Advertisement

Agency, Materiality and Relations in Intra-action in a Kindergarten Science Investigation

  • Jana Maria Haus
  • Christina SiryEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 18)

Abstract

In this chapter we explore how the materials at hand mediated what occurred in intra-action within young children’s science investigations. We draw on post-human theoretical perspectives, notions of materialism (Hultman K, Lenz Taguchi H, Int J Qual Stud Educ 23(5):525-542, 2010) and agential realism (Barad K, Signs 28(3):801–831, 2003) to decentre the human and examine agency in human and non-human relations. As we focus on generative relationships in science investigations, Barad’s approaches of entanglement and diffraction provide a lens to consider how bodies (human and non-human) become in and through intra-action. In this manuscript, we consider and focus on the intra-actions between one human and one non-human body within a kindergarten group science activity to gain understandings of how the bodies cause action and in this process become for one another in order to arrive at implications for science praxis at the early childhood level.

References

  1. Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Änggård, E. (2016). How matter comes to matter in children’s nature play: Posthumanist approaches and children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies, 14(1), 77–90.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2015.1004523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.  https://doi.org/10.1086/345321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political economy of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  6. de Freitas, E., & Sinclair, N. (2013). New materialist ontologies in mathematics education: The body in/of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(3), 453–470.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9465-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duhn, I. (2012). Places for pedagogies, pedagogies for places. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(2), 99–107.  https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2012.13.2.99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the socio-material. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Haraway, D. (1992). The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural Studies (pp. 295–337). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Haus, J. M. (2017). Embodied intra-action in an interval space: A paper plane as a playmate for exploring scientific concepts. Part of: Haus, J. M. & Fernández Gómez, R. (2017). (Safe) Spaces and structures of inter-/intra-actions in science with 5 year old children in Luxembourg. Presentation at the USER-S Seminar in New York, March 25th 2017, CUNY Graduate Center, New York City.Google Scholar
  11. Higgins, M. (2016). In C. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.)., Posthuman research practices in education. Decolonizing school science: Pedagogically enacting agential literacy and ecologies of relationships (pp. 186–205). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Hultman, K., & Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Challenging anthropocentric analysis of visual data: A relational materialist methodological approach to educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(5), 525–542.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.500628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ivinson, G., & Renold, E. (2016). Girls, camera, (intra)action: Mapping posthuman possibilities in a diffractive analysis of camera-girl-assemblage in research on gender, corporeality and place. In C. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education (pp. 168–185). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Jobér, A. (forthcoming). Education extended: A sociomaterialistic perspective on science education. In M. Sillasen, K. Otrel-Cass, & A. Orlander (Eds.), Troubling science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Lenz-Taguchi, H. (2011). Investigating learning, participation and becoming in early childhood practices with a relational materialist approach. Global Studies of Childhood, 1(1), 36–50.  https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2011.1.1.36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2012). Acting with the clock: Clocking practices in early childhood. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(2), 154–160.  https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2012.13.2.154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rautio, P. (2013). Children who carry stones in their pockets: On autotelic material practices in everyday life. Children’s Geographies, 11(4), 394–408.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2013.812278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ringrose, J., & Renold, J. (2016). Cows, cabins, and tweets: Posthuman intra-active affect and feminist fire in secondary school. In C. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education (pp. 220–241). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654306298273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sewell, W. H., Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1086/229967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Siry, C., Wilmes, S. E., & Haus, J. M. (2016). Examining children’s agency within participatory structures in primary science investigations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 4–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor, C., & Hughes, C. (Eds.). (2016). Posthuman research practices in education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Taylor, A., Pacinini-Ketchabaw, V., & Blaise, M. (2012). Children’s relations to the more-than-human world. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(2), 81–85.  https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2012.13.2.81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tobin, K. (2015). Qualitative research in classrooms. Pushing the boundaries of theory and methodology. In K. Tobin & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Doing educational research (2nd ed., pp. 33–75). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Youngblood Jackson, A., & Mazzei, L. (2016). Thinking with an agentic assemblage in posthuman inquiry. In C. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education (pp. 98–107). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent scholarTurkeyGermany
  2. 2.The University of LuxembourgEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations