Abstract
How can we study children’s interaction in a technology-rich environment from the perspectives of children? How can children’s perspectives shine a light on the teacher’s designs for activities and materials in a technology-rich environment? One approach to address these questions could be using questionnaires or survey data. For example, we could send out questionnaires to school management or teachers asking about children’s use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in schools and classrooms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A., & Swenton-Wall, P. (1993). Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 123-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Christensen, P., & James, A. (2008). Introduction: Researching children and childhood cultures of communication. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (2nd ed., pp. 1-9). New York, NY: Routledge.
Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London/New York, NY: Routledge.
Davidsen, J., & Christiansen, E. T. (2013). The benefits of single-touch screens in intersubjective meaning making. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To see the world and a grain of sand: Learning across levels of space, time, and scale. CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings, Volume 2 (pp. 10-14). International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS).
Davidsen, J., & Georgsen, M. (2010). ICT as a tool for collaboration in the classroom – Challenges and lessons learned. Design for Learning, 3(1-2), 54-69.
Davidsen, J., & Vanderlinde, R. (2014). Researchers and teachers learning together and from each other using video-based multimodal analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 451-460.
Derry, S., Pea, R., Barron, B., Engle, R., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., & Sherin, B. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3-53.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489-1522.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ivarsson, J. (2003). Kids in zen: Computer-supported learning environments and illusory intersubjectivity. Education, Communication & Information, 3(3), 383-402.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.
Klerfelt, A. (2007). Gestures in conversation – The significance of gestures and utterances when children and preschool teachers create stories using the computer. Computers & Education, 48(3), 335-361.
Koschmann, T., & LeBaron, C. (2002). Learner articulation as interactional achievement: Studying the conversation of gesture. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 249-282.
Krummheuer, A. L. (2009). Conversation analysis, video recordings, and human-computer interchanges. In U. Kissmann (Ed.), Video interaction analysis: Methods and methodology (pp. 59-83). Frankfurt am Main/New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Luckin, R., Bligh, B., Manches, A., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., & Noss, R. (2012). Decoding learning: The proof, promise and potential of digital education. London: Nesta.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London/New York, NY: Routledge.
Munn, P. (2008). Building research capacity collaboratively: Can we take ownership of our future? British Educational Research Journal, 34, 413-430.
Nielsen, J., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Danielsen, O. (2003). Dialogue design – With mutual learning as guiding principle. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 15(1), 21-40.
Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. New York, NY: Routledge.
Orr, J. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Roth, W.-M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365-392.
Ryberg, T. (2007). Patchworking as a metaphor for learning – Understanding youth, learning and technology. PhD Dissertation. Published in: e - Learning Lab Publication. Retrieved from http://www.ell.aau.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/publications/ell_publication_series/eLL_Publication_Series_-_No_10.pdf
Schön, D. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Avebury [Ashgate].
Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London: Continuum International Pub. Group.
Selwyn, N., Potter, J., & Cranmer, S. (2010). Primary schools and ICT: Learning from pupil perspectives. London/New York, NY: Continuum International Pub. Group.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. Distributed Artificial Intelligence, 2, 37-54.
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. D. (2011). Embodied interaction : language and body in the material world. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315-337.
Van den Akker, J. J. H., Kuiper, W., & Hameyer, U. (2003). Curriculum landscapes and trends. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vanderlinde, R. (2011). School-based ICT policy planning in a context of curriculum reform. PhD Dissertation. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/597620/School-based_ICT_policy_planning_in_a_context_of_curriculum_reform
Vanderlinde, R., & Van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299-316.
Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13-22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Davidsen, J., Vanderlinde, R. (2014). Exploring What Touch-Screens Offer From the Perspectives of Children. In: Gudmundsdottir, G.B., Vasbø, K.B. (eds) Methodological Challenges When Exploring Digital Learning Spaces in Education. New Research – New Voices. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-737-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-737-7_8
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6209-737-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)