also welcomes responses to rebuttals to any articles or remarks published here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly Revisiting Teacher Feedback in EFL Writing from Sociocultural Perspectives ICY LEE Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong While research on teacher feedback has largely been influenced by second language writing and second language acquisition perspectives, little attention has been paid to the contextual and sociocultural dimension of teachers’ work Overall, there is a dearth of discussion on teacher feedback that is influenced by sociocultural perspectives Drawing on mediated learning experience (MLE) theory, this article discusses the limitations of conventional feedback approaches in English as a foreign language school contexts and underscores the need to replace these approaches with more effective practices typical for the process-oriented writing classroom, so that feedback can mediate student learning Informed by activity theory (AT), the article further suggests that providing MLE as a new object of the feedback system and introducing other innovations can lead to more effective feedback and help students improve learning The article concludes with suggestions for research informed by MLE and AT perspectives doi: 10.1002/tesq.153 & Research on teacher feedback has largely been influenced by second language (L2) writing and second language acquisition (SLA) perspectives, with the bulk of the studies focusing on the impact of different feedback strategies on the overall effectiveness of student texts on the one hand, and learners’ acquisition of specific target structures on the other Although feedback is delivered by different teachers to different learners in different contexts, very little research TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 48, No 1, March 2014 © 2014 TESOL International Association 201 has captured the contextual and sociocultural dimension of teachers’ work (see Goldstein, 2001, 2006; Hyland & Hyland, 2006) Overall, there is a dearth of discussion on teacher feedback that is influenced by sociocultural perspectives The purpose of this article is to discuss how a sociocultural lens informed by mediated learning experience (MLE) and activity theory (AT) is able to shed new light on teacher feedback in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing classrooms Using MLE, the article uncovers the limitations of conventional feedback approaches in EFL school contexts (which are dominated by a focus on errors in single-draft classrooms; Lee, 2011) and argues for the need to replace these approaches with more effective practices typical for the process-oriented writing classroom so that feedback can mediate student learning Informed by AT, the article further suggests that providing MLE as a new object of the feedback system and introducing other innovations can lead to more effective feedback and help students improve learning In the article, I mainly draw on my experience as a teacher educator in Hong Kong, where I work with teachers from the school context (Grades 1–12), as well as empirical findings from some of my previous research PREVALENT FEEDBACK PRACTICES IN HONG KONG (AND SIMILAR EFL CONTEXTS) In my work as a teacher educator in Hong Kong, I constantly hear English language teachers complain about their marking, noting insufficient time to provide timely feedback to students; lack of satisfaction; and, more important, ineffectiveness of their feedback practices Feedback is traditionally given to single drafts in the product-oriented writing classroom, where writing topics are assigned, followed by brief input on grammar and vocabulary, and then in-class writing that takes place in relatively test-like conditions (Lo & Hyland, 2007) The predominant focus of teacher feedback is on errors (Lee, 2008b) as well as scores Although teachers usually write some comments on students’ texts, students are not required to revise their drafts for content and organization After receiving teacher written feedback, students are instructed to “corrections” by copying out sentences that contain errors Teachers mark students’ corrections, and if further errors are spotted students “re-corrections” by repeating the same procedure For errors where correct answers have already been provided by the teacher (i.e., direct error feedback), students can simply copy without thinking, whereas for errors that receive coded feedback, it is not uncommon to find students make 202 TESOL QUARTERLY mistakes again in their corrections (some may even simply copy the codes as they not know the correct answers) Students primarily play a passive role throughout the feedback process After finishing one piece of writing, the teacher assigns another topic not necessarily related to the previous one, and the cycle of teacher feedback and student corrections continues Despite the huge amount of time invested in error feedback, many teachers feel that their efforts not pay off Students, on the other hand, are generally discouraged by teacher feedback, which is inundated with red ink, and they tend to focus mainly on scores Lower proficiency students in particular are overwhelmed by teachers’ detailed error feedback (Lee, 2008a) Overall, feedback is a problematic area that leads to a no-win situation for teachers and students (Lee, 2009) My own research has provided evidence of unproductive written teacher feedback practices in Hong Kong (Lee, 2004, 2008b), and the study by Furneaux, Paran, and Fairfax (2007) points to similar feedback practices of EFL teachers in Cyprus, France, South Korea, Spain, and Thailand What is amiss in teacher feedback? How can we come to a clearer understanding of the conundrum? And what can be done to enhance the effectiveness of teacher feedback practices in EFL contexts? To answer these questions, I first turn to the teacher–student interaction in feedback from MLE perspectives and suggest viable alternatives with a view to improving current feedback practices FEEDBACK AND MEDIATED LEARNING EXPERIENCE Mediation, as a central Vygotskian sociocultural construct, suggests that our relationship with the world is mediated by tools—material and symbolic Vygotsky’s mediation theory, however, does not elaborate on the “activities of human mediators beyond their function as vehicles of symbolic tools” (Kozulin, 2002, p 69) Such a void was filled by Feuerstein and his colleagues (Feuerstein, 1990; Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979; Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman, & Miller, 1980; Feuerstein, Rand, & Rynders, 1988), who developed the theory of MLE to explain the differences in children’s cognitive development The premise of MLE is that human cognitive abilities are not fixed but can be modified based on appropriate forms of interaction and instruction (Presseisen, 1992) In education, MLE is an intervention approach intended to improve learning; in L2 studies, its application has recently been found in dynamic assessment (e.g., Anton, 2003; Kozulin & Garb, 2002; Lantolf & Poehner, 2011; Pe~ na & Gillam, 2000; Poehner & Lantolf, 2005), which is derived from Vygotsky’s theory of 203 zone of proximal development and predicated on the dialectical relationship between assessment and instruction Not every interaction among the learner, teacher, and learning material qualifies as a mediated learning interaction Three criteria must be met (Feuerstein et al., 1988): (1) intentionality/reciprocity, (2) transcendence, and (3) meaning Applied to feedback in writing, intentionality refers to the teacher’s deliberate effort to mediate feedback for students, directing their attention to the strategies needed to solve their problems in writing (e.g., deliberately magnifying particular stimuli, sharpening certain focuses), as opposed to the conventional unfocused or haphazard manner in which feedback is delivered Reciprocity refers to the teacher–student interaction during which students are actively involved in the feedback process rather than playing the role of passive recipients Transcendence refers to students’ ability to transfer learning from one feedback situation to another; through feedback, teachers achieve the purpose of “teaching through and beyond” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p 226) Finally, meaning refers to the significance of the interaction, achieved by the teacher helping learners interpret the significance of the task and what they have accomplished in writing, mediating a sense of achievement Feedback that provides meaningful learning experience is, therefore, able to help students understand their strengths and weaknesses in writing and what they can to close the gaps (i.e., improve the weaknesses) in their writing Because MLE stresses the interactive and collaborative nature of learning, conventional feedback typical for the teacher-dominated, product-oriented writing classroom in EFL contexts will inevitably fall short In conventional feedback approaches practiced in many EFL contexts (Furneaux et al., 2007; Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006; Zhao, 2010), there is little intentional interaction between teacher and students during and after feedback During feedback, teachers respond to errors in an unfocused manner (i.e., without targeting for specific error patterns) and tend to provide correct answers or use error codes randomly After teachers have delivered feedback to single drafts, it is like “mission accomplished.” Reciprocity is lacking because students remain passive throughout; teacher–student conferences and follow-up student self-reflection are seldom practiced Without opportunities for redrafting, transcendence is unlikely; students are unable to transfer the lessons learned from feedback in one piece to another piece of writing Finally, such conventional feedback approaches lack meaning in MLE terms because students lose sight of the significance of feedback as a result of teachers’ overemphasis on students’ weaknesses in writing (through detailed error feedback) When students receive their papers awash in red ink, they are at a loss 204 TESOL QUARTERLY and not know what to focus on and how to make sense of the feedback Feedback tools, such as error codes, may not be useful if they are not infused with meaning and purpose In order that feedback can provide MLE for students, teachers should leverage their role as mediators of learning by turning the feedback situation from perfunctory to intentional Instead of marking each piece of student writing in a similar manner, with the same attention given to all errors, teachers should respond to student writing with a clear purpose and specific focuses and share their feedback policy with students explicitly When responding to a recount, for instance, teachers can give feedback on areas highlighted in prewriting instruction, such as whether students have included an orientation, provided a chronological sequence of events, and