Advertisement

The Materiality of Materials and Artefacts Used in Science Classrooms

  • Kathrin Otrel-CassEmail author
  • Bronwen Cowie
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 18)

Abstract

In this chapter we are interested in problematizing the notion of material and materiality and what this may mean for teaching in science. We are interested in doing this because science frequently uses and produces explanations that are different from common observations. In science education a variety of materials are used for different purposes, starting from the mundane objects such as tables and chalkboards to more specific materials, including those that bridge understanding, simulate unobservable phenomena and/or reproduce natural processes (at times by reducing the variables that are involved in their natural occurrence). The challenge in thinking with materials or artefacts is that ‘to live, humans need to interpret the world reductively as a series of fixed objects….material denotes some stable or rock-bottom reality’ (Bennett J: Vibrant matter: a political ecology of things. Duke University Press, Durham, 2009 p. 58, emphasis by original author). What Bennett refers to is the concreteness that materials and artefacts carry which ground thinking, talking or experiencing the world.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contributions of the project teachers and their students and the funding through the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative managed by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

References

  1. Anderson, C. (2007). Perspectives on learning science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 3–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, J. (2009). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822391623. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2), 187–215.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS11,2-3n_3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Undreiu, A., Skjold, B., & Applegate, B. (2012). Active learning in science: an experimental study of the efficacy of two contrasting modes of instruction. Retrieved from http://www.wmich.edu/science/docs/article_draft_2012-1-30.pdf
  5. Cowie, B., Moreland, J., Jones, A. & Otrel-Cass, K. (2008). The classroom InSiTE project: Understanding classroom interactions to enhance teaching and learning in science and technology. Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (Final Report). Hamilton, University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  6. Cowie, B., Moreland, J., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2013). Expanding notions of assessment for learning: Inside science and technology primary classrooms. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-061-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crescenzi, L., Jewitt, C., & Price, S. (2014). The role of touch in preschool children’s learning using iPad versus paper interaction. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 37(2), 86–95.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen/Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettenen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 323–347). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hatcher, S. (2012). Teaching with objects and photographs supporting and enhancing your curriculum. Guide for Teachers. Mathers Museum of World Cultures. Trustees of Indiana University Mathers Museum of World Cultures. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  11. Hatwell, Y., Streri, A., & Gentaz, E. (2003). Touching for knowing: Cognitive psychology of haptic manual perception (Series B, Vol. 53). John Benjamins Publishing. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.53.Google Scholar
  12. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000276961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ingold, T. (2004). Culture on the ground the world perceived through the feet. Journal of Material Culture, 9(3), 315–340.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183504046896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ingold, T. (2007). Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues, 14, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203807002127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. New York: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203807002127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalthoff, H., & Roehl, T. (2011). Interobjectivity and interactivity: Material objects and discourse in class. Human Studies, 34(4), 451–469.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9204-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, Y.-Y. (2014). Knowledge creation in the mangle of practice: Implications for educators. In S. Tan, H. So, & J. Yeo (Eds.), Knowledge creation in education (pp. 167–187). Singapore, Singapore: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6_10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lemke, J. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0704_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible: Followed by working notes. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Miettenen, R. (2001). Artifact mediation in Dewey and in cultural–historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8, 297–308.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0804_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Otrel-Cass, K., Cowie, B., & Khoo, E. (2011). Augmenting primary teaching and learning science through ICT. Wellington, New Zealand: TLRI.Google Scholar
  22. Pea, R. (2004). Commentary: The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Roehl, T. (2012). Disassembling the classroom – An ethnographic approach to the materiality of education. Ethnography and Education, 7(1), 109–126.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2012.66159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Thinking with hands, eyes, and signs: Multimodal science talk in a grade 6/7 unit on simple machines. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 170–187.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482940040204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Talking science. Language and learning in science classrooms. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3), 293–347.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0803&4_1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ryan, B., & Cowie, B. (2009). Exploring the use of an interactive whiteboard in a primary science classroom. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 43–48.Google Scholar
  29. Varelas, M., Pappas, C., Kane, J., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92(1), 65–95.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wells, G. (2003). Lesson plans and situated learning–and–teaching. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 265–272.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A socio–cultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wise, N. (2006). Making visible. Isis, 97, 75–82.  https://doi.org/10.1086/501101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Universityof GrazGrazAustria
  3. 3.The University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations