Ethnomethodology: Studying the practical achievement of intersubjectivity

International Handbook of the Learning Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 465-474

  Koschmann, Timothy ^a  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85049292035     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315617572     Document Type: Chapter

References (77)

1. Abrahmson, D. (2009). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 27-47. doi: 10.1007/s10649-008-9137-1
2. Alibali, M., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learn-ers’ and teachers’ gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 247-286.
3. Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. (2018). Embodied cognition in learning and teaching: Action, observation, and imagination. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 75-85). New York: Routledge.
4. Arnold, L. (2012). Dialogic embodied action: Using gesture to organize sequence and participation in instruc-tional interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 269-296.
5. Birdwhistell, R. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
6. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). New York: Pergamon.
7. Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
8. Garcia, A., & Jacobs, J. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 337-368.
9. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
11. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
12. Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1-17.
13. Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 272-302.
14. Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 217-242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1997). Contested vision: The discursive constitution of Rodney King. In B.-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. 292-316). New York: Longman.
16. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
17. Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and co-participation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62, 51-75.
18. Greiffenhagen, C. (2014). The materiality of mathematics: Presenting mathematics at the blackboard. British Journal of Sociology, 65, 502-528.
19. Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (2016). Interaction analysis approaches to knowledge in use. In A. A. diSessa, M. Levin, & N. J. S. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences (pp. 72-108). New York: Routledge.
20. Heap, J. (1982). The social organization of reading assessment: Reasons for eclecticism. In G. Payne & E. C. Cuff (Eds.), Doing teaching: The practical management of classrooms(pp. 39-59). London: Batsford Academic and Educational.
21. Heap, J. (1988). On task in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 1, 177-198.
22. Heap, J. (1993). Seeing snubs: An introduction to sequential analysis of classroom interaction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27, 23-28.
23. Hellermann, J. (2005). Syntactic and prosodic practices for cohesion in series of three-part sequences in class-room talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38, 105-130.
24. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
25. Ivarsson, J. (2017). Visual practice as embodied practice. Frontline Learning Research, 5, 12-27.
26. Jefferson, G. (1982). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. Studium Linguistik, 14, 58-68.
27. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analy-sis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
28. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
29. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 215-240). New York: Routledge.
30. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39-104.
31. Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Klemp, N., McDermott, R., Duque, J., Thibeault, M., Powell, K., & Levitin, D. J. (2016). Plans, takes and mis-takes. Éducation & Didactique, 10, 105-120.
33. Koschmann, T. (2016). “No! That’s not what we were doing though.” Student-initiated, other correction. Éducation & Didactique, 10, 39-48.
34. Koschmann, T., & Derry, S. (2016). “If green was A and blue was B”: Isomorphism as an instructable matter. In R. Säljö, P. Linell, & Å. Mäkitalo (Eds.), Memory practices and learning: Experiential, institutional, and sociocultural perspectives (pp. 95-112). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
35. Koschmann, T., & LeBaron, C. (2002). Learner articulation as interactional achievement: Studying the conver-sation of gesture. Cognition & Instruction, 20, 249-282.
36. Koschmann, T., & Mori, J. (2016). “It’s understandable enough, right?" The natural accountability of a math-ematics lesson. Mind, Culture and Activity, 23, 65-91. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2015.1050734
37. Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2009). Optical pulsars and black arrows: Discoveries as occasioned productions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 200-246. doi: 10.1080/10508400902797966
38. Kreplak, Y., & Mondemé, C. (2014). Artworks as touchable objects: Guiding perception in a museum tour for blind people. In M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, & M. Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp. 295-318). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39. Lee, Y.-A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1204-1230.
40. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2011). Designing to support long-term growth and development. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 19-38). New York: Springer.
41. Lindwall, O., & Ekström, A. (2012). Instruction-in-interaction: The teaching and learning of a manual skill. Human Studies, 35, 27-49.
42. Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2008). The dark matter of lab work: Illuminating the negotiation of disciplined perception in mechanics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 180-224.
43. Lindwall, O., Lymer, G., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2015). The sequential analysis of instruction. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 142-157). New York: John Wiley.
44. Livingston, E. (1987). Making sense of ethnomethodology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
45. Lynch, M., & Macbeth, D. (1998). Demonstrating physics lessons. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 269-298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. Macbeth, D. (1991). Teacher authority as practical action. Linguistics and Education, 3, 281-313.
47. Macbeth, D. (2000). Classrooms as installations: Direct instruction in the early grades. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local education order: Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action (pp. 21-72). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
48. Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language and Society, 33, 703-736.
49. Macbeth, D. (2011a). A commentary on incommensurate programs. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 73-103). New York: Springer Science.
50. Macbeth, D. (2011b). Understanding understanding as an instructional matter. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 438-451.
51. McDermott, R. (1976). Kids make sense: An ethnographic account of the interactional management of success and failure in one first-grade classroom (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
52. McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language and Society, 7, 183-213.
53. McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language and Society, 19, 349-377.
54. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55. Mehan, H. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?" Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18, 285-294.
56. Melander, H., & Sahlström, F. (2009). In tow of the blue whale: Learning as interactional changes in topical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1519-1537.
57. Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542-552. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
58. Moschkovich, J. N. (2008). “I went by twos, he went by one”: Multiple interpretations of inscriptions as resources for mathematical discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 551-587. doi: 10.1080/10508400802395077
59. Murphy, K. M. (2005). Collaborative imagining: The interactive use of gestures, talk and graphic representation in architectural practice. Semiotica, 156, 113-145.
60. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 318-335.
61. Pellegrino, J., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for life and work; Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
62. Perkins, D. N., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 91-114). New York: Routledge.
63. Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (2011). Conversation analysis: An approach to the analysis of social interaction. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse Studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 165-190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaboration: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235-276.
65. Roth, W.-M., & Gardner, R. (2012). “They’re gonna explain to us what makes a cube a cube?" Geometrical properties as contingent achievement of sequentially ordered child-centered mathematics lessons. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24, 323-346.
66. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1, G. Jefferson, Ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
67. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). The simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
68. Scheflen, A. E. (1973). Communicational structure: Analysis of a psychotherapy session. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
69. Schegloff, E. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 150-171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
70. Schegloff, E. (1992). Introduction. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Harvey Sacks: Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1, pp. ix-lxii). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
71. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.
72. Stahl, G. (2009). Deictic referencing in VMT. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 311-326). New York: Springer.
73. Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
74. Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59, 796-824.
75. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (2nd ed., G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
76. Zemel, A., & Koschmann, T. (2011). Pursuing a question: Reinitiating IRE sequences as a method of instruc-tion. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 475-488. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.022
77. Zemel, A., & Koschmann, T. (2013). Recalibrating reference within a dual-space interaction environment. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 65-87. doi: 10.1007/s11412-013-9164-5