Abstract
The analysis discussed in this chapter draws attention to the interactional and inscriptional practices observed in Group Scribbles science classroom. The critical finding is the identification of a pivotal sequence of interaction occurring in the later half of the activity in which one member of the group proposes an innovation for illuminating two light bulbs in a single circuit. The proposal and its subsequent endorsement by the other members are contingent on an immediately prior interaction in which the group appropriates another group’s circuit diagram. Together, this pair of adjacent sequential structures exposes multiple instances of uptake between participants. These uptake relations are realized through an ensemble of contingencies consisting of persistent diagrams, tabletop materials, and a locally situated interactional practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Alac, M., & Hutchins, E. (2004). I see what you are saying: Action as cognition in fMRI brain mapping practice. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3–4), 629–661.
Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. J. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis. London: Equinox.
Çakır, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 115–149.
Chen, W., & Looi, C.-K. (this volume). Group Scribbles-supported collaborative learning in a primary grade 5 science class. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rose, C. Teplovs, & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 14. New York, NY: Springer.
Garfinkel, H. (1994). Studies in ethnomethodology. Malden, MA: Polity press.
Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19(1), 283–307.
Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25, 237–274.
Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. Pointing: Where language culture and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53.
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.
Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N. P., Robbs, J. E., & Barnhart, A. (2005). How do people learn? In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication: And how they may be overcome (pp. 265–294). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226.
Kupetz, M. (2011). Multimodal resources in students’ explanations in CLIL Interaction. Novitas-ROYAL, 5(1), 121–142.
Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lund, K., & Suthers, D. D. (this volume). Methodological dimensions. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rosé, C. Teplovs, & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 2. New York, NY: Springer.
Medina, R., Suthers, D., & Vatrapu, R. (2009). Inscriptions becoming representations. In C. O’Malley, P. Reimann, D. Suthers, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL 2009 conference proceedings (pp. 18–27). Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Peeters, H. (2010). Multimodality and its modes in novelizations. Image and Narrative, 11(1), 118–129.
Roth, W. M. (2001). Situating cognition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27–61.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–70). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Streeck, J., & Kallmeyer, W. (2001). Interaction by inscription. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(4), 465–490.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 5–42.
Suthers, D. D., & Medina, R. (2010). The temporal development of representational practices: Implications for theory and analysis of situated learning. Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 1–10). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Thibault, P. J. (2011). First-order languaging dynamics and second-order language: The distributed language view. Ecological Psychology, 23(3), 210–245.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Medina, R. (2013). Cascading Inscriptions and Practices: Diagramming and Experimentation in the Group Scribbles Classroom. In: Suthers, D., Lund, K., Rosé, C., Teplovs, C., Law, N. (eds) Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 15. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8959-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8960-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)