used the past tense to describe the past events To enhance reciprocity, it is important that students are provided with opportunities to interact with the teacher, for example, through negotiating the focuses of error feedback or conferencing To facilitate transfer (transcendence in MLE terms), it is useful to ask students to set goals and reflect on their learning based on teacher feedback, and through multiple drafting they can transfer what is learned from one feedback situation to another To render feedback meaningful, it is important that teachers provide diagnostic feedback to let students know what they have accomplished and what gaps there are in their writing (instead of merely marking all errors for students and ignoring other important dimensions of writing) The use of a process approach1 complemented by task-specific feedback forms can make feedback more meaningful, because such forms outline the success criteria in concrete terms and help evaluate student writing by indicating what they did well and less well with reference to the success criteria, also giving them a better idea about how they can close the gaps in their writing Overall, MLE theory has indicated that conventional feedback practices in EFL contexts are ineffective due to the inadequate amount of mediation they provide Teachers’ focused, purposeful feedback that aligns with instruction (intentionality), active student involvement through dialogic interaction with the teacher (reciprocity), multiple drafting (transcendence), and diagnostic feedback (meaning) will be able to provide MLE for students It is noteworthy that though a process approach is advocated, in this post-process era (see Atkinson, 2003) process pedagogy is not the only approach to help students write 205 THE TEACHER FEEDBACK ACTIVITY FROM ACTIVITY THEORY PERSPECTIVES Whereas MLE focuses on the role of the human mediator (i.e., the teacher, the teacher–student interaction, and the active role of the learner), AT emphasizes the sociocultural influences of human actions and practices (e.g., the provision of MLE through feedback) as well as people’s role as agents in transforming themselves and social structures Originating from the work of Vygotsky (1987), who viewed knowledge as sociohistorically mediated, AT is increasingly understood as having direct relevance to teaching and learning (Leont’ev, 1981), because human thinking and learning not occur in a social vacuum but are instead shaped by the activities in which people participate To better understand human actions, it is crucial to know the context in which actions are embedded Such actions form a system of activity, which is defined as “a conscious action directed at a goal, and this conscious action includes context: tools, people, history, and so forth” (Sam, 2012, p 84) The notion of activity was expanded by Engestr€ om (1987) to include rules (i.e., norms and conventions), community (i.e., participants), and division of labor (i.e., how roles are distributed horizontally within the community as well as the vertical division of power and status) In L2 education, although there has been a flourishing of research informed by principles of sociocultural theory in the last two decades, much less has been written about AT Recent L2 studies that draw on AT have focused on L2 teachers’ writing practices (Nelson & Kim, 2001), peer revision (Thorne, 2004), modes of engagement in foreign language writing (Haneda, 2007), students’ writing strategies (Lei, 2008), and peer response stances (Zhu & Mitchell, 2012) The potential of AT as a heuristic that supports innovation in educational contexts has also been examined in recent educational research (Bourke & McGee, 2012; Helstad & Lund, 2012; Smagorinsky, Cook, Jackson, Moore, & Fry, 2004) As a mediated activity in sociocultural terms, the teacher’s act of providing feedback does not take place in a social and cultural vacuum Informed by Engestr€ om’s (1987, 2001, 2008a, 2008b) recent work on AT (referred to as third-generation AT, different from Vygotsky’s first-generation and Leont’ev’s second-generation AT), in giving feedback, teachers are the “subjects” motivated toward the “object” (the target or orientation of the activity), that is, giving feedback to student writing, mediated by various instruments (also known as mediating artifacts), such as coded feedback and written commentary These mediating artifacts tend to be influenced by 206 TESOL QUARTERLY teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and prior learning experience In the conventional feedback activity system, for example, EFL teachers attach great importance to detailed error feedback and view feedback within a summative assessment paradigm (and hence their emphasis on scores) Such belief is reinforced within the institutional context, which dictates impromptu timed writing to maximize practice for examinations, a product approach that encourages single drafting, and the need to observe the school policy, which comprises “rules” within the activity system Added to these are the expectations of key stakeholders within the community, including parents and school administrators, who tend to value quantity (over quality; hence the more error feedback the better), scores, and examination preparation Teachers’ practices are constrained by the power relationship (division of labor) in schools, where teachers are reduced to marking machines in the accountability system (part of teacher appraisal is based on teacher