本研究的目的在於從活動理論(Cole & Engeström, 1993)的角度描述臺灣、香港與馬來西亞中學生之間的跨國協作計畫，及其在成立與運作的過程中所遭遇到的困難及挑戰，研究對象包含5位台灣教師、20位七年級及八年級台灣學生、3位馬來西亞教師、17位馬來西亞中學生以及1位香港教師。在為期兩個學期的研究當中，研究者透過電子郵件、回饋、訪談、研究日誌、視訊會議及線上學習平台等管道蒐集資料並根據紮根理論(Strauss & Corbin, 1998)作質性分析。此外，研究者針對電子郵件及討論版留言在頻率方面作進一步的量化分析。
在對資料進行譯碼(coding)之後，研究者從不同資料來源當中比對研究發現，研究結果顯示許多矛盾現象，包含媒介內部的矛盾、規則與目標之間的矛盾、媒介與目標之間的矛盾、媒介與社群之間的矛盾以及主體與社群之間的矛盾。研究者在討論研究發現的同時，也描述研究發現當中的具體證據並提出相關建議，希望能提供往後以電腦作為溝通媒介的跨國交換計畫者，再進一步的研究，以及有意進行類似活動的教育相關人員作為未來參考的方向。

The purpose of this research study is to describe the challenges and processes involved in establishing and implementing an international collaborative exchange program among high schools in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Malaysia from an Activity Theory perspective (Cole & Engeström, 1993). Overall, the program comprised of five teachers and twenty 7th and 8th graders in Taiwan, three teachers and seventeen 8th graders in Malaysia, as well as one teacher in Hong Kong. During the two-semester study, data from e-mails, feedback, interviews, reflective journals, video conferences, and documents on learning management systems were gathered and analyzed qualitatively according to Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) grounded theory codification methods. The data from e-mails and message posts were analyzed quantitatively in terms of the frequency. The researcher triangulated the detected findings by teasing out additional findings from other data sources. Results indicated five major contradictions, which is an integral concept in most Activity Theory-driven research, including intra-mediator contradictions, rule-object contradiction, mediator-object contradiction, mediator-community contradictions, and subject-community contradiction. The study’s results were then discussed in a way that not only offered suggestions for those wishing to conduct similar such research on CMC-based international exchanges but that also situated the findings in the computer-assisted language learning and teaching literature previously conducted on this topic. The study’s potential pedagogical implications and limitations were presented in the report’s discussion and conclusion sections, respectively.

Aalst, J., & Hill, C. (2006). Activity Theory as a framework for analyzing knowledge building. Learning Environment Research, 9(1), 23-44. Adams, D., & Hamm, M. (1996). Cooperative learning: Critical thinking and collaboration across the curriculum. IL: Tomas. Andresen, M. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249-257.
Armstrong, K., & Retterer, O. (2008). Blogging as L2 writing: A case study. AACE Journal, 16(3), 233-251.
Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using Activity Theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize Activity Theory. Mind, Culture and Activity, 11(1), 25-47.
Basharina, O. K. (2007). An Activity Theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82-103. Basharina, M., Guardado, M., & Morgan, T. (2008). Negotiating differences: Instructors' reflections on challenges in international telecollaboration. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 65(2), 275-305.
Belz, J. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60-81.
Belz, J. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68-117.
Belz, J., & Muller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 71-89.
Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). Educational applications of CMCs: Solving case studies through asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 4(3). Retrieved May 18, 2010, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue3/benbunan-fich.html
Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language curriculum: From teacher to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology, 6 (3), 87-107. Brine, J, & Franken, M. (2006). Students' perceptions of a selected aspect of a computer mediated academic writing program: An activity theory analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 21-38.
Chapelle, C. (2005). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 25-40). New York and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chou, C. (2002). A comparative content analysis of student interaction in synchronous and asynchronous learning networks. Proceedings of the 35thHawaii International Conference on System Science. Hawaii: Computer Society.
