Assembling a Torus: Family Mobilities in an Immersive Mathematics Exhibition

References

• Alaimo, S. (2010). Bodily natures. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259–303). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Bitgood, S., Ellingsen, E., & Patterson, D. (1990). Toward an objective description of the visitor immersion experience. Visitor Behavior, 5(2), 11–14.
   Google Scholar
• Bitgood, S., Pierce, M., Nichols, G., & Patterson, D. (1987). Formative evaluation of a cave exhibit. Curator: The Museum Journal, 30(1), 31–39. doi:10.1111/j.2151-6952.1987.tb00644.x
   Google Scholar
• Christidou, D. (2018). Art on the move: The role of joint attention in visitors‘ encounters with artworks. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 19, 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clever, I., & Ruberg, W. (2014). Beyond cultural history: The material turn, praxiography, and body history. Humanities, 3(4), 546–566. doi:10.3390/h3040546
   Google Scholar
• Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move: Mobility in the modern Western world. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dancstep, T., Gutwill, J. P., & Sindorf, L. (2015). Comparing the visitor experience at immersive and tabletop exhibits. Curator: The Museum Journal, 58, 401–422. doi:10.1111/cura.12137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Freitas, E., & Bentley, S. J. (2012). Material encounters with mathematics: The case for museum based cross-curricular integration. International Journal of Educational Research, 55, 36–47. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.08.003
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9465-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Freitas, E., Sinclair, N., & Coles, A. (Eds.). (2017). What is a mathematical concept? Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177–191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, H. (2002). Immersive exhibitions: What’s the big deal? Visitor Studies Today!, 5(III), 10–13.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. doi:10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 1489–1522. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 217–242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18, 53–73. doi:10.1177/0957926507069457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2017). Co-operative action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hackett, A. (2014). Zigging and zooming all over the place: Young children’s meaning making and movement in the museum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(1), 5–27. doi:10.1177/1468798412453730
   Google Scholar
• Hackett, A. (2016). Young children as wayfarers: Learning about place by moving through it. Children & Society, 30, 169–179. doi:10.1111/chso.12130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, R., & Nemirovsky, R. (2011). Histories of modal engagement with mathematical concepts: A theory memo. Retrieved from http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/tlcm/all-articles/Histories_of_modal_engagement_with_mathematical_concepts.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (2015). Developing approaches to interaction analysis of knowledge in use. In A. A. di Sessa, M. Levin, & N. J. S. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (2016). Developing approaches to interaction analysis of knowledge in use. In A. A. di Sessa, M. Levin, & N. J. S. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences (pp. 72–108). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, M. L., Birjulin, A., Loomis, R., et al. (1993). A virtual reality and human factors analysis of a renovated diorama hall. In D. Thompson (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice (volume 6, pp. 129–139). Jacksonville, AL: Visitor Studies Association. doi:10.1080/10645579309444687
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, M. L., Loomis, R. J., Bell, P. A., & Marino, M. (1998). The influence of museum exhibit design on immersion and psychological flow. Environment and Behavior, 30(5), 601–628. doi:10.1177/001391659803000502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath, C., & Vom Lehn, D. (2004). Configuring reception: (Dis-)regarding the “spectator” in. Museums and Galleries. Theory, Culture, & Society, 21(6), 43–65. doi:10.1177/0263276404047415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath, C., Vom Lehn, D., & Osborne, J. (2005). Interaction and interactives: Collaboration and participation with computer-based exhibits. Public Understanding of Science, 14(1), 91–101. doi:10.1177/0963662505047343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (2010). Enaction, imagination, and insight. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 425–450). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ingold, T. (2007). Lines: A brief history. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• James, A., & Prout, A. (1995). Hierarchy, boundary and agency: Toward a theoretical perspective on childhood. In N. Mandell (Ed.), Sociological studies of children (pp. 77–99). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelton, M. L., Ma, J. Y., Rawlings, C., Rhodehamel, B., Saraniero, P., & Nemirovsky, R. (2018). Family meshworks: Children’s geographies and collective ambulatory sense-making in an immersive mathematics exhibition. Children's Geographies, 16(5), 543–557. doi:10.1080/14733285.2018.1495314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kirksey, E. (2015). Species: A praxiographic study. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 21(4), 758–780. doi:10.1111/1467-9655.12286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koran, J. J., Lehman, J. R., Shafer, L. D., & Koran, M. L. (1983). The relative effects of pre‐ and postattention directing devices on learning from a “walk‐through” museum exhibit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(4), 341–346. doi:10.1002/tea.3660200408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson, J. (2002). To label or not – Visitors win: New life for an immersive exhibition. Visitor Studies Today!, 5(2), 14–16.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J., & Singleton, V. (2005). Object lessons. Organization, 12(3), 331–355. doi:10.1177/1350508405051270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J., & Ingold, T. (2006). Fieldwork on foot: Perceiving, routing, socializing. In S. Coleman & P. Collins (Eds.), Locating the field: Space, place, and context in anthropology (pp. 67–85). Oxford, UK: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, time, and everyday life. New York, NY: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2011). Do moments sum to years? Explanations in time. In T. Koschman (Ed). Theorizing practice: Theories of learning and research into instructional practice (pp. 349–358). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lukas, K. E., & Ross, S. R. (2014). Naturalistic exhibits may be more effective than traditional exhibits at improving zoo-visitor attitudes toward African apes. Anthrozoös, 27(3), 435–455. doi:10.2752/175303714X14023922797904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marin, A. (2013). Learning to attend and observe: Parent-child meaning making in the natural world (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest, Ann Arbor, MI.
