Disciplinary knowledge and gesturing in communicative events: A comparative study between lessons using interactive whiteboards and traditional whiteboards in mexican schools

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 173-193

  Fernández Cárdenas, Juan Manuel ^a   Silveyra De La Garza, Marcela Lucía ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE NUEVO LEÓN   (Mexico)

^b Comité Regional Norte de Cooperación con la UNESCO ^*  (Mexico)

Author keywords

Communicative practice; Disciplinary knowledge; Interactive whiteboard; Pedagogic ideology; Socialisation

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954454706     PISSN: 1475939X     EISSN: 17475139     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.491219     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Albrechtsen, H., Andersen, H.H.K., Bødker, S., & Pejtersen, A.M. (2001). Affordances in activity theory and cognitive systems engineering (pp. 38). Roskilde, Denmark: Risø National Laboratory.
2. Ball, D.L., & McDiarmid, G.W. (1990). The subject matter preparation of teachers. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the Association of Teacher Educators (pp. 437-449). New York: Macmillan.
3. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen and Co.
6. Elizondo Huerta, A., Paredes Ochoa, F.J., & Prieto Hernández, A.M. (2006). Enciclomedia. Un programa a debate. [Debate temático]. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 11(28), 209-224.
7. Fernández-Cárdenas, J.M. (2006). The mediation of interactive white board in education: The perspective of different agents in Mexico. Senderos II, North Regional Committee for Cooperation with UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.comitenorte.org.mx/documento/604200691042/senderos2.pdf.
8. Fernández-Cárdenas, J.M. (2007). La educación en ciudadanía para la sociedad del conocimiento: Una aproximación sociocultural [Citizenship education for the knowledge society: A socio- cultural approach]. In C. Carrión (Ed.), Educación para una Sociedad del Conocimiento [Education for the knowledge society] (pp. 47-84). Monterrey, Mexico: Trillas.
9. Fernández-Cárdenas, J.M. (2008). The situated aspect of creativity in communicative events: How do children design web pages together? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 203-216.
10. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
11. Gillen, J., Kleine Staarman, J., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A 'learning revolution'? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243-256.
12. Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(11), 419-429.
13. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Singer, M.A. (2003). From children's hands to adults' ears: Gesture's role in the learning process. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 509-520.
14. 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 (pp. 111-140). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
15. Goodwin, C. (2003a). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 90-116). New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Goodwin, C. (2003b). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 217-241). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In S.D. Duncan, J. Cassell, & E.T. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language (pp. 195-212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18. Goodwin, M.H., & Goodwin, C. (2000). Emotion within situated activity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 239-257). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
19. Greeno, J.G. (1994). Gibson's affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 336-342.
20. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Volume III: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
21. Gutiérrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164. DOI:10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3
22. Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture and Activity, 6(4), 286-303.
23. Hanks, W.F. (1996). Language and communicative practice. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
24. Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2007). Exploring teacher mediation of subject learning with ICT. Final report to Economic and Social Research Council (ref. RES-000-23-0825). Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
25. Hymes, D. (1972). Models of interaction in language and social life. In J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71). London: Basil Blackwell.
26. Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (2003). A multimodal approach to research in education. In S. Good- man, T. Lillis, J. Maybin, & N. Mercer (Eds.), Language, literacy and education: A reader (pp. 277-292). Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books.
27. Jewitt, C., Moss, G., & Cardini, A. (2007). Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers' design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 303-317.
28. Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of information and communications technology in teaching and learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 10, 101-116.
29. Kramsch, C., & Andersen, R.W. (1999). Teaching text and context through multimedia. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 31-42.
30. Leontiev, A.N. (1978/2000). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Retrieved from Marxists Internet Archive: http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1978/index.htm.
31. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
32. Miller, D., & Averis, D. (in press). Gesture and the use of interactive whiteboard: Work in progress in secondary mathematics teaching. University of Keele.
33. Monaghan, L., & Goodman, J.E. (Eds.). (2007). A cultural approach to interpersonal communication. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
34. Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaãiç, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). The inter-active whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) project: London Challenge. London: Department for Education and Skills.
35. Núñez, R. (2004). Do real numbers really move? Language, thought, and gesture: The embod- ied cognitive foundations of mathematics. In F. Iida, R. Pfeifer, L. Steels, & Y. Kuniyoshi (Eds.), Embodied artificial intelligence (pp. 54-73). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
36. Rojas-Drummond, S. (2000). Guided participation, discourse and the construction of knowledge in Mexican classrooms. In H. Cowie & G. van der Aalsvort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction (pp. 193-213). Oxford: Pergamon.
37. Rojas-Drummond, S., Mazón, N., Fernández, M., & Wegerif, R. (2006). Explicit reasoning, creativity and co-construction in primary school children's collaborative activities. Think ing Skills and Creativity 1, 84-94.
38. Säljö, R. (1995). Mental and physical artifacts in cognitive practices. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 83-96). Oxford: Pergamon.
39. Schieffelin, B.B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (1986). Language socialization across cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Silveyra-De La Garza, M.L., & Fernández-Cárdenas, J.M. (2009). La multimodalidad y las interacciones dentro del aula en distintas áreas del curriculum educativo mexicano: Un estudio comparativo con diferentes herramientas tecnológicas [Multimodality and class- room interactions in different areas of the Mexican curriculum: A comparative study with different technological tools]. In J.M. Fernández-Cárdenas (Ed.), Conferencia Internacio- nal en Tecnología e Innovación Educativa REDIIEN'07 [International conference in echnology and educational innovation REDIIEN'07] (pp. 411-428). Monterrey, Mexico: Red de Investigación e Innovación en Educación del Noreste de México (REDIIEN).
41. Sinclair, J.M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
42. Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and National Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443-457.
43. Somekh, B., Underwood, J., Convery, A., Dillon, G., Jarvis, J., Lewin, C., et al. (2007). Evaluation of the ICT Test Bed project. Coventry, UK: Becta.
44. Twiner, A., Coffin, C., Littleton, K., & Whitelock, D. (2010). Multimodality, orchestration and participation in the context of classroom use of the interactive whiteboard: A discussion. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19, 211-223.
45. Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the Association of Teacher Educators (pp. 329-348). New York: Macmillan.