feedback to student writing), having to cater to school leaders, administrators, and parents (members of the community) and to meet their expectations (Lee, 2008b) Within the conventional feedback activity system in EFL contexts, more feedback means better (more hardworking and more responsible) teachers, and this prevents teachers from adopting a more selective and focused approach to error feedback in a process-oriented classroom Also, the long-existing policy (rule) that requires meticulous attention to errors in writing makes it difficult for teachers to abandon the traditional error-focused practice, especially because all other teachers (community) are practicing this as a tried-and-trusted method The need to provide timely feedback, as another rule, results in the getthe-job-done mentality among some teachers who have to burn the midnight oil to finish their marking, during which time quality may have to be compromised For some teachers, although they may endorse the value of alternative feedback approaches such as focused error feedback in a process-oriented classroom, their beliefs come into direct conflict with the policy stipulated by the school (rule), and they remain powerless to initiate change because of the hierarchical relationships in schools and their lack of autonomy (community and division of labor) to implement change (Lee, 2008b) AT, therefore, sheds light on the tensions and paradoxes that exist within the conventional feedback activity system in EFL contexts In order for more effective feedback practices to take place, the conventional feedback activity system needs to be transformed and a new teacher feedback activity system needs to be put in place The goal of AT, according to Thorne (2004), is “to define and analyze a given activity system, to diagnose possible problems, and to provide a framework for implementing innovations” (p 65) Capitalizing on the 207 essence of AT, that is, “to take a situation or condition and transform it in an effort to create something qualitatively new” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p 210), teachers could transform conventional feedback practices so as to improve student learning To achieve this goal, a number of innovations are in order First, it is necessary to transform the object of feedback For teachers, the object is not simply to correct errors for students but to provide formative feedback to help students improve learning, to motivate them, and to make them autonomous writers in the long run (i.e., by providing mediated learning experience through feedback) For students, the object is not simply to get high scores from teacher feedback but to engage with, act on, and reflect on the feedback so as to improve learning (i.e., intentionality/reciprocity in MLE terms) Fullan (2002) underlines the importance of clarity of purpose amid the complexity of change Second, to achieve the new object, new mediating artifacts have to be introduced to the conventional feedback activity system Detailed error feedback will have to be replaced by feedback that is more informative and diagnostic, and error feedback that is more focused, to be delivered within a process-oriented classroom where students are involved in the feedback process through multiple drafting (which will enhance intentionality/reciprocity, transcendence and meaning in MLE terms) Third, to ensure that the new mediating artifacts will work in the new activity system, existing rules and division of labor need to be changed, marshaling opportunities for learning for both teachers and students: “Learning occurs whenever a novel practice, artifact, tool or division of labor … constitutes a new possibility for others” (Roth & Lee, 2007, p 205) For example, existing rules that mandate a product approach to EFL writing have to be changed, so that new rules—like a process approach that entails multiple drafting and a greater emphasis on prewriting instruction and postwriting feedback reinforcement— can be established In the new feedback activity system, the teacher and student roles have to be recast, so that students become active agents in charge of their own learning, whereby they set goals, engage in self and peer evaluation, act on teacher and/or peer feedback, reflect on their learning, and set further goals for their own development (i.e., more meaningful in MLE terms) Changing the teacher and student roles in feedback essentially shifts the division of labor and affords new opportunities for developing new perspectives on writing and student learning Specifically, division of labor also needs to be widened to afford a greater distribution of leadership and expertise Teachers have to be allowed autonomy to create new rules and develop ownership of their rules 208 TESOL QUARTERLY Unfocused error feedback; direct /coded error feedback; scores Focused error feedback; peer evaluation; self-reflection; conferencing; task-specific feedback form Mediating artifacts Providing feedback to student writing Providing mediated learning experience through feedback Subject: EFL writing school teachers Rules Impromptu, timed writing One-shot writing Writing as a test Primacy of written accuracy Pre-writing instruction Multiple drafting Post-writing feedback reinforcement Object Outcome Little student engagement with teacher feedback Community Students, teacher, principal, and parents Develop common vision Teachers involving community members in process of change Students understand own strengths and weaknesses in writing Students know how to close their gaps in writing Division of labor Teachers dominate feedback process; students remain passive Teachers lack autonomy and are constrained by hierarchical relationships Teacher sharing responsibility with students Students as active agents Teachers given autonomy to develop new rules FIGURE The conventional feedback system in EEL writing classrooms and possible innovations Finally, to establish a new feedback activity system in the EFL writing classroom, there is a need to widen the community, for example, by teachers sharing feedback philosophy with parents and involving school administrators in the process of change Teachers also need to form a community of practice with their colleagues, share their goals and vision with regard to good feedback practices, and distribute their expertise (division of labor) by engaging in professional dialogue and teacher learning so that they can develop a common vision about how feedback can best be used to improve student learning To conclude, desired outcomes, as Thorne (2004) states, would entail “certain changes in the rules, division of labor, and mediating artifacts of the activity system to see their complete fruition” (p 64) Figure gives a summary of the conventional feedback system in EFL writing classrooms (in normal font style) and possible innovations (in italics, indicating areas that are likely to improve with innovations introduced to the conventional feedback system; see Thorne, 2004) CONCLUSION While current feedback research is vibrant and multifaceted, it pays insufficient attention to the sociocultural forces that influence 209 teaching and learning This article has argued that the theory of MLE is able to yield new insights for EFL writing teachers regarding the teachers’ mediational role through giving purposeful, meaningful, and effective feedback in the process-oriented writing classroom, as well as the important role of the learners in teacher–student dialogic mediation As the components of the conventional feedback activity system (e.g., rules, division of labor) in EFL contexts are not compatible with the new object of providing MLE, the transformation of the conventional feedback activity system is necessary Using AT perspectives, teachers can design innovations (including the provision of MLE through feedback) to resolve contradictions within the conventional feedback activity system and bring improvement to the teaching and learning of writing in EFL contexts Future research could benefit from socioculturally based studies that investigate teachers’ feedback practices in their work contexts Research could be conducted to explore how teacher education programs can prepare teachers for their mediational role—that is, how they can enhance the effectiveness of their feedback practices by putting MLE theory into practice Further research can also investigate feedback as an activity system and how teachers can bring innovation to conventional feedback practices by using contradictions as an impetus for change Specifically, based on the problems identified in the conventional feedback system in the preceding section, research can draw on AT and investigate how EFL teachers (and students) participate in transformational actions, what they actually to bring about change in conventional feedback practices, and how what they changes them in the process The possible innovations proposed in the article, informed by AT, can provide a conceptual framework to guide future studies ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article is based on a research project supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (CUHK 448610) THE AUTHOR Icy Lee is a professor in the Faculty of Education at the Chinese University of Hong Kong She has published in international journals including ELT Journal, Journal of Second Language Writing, System, and Canadian Modern Language Review Her main research interests are second language writing and second language teacher education 210 TESOL QUARTERLY REFERENCES Anton, M (2003, March) Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC Atkinson, D (2003) L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 3–15 doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00123-6 Bourke, R., & McGee, A (2012) The challenge of change: Using activity theory to understand a cultural innovation Journal of Educational Change, 17, 217–233 doi:10.1007/s10833-011-9179-5 Engestr€ om, Y (1987) Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Engestr€ om, Y (2001) Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156 doi:10.1080/ 13639080020028747 Engestr€ om, Y (2008a) Enriching activity theory without shortcuts Interacting With Computers, 20, 256–259 doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2007.07.003 Engestr€ om, Y (2008b) Quand le centre se derobe: La notion de knotworking et ses promises [When the center does not hold: The concept and prospects of knotworking] Sociologie du Travail, 50, 303–330 doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2007.07 003 Feuerstein, R (1990) The theory of structural cognitive modifiability In B Z Presseisen (Ed.), Learning and thinking styles: Classroom interaction (pp 68–134) Washington, DC: National Education Association Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M B (1979) The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R (1980) Instructional enrichment Baltimore, MD: University Park Press Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J (1988) Don’t accept me as I am New York, NY: Plenum Fullan, M (2002) The change leader Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16–20 Furneaux, C., Paran, A., & Fairfax, B (2007) Teacher stance as reflected in feedback on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 69–94 doi:10.1515/IRAL.2007.003 Goldstein, L M (2001) For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to ESL writers? In T Silva & P Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp 73–90) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Goldstein, L M (2006) Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables In K Hyland & F Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp 185–205) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Haneda, M (2007) Modes of engagement in foreign language writing: An activity theoretical perspective Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 301–332 doi:10 3138/cmlr.64.2.297 Helstad, K., & Lund, A (2012) Teachers’ talk on students’ writing: Negotiating students’ texts in interdisciplinary teacher teams Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 28, 599–608 doi:10.1016/j tate.2012.01.004 Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (2006) Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction In K Hyland & F Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language 211 writing: Contexts and issues (pp 1–19) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Kozulin, A (2002) Sociocultural theory and the mediated learning experience School Psychology International, 23, 7–35 doi:10.1177/0143034302023001729 Kozulin, A., & Garb, E (2002) Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students School Psychology International, 23, 112–127 doi:10.1177/ 0143034302023001733 Lantolf, J P., & Poehner, M E (2011) Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33 doi:10.1177/1362168810383328 Lantolf, J P., & Thorne, S L (2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development Oxford, England: Oxford University Press Lee, I (2004) Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312 doi:10.1016/j.jslw 2004.08.001 Lee, I (2008a) Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144–164 doi:10.1016/j jslw.2007.12.001 Lee, I (2008b) Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69–85 doi:10 1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001 Lee, I (2009) A new look at an old problem: How teachers can liberate themselves from the drudgery of marking student writing Prospect: An Australian Journal of Teaching/Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), 24(2), 34–41 Lee, I (2011) Working smarter, not working harder: Re-visiting teacher feedback in the L2 writing classroom Canadian Modern Language Review, 67, 377–399 doi:10.3138/cmlr.67.3.377 Lei, X (2008) Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 217–236 doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.04.001 Leont’ev, A N (1981) The problem of activity in psychology In J V Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp 37–70) Armonk, NY: M E Sharpe Lo, J., & Hyland, F (2007) Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 219–237 doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.002 Nelson, C P., & Kim, M.-K (2001, March) Contradictions, appropriation, and transformation: An activity theory approach to L2 writing and classroom practices Paper presented at the Texas Foreign Language Education Conference, Austin, TX Pe~ na, E D., & Gillam, R B (2000) Dynamic assessment of children referred for speech and language evaluations In C Lidz & J Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (Vol 6, pp 543–576) Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Poehner, M E., & Lantolf, J P (2005) Dynamic assessment in the language classroom Language Teaching Research, 9, 233–265 doi:10.1191/1362168805lr166oa Presseisen, B Z (1992, February) Implementing thinking in the school’s curriculum Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association for Cognitive Education, Riverside, CA Roth, M W., & Lee, Y.-J (2007) Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory Review of Educational Research, 2, 186–232 doi:10.3102/ 0034654306298273 212 TESOL QUARTERLY Sam, C (2012) Activity theory and qualitative research in digital domains Theory Into Practice, 51, 83–90 doi:10.1080/00405841.2012.662856 Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L S., Jackson, A Y., Moore, C., & Fry, P G (2004) Tensions in learning to teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 8–24 doi:10.1177/0022487103260067 Thorne, S (2004) Cultural historical activity theory and the object of innovation In O St John, K van Esch, & E Schalkwijk (Eds.), New insights into foreign language learning and teaching (pp 51–70) Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang Vygotsky, L S (1987) Thinking and speech New York, NY: Plenum Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z (2006) A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in Chinese EFL writing class Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200 doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004 Zhao, H (2010) Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom Assessing Writing, 15, 3–17 doi:10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002 Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D (2012) Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective TESOL Quarterly, 46, 362–386 doi:10.1002/tesq.22 213