Cifuentes, L., & Shih, Y. C. (2001). Teaching and learning online: A collaboration between U.S. and Taiwanese students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(4), 456-474.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distribute approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salmon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Darhower, M. (2008). The role of linguistic affordances in telecollaborative chat. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 48-69.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 1-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dowson, K., & Mason, C. (2000). Collaborative dialogue: A web-based, multimedia case study shared among geographically disparate social studies educators. In C. White (Ed.), Social Studies (pp. 2003-2005). Norfork, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education.
Egbert, J. (2005). Conducting research on CALL. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), CALL Research Perspectives (pp. 3-8). New York and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Fullick, P. (2006). Synchronous web-based communication using text as a means of enhancing discussion among school students. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 23(3), 159-170. Gerbic, P. (2005). Chinese learners and computer mediated communication: Balancing culture, technology, and pedagogy. Proceedings of Autralasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education 2005. Australia. (pp. 241-251.) Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/27_Gerbic. pdf. Gerstein, R. B. (2000). Videoconferencing in the classroom: Special projects toward cultural understanding. Computers in the Schools, 16 (3/4), 177-186. Gibson, W. (2009). Negotiating textual talk: Conversation analysis, pedagogy and the organization of online asynchronous discourse. British Education Research Journal, 35(5), 705-721.
Good, A., O’Connor, K., Greene, H., & Luce, E. (2005). Collaborating across the miles: Telecollaboration in a social studies methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(3/4), 300-317. Goodfellow, R., Lea, M., Gonzalez, F., & Mason, R. (2001). Opportunity and e-quality: Intercultural and linguistic issues in global online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 65-84. Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative e-mail exchange for teaching secondary ESL: A case study in Hong Kong. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (1), 46-70. Guichon, N. (2010). Preparatory study of the desktop videoconferencing platform for synchronous language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(2), 169- 182. Hanna, B., & Nooy, J. (2003). A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: Electronic discussion and foreign language learning. Language, Learning & Teaching, 7(1), 71-85.
Harries, J. (1999). First steps in telecollaboration. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(3), 54-57.
Helm, F. (2009). Language and culture in an online context: What can learner diaries tell us about intercultural competence? Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(2), 91-104.
Hung, D., & Chen, D. T. (2001). Distinguishing between online and face-to-face communities: How technology makes the difference. Educational Technology, 41(6), 28-32. Hudson, B. (1999). A social perspective on teaching and learning in the context of computer-mediated communication in teacher education. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 8 (3), 349-60. Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Using technology in higher education: an activity theory perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 77-83. Johanson, R. E. (2003). Extrapolating practice from theory: A user-friendly guide to conducting grounded theory in the social sciences. Dong Hwa Journal of Humanistic Studies, 5, 1-38. Jonassen, D., & Kwon, H. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49 (1), 35-51. "http://www.springerlink.com/content/119965/?p=a801b15bce7f41a495f907161549 9344&pi=0"
Karasavvidis, L. (2009). Activity Theory as a conceptual framework for understanding teacher approaches to information and communication technologies. Computers & Education, 53 (2), 436-444. Kenning, M. (2010). Differences that make the difference: A study of functionalities in synchronous CMC. ReCALL, 22(1). 3-19.
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210.
Kim, H. N. (2008). The phenomenon of blogs and theoretical mode of blog use in educational contexts. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1342-132.
Kuutti, K. (1991). The concept of activity as a basic unit of analysis for CSCW research. In L. Bannaon, M. Robinson, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work. (pp. 25-27). Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In Nardi, B. (Ed.) Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lajoie, S., Garcia, B., Berdugo, G., Marquez, L., Espindola S., & Nakamura C. (2006). The creation of virtual and face-to-face learning communities: An international collaboration experience. Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 163-180. Lee, L. (2009). Promoting intercultural exchanges with blogs and podcasting: A study of Spanish-American telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning 22(5), 425-443.
Leontive, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). Amonk, NY: Sharp, Inc. Liaw, M. L. (1998). Using electronic mail for English as a foreign language instruction. System, 26(3), 335-351.
Liaw, M. L., & Bunn-Le, S. (2010). Understanding telecollaboration through an analysis of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 21-40.
Lim, C. P., & Hang, D. (2003). An activity theory approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools. Computers & Education, 41(1), 49-63.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J. & Mizell, A. (2003). Teaching and learning with technology. Boston: Pearson Education.
Lour, T., Johanson, R., Lu, H. P., & Wu. L. L. (2008). Trends and lacunae for future computer assisted learning (CAL) research: An assessment of the literature in SSCI journals from 1998–2006. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8), 1313–1320. Maurino, P. (2007). Online asynchronous threaded discussions: Good enough to advance students through the proximal zone of Activity Theory? TechThreads: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 51(2), 46-49. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.
Menard-Narwick, J. (2009). Comparing protest movements in Chile and California: Interculturality in an Internet chat exchange. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(2), 105-119.
Meskill, C. (2005). Metaphors that shape and guide CALL research. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 25-40). New York and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2005). Foreign language learning with CMC: forms of online instructional discourse in a hybrid discourse. System, 33(1), 89-105. Murphy, E., & Manzanares, M. (2008). Contradictions between the virtual and physical high school classroom: A third-generation Activity Theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1061-1072. Murray, D. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 397-421.
Murray, L., & Houriqan, T. (2008). Blogs for specific purposes: Expressivist or socio- cognitivist approach? ReCALL, 20(1), 82-97. Mwanza, D. (2001). Where theory meets practice: A case for an Activity Theory based methodology to guide computer system design. In Proceedings of Interact 2001: 8th IFIP TC 13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Tokyo, Japan, July 9-13, 2001. Retrieved from http://kmi.open.ac.uk/publications/pdf/kmi-01-7.pdf Mwanza, D., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Pedagogical adeptness in the design of e-learning environments: Experiences from the Lab@Future Project. In A. Rossett (Ed.), Proceedings of E-Learn2003 International Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education. Phoenix, USA, 1344–1347.
Nelson, C. P., & Kim, M. K. (2001). Contradictions, appropriation, and transformation: An Activity Theory approach to L2 writing and classroom practices. Paper presented at the Texas Foreign Language Education Conference, University of Texas, Austin. O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the “other side”: Intercultural learning in a Spanish- English e-mail exchange. Language, Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 118-144.
O'Dowd, R., & Eberbach, K. (2004). Guides on the side? Tasks and challenges for teachers in telecollaborative projects. ReCALL, 16(1), 5-19.
Payne, S., & Ross, M. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency development. Language Learning & Technology, 9 (3), 35-54.
Pincas, A. (2001). Culture, cognition and communication in global education. Distance Education, 22(1), 30-51. Russell, D. L., & Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding innovation in education using Activity Theory. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 23-53. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 158-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strijbos, J. W., Martens R.L., & Jochems W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42, 403-424. Thorne, L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 38-67. Tinzmann, M. B., Jones, B. F., Fennimore, T. F., Bakker, J., Fine, C., & Pierce, J. (1990). What is the collaborative classroom? [Online]. Oak brook, IL: NCREL. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl_esys/collab.htm
Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: a review and case study. Computers & Education, 34(2), 119-140. Ubon, N.A., & Kimble, C. (2003) Supporting the creation of social presence in online
learning communities using asynchronous text-based CMC. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Technology in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Heidelberg, Germany, July, 295-300.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. E. Wertsch
(Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 147-188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Yang, S. H. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 11-21.
Ware, P. (2005). "Missed" communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64-
89.
Ware, P., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63.
Warschauer, M. (1995). E-mail for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
White, C. (2000). Hypergroups for social studies teachers: A critical issues dialog for technology integration. In C. White (Ed.), Social Studies (pp. 2021-2027). Norfork, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education.
Williams, E. (2004). Incorporating the use of e-mail into a language program. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(1), 109-122.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.