Interobjectivity and Interactivity: Material Objects and Discourse in Class

Human Studies

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 451-469

  Kalthoff, Herbert ^a   Roehl, Tobias ^a  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Education; Ethnographic research; Materiality; Performativity; School knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855507307     PISSN: 01638548     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10746-011-9204-y     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is or-might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25, 6-8.
2. Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54, 759-766.
3. Bijker, W. E. (2010). How is technology made? That is the question! Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, 63-76.
4. Birmingham, P., Davies, C., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2002). Turn to face the bard: Making sense of three-way interactions between teacher, pupils and technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 2, 139-161.
5. Bourdieu, P. (1979). Algeria 1960: The disenchantment of the world, the sense of honour, the Kabyle house or the world reversed: Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1981). Men and machines. In K. Knorr Cetina & A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies (pp. 304-317). Boston: Routledge.
7. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.
8. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-36). New York: Routledge.
9. Cerulo, K. A. (2009). Nonhumans in social interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 531-552.
10. Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 187-215.
11. De Graaf, N. D., De Graaf, P. M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2000). Parental cultural capital and educational attainment in the Netherlands: A refinement of the cultural capital perspective. Sociology of Education, 73, 92-111.
12. De Laet, M., & Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump. Social Studies of Science, 30(2), 225-263.
13. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London: Routledge.
15. Fetzer, M. (2009). Objects as participants in classroom interaction. Paper presented at CERME 6-sixth conference of European research in mathematics education, January 28-February 1, in Lyon, France.
16. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606-633.
18. Gumbrecht, H. U. (2004). Production of presence: What meaning cannot convey. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19. Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (1995). Making space: A comparison of mathematical work at school and in professional design practice. In S. L. Star (Ed.), The cultures of computing (pp. 118-145). Oxford: Blackwell.
20. Hammersley, M. (1976). The mobilisation of pupil attention. In M. Hammersley & P. Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling: A sociological reader (pp. 104-115). London: Routledge.
21. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper & Row.
22. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
23. Joas, H. (1997). G. H. Mead: A contemporary re-examination of his thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Kaiser, G. (1999). Comparative studies on teaching mathematics in England and Germany. In G. Kaiser, E. Luna, & I. Huntley (Eds.), International comparisons in mathematics education (pp. 140-150). London: Falmer.
25. Kalthoff, H. (1997). Wohlerzogenheit. Eine Ethnographie deutscher Internatsschulen. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.
26. Kalthoff, H. (2004). Schule als Performanz. In S. Engler & B. Krais (Eds.), Das kulturelle Kapital und die Macht der Klassenstrukturen (pp. 115-140). München: Juventa.
27. Kalthoff, H. (2011). Social studies of teaching and education. Skizze einer sozio-materiellen Bildungsforschung. In D. Suber, H. Schäfer, & S. Prinz (Eds.), Pierre Bourdieu und die Kulturwissenschaften. Zur Aktualität eines undisziplinierten Denkens (pp. 107-131). Konstanz: UVK.
28. Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 443-469). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Kidwell, P. A., Ackerberg-Hastings, A., & Roberts, D.-L. (2008). Tools of American mathematics teaching, 1800-2000. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30. Knorr Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
31. Kritt, D. W., & Winegar, L. T. (Eds.). (2007). Education and technology: Critical perspectives, possible futures. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
32. Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 228-245.
33. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35. Law, J. (2002). Objects and spaces. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6), 91-105.
36. Lawson, T., & Comber, C. (2000). Introducing information and communication technologies into schools: The blurring of boundaries. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21, 419-433.
37. Leander, K. M. (2002). Locating Latanya: The situated practice of identity artifacts in classroom interaction. Research in the Teaching of English, 37, 198-250.
38. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
39. Lynch, M., & Macbeth, D. (1998). Demonstrating physics lessons. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 269-297). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Macbeth, D. (1994). Classroom encounters with the unspeakable. 'Do you see, Danelle? Discourse Processes, 17, 311-335.
41. McGregor, J. (2004). Spatiality and the place of the material in schools. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 12(3), 347-372.
42. McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183-213.
43. McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society, 19, 349-377.
44. Mead, G. H. (1972). Philosophy of the act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46. Monahan, T. (2005). Globalization, technological change, and public education. New York: Routledge.
47. Payne, G., & Hustler, D. (1980). Teaching the class: The practical management of a cohort. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1, 49-66.
48. Pels, D., Hetherington, K., & Vandenberghe, F. (2002). The status of the object: Performances, mediations, and techniques. Theory, Culture & Society, 19, 1-21.
49. Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17-51). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50. Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York: Routledge.
51. Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
52. Roehl, T. (2012). Disassembling the classroom. An ethnographic approach to the materiality of education. Ethnography and Education, 7(1) (in press).
53. Roth, W.-M. (1998). Science and technology studies and science education: A natural match? Research in Science Education, 28, 1-7.
54. Schliemann, A. D. (2002). Representational tools and mathematical understanding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 301-317.
55. Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 65-73.
56. Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2007). Gender inequality in the primary classroom: Will interactive whiteboards help? Gender and Education, 19, 455-469.
57. Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107-150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59. Vandenberghe, F. (2002). Reconstructing humants: A humanist critique of actant-network theory. Theory, Culture & Society, 19, 51-67.
60. Vanderstraeten, R. (2001). The school class as an interaction order. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22, 267-277.
61. Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
62. Waltz, S. B. (2006). Nonhumans unbound. Actor-network theory and the reconsideration of 'things' in educational foundations. Educational Foundations, 20(3/4), 51-68.