The dark matter of lab work: Illuminating the negotiation of disciplined perception in mechanics

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 180-224

  Lindwall, Oskar ^a   Lymer, Gustav ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 45849134140     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508400801986082     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Amerine, R., & Bilmes, J. (1988). Following instructions. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 323-335). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Beichner, R. J. (1990). The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a kinematics lab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 803-815.
3. Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. H. (2002). Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: Shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 429-453.
4. Bernhard, J. (2003). Physics learning and microcomputer based laboratory (MBL): Learning effects of using MBL as a technological and as a cognitive tool. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis, & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge based society (pp. 313-321). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
5. Bilmes, J. (1996). Problems and resources in analyzing Northern Thai conversation for English language readers. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 171-188.
6. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
7. Clement, J. J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.
8. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4-15.
9. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
10. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & McClain, K. (Eds.). (2000). Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tool, and instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
12. Dreyfus, H. L. (2002). Intelligence without representation - Merleau-Ponty's critique of mental representation: The relevance of phenomenology to scientific explanation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1(4), 367-383.
13. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 61-84.
14. Ford, C. E. (1999). Collaborative construction of task activity: Coordinating multiple resources in a high school physics lab. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 32, 369-408.
15. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology's program: Working out Durkheim's aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
17. Garfinkel, H., & Wieder, D. L. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In G. Watson & R. M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 175-206). London: Sage.
18. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
19. Goodwin, C. (1997). The blackness of black: Color categories as situated practice. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 111-140). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
20. Goodwin, C. (2000). Practices of color classification. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1/2), 19-36.
21. Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 15-73.
22. Greeno, J. G., & Goldman, S. V. (Eds.). (1998). Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A sixthousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
24. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 30(3), 159-165.
25. Heyman, R. D. (1984). Language use and school performance in a native classroom. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 4(1), 11-28.
26. Kawatoko, Y., & Ueno, N. (2003). Talking about skill: Making objects, technologies and communities visible. Visual Studies, 18(1), 47-57.
27. Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C., Zemel, A., & Dunnington, G. (2007). Formulating the triangle of doom. Gesture, 7(1), 97-118.
28. Lampert, M., & Blunk, M. L. (Eds.). (1998). Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
29. Laws, P. W. (1997). Workshop physics activity guide. New York: Wiley.
30. Lemke, J. L., Kelly, G., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Lessons from the phenomenology of interviews. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(1), 83-90.
31. Limón, M., & Mason, L. (Eds.). (2002). Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
32. Lindwall, O., & Ivarsson, J. (2004). What makes the subject matter matter? Contrasting probeware with graphs & tracks. In J. Ivarsson (Ed.), Renderings & reasoning: Studying artifacts in human knowing (pp. 115-143). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
33. Lindwall, O., & Ivarsson, J. (in press). Differences that make a difference: Contrasting the local enactment of two technologies in a kinematics lab. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
34. Lindwall, O., Lindström, B., & Bernhard, J. (2002). Lärandets konkreta villkor: Datoranvändning i skolans fysiklaborationer [The practical conditions for learning: Using computers in the school science lab]. In R. Säljö & J. Linderoth (Eds.), Utm@ningar och e-frestelser: IT och skolans lärkultur (pp. 119-144). Stockholm: Prisma.
35. Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2005). Vulgar competence, ethnomethodological indifference and curricular design. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer support for collaborative learning: The next 10 years (pp. 388-397). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Livingston, E. (1986). Ethnomethodological foundations of mathematics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
37. Lynch, M. (1988). The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 153-186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Lynch, M., Livingston, E., & Garfinkel, H. (1983). Temporal order in laboratory work. In K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science (pp. 205-238). London: Sage.
39. Macbeth, D. (1994). Classroom encounters with the unspeakable: "Do you see, Danelle?" Discourse Processes, 17(2), 311-335.
40. Macbeth, D. (2002). A commentary on instructional design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2-3), 373-386.
41. Macbeth, K. (2004). The situated achievements of novices learning academic writing as a cultural curriculum. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
42. Marton, F. (2006). Sameness and difference in transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 501-537.
43. McClelland, J. A. G. (1985). Misconceptions in mechanics and how to avoid them. Physics Education, 20(4), 159-162.
44. McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 755-767.
45. Miyake, N., & Norman, D. A. (1979). To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not known. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18(3), 357-364.
46. Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, T., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119-172.
47. Nickles, T. (1981). What is a problem, that we may solve it? Synthese, 47(1), 85-118.
48. Noble, T., Nemirovsky, R., Dimattia, C., & Wright, T. (2004). Learning to see: Making sense of the mathematics of change in middle school. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(2), 109-167.
49. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 313-349.
50. Roschelle, J. (1998). Beyond romantic versus skeptic: A microanalysis of conceptual change in kinematics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1025-1042.
51. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interaction: The case of interactive physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 329-347.
52. Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? Science Education, 81(1), 91-106.
53. Roth, W.-M., & Middleton, D. (2006). Knowing what you tell, telling what you know: Uncertainty and asymmetries of meaning in interpreting graphical data. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(1), 11-81.
54. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., & Shaw, K. (1997). Cascades of inscriptions and the re-presentation of nature: How numbers, tables, graphs, and money come to re-present a rolling ball. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1075-1091.
55. Royuk, B. (2002). Interactive-engagement vs. cookbook laboratory procedures in MBL mechanics exercises. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
56. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. I and II). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
57. Säljö, R., & Bergqvist, K. (1997). Seeing the light: Discourse and practice in the optics lab. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 385-405). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
58. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Towards an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 161-216.
59. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499-547.
60. Schegloff, E. A. (2003). On conversation analysis: An interviewwith Emanuel A. Schegloff with Svetla Cmejrková and Carlo L. Prevignano. In C. L. Pervignano & P. J. Thibault (Eds.), Discussing conversation analysis: The work of Emanuel A. Schegloff (pp. 11-55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
61. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
62. Schnotz, W., Vosniadou, S., & Carretero, M. (Eds.). (1999). New perspectives on conceptual change. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
63. Smith, J. A., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
64. Sokoloff, D. R., Thornton, R. K., & Laws, P. W. (1998). RealTime Physics module 1: Mechanics. New York: Wiley.
65. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107-149). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
66. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West (Ed.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211-231). New York: Academic Press.
67. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
68. Suchman, L. A. (2000). Embodied practices of engineering work. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1/2), 4-18.
69. Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
70. Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858-867.
71. Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338-352.
72. Tinker, R. (Ed.). (1996). Microcomputer-based labs: Educational research and standards. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.