   Google Scholar
• Marin, A., & Bang, M. (2018). Look it, this is how you know:’’ Family forest walks as a context for knowledge-building about the natural world. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 89–118. doi:10.1080/07370008.2018.1429443
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massey, D. (2005). For space. London, UK: Sage Publications Limited.
   Google Scholar
• M’charek, A. (2013). Beyond fact or fiction: On the materiality of race in practice. Cultural Anthropology, 28(3), 420–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mortensen, M. F. (2011). Analysis of the educational potential of a science museum learning environment: Visitors’ experience with and understanding of an immersion exhibit. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 517–545. doi:10.1080/09500691003754589
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss, A., Francis, D., & Esson, M. (2008). The relationship between viewing area size and visitor behavior in an immersive Asian elephant exhibit. Visitor Studies, 11(1), 26–40. doi:10.1080/10645570801938418
   Google Scholar
• Nemirovsky, R., Kelton, M. L., & Civil, M. (2017). Toward a vibrant and socially significant informal mathematics education. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 90–101). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Nemirovsky, R., Kelton, M. L., & Rhodehamel, B. (2013). Playing mathematical instruments: Emerging perceptuomotor integration with an interactive mathematics exhibit. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 372–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemirovsky, R., Rasmussen, C., Sweeney, G., & Wawro, M. (2012). When the classroom floor becomes the complex plane: Addition and multiplication as ways of bodily navigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 287–323. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.611445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pink, S. (2011). From embodiment to emplacement: Re-thinking competing bodies, senses and spatialities. Sport, Education and Society, 16(3), 343–355. doi:10.1080/13573322.2011.565965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pink, S., Hubbard, P., O'Neill, M., & Radley, A. (2010). Walking across disciplines: From ethnography to arts practice. Visual Studies, 25(1), 1–7. doi:10.1080/14725861003606670
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, K. (2004). Places for children – Children’s places. Childhood, 11(2), 155–173. doi:10.1177/0907568204043053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, J., & Lyons, L. (2017). The value of learning talk: applying a novel dialogue scoring method to inform interaction design in an open-ended, embodied museum exhibit. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(4), 343–376. doi:10.1007/s11412-017-9262-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, S. R., Melber, L. M., Gillespie, K. L., & Lukas, K. E. (2012). The impact of a modern, naturalistic exhibit design on visitor behavior: A cross-facility comparison. Visitor Studies, 15(1), 3–15. doi:10.1080/10645578.2012.660838
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. (2013). To event: Towards a post-constructivist approach to theorizing and researching curriculum as event*-in-the-making. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(3), 388–417. doi:10.1111/curi.12016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serrell, B. (1998). Paying attention: Visitors and museum exhibits. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, B. R., Hall, R. P., & Owens, D. A. (2017). Developing & using interaction geography in a museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12, 377–399. doi:10.1007/s11412-017-9264-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Springgay, S., & Truman, S. E. (2017). A transmaterial approach to walking methodologies: Embodiment, affect, and a sonic art performance. Body & Society, 23(4), 1–32. doi:10.1177/1357034X17732626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steier, R. (2014). Posing the question: Visitor posing as embodied interpretation in an art museum. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 148–170. doi:10.1080/10749039.2013.878361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steier, R., Pierroux, P., & Krange, I. (2015). Embodied interpretation: Gesture, social interaction, and meaning making in a national art museum.” Learning. Culture and Social Interaction, 7, 28–42. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, R. (2010). Learning as a members’ phenomenon: Toward an ethnographically adequate science of learning. National Society for the Study of Education, 109, 82–97.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, R. (2011). The missing bodies of mathematical thinking and learning have been found. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 337–346. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.614326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, R. (2013). Introduction: What counts as math and science? In B. Bevan, P. Bell, R. Stevens, & A. Razfar (Eds.), LOST opportunities: Learning in out-of-school time (pp. 3–6). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107–149). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tscholl, M., & Lindgren, R. (2016). Designing for learning conversations: How parents support children’s science learning within an immersive simulation. Science Education, 100(5), 877–902. doi:10.1002/sce.21228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuana, N. (2007). Viscous porosity. In S. Alaimo & S. J. Hekman (Eds.), Material Feminisms (pp. 188–213). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tzortzi, K. (2014). Movement in museums: mediating between museum intent and visitor experience. Museum Management and Curatorship, 29(4), 327–348. doi:10.1080/09647775.2014.939844.
   Google Scholar
• Vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Video based field studies in museums and galleries. Visitor Studies Today!, 5(3), 15–23.
   Google Scholar
• Woolgar, S., & Lezaun, J. (2013). The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies? Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 321–340. doi:10.1177/0306312713488820
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yalowitz, S. S., & Bronnenkant, K. (2009). Timing and tracking: Unlocking visitor behavior. Visitor Studies, 12(1), 47–64. doi:10.1080/10645570902769134
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, H. T., Mcclain, L. R., & Crowl, M. (2013). Understanding how families use magnifiers during nature center walks. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1917–1938. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9334-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, H., Perin, S., & Bell, P. (2010). Parents, science, and interest. Museums and Social Issues, 5(1), 67–86. doi:10.1179/msi.2010.5.1.67
   Google